Legislators / Nate Blouin
Nate Blouin
Democrat · Senate District 13
Hear from them directly
Contact Sen. Nate Blouin
- Email: nblouin@le.utah.gov
- Phone: 801-597-2409
- Office: 350 State St Suite 320, Salt Lake City, UT, 84103
Constituents get priority, so say you live in their district. Writing about a specific bill? Open it and use Take action for a ready-to-send message.
Watch or join a meeting
Every committee hearing and floor session is open to the public and streamed live on le.utah.gov. Each committee's agenda has the link to watch or join online, and how to sign up for public comment.
Nate Blouin serves on:
- General Government Appropriations Subcommittee
- Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environmental Quality Appropriations Subcommittee
- Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Interim Committee
- Political Subdivisions Interim Committee
- Senate Economic Development and Workforce Services Confirmation Committee
- Senate Government Operations Confirmation Committee
- Senate Political Subdivisions Confirmation Committee
- Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee
- Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee
What they've said
149 remarks on 48 billsH.J.R. 30 House Joint Resolution to Approve the Transfer of Land · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Blouin supports the land exchange for money and asks whether the land could be used for a detention facility, as a constituent raised.
▶ Watch at 2:13:00Read what they said
Thank you. I think this, uh, this seems like a good thing. Uh, to me, this seems like I'm, I'm actually happy that we are, uh, we are giving land over to the federal government in exchange for money. I think that's a great trade. I did have a question that came in from a constituent and I would like to get an answer. Um, is there any chance that this piece of land could be used to build a detention facility? Senator Sandall, will you yield?
H.C.R. 9 Concurrent Resolution Addressing the Great Salt Lake · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explains the substitute, which acknowledges partnership across multiple administrations, removes references to a specific federal administration, and cites agriculture and climate change as factors in the lake's depletion.
▶ Watch at 2:14:16Read what they said
Yeah, so this is substitute three. It was just released online, so I'm still looking at it. But basically would acknowledge the, uh, continued partnership from, from multiple administrations. It takes out language referencing, uh, a specific federal administration. It, uh, acknowledges the, uh, concerns we've had around agriculture being a major, uh, issue in, in the depletion of the lake. It acknowledges climate change, uh, as a driver of the depletion of the lake. Uh, let's see, what else does it do? It it talks about, um, the urgency across Yeah. The years and, and the multiple administrations that have worked on this and have committed funding. We've seen this under the last, uh, two administrations now. Uh, and, …
H.C.R. 9 Concurrent Resolution Addressing the Great Salt Lake · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Says agriculture accounts for about two-thirds of the lake's depletion, citing information he says is widely shared, and that he checked it before writing the resolution.
▶ Watch at 2:16:22Read what they said
No, I don't think it's hostile. I think it is, uh, about two thirds of the depletion comes from the agricultural sector, and so we have to look very closely when the base rate of the problem is so heavily focused on one sector And where are you, uh, pulling your information related to two thirds of the depletion being due to the agricultural sector. Uh, that, that's very widely shared information. I don't have a specific source, but before I wrote this resolution, I did check that in several places. I don't know that anyone would dispute that.
H.C.R. 9 Concurrent Resolution Addressing the Great Salt Lake · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Responds that the two-thirds figure is not disputed, and says agriculture's contributions should be recognized alongside the need to address its share of depletion.
▶ Watch at 2:18:28Read what they said
Thank you. I, I think, uh, I would push back on those comments. I, I don't think that two thirds number is, is disputed. Uh, I think we, we do live in one of the most urbanized states in the entire country, and certainly it's important to recognize the contributions that agriculture has made and will continue to make. But, uh, when we have such a, a large amount of our depletion being, uh, being consumed by that one sector, uh, it is certainly important to look at that. And it's, it's certainly, uh, important that we recognize all the contributions that have been made over the years and, and not just President Trump when he decided to get on …
H.B. 480 Medical Record Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Says the bill seems unnecessary, adds undefined terms to medical records, may cause confusion, and places a moral burden on patients seeking care.
▶ Watch at 2:58:06Read what they said
Thank you. I, it seems like there's already wide latitude here and we're just starting to inject politicized, nonsensical terms that don't have a medical definition into, uh, the medical sphere. So this seems entirely unnecessary and like it's gonna cause confusion. Uh, and just creates a, a moral situation that I don't think patients need when they go into, uh, to see a doctor to access the care that they're trying to access. This seems like a, a very, uh, improper place for us to be injecting ourselves once again.
H.B. 183 Sex Designation Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Asked how many individual sections of code the bill amends.
▶ Watch at 1:22:56Read what they said
Yeah. This, we may get a similar answer to the last question, but I'm wondering how many individual sections of code are we, are we amending here? Do you, do you know that, that off the top of your head? I know it was, it was a long bill. Yeah. And I don't know that exact number. I know there's what, 5,400 lines or something to that effect?
H.B. 183 Sex Designation Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Said he had a follow-up question for the drafting attorney. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:23:54Read what they said
That would be great. I've gonna admit I've got a, I've got a follow up to that that maybe I'll ask the drafting attorney if that works, but
H.B. 183 Sex Designation Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Raised concerns about conflicts with federal titles that use these terms differently and suggested the bill may be better addressed elsewhere.
▶ Watch at 1:33:07Read what they said
Yeah, I, I don't even know how deep we need to go in there. I guess I, I, you know, more, more just concerns that, you know, with how far reaching this bill is, it seems like there could very well be, uh, instances where there, there could be conflicts between certain federal titles where these terms are used in different ways. Um, I think there's, there's all sorts of, um, of, of issues I think we could run into. It seems like this has been done in a, a little bit of a haphazard way. So, um, I that I don't need to get deep into the questions. I don't think, it seems like, uh, this one is destined …
H.B. 597 Alcohol Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Says the bill has much to like and asks whether the number of licenses is staying the same.
▶ Watch at 2:06:20Read what they said
Yeah, thank you. There's a actually a lot I like in this bill, so it's a welcome change from some of the other bills we've heard today. Um, anything on the, uh, the per capita, the, you know, the number of licenses we give out in this one didn't look like it this year, but is that all staying the same? There
H.B. 597 Alcohol Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Hopes the license addition is enough and thanks the sponsor for work on proximity issues, including park renaming and the Sugar House park issue.
▶ Watch at 2:06:57Read what they said
Great. I think, uh, hope, hopefully that's enough. And, uh, that's, that's good. I appreciate the work on the proximity issues. And, and the, the, the piece you mentioned about, uh, you know, renaming parks and that sort of thing, I think at least one of those was, you know, in, it was Millcreek I think where they zoned something differently. So thank you for helping out with those issues. And then the sugar House park issue as well. I'm, I'm glad to see that moving in the right direction. I hope we can keep the bill, keep that in the bill this year.
H.B. 597 Alcohol Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Thanks the sponsor for addressing identification issues for out-of-state and international visitors.
▶ Watch at 2:07:52Read what they said
Uh, I appreciate you addressing, uh, the ID situation 'cause we had a problem with that, with our outta state or outta the country visitors and there was a lot of comments in my district about, we made it very difficult for 'em. Yeah. So thank you for addressing that. Alright.
H.B. 597 Alcohol Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Moves to favorably recommend H.B. 597 as a substitute to the full Senate.
▶ Watch at 2:11:56Read what they said
Yeah, I can make a motion to favorably recommend HB 5 97 for sub to the full Senate.
H.B. 597 Alcohol Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Thanks others for their hard work and says the bill is in a good spot.
▶ Watch at 2:13:11Read what they said
Just thank you for the hard work. I think this is in a good spot.
H.B. 545 Budgetary Modifications · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Asked whether the Electrical Energy Development Investment Fund's transmission loans apply only to transmission related to nuclear energy.
▶ Watch at 1:12:51Read what they said
Thank you. On the, no, I should have kept this up in front of me. The, um, oh, electrical Energy Development Investment Fund. Uh, does that, so it talks about nuclear energy and transmission loans for, for those, uh, sorts of projects. Is it, I'm just trying to get the language here, right? Is it, is it, uh, transmission specifically related to nuclear energy or any, any, any sort of transmission that we are building? Like are those two connected? Does that make sense what I'm saying?
H.B. 76 Data Center Water Transparency Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Asks whether the bill requires specific data to be reported to the state while only aggregate data is shared publicly.
▶ Watch at 1:00:26Read what they said
Yeah. Thank you. I, I think this is a good bill headed in the right direction. I do, I share, you know, the concerns that maybe it doesn't quite capture, uh, everyone I would like to see it capture. Um, question I guess is, um, I think it ha maybe explain if I'm correct here. So it has a report I think to, I forget if it's DNR or someone else, but there's some report, right? And then, uh, they get specific data, but then the, the data that is shared publicly is aggregate. Is that correct?
H.B. 76 Data Center Water Transparency Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Says the bill is a step in the right direction, would like it to be stronger, and suggests examining energy use related to cooling.
▶ Watch at 1:02:11Read what they said
Thank you. Yeah, I think, I mean, I think it's a step in the right direction. I, I'd like to see it stronger and I would say, uh, and I had a, a bill on this look at, we need to look at the energy use because you're offsetting water use by using more energy. It's a, it's a pretty direct trade off, uh, as far as the cooling goes. So that's something to keep, keep an eye on. But thank you.
S.B. 8 State Agency and Higher Education Compensation Appropriations · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Moved to amend the substitute bill.
▶ Watch at 1:08:07Read what they said
Thank you. Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to amend, uh, first substitute Senate bill eight, I think it's Senate Amendment one
S.B. 8 State Agency and Higher Education Compensation Appropriations · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Explained the amendment to raise University of Utah employee compensation from 2.5% to 8%, citing lost purchasing power, and said it would be funded in part from the income tax fund.
▶ Watch at 1:08:14Read what they said
wanna explain the, the amendment? Yeah. So this amendment, uh, would increase the compensation for employees of the University of Utah from 2.5% to 8%. Uh, the university has not received pay for performance funding increases and the purchasing power of university employees has gone down as a result due to the rapid increases in cost of living within Salt Lake County, uh, this would help restore university employees purchasing power and $113 million of this increase would come from the income tax fund. So I believe that's similar to the amount that we are proposing in a, in a tax cut from the income tax fund.
H.B. 530 State Permitting Council · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Supports the bill, saying adding staff to permitting agencies to help move permits along is what he has been asking for.
▶ Watch at 48:11Read what they said
Yeah, I think this might actually be the only permitting bill of this session that I like. Uh, so I, this is what I've been asking for actually, is like, let's staff these agencies to actually help with the capacity to, to move permits along. So, uh, I think this is actually a good thing. So thank you.
H.B. 294 Employer Verification Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Speaks against the bill, citing effects on affordable housing and individuals, and moves to hold the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:41:58Read what they said
I, I heard a motion. I thought I, I would speak against that. I think this is gonna have pretty negative impact on our ability to, uh, build affordable housing in Utah and then, and have a significant impact on individuals. I think I, I don't like that this goes straight at individuals and doesn't necessarily hold the larger, uh, companies in, um, in harm for, for what they're doing here. So I, I guess I would, um, make a substitute motion to hold this.
H.B. 529 Secretary of State Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Says the sponsor mischaracterized the controversy over elections, that his constituents feel Utah elections are safe and secure, and that he opposes the bill.
▶ Watch at 2:15:32Read what they said
Thank you. Uh, I, I think that was a mischaracterization of, of the controversy, creed. You mentioned controversy in the media. I mean, there was no controversy in the media. It was controversy coming from a very specific, uh, part of the electorate. I know the, the folks that I represent actually feel very, uh, strongly that our elections here in Utah are safe and secure. And I think they actually feel that way because we have a lieutenant governor who has stood up to some of the, uh, disturbing influences coming from the outside that has been able to resist some of the politics of this. So, um, I don't really have a question here 'cause I think this …
H.B. 529 Secretary of State Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Moves to table the bill, saying it does not appear there is support to advance it out of committee.
▶ Watch at 2:29:05Read what they said
Thank you. I'll make a motion to table this. It doesn't seem like there's sup support to get it out of the committee.
H.B. 529 Secretary of State Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Says the bill has become partisan, would add a partisan official to the ballot, and does not address an actual election problem.
▶ Watch at 2:30:26Read what they said
Yeah, I, I'm concerned. I think this is, this has become a partisan issue. I mean, we are talking about, uh, an elected official here who there was, there were threats to impeach this person recently. So I think this follows along with, uh, what we've heard there in, in recent months. Uh, if this weren't a partisan issue, uh, I think this could be a, a non-partisan position, but this adds another partisan person to the ballot, uh, that I think we don't need partisanship injected into our elections. And I think that is what this will do, uh, more than we've seen to date. Uh, I think there are a lot of comments to the effect that this …
H.B. 534 Firearm Immunity Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Asks whether changing the term individual to person would extend the immunity to LLCs and corporate entities.
▶ Watch at 1:42:09Read what they said
Yeah, maybe a couple questions. So I I I don't think it is that simple because this changes an individual to a person, which then I think wraps in, uh, LLCs and corporate entities and that sort of thing. Is that correct?
H.B. 534 Firearm Immunity Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Says attorneys who drafted the bill gave a different explanation and he is confused by the discrepancy.
▶ Watch at 1:42:35Read what they said
So I'm, I'm confused. Um, I think that opens up some real concerns that, uh, that there's a discrepancy between what we're being told by attorneys that drafted the bill and, uh, and what I just heard from you,
H.B. 534 Firearm Immunity Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Says the language on line 37 concerns property and that person has a broader definition than individual, based on earlier information from LGC.
▶ Watch at 1:43:02Read what they said
Yeah, I think that that piece there on line 37 is, is talking about property. So it'd be a, um, uh, a rather than just an individual's property, it'd be a person, which I believe is, has a, a wider definition is my understanding of what we were told earlier by LGC.
H.B. 534 Firearm Immunity Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Expresses concern about the discrepancy and asks whether the bill could let organizations, or groups at public events, avoid liability in a serious incident.
▶ Watch at 1:43:39Read what they said
I, well, we, we had a, we had a very different discussion earlier, so I'm, I'm concerned that this, uh, I'm actually even more concerned with there, with there being some confusion, confusion between the attorneys and what the, what was being communicated here. I think, uh, you know, one question that I had earlier was, would this open up, uh, and, uh, uh, uh, moving liability off of an organization? I mean, we, the, the thing that came to mind to me was the Charlie Kirk, uh, assassination. And, and would this then allow an organization like Turning Point, which is of course not an individual, but, uh, under the definition here with, with it being called a person, …
H.B. 534 Firearm Immunity Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Says that, as the attorneys communicated earlier, individual and person have different meanings in code, which is why he raised the concern.
▶ Watch at 1:45:15Read what they said
I'm happy to keep the discussion going. I, you know, But yeah, I think it, I mean the, the, the point being that I think a, an individual and a person have have different meanings in code is my understanding of what was communicated by the attorneys earlier. So that's, that's why I raised that concern.
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
Spoke against the bill, arguing it overrides families and doctors, sets aside the completed study, and restricts medically recognized care.
▶ Watch at 1:42:54Read what they said
Thank you. Uh, I can't help but point out the irony of, of where we are right now. So recently, just a couple days ago, this body voted to remove the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from parts of our curriculum. Uh, it's a document affirming basic human dignity, the right to security in one's person. And today, uh, we are debating whether the government should step in and block families from accessing medically recognized care. I think that contrast should give us pause. Um, this legislature has said repeatedly that government should be limited, uh, that it should not overreach, that we should defer to science, to experts, to individual freedom. Uh, we've passed laws preventing our environmental regulators …
H.B. 420 Municipal Office Vacancy Modifications · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks whether a particular app was considered for the process and notes it may be unavailable in the state.
▶ Watch at 1:42:53Read what they said
Let's go over to Senator Blum. Yeah, thank you. Have you Considered using calci? Uh, I heard that app as potentially on the fritz here in the state.
H.B. 84 Dangerous Weapon Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks whether the bill is more about safety or access.
▶ Watch at 39:10Read what they said
Thank you. Um, would you say this is more about safety or access in this bill?
H.B. 84 Dangerous Weapon Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks whether there is data showing campuses are safer or have less violence with more firearm access.
▶ Watch at 39:20Read what they said
that actually suggests that we are safer, we're seeing safer results, less violence on college campuses
H.B. 84 Dangerous Weapon Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks how the bill affects firearms in college dorm rooms.
▶ Watch at 39:41Read what they said
But, um, another concern at one point, I feel like I saw something about this bill, um, and it's relation to, uh, firearms in, in college dorm rooms. Can you touch on how, uh, this would play into that, if at all?
H.B. 84 Dangerous Weapon Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Expresses serious concerns about guns in dorm rooms and asks whether the bill prevents students from having firearms in dorm rooms on an ongoing basis.
▶ Watch at 40:06Read what they said
Okay. I appreciate that. I do still have serious concerns about having, uh, guns in dorm rooms, just, uh, at all at this point. I think we, uh, have students that are in such vulnerable positions and having that sort of access and uh, uh, a a tumultuous time in life can be very dangerous. So, um, I guess how, how far does that go? Does that, uh, there there's nothing about actually preventing students from having a, a firearm in a, in a dorm room on a ongoing basis? Is there
H.B. 84 Dangerous Weapon Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Says he has a bill that would address the issue and that he has not heard from constituents supporting expanded campus firearm access.
▶ Watch at 40:37Read what they said
Um, well, I have a, I have a bill that would work on that. I don't think that's gonna get much light of day at this point, but, um, I feel like we need to move in a very different direction. I personally have not had constituents reaching out and supporting this bill or, uh, or basically policies that would expand access to firearms on campus.
H.B. 84 Dangerous Weapon Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks who has pushed for the bill and what its origin is.
▶ Watch at 40:54Read what they said
So I'm, I guess another question to the sponsor. Who, who has pushed for this bill, have you, have you discussed, uh, did it come from anyone in in higher ed leadership? Did it come from, uh, public safety? Did it come from, from, uh, advocates Second Amendment advocates? I, I guess what's the, what's the nexus here?
H.B. 84 Dangerous Weapon Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Says the bill does not go far enough to protect campuses, and questions why campus firearm decisions are not left to individual institutions as a local control issue.
▶ Watch at 41:27Read what they said
Okay. Yeah, I think there's, I think there are a couple good pieces in here about some of that clarification. Uh, to me, that still, uh, does not go anywhere near far enough to, to protect our campuses. And, uh, I have, I have not heard from students or faculty on, on the campuses that I represent or in my neck of the woods, that, uh, want to see us move further towards additional access on campus. So I guess I would, um, question why we don't leave some of these decisions up to the institutions themselves and why we feel like it's appropriate to push this down from the legislature when we could be, uh, addressing these things on …
H.B. 84 Dangerous Weapon Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Says his previous remarks were a statement rather than a question.
▶ Watch at 42:13Read what they said
Uh, no, I think that's more of a statement at this point. Yeah, The question time. Thank you. Thank you.
H.B. 412 Energy Development Planning Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asked why the bill covers only some energy development and said he would prefer to assess wildlife impacts of all development, calling this bill a politically achievable first step.
▶ Watch at 1:00:56Read what they said
Thank you. Thank you to the sponsor. I think this is a good direction. Uh, I do wonder, you know, could you discuss why we are not doing this with all forms of energy development? I, I think a couple of reasons. You know, if it was up to me, I think I would like to cover other forms of energy development. I think this is the most critical, from what I understood, talking to wildlife advocates because the other forms of energy are not the ones that are growing as fast, and they typically aren't occupying the big footprints in valley bottoms where it's winter range or corridors. Um, and, uh, but if it was up to me, we …
H.B. 412 Energy Development Planning Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asked the bill number and moved to favorably recommend H.B. 412 to the full Senate.
▶ Watch at 1:07:09Read what they said
Let's see, what's the bill number on this? Four 12 HB four 12. Uh, I'll make a motion to favorably recommend HB four 12 to the full Senate.
H.B. 258 Insurance Coverage Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Asks why the fiscal note for HB 258 is zero and asks the sponsor to yield.
▶ Watch at 1:46:11Read what they said
Thank you. Uh, yeah, I believe that sponsor yielded to questions. I'm wondering if you could, uh, explain the rationale as to why the fiscal note is zero. Senator McKay, you yield? Yes. I, I yielded And
S.B. 232 Regulatory Impacts on Families · Senate floor debate (day 36) · Feb 25, 2026
Asks the sponsor whether the bill defines family health.
▶ Watch at 1:45:36Read what they said
Thank you President Pro Tem. Uh, wondering if the sponsor would answer a question. Um, I'm wondering, and I didn't see this in there, uh, is there a definition of family health
S.B. 232 Regulatory Impacts on Families · Senate floor debate (day 36) · Feb 25, 2026
Asks whether the bill could cover environmental and public health factors such as radon in homes.
▶ Watch at 1:46:15Read what they said
You, Senator. So could this include, uh, you know, environmental health factors, public health factors, things of that nature? Uh, I'm thinking about, I don't know, like radon in, in homes, things of that, uh, sort of policy area that, uh, that we have, I don't think focused on quite enough in, in other areas, uh, of legislation that we have run this year.
S.B. 254 Extracted Natural Resources Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Expresses concern about the direction of the bill, citing a pattern of similar bills passed without environmental protections, and says Utah is already a very friendly mining jurisdiction. Says he will vote no.
▶ Watch at 56:42Read what they said
Thank you. Uh, I'm just concerned about the direction we're going here. This is a bit of a one way ratchet where we have seen, uh, bills like this pass across a whole range of space spaces without actually including any protections for, uh, environmental issues or anything along those lines. So we are already considered to be pretty much the most friendly mining jurisdiction in the world. I don't know why we need to go even further. Uh, so I'm a no.
S.B. 268 Religious Curriculum in Schools · Senate floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Asked the sponsor to explain the decision to remove the U.S. support reference for the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights from the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:06:22Read what they said
Thank you, president. I am, uh, wondering if the sponsor could speak to the decision to take the support United States A little. I
S.B. 268 Religious Curriculum in Schools · Senate floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Repeated the question about removing the U.S. support reference for the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and asked the sponsor to respond.
▶ Watch at 1:06:33Read what they said
You. I'm wondering if the sponsor could speak to the, uh, decision to take the United States support for the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights out of the, uh, code with this bill. Senator Weiler?
S.B. 268 Religious Curriculum in Schools · Senate floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Argued that the bill would alter the curriculum from the Senate level and said such decisions are better left to local school administrators.
▶ Watch at 1:06:58Read what they said
Thank you. I, I think, uh, that speaks to what is being accomplished here, which is really to, to whitewash our curriculum that we shouldn't be getting into as a, as a Senate ourselves. I think this is better left up to our, uh, local school administrators and the folks that may make these decisions at, uh, at the curriculum level, normally not. Uh, folks who seem to wanna politicize everything.
S.B. 255 Homelessness in Vulnerable Populations Amendments · Senate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Blouin thanks the chair and introduces a brief presentation with Crossroads Urban Center staff, inviting them to add comments afterward.
▶ Watch at 43:41Read what they said
Thank you. And I've got built tidbits with Crossroads here, and I will give a quick presentation and then you have anything to add, you're free to add after that, if that works.
S.B. 255 Homelessness in Vulnerable Populations Amendments · Senate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Blouin says the bill creates a 17-member task force on homelessness in vulnerable populations that would assess housing needs, identify funding options tied to the 2034 Olympics, and report to the legislature by November 2026.
▶ Watch at 43:51Read what they said
Thank you. Yeah. Um, so homelessness is not inevitable. It's the result of choices, uh, and whether we act early or wait, and until a crisis forces our hand. Right now in Utah, seniors on fixed incomes, people with disabilities, survivors of domestic violence, and young people are aging out of foster care. They're already on the edge of housing instability. As we prepare for the 2034 Olympic and Paralympic winter games, we know the pressure on our housing system is only gonna continue to increase. So, SB 2 55, uh, ensures that Utah does not walk into that moment unprepared. This bill creates a 17 member homelessness in Vulnerable Populations task force. Um, it brings together the institutions and …
S.B. 255 Homelessness in Vulnerable Populations Amendments · Senate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Blouin says he will not be in office in a year, that the issue needs attention now, and that the task force would focus on specific populations.
▶ Watch at 57:11Read what they said
Yeah. Well, I won't, I won't be here in a, in a year. Um, but, uh, I think this is something we need to address right now. I mean, this is, this fits in well with, I, I'm just looking at the language of the bill that was presented before. Uh, I think it fits nicely under something like that to really give a targeted view of, of these are very specific populations. This is not just the, the kind of average low income population that is so in need of affordable housing right now. This is a, uh, you know, veterans, this is pregnant women, like we just heard. I mean, all these very specific subpopulations that deal with …
S.B. 255 Homelessness in Vulnerable Populations Amendments · Senate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Blouin confirms the repeal date and describes the task force as a one-year effort.
▶ Watch at 59:05Read what they said
Yep. It's a very short-lived, uh, uh, just a one year sort of effort to get all this together.
S.B. 255 Homelessness in Vulnerable Populations Amendments · Senate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Blouin says other efforts are longer term, this task force targets a narrower part of the problem tied to Olympic opportunities, and funding work should start soon because housing takes years to build.
▶ Watch at 59:25Read what they said
Yeah, I, I think there are other efforts that are longer term. This is really identifying like a very specific kind of smaller part of the problem that would dig in deeply to that, uh, to those populations. Specifically looking at the opportunities that come with the Olympics, like, like Bill mentioned of potentially seeing Coca-Cola or Visa or, you know, all these big companies that sponsor, uh, that, that pay millions of dollars for advertising. All those sorts of things to, uh, put in dollars to, you know, some sort of fund that we create sooner than later to, uh, get this stuff starting to get billed. 'cause I mean, these projects, housing projects take, you know, a couple …
S.B. 255 Homelessness in Vulnerable Populations Amendments · Senate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Blouin says the task force report would go to the legislature and could lead to later legislation creating a fund that draws private dollars toward housing.
▶ Watch at 1:00:51Read what they said
Yeah. So we will get that report back to the legislature, uh, and then I think that would spearhead an effort potentially for more legislation to create some sort of a fund or, or something along those lines that would bring in private dollars, I think is the real big idea here, is to say to these big corporations that can, that, that have millions of dollars to, uh, yeah, to, to create a legacy. I mean, there are folks, you know, we know a lot of the names in Utah that, that love to, uh, have their names on buildings and that sort of thing to, to put funds into this sort of, uh, project to, uh, to build …
S.B. 255 Homelessness in Vulnerable Populations Amendments · Senate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Blouin says the existing state homelessness board covers broader issues, while this task force would focus on specific subgroups and philanthropic opportunities tied to the games.
▶ Watch at 1:03:58Read what they said
Yeah. I think they will be more focused on, on specifically that overall picture of homelessness, whereas this is looking at those very specific subgroups of that. And also looking at, uh, the larger opportunities for philanthropic dollars, for private dollars for those sorts of things with, with an eye towards the games specifically. Um, so it's a, it is just a more granular picture there. I think, um, you know, we could, we could, uh, press them to put similar projects together in, in the work that they do, but I think this is something that's more about, uh, creating some momentum right now. Uh, whereas, you know, they, they're, they have a much broader focus and, uh, and …
S.B. 255 Homelessness in Vulnerable Populations Amendments · Senate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Blouin says now is the time to act, the task force would bring together agencies and counties, and it could produce a targeted housing proposal for specific populations before 2034.
▶ Watch at 1:15:23Read what they said
Yeah. I think this is, this is the time we need to move forward with a, with a program like this. Uh, we, we do have a robust group here with a lot of different, um, agencies and counties and different entities involved that I think we're all gonna have a, a real stake in what comes out of this. And again, if we don't, um, start to think about this right now, we are gonna keep kicking the can down the road and see us end up in a place where there's just this mis mishmash of, uh, projects that get built with a, without a whole lot of intentionality. So I think if we, uh, were to move …
H.B. 404 Sex-Designated Housing Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Blouin asks how the bill fits with the 2015 law (SB 296) that addresses gender identity as a protected class in housing.
▶ Watch at 1:21:08Read what they said
Thank you. Could you talk about how this fits in with SB 2 96 from 2015, which does talk about gender identity and, and I, I think, identifies that as a, essentially a protected class when it comes to housing Senator Brammer?
H.B. 404 Sex-Designated Housing Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Blouin questions the need for the bill, noting a heavily negotiated balance struck years ago and concern about housing affordability and the impact on a small population.
▶ Watch at 1:22:46Read what they said
Thank you. No, I appreciate that clarification. I think I just questioned what the need for this is. I think this was a heavily negotiated issue a number of years ago and, and there was a, uh, a pretty tough balance struck there. And so I don't know what we have to revisit that for. Uh, especially at a time when housing is tight. Hoax are, folks are struggling to find a, a place to, to live right now at an affordable rate. Uh, this seems like it's just gonna add even more to even more of a burden to, uh, a very small part of our population that is already feeling very under attack. So, um, I think it's, …
S.J.R. 7 Joint Resolution Regarding Utah's Protection and Advocacy Agency · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Asks whether the program is federally funded and receives no state funding.
▶ Watch at 1:45:49Read what they said
Thank you. This, this is a, a federally funded program, right? They have not received state funding. Is that correct,
S.J.R. 7 Joint Resolution Regarding Utah's Protection and Advocacy Agency · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Says he was concerned about how the hearing was put together, notes that many people spoke in support of the Disability Law Center's work, and says he will oppose the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:45:56Read what they said
Thank you. Um, I think watching this hearing after the fact, I think I was a little bit perturbed by how this was put together. The sponsor of the bill mentioned, uh, that there were many folks that spoke in opposition to the work that the DLC has done. Uh, I think that was kind of set up. There was very much a, a part of the presentation with folks who had expressed a lot of complaints, and I certainly feel for those folks. But, uh, there were also many folks who spoke in support of the work that DLC has done over the years. Uh, and I think there's a, a bit of a misunderstanding over what their actual …
S.B. 216 Higher Education Performance and Enrollment Funding · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Asks whether concerns raised by industry stakeholders have been addressed in the bill.
▶ Watch at 2:49:00Read what they said
I don't think I missed a substitute or anything, is that correct? Uh, has any of the concerns that were expressed by, by some of the industry folks have been addressed at this point with this bill, Uh, to Senator Mikel?
S.B. 264 Elected Official Publicity Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Moved to recommend the first substitute favorably to the full Senate.
▶ Watch at 1:08:57Read what they said
Uh, I'll move that. Uh, we recommend favorably SB 2 64 to the full Senate.
S.B. 282 Electrical Grid Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Presented SB 282, which would require large electricity users to post financial security, show net-neutral benefits, and report their electricity and water use annually.
▶ Watch at 39:20Read what they said
Thank you, chair. Thank you. Committee, uh, SB 2 82. This is a good one. Uh, Utah is at the center of one of the biggest economic shifts of our time. Uh, we have massive data centers owned by trillion dollar tech companies, uh, coming to our state because we have affordable land, cheap electricity, and strong infrastructure. But that opportunity, uh, it comes with risk. These facilities use enormous amounts of electricity and water for cooling. Uh, they generate huge profits for tech companies and their billionaire share shareholders. But, uh, Utah families and small businesses are often ending up subsidizing the costs when utilities build new infrastructure to serve them. So, SB 2 82 says, enough is enough. …
S.B. 282 Electrical Grid Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Said the bill focuses on reporting actual resource use after connection and that financial security is meant to prevent speculative projects from shifting costs to ratepayers.
▶ Watch at 42:56Read what they said
Yeah. So as far as the, the reporting, uh, I believe it would, I'm actually not sure on the first piece about, I, I forget if we put in that they would need to forecast, it's mainly about reporting what they're actually using, uh, so that once they are, uh, up on the grid, you know, using water resources and that sort of thing that they're being required to disclose to communities, to regulators, uh, both the state and at local levels that, uh, here are the, uh, here are the resources they're using because we, we, we currently don't really have a lot of insight. There's a lot of, uh, conflicts, not conflict, uh, non-disclosures, uh, and that sort …
S.B. 282 Electrical Grid Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Said local communities need protections against signing away rights in agreements and that he would be open to stronger local requirements.
▶ Watch at 44:45Read what they said
My understanding of how kind of things are going forward, or we're seeing these really big companies with lots of resources come in and, and promise all sorts of riches to local communities and are not delivering. And so we are seeing them, you know, these local communities kind of sign away their rights to a lot of these things and contracts and non-disclosure agreements. And so the whole purpose here is to make sure that, uh, we do have those protections for our local communities. I'd be happy to insert stronger language. I think making more requirements at the local level, that that's certainly, uh, a place where I'd be happy to, to make this bill even stronger.
S.B. 282 Electrical Grid Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Said the goal is for local communities to receive benefits and have a real stake in large developments.
▶ Watch at 45:20Read what they said
And, and we certainly, the, the whole point is about making sure that local communities have benefits coming and that they have, uh, real insights and real, uh, a real stake in, in this process as these really big developments move in and, uh, you know, do provide some jobs and, and tax revenues and that sort of thing. But, um, we're seeing many instances where I think there's, there's a lot more that could be done.
S.B. 282 Electrical Grid Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Said the bill is not about forcing projects on communities but about making sure communities have the information they need before signing agreements.
▶ Watch at 46:14Read what they said
Yeah. And this, this is completely not about forcing. This is, this is the opposite of trying to force on a community. This is trying to be, uh, to make sure that local communities are not signing away their rights, uh, are not, you know, entering into agreements with, uh, these, these companies without the, the right sort of information available to them. That's, that's exactly what's accomplished here. Thank you.
S.B. 282 Electrical Grid Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Said utilities know usage but it is not disclosed to the public, and the bill is meant to give Utahns transparency about water, energy, and costs.
▶ Watch at 46:52Read what they said
The utility probably would, uh, I think, you know, Rocky Mountain Power, other utilities would, would know those sorts of things. But they don't necessarily get disclosed to, to the public, uh, to folks who are concerned about what's happening in our communities. You know, there's, there are, uh, there's proprietary information that certainly doesn't get made public. I think there, there may other be other bills that do, uh, address some of the transparency issues here. I they are not as strong as I would like to see them though, in my understanding of those other bills. So this is, this is really about public transparency and ensuring that the people of Utah, uh, know how much water is …
S.B. 282 Electrical Grid Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Said the bill aims to ensure facilities pay costs that might otherwise rise for ratepayers and provide community benefits and environmental oversight.
▶ Watch at 47:50Read what they said
I think we, we should care about, uh, ensuring that these facilities are, are being good, uh, stewards and good neighbors. I think these are facilities that promise a lot, that promise a lot of jobs, a lot of tax revenue. Uh, and, and, you know, we are seeing people make absolutely gigantic amounts of profit off of this. Uh, and yet we see our energy bills here in Utah. I think they went up 15% or so last year. Um, this is saying that if, if we can attribute that, and this would be up to the Public Service Commission, if we can attribute that to these sorts of developments, uh, that they will meet, need to cover those …
S.B. 282 Electrical Grid Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Said local entities would have input through the Public Service Commission and that the bill requires annual reports to localities and the DNR.
▶ Watch at 50:36Read what they said
Yeah, it would certainly give those local entities input. You know, they can come to the Public Service Commission, they can weigh in on all this at the, at the Public Service Commission. This is, so it has a, in here, a large load resource use report. This is on line 98. Mm-hmm. Uh, annual report submitted by a large load Customer to the DNR and to the municipality or county in which the large load use customers facilities are located. And then it talks about what is, what is required to be in that report. So it does require that report going to, uh, localities in, in those areas. And then, yeah, they're certainly, you know, the Public Service …
S.B. 282 Electrical Grid Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Said the Public Service Commission is the right place to regulate large utilities and that involving other agencies would add red tape.
▶ Watch at 56:08Read what they said
Yeah. No, I, I don't think that's the right place. I think the Public Service Commission is the place to regulate large utilities. That is the oversight they have. Uh, whether it's we can, we certainly have the prerogative to change, uh, their, their, uh, portfolio. So I think that this is, that that would be the right place to do it. Uh, pulling in other agencies, I don't think would, uh, would streamline the process. I think that would just create additional red tape and, uh, and, and bog folks down even further. I think the Public Service Commission does a great job. Um, I, I've met with them. We've, we've spoken in front of them. They've been here …
S.B. 282 Electrical Grid Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Gave closing remarks saying the bill aims to prevent speculative projects from shifting costs and to ensure large users are good partners to communities.
▶ Watch at 1:01:15Read what they said
Thank you. Yeah, I think what we heard from Rocky Mountain Power was a little bit disingenuous because what this is doing is actually saying that when we are forecasting load, uh, that we need to have as surety upfront so that we aren't seeing speculation. So what, uh, what the representative from Rocky Mountain Power was talking about was existing contracts, uh, and, and, uh, bringing new projects on at that point. But this is saying we are not going to have speculation happening. And, and I think that's where we, uh, where there's kind of a, uh, a bit of a divide as far as the costs that are being incurred by these, uh, the new infrastructure to …
H.B. 16 Solar Power Plant Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Asks whether the bill's language on solar plant construction applies to any plant regardless of the level of incentives.
▶ Watch at 6:04Read what they said
Thank you. I'm, uh, reading this bill more closely than I did earlier. I think we were looking, we were talking about incentives, uh, and how they were tied to this bill, uh, when it comes to crops and farmlands. But my, my reading of it right now, I'm looking at this line 1, 1 35 on 54 dash 17 dash 1205. Um, does that in, does that apply to any solar plant that is being constructed anywhere in the state? Regardless of, uh, the, the level of incentives that are giving
H.B. 16 Solar Power Plant Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Asks to confirm the requirement would apply to any plant under construction, not only plants receiving state incentives.
▶ Watch at 6:57Read what they said
Thank you. But just to be specific, that would apply to any plant that is being constructed, not just something that is being given state incentives. Correct?
H.B. 16 Solar Power Plant Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Says the question has not been answered and asks whether the bill now applies to every solar plant constructed in the state.
▶ Watch at 7:29Read what they said
Ahead. Sure. I, I don't, I don't think I'm hearing the answer to the question. What I'm, I'm, I guess that to be very specific. I mean, my concern is that this bill is now touching every single solar plant that is being constructed in the state. Is that correct?
H.B. 16 Solar Power Plant Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Asks the presiding officer about the referenced section and whether it applies to every new solar plant.
▶ Watch at 8:03Read what they said
Are you looking at, uh, Mr. President, but he says 1 35, all that says is section five, section 54 17 12 0 5. Is that correct?
H.B. 16 Solar Power Plant Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Asks to confirm whether the requirement applies to every single solar plant, not just certain ones.
▶ Watch at 9:43Read what they said
Senator Blouin, But on so on every single solar plant, though, not just to work? I
H.B. 16 Solar Power Plant Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Says that requiring local approval for every plant would be burdensome and that he is more opposed to the bill now than before.
▶ Watch at 9:49Read what they said
Okay. Thank you. That answered my question. I think that is extremely concerning. I don't know if you've had industry input or not, but I think having to go to every single local jurisdiction where they want to construct a plant would be highly burdensome. I don't think other industries have to deal with that in the same ways, uh, in many cases. So I'm, I'm very, uh, even more opposed to this bill now than I was earlier.
S.R. 3 Senate Resolution Regarding Animal Sheltering During Disasters · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Speaks against the motion, saying producers should be held responsible for their products as other industries are, that the bill preempts local government regulation, and that it would increase firearm use in communities, including Salt Lake County.
▶ Watch at 40:54Read what they said
Thank you. I would speak against that motion. I think we hold producers responsible in, in so many industries. Even, you know, with solar panels for instance, we require that they bond out and, uh, and are responsible for their products after they are, uh, out in the private market. And, and I think that should apply in, in other sectors as well. Um, as was mentioned earlier, this bill also stamps on local control. I mean, there's a whole provision in here about, uh, preempting a political subdivision from enacting legislation regarding the, um, the, the products mentioned here. So I think this, this goes against our values, uh, as, as the state that tells our local municipalities and …
S.B. 194 Election Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Says he is frustrated that the provision lowering signature thresholds for county races was removed, and that the bill does little to change elections in a good way.
▶ Watch at 1:37:56Read what they said
Thank you. I'm a little frustrated with this because this bill had a, a great piece coming in that would've lowered the signature threshold for county races, which I think was really important. Uh, it came through committee with that bill, and we actually had a similar discussion about a bill where, uh, something skipped committee and then was added on the floor. And this is kind of the inverse of that, just the other day. And, and we killed that bill and committee. Uh, and yet we are asking to pass this one in a, in a different situation. So, uh, I think we, we've taken the good part out here. Uh, we have, uh, done a bunch of …
H.B. 238 Utah Energy Generation and Transmission Planning · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Blouin moved to adopt the third substitute. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:19:54Read what they said
Move to adopt the third sub, Third substitute. So the motion is before us to adopt the house Bill, 2 38 third substitute. Are you okay with, you've explained it. So that's pretty much, I pretty much described it. Thank you. Okay.
H.B. 238 Utah Energy Generation and Transmission Planning · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Blouin moved to adopt the third substitute and voted aye. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:20:51Read what they said
Whatever. Aye. I would move to adopt or help to adopt a third sub. Okay. So, thank you.
H.B. 238 Utah Energy Generation and Transmission Planning · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Blouin said the cost increase for customers who do not opt out comes from segregated program costs, and that adding clean energy would likely lower costs over time, and expressed support for the program.
▶ Watch at 1:31:13Read what they said
Can I speak to it for just a moment? Yeah, I think we skipped, of course. That's what fine. Okay. Uh, yeah. I'm excited to see we are enabling our public service commission to, to work towards, uh, participating in an RTO. Obviously this doesn't direct us or anything. I just want to call out when we're talking about the pro uh, program, when we're talking about the, the, the substitute version here that, uh, includes new language, I think it, it's important to clarify that, uh, this is on there and, and you know, it's being explained as if this is going to make certain customers who, who choose not to opt out, uh, that, that this is gonna …
H.B. 238 Utah Energy Generation and Transmission Planning · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Blouin moved to pass H.B. 238 third substitute out favorably to the full Senate.
▶ Watch at 1:32:31Read what they said
Sure. I'll move the, uh, what do we got? H HB HB 2 38 sub three. Uh, be recommended for the full Senate. Okay.
H.B. 238 Utah Energy Generation and Transmission Planning · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Blouin declined to make further remarks on the motion.
▶ Watch at 1:32:42Read what they said
I could say a lot of things, but I think there's been enough said. Thank you. Okay.
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 24) · Feb 12, 2026
Speaks against the bill, calling it a step in the wrong direction and saying he has heard opposition from constituents, lawyers, and the courts.
▶ Watch at 39:19Read what they said
Thank you. Uh, I would speak against this bill. I think this is, uh, a step in the wrong direction. And we have seen, uh, frankly, no one come out in support of this. I've only gotten opposition from constituents, from lawyers, from the courts. Uh, this does not help with the
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 24) · Feb 12, 2026
Says he has heard no support from his constituents and that other approaches could help the courts; says the bill could add to a perception that the legislature is consolidating power.
▶ Watch at 39:36Read what they said
Ahead. Thank you. I've, I've not heard any from my constituents, the people that I am, uh, in contact with and, and am frustrated that we, uh, we've got other angles to help out our courts to take the loads off of other places. But this is not going to help with the perception that, uh, the legislature is, uh, is consolidating power. And
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 24) · Feb 12, 2026
Says the bill signals that the legislature wants more power over court operations and where cases are heard, and predicts forum shopping.
▶ Watch at 40:01Read what they said
Thank you. Um, it, it's a, it's a, it's another signal that the legislature feels like we need to step into the court's business. That we need to, uh, have more power over their operations over where court, uh, cases get heard. Uh, I think you'll, you'll start to see some, some shopping around for the right.
H.B. 392 District Court Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 24) · Feb 12, 2026
Explains his vote against the bill, citing opposition from constituents and others, and saying it could harm the judiciary's reputation.
▶ Watch at 40:22Read what they said
Thank, I'm speaking to the bill and the perceptions I've heard from, from all sorts of folks across the spectrum on this. I've got a list of people opposing it right in front of me. Um, so I, I think it's, it's gonna take us down the wrong direction. It's really gonna, uh, hurt our judiciary's reputation, which has been so solid in the past. So I'm a no Thank you.
H.B. 209 Voting Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 24) · Feb 12, 2026
Says the fiscal cost is high for a problem seen only once, and states a no vote.
▶ Watch at 1:32:46Read what they said
There's the old saying about, you know, showing your budget shows your priorities. Uh, this was the fiscal note for this bill wasn't so much discussed during the basises now, but this bill, uh, is gonna spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to address a problem that we have seen one time, uh, according to what the sponsor just said and what we, uh, can all see in this audit recently. So, uh, I think this is, uh, not fiscally sound. This is, uh, a direction that we don't need to go in, uh, to address a problem that really does not exist, that has not affected our elections. Uh, and so I would, uh, I would ask others to, …
S.B. 60 Income Tax Rate Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Explains the substitute would keep the tax cut, add a 5.15% surtax on income over one million dollars, and keep school funding whole.
▶ Watch at 10:48Read what they said
Yeah. It's a very simple substitute. It would leave the 0.05%, uh, tax income tax cut in place, but it would then implement a, uh, surtax on folks making over a million dollars annually, uh, of 5.15%. So it would, uh, essentially make this bill revenue neutral so that our schools would remain whole. Uh, we keep hearing about affordability and, and of course on school funding. And we need to make sure that we are, uh, protecting our students and also, uh, still addressing affordability, which would this would do for, uh, for everyone in the state making less than, uh, $1 million a year. Last year I ran a, a similar bill that had some similar pieces, and …
S.B. 60 Income Tax Rate Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Says concerns about other states are overblown and argues the substitute asks the highest earners to help fund schools while most Utahns still get a tax cut.
▶ Watch at 13:14Read what they said
Thank you. I, I think those concerns about other states are overblown and, uh, that we don't wanna fund ourselves in a race to the bottom here, which is what I think this, uh, is gonna drive us to do. And, uh, we certainly have all sorts of other pieces of our policy that are, are friendly to businesses, friendly to, uh, high income earners. This is just asking the absolute, uh, most well off among us to, to help out our schools, uh, and to still, uh, leave in place this tax cut for the vast majority of Utahans, who will then be able to, uh, contribute their 45 or so dollars, which is the average amount that folks …
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Asks how the bill would affect long-term renters and rental costs.
▶ Watch at 1:04:39Read what they said
Thank you, president. Uh, that I think I have similar concerns about the school districts and what we've heard, uh, in this debate already. I also have heard some concerns about renters and the potential for this bill to, uh, impact the cost of, of rentals for folks who are, you know, not the vacation rentals, but the long-term tenants who are, uh, leasing the spaces that might see, uh, uh, an increase here. So I'm wondering if the sponsor could please speak to how he sees this, uh, impacting renters in this state.
S.B. 250 Great Salt Lake Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Presented SB 250, which would de-authorize the Bear River Development and allow money already in the state account to be used to buy and lease water and match private investment for the Great Salt Lake, without raising taxes or diverting the ongoing sales tax stream.
▶ Watch at 1:12:31Read what they said
This is on. Oh, there we go. It is on. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I wanna start with the basic premise of this bill of SB two 50, because it is a pretty straightforward proposal. Um, so right now we have taxpayer dollars that are sitting in, uh, a state account dedicated to the Bear River Development. At the same time, leadership, legislative leadership has been very clear, uh, folks including Speaker Schultz that, uh, the Bear River development is, is probably not going to happen. And if it were to happen, uh, it's probably a long ways in the future. So if that's the case, uh, if this project is either not needed or so far off …
S.B. 250 Great Salt Lake Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Said he had not spoken with the commissioner and that the bill is meant to supplement existing resources and match roughly $200 million in private funding.
▶ Watch at 1:17:31Read what they said
I, I have not. I assume, uh, maybe he, someone is here to speak to that, but, uh, this is really about augmenting those existing resources that we've allocated to them, uh, and supplementing the, the $200 million in, uh, private funding that come, came from the, I believe it's called the Great Salt Lake, Salt Lake Rising, uh, effort. And, uh, and matching those funds so that we as a state are saying we're gonna, we're gonna pony up, uh, when the private sector comes to the table, we're gonna step in and, and supplement those funds. And so that's what we're trying to do right here.
S.B. 250 Great Salt Lake Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Said the bill was developed over a few months with community members without engaging that office, and that it only adds funding to existing authorities rather than changing policy.
▶ Watch at 1:18:40Read what they said
This while the bill came out recently, uh, this is something we worked on for a few months with some, some members of the community. Um, and we just didn't go to that, uh, step to engage in, uh, conversations with that body. I mean, we are the appropriating body for the state. Uh, this is a, a decision that doesn't affect policy or anything like that. And so I think this is just, uh, plain and simply augmenting the existing authorities, the existing funding that they have and, uh, and contributing more, uh, as far as what the state is doing to help the lake.
S.B. 250 Great Salt Lake Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Agreed that more stakeholders are better and said he is happy to engage in those conversations.
▶ Watch at 1:19:39Read what they said
I, I don't disagree. I think the, the more stakeholders we have at the table, the better and I'm happy to engage in those conversations. Okay.
S.B. 250 Great Salt Lake Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Spoke against the motion to table, suggesting a motion to hold instead, said the bill already allows agricultural water optimization, and said tabling would effectively kill the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:39:39Read what they said
Um, you can me. Thank You. I, I would speak against the motion. I think, uh, a motion to table is, is probably too drastic and potentially a motion to hold would be more friendly. And then we could workshop this with the, the commissioner if they are in, in, uh, interested in that. Uh, I think the issues that were raised by, by Senator Stratton are, are addressing this bill. You could certainly use this funding for AG water optimization, by my understanding of how we wrote the bill. Um, you know, we have heard that, uh, people are, are tired of, of waiting for these government agencies to take action. I'm normally one of the more cautious ones …
S.B. 250 Great Salt Lake Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Said the commissioner's office has been underfunded and the bill is a small step, and stated he will vote against the motion to hold because he believes the bill should pass.
▶ Watch at 1:44:04Read what they said
Thank you. Yeah, I guess I would look at this as empowering us and empowering our, uh, great minds in the room to make those decisions. We heard, uh, very clearly that the great Salt Lake Commissioner's office has been, I think, underfunded from the very beginning. And, and I, I don't, I don't know of anyone in that space that would dispute that we need a lot more than the 200 million in this bill or the 400 million in total as, uh, between this bill and the, the other initiative, the private sector initiative, uh, to find the, you know, 800,000 or so acre feet that we need every year. Uh, so this is, this is a bill …
S.B. 254 Extracted Natural Resources Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 9, 2026
Asks why conservation and environmental agencies are not represented on the proposed council and expresses concern about the bill's direction for mining regulation.
▶ Watch at 1:55:10Read what they said
Thank you. I'm looking through the council here, and I see only industry and economic growth sort of, uh, agencies represented nothing from conservation, not even Department of Environmental quality or anything along those lines. I'm wondering if you could speak to why we're, uh, leaving off the, that community, uh, in a, in a state that is already widely acknowledged as one of the most friendly, uh, jurisdictions for mining in the world, which we tout all the time. Um, it seems like that that hopefully is an oversight. So what we're trying to do is to keep this down to, um, as a, a manageable number for the council. If you go into the legislation further, you'll see …
S.B. 60 Income Tax Rate Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Opposes the bill, saying tax cuts reduce services and shift costs to cities and counties, and states he will vote no.
▶ Watch at 1:08:46Read what they said
Thank you President. I think, uh, we heard about affordability just now. I just think it's important to highlight that when we're discussing affordability, it's also critical that we talk about the, the services that are cut as the, uh, outcome of a, of a tax cut. And people feel that in their, in their pocketbooks, their wallets, uh, they feel the decrease in services they get from our governments. I was just talking to a group of students, uh, who were discussing fee waivers and, and this is going to, uh, continue to hurt students' ability to engage in afterschool activities and, and things like that. So, um, I think we'll also see some of these taxes get shifted …
S.B. 148 General Oversight Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 18) · Feb 6, 2026
Votes no, stating the bill reduces minority party representation on the committee and moves more work behind closed doors.
▶ Watch at 46:43Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. President Pro. Uh, I just wanna make sure it's on the record that this bill will further decrease the representation of, uh, minority parties on, on this committee. And it also, uh, puts more of the work that will be done behind closed doors and away from the view of the public. So I'm a no.
H.B. 16 Solar Power Plant Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 17) · Feb 5, 2026
Asks whether similar restrictions on private property rights apply to natural gas, other fossil fuels, and coal mining projects.
▶ Watch at 47:47Read what they said
Um, I'm wondering if similar restrictions on private property rights exist for folks that are looking to develop natural gas, other fossil fuels, coal mining projects, anything of that nature.
H.B. 16 Solar Power Plant Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 17) · Feb 5, 2026
Opposes the bill, saying it discriminates against one form of energy and violates private property rights, and votes no.
▶ Watch at 48:26Read what they said
I'm, I'm concerned as we talk about being in all of the above energy state. You know, we just heard that this sort of restriction does not exist for other forms of energy. Uh, this is discriminatory against a single form here and I think it's, uh, a violation of private property rights for folks who are trying to make money off of property that they own, uh, regardless of the other conditions. So I'm a no.
S.B. 234 Rulemaking Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Asks why the bill limits state regulators from setting standards beyond federal floors, given local pollution concerns, and says the sponsor's view puts science ahead of other considerations.
▶ Watch at 1:27:01Read what they said
Thank you. Uh, I mean, we already live in one of the most polluted counties in the country at this point. We see toxic releases coming from our, uh, industry in this area and, and across all sorts of industries, we already designated as one of the friendliest, uh, jurisdictions for mining in the, in the country or maybe even the world. I, I guess I wonder, uh, so to the question, you know, how, why are we, uh, getting in the way of our regulators' ability to actually set standards that work for, for our communities here? Why are we just relying on the federal government to, uh, to provide a floor when we could definitely do better and …
S.B. 234 Rulemaking Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Follow-up question says the bill would prevent regulators from doing their jobs and asks whether it asks new regulators to simply follow federal direction.
▶ Watch at 1:28:56Read what they said
Follow up. Senator? Yes. Thank you. Uh, I, I think that that sounds great. The, you know, uh, best available science. I guess it, uh, it doesn't, you you would Trust the science. I Knew you would. I I would, I trust the science, but I, I think this doesn't allow our regulators to do their jobs. You know, this, we are, um, to, to put this maybe in more of a, a contemporary, uh, setting. We, you know, we're talking about taking primacy over nuclear regulations and all sorts of other, um, pieces here. And, and we're asking to do more in those spaces. We're asking to, to take on more, uh, abilities to regulate industries that have a …
S.B. 50 Anesthesia Dosage Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 15) · Feb 3, 2026
Makes a motion to lift S.B. 136 from the Rules Committee to the floor.
▶ Watch at 48:01Read what they said
You, president. I'd like to make a motion to lift SB 1 36 from rules committee to the floor.
S.B. 50 Anesthesia Dosage Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 15) · Feb 3, 2026
Gives the short title of S.B. 136 as Enforcement Activities Amendments and restates the motion to lift it to the floor.
▶ Watch at 48:18Read what they said
Yeah. Need to make sure everyone's aware of the short Title Enforcement activities amendments. Uh, so gimme the motion one more time. Senator, Uh, motion to lift SB 1 36 Enforcement Activities amendments to the floor.
S.B. 50 Anesthesia Dosage Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 15) · Feb 3, 2026
Argues for lifting S.B. 136, which would have restricted federal law enforcement agents from wearing face coverings during enforcement, citing a recent incident in West Valley City and related concerns.
▶ Watch at 49:57Read what they said
Yeah. This was a bill that we heard a couple of weeks ago. Uh, it was doing three things. It was preventing, uh, to the best of our ability federal law enforcement agent agents from, uh, wearing face coverings as they were pursuing folks, uh, we just saw the other day, uh, a business in West Valley City was essentially broken into by CBP and pursuit, uh, of a man who was worried that he was getting chased by, uh, anonymous folks. Uh, I don't think this is appropriate and we see these overreaches happening all across the country. Uh, this sort of coordination is something we need to prevent. We need to protect our communities. And I think given …
S.B. 201 Shelter Animal Euthanasia Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Moves to favorably recommend the first substitute of SB 201 to the full Senate.
▶ Watch at 54:11Read what they said
Uh, I'll move to favorably recommend SB 2 0 1 shelter animal euthanasia amendments to the full Senate.
S.B. 201 Shelter Animal Euthanasia Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Asks whether there is a mandated holding period and how notice would fit within it.
▶ Watch at 54:29Read what they said
I, I actually, I have a question or two that came, um, uh, I'm not sure. Is there a mandated holding period if that you have to. I mean, if somebody brings you an
S.B. 201 Shelter Animal Euthanasia Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Thanks the sponsor and asks how owner-requested euthanasia is handled.
▶ Watch at 55:02Read what they said
That's, uh, that's very helpful. Thank you. Um, and what about, uh, help me with the owner requested euthanasia?
S.B. 198 Water Project Management Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Asks whether other states have similar bodies, and raises concerns about state consolidation of water authority and its effect on local water districts.
▶ Watch at 1:14:14Read what they said
Sure. Why not? Go for it. Um, are there other states that have similar bodies to what we are talking about here? Yes, there are other states that have state projects that administer and manage those projects. All right. When I, when I talked to folks at LRGC earlier, it sounded like this was fairly novel. So I'm not sure, I don't know all the details here, but it sounded like it was a pretty unique thing. Uh, you know, I worry about consolidation under the state here. And, uh, as we've seen in other bills that have come forward in the past, uh, that I think created some of these positions that, that Director Ferry is in right now. …
S.B. 198 Water Project Management Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Expresses concern about state-level projects such as the Bear River development and about whether the bill could advance diversions affecting the Great Salt Lake, and prefers local planning and funding.
▶ Watch at 1:15:26Read what they said
Um, I guess, yeah, I, it, this consolidation just always scares me as, as far as we're talking about a state that believes in local control and yet pushes these big projects from the state level top down. Um, I, you know, thinking about the Great Salt Lake in particular, I mean, this, this seems like, I know the, the Bear River development is always the elephant in the room in these conversations. You know, we hear about that every year. It seems like it's, this, to me, looks like another vehicle that could be used to kind of move those sorts of things forward. Um, if that were true, how would we be navigating between saving the Great Salt …
S.B. 69 School Device Revisions · Senate floor debate (day 11) · Jan 30, 2026
Says the bill has been difficult to decide on, and asks what consideration was given to Chromebooks and other classroom technology and whether student behavior might shift to other devices.
▶ Watch at 38:44Read what they said
Thank you. Um, this is a bill I've gone back and forth on more than, pretty much any other I've seen in a while. I support where the state's gone on this. And in recent years, I think having spent time in classrooms, it has been eyeopening to see the difference in students student behavior, uh, before the ban and, and after. Where we are at now, um, I've spoken with teachers, spoken with parents, I, I think there, there's support and feelings on all sides of this one question that came up. So, question to the, to the sponsor. Yield yielded questions He has agreed to yield. Go Ahead. Thank you. Um, what consideration was given to like, Chromebooks …
S.B. 69 School Device Revisions · Senate floor debate (day 11) · Jan 30, 2026
Has no follow-up question and says he is still undecided on how he will vote.
▶ Watch at 40:03Read what they said
Thank you. No follow up. I, I still dunno how I'm gonna vote on this, so thank you for the clarification.
S.B. 69 School Device Revisions · Senate floor debate (day 11) · Jan 30, 2026
Explains his yes vote, saying the bill's exceptions are broad enough and give teachers support, and that the exceptions could be revisited if needed.
▶ Watch at 43:21Read what they said
Senator Blouin, Thank you. I feel like I need to explain my vote now. Uh, I think the exceptions granted in this bill are broad enough. I think we have seen teachers, uh, not feel supported. And this gives them an opportunity to, uh, have the support from the legislature for once as a backstop, uh, to help student behavior in their classrooms. Uh, so I, I hope this will keep us moving in the right directions and, and that if the exceptions prove to not be quite enough, we can, we can reshuffle it and figure things out. So I will be a yes.
H.B. 53 Community Rehabilitation Program Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Asks whether the bill should be placed on the consent calendar and says he has no objection. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 2:27:30Read what they said
waive. I'll say, do we want to put this on consent though? You know, I know they'll come later, but I've got no objection.
H.B. 53 Community Rehabilitation Program Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Moves to place HB 53 on the consent calendar.
▶ Watch at 2:28:07Read what they said
Yep. Yeah. Yes, I'll make that, I'll make the motion to, uh, put this on the consent calendar.
S.B. 86 Firearm Safe Harbor Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Moves to favorably recommend SB 86 to the full Senate.
▶ Watch at 58:24Read what they said
Yeah, I'll, I'll move to favorably recommend SB 86 firearm safe Harbor Amendments to the full Senate.
S.B. 134 Court Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 7) · Jan 26, 2026
Opposes the bill, saying adding Supreme Court justices could increase division and distrust and suggesting the expansion be split and delayed.
▶ Watch at 35:11Read what they said
Thank you President. Uh, I, I, I worry, as we've discussed this, the, the optics that we have heard about are very disturbing here. Uh, by adding more justices to the Supreme Court, I think we are going to see a situation that creates more division, less trust in the courts. Uh, this decision that we're making today follows on changes to the process for nominations in the last couple of years that are sending us more, uh, conservative ideological judges. Just look at who we recently appointed, uh, for the most recent position on the Supreme Court. So I worry that we are just moving in a direction to further politicize things when we are hearing from our legal …
S.B. 153 Election Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Says the bill makes petition signing harder and discourages participation, and states he will vote no; he also mentions concerns raised by his county clerk.
▶ Watch at 1:41:01Read what they said
Thank you. I, I don't know if I have a question so much as this just seems like another attempt to discourage people from participating in the civic process by telling them that if they sign on to a petition, that if there's already a very high standard in Utah, um, that they are going to be potentially exposed in some way. I think there are valid reasons, and I have my own concerns with how many private records there are and how that's being used. But, uh, regardless if you're on that list, I mean, it seems like that's, that that is information that should stay private. Uh, and, and it just seems like another attempt to kind of …
S.J.R. 4 Joint Resolution Concerning Federal Term Limits · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Says he largely agrees with the previous comments.
▶ Watch at 2:44:20Read what they said
Yeah, I was just gonna piggyback on that and say I largely agree with that comment aside from the analysis of, uh, several of the folks mentioned there. So I'll just leave it at that.
S.B. 148 General Oversight Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Asked whether the membership change reduces minority party representation on the committee.
▶ Watch at 2:53:37Read what they said
Thank you. I, looking through the bill, I noticed with the changes in membership on the committees, it does reduce the proportion, potentially of minority party representation from about 70, I think I, uh, it would essentially raise the floor for the majority party from 60% to 70%. Mm-hmm. Um, yeah. Is that, is that intentional or? I, I always get concerned when we talk about boards and commissions, and I totally understand. The majority party you. Yeah. You know what I'm saying? Yeah.
S.B. 148 General Oversight Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Said caucus members think the change is fine, but he will likely vote no because of concerns about reducing minority representation.
▶ Watch at 2:55:59Read what they said
Thank you. I, yeah, I, I checked in with members of my caucus. They said, oh yeah, we think it's fine. I'm probably gonna vote no because I don't like the optics of reducing our representation. I see where you're coming from and I'm happy to be out on my own on that one. So thank you.
S.B. 134 Court Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 4) · Jan 23, 2026
Asks whether phasing in the bill rather than using an immediate effective date was discussed.
▶ Watch at 47:15Read what they said
Thank you. Thank you. I just wanna call attention to the, uh, immediate effective date. And I know that is something we see frequently, um, but I believe the sponsors agreed to yield. I, I'm just wondering, was there any discussion about phasing this in and not doing it immediately in order to avoid some of those optics that I think were a big part of the conversation, uh, during the committee debate yesterday? Is that a question to senator? Yeah, so the question essentially is, is
S.B. 134 Court Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 4) · Jan 23, 2026
Restates the question about whether a delayed effective date was considered instead of an immediate one.
▶ Watch at 47:49Read what they said
Yeah. The, the question essentially is, is, was there conversations about, uh, implementing this in the future instead of doing it basically in an immediate effective date that is described in the bill
S.B. 135 Nuclear Reprocessing Amendments · Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Asked whether the committee would move on to the next item, a resolution. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 57:46Read what they said
And now you wanna move to, is that, Uh, go to the resolution if I could.
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Thanks the chair for the hearing and asks to move to the second substitute.
▶ Watch at 2:45:45Read what they said
Is that on? Oh, it, it's on. Yes. Okay. Thank you, chair. Thank you for allowing this bill to, to get a hearing. I appreciate that. Um, s uh, oh, before I get started, I would like to move second substitute. Okay.
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Explains that S.B. 57 was the state sovereignty amendments and the substitute references it because the bill touches similar issues.
▶ Watch at 2:46:39Read what they said
Yeah. So SB 57 was the state sovereignty amendments that we passed a couple of years ago that, uh, basically told the legislature that we could, uh, make a, a, a motion to, uh, move forward with a directive that, uh, counteracted the federal government. Uh, and so this bill kind of touches on some of those similar aspects and, uh, it, it seemed like a, a good idea to, to reference back to, uh, something that we'd already passed.
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Presents the original bill, saying it codifies Utah Compact principles by requiring judicial warrants in sensitive locations, setting guidelines on face coverings for law enforcement, and limiting state aid to potentially unconstitutional federal actions.
▶ Watch at 2:48:07Read what they said
Fair enough. We'll work off of that. Uh, so SB 1 36 is a bill that reaffirms Utah's position as a, as a place that welcomes people who are seeking a better life. Uh, those might be people like me, uh, who came to Utah because of our outdoor access, uh, our education opportunities, our economy, uh, or, or they might be people escaping violence or, or persecution, uh, across the globe. Regardless, uh, I believe they are valuable members of our community. Um, they deserve to be able to worship, uh, to seek care and, and to exist in public without the fear of being treated in, in the very ways that they were trying to, uh, escape. In …
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Says he does not have the original bill in front of him but can describe the locations.
▶ Watch at 2:51:18Read what they said
Let's see. I actually don't have the original version of the bill in front of me, so I can, I can touch on what they are. Okay. Please just
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Reads the bill's definition of sensitive locations, including public libraries, government health facilities, courthouses, and shelters, excluding detention facilities.
▶ Watch at 2:51:28Read what they said
Sure. Oh, we have one. Um, bo would you come forward? This is Bo everyone. He's from BYU and he's my intern. He drew the short straw this year. There you go. Okay. So sensitive location means a public library healthcare facility. Oh, sorry. And this is, uh, starting on line 1 77. Uh, a public library healthcare facility operated by a governmental entity courthouse, uh, location operated by a governmental entity that provides physical or mental health services, shelter care services, or legal care services, uh, does not include correctional or detention facilities operated by a governmental entity or a holding or detention facility in a courthouse operated by a governmental entity.
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Says protesters are not government agents with qualified immunity.
▶ Watch at 2:53:14Read what they said
No, protesters are not agents of our government that, uh, have qualified immunity or things of that nature. So
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Says the bill does not prevent tactical use of coverings or body armor when necessary, only regulates it.
▶ Watch at 2:53:29Read what they said
This Mr. Chair, this does not prevent, uh, tactical use of those sorts of coverings of, of body armor. Um, it, it just, uh, makes certain regulations around it. But if there's a necessity for law enforcement to be wearing those sorts of things, then they still have that, uh, authority.
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Says he does not condone doxing but people film agents to hold them accountable.
▶ Watch at 2:54:23Read what they said
Yeah, I, I wouldn't condone doxing of ICE agents. I think we see folks filming to try and be able to hold, uh, government agents that are out there operating, um, accountable for the decisions they make. And, uh, if there's no way to, to be able to do that, that is, that's a great concern.
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Distinguishes doxing as publicly announcing names from sending video to law enforcement, which he calls appropriate.
▶ Watch at 2:54:44Read what they said
Uh, I think doxing would refer to like public, uh, announcements. And again, I I will say I don't condone publicly announcing agents names, but I think to be able to communicate back to law enforcement, to send a video in to your local police force to, to the, to the federal agency, that that is totally appropriate.
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Says the bill does not prevent coordination and creates specific guidelines.
▶ Watch at 2:55:22Read what they said
So again, this, this bill doesn't prevent coordination. It creates specific guidelines. And, uh, I think under those circumstances, you would, you would probably not see that sort of conflict between, uh, what they were trying to enforce and what this is trying to prevent.
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Confirms the bill applies to ICE and several other federal law enforcement agencies, not protesters.
▶ Watch at 2:55:44Read what they said
It only applies to ice, Not protestors, ice and yes, ice. And, and I think several other kind of federal law enforcement agencies are included in this bill. Okay.
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Agrees but says other laws likely protect churches from that kind of concern.
▶ Watch at 2:56:01Read what they said
Uh, under this bill that I, I think that is true under larger protections of the law. I suspect there are other protections that churches would, uh, would, would have to protect against sort that sort of, um, attack or that sort of concern. You're, you're expressing. Okay.
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Agrees and says that is why he tied the bill to S.B. 57.
▶ Watch at 2:56:43Read what they said
Uh, it aligns with that, which is my, was my intention with including SB 57, which I saw in a similar way. But it is a law that we have here in Utah that seemed appropriate to tie to this.
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Says parts may be contested, but most provisions withdraw state participation and require judicial warrants rather than prohibit federal action.
▶ Watch at 2:57:18Read what they said
I think there are pieces of this that would likely get contested. We see bills passed frequently where that is the case. Uh, many of the provisions in this bill, uh, are actually not suggestions, but they are, uh, creating basically a withdrawal of the state from certain situations. It is not saying you can't do this, it is saying you need to present a valid judicial warrant, uh, if you are going to operate in certain spaces. It is saying the state is not the, the state or local law enforcement will not be engaged in certain operations in sensitive places as defined in the bill. Um, but it's, it's not generally saying you are not allowed to do …
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Says the bill restricts access only to non-public areas of libraries.
▶ Watch at 2:58:19Read what they said
So, so the way the bill is written here is it would not prevent, uh, access to public libraries. It would, it would prevent access to non-public places in public libraries.
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Says that is not the intent but is a way it could be used.
▶ Watch at 2:58:49Read what they said
I, I think that is, that is not the idea necessarily. That is a way that it could be used.
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Says no and that he is trying to prevent escalations that lead to violence.
▶ Watch at 2:59:16Read what they said
No, and I, I am not encouraging violence against. Okay. I, I'm trying to prevent situations where we see escalations that lead to that sort of violence.
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Says the bill does not prevent coordination but limits it in specific locations to avoid liabilities, and that he kept it narrower than he wanted.
▶ Watch at 3:04:20Read what they said
I, to be clear, this does not prevent coordination. It, it limits it to a very specific set of, of locations, uh, where we may run into potential liabilities by forcing our, uh, local law enforcement agencies, our officers, into those places in particular, uh, I frankly, I, if I'd have wrote this bill with every bell and whistle, I wanted to, it would've gone a lot further than it did. Uh, but, but it did not because I was hopeful that it would get a hearing and could have this conversation. But I appreciate the concerns.
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Cites a reported internal ICE memo authorizing entry into private homes without judicial warrants.
▶ Watch at 3:05:26Read what they said
There Is a new memo that apparently is going around from internal at advice that essentially authorizes them to enter into private homes without judicial warrants. That should scare all of us.
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Says he has read a headline and reporting on it.
▶ Watch at 3:05:37Read what they said
I have a headline that I've read through more deeply, but I'm sure we can find
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Said he supports abolishing ICE but that cannot be done at the state level, and argued the bill protects places of worship, ties cooperation to due process, and still allows cooperation, urging opposition to tabling.
▶ Watch at 3:48:49Read what they said
A, that's a confusing one. Uh, I, I'm, I it's your turn. Can you just consider this summation? Is that Yes, sure. Is that okay? Okay. Uh, well, appreciate the conversation. I, I to the comment made, uh, by the last person up here. I, I'll just say I agree with much of what was said. My note right here said this should be stronger. Uh, there have been loud calls going across the country with large public support at this point to abolish. ISIS is an agency, uh, that is not that old. We did find before this, it is an agency that I think we could, uh, push the responsibilities to other places of our federal government. Of …
S.B. 136 Enforcement Activities Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Said he was nodding in agreement about abolishing ICE, not about abolishing the police.
▶ Watch at 3:52:26Read what they said
I, I was, I was specifically shaking, nodding my head at the piece about abolishing ice, which I think is, uh, uh, different than, I didn't hear a piece about abolishing the police in there. Maybe he said that, um, I was nodding an agreement with the, the piece I just mentioned there.
From the official recordings' automatic captions, with speakers and summaries identified by AI. Use the ▶ links to check the recording before you rely on a quote.