Katy Hall

• H.B. 527 Pharmacy Pricing Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Explains that the substitute removes a provision that would have required PEHP to raise premiums to cover some of the bill's costs, so PEHP premiums will not increase and the fiscal note remains zero.

  Read what they said

  Yes. So there was a provision in the bill that would've required PEHP to increase premium prices to cover the cost of some of the provisions in the bill. And this sub pulls those pieces out so PEHP will not have to raise their prices and the fiscal note is still zero and that's the only change.

  ▶ Watch at 24:16

• S.B. 31 Office of Professional Licensure Review Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Supports the bill and says the removal of nurse practitioner experience hours should be studied during the interim.

  Read what they said

  Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, I'll be, I'll be brief on this. I know we're running short on time, but I just wanna, I rise in support of this bill with just a little caveat. I know they've worked a lot of hours trying to come up with some compromises, and as the, the good bill sponsor mentioned, um, there was 6,000 hours in there for nurse practitioners, and that was whittled down to 2000 and then taken out entirely. And, um, I think it's very important because we, a few years ago gave full practice capability to nurse practitioners, which I think is great. I actually voted for that. Um, but it's also when I thought that they were …

  ▶ Watch at 53:03

• S.J.R. 6 Joint Resolution Amending Court Rules · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Explains that S.J.R. 6 amends Rule 42 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure on consolidating, separating, and transferring civil cases, changes language on past medical expenses and equipment costs and on non-economic damages, and allows any party to file notice to convene a three-judge panel that can transfer the case back to the original district judge.

  Read what they said

  Representative Hall. Thank you Mr. Speaker. SJR six is a joint resolution amending Rule 42 of the Utah Rule Rules of Civil Procedure. To amend a court rule, the Utah legislature has to pass a joint resolution. Rule 42 addresses the consolidation or separation of civil cases and also the transfer of civil cases to another court to or 2 0 3 Judge Panel. So this bill does two things. Um, it has, um, a change in the language, um, which provides that a fi fact finder cannot prejudice a defendant by knowing or considering the past medical expenses or equipment costs before liability has been established or non-economic damages and an action that have been entered. And this is …

  ▶ Watch at 1:31:54

• S.B. 295 Intellectual Diversity in Education and Government · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Explains that drafting attorneys and policy analysts found legal analysis mistakes in the earlier adopted amendment, and the substitute changes it to avoid a conference committee and constitutional questions.

  Read what they said

  Um, yes. So based on our, um, discussion on the floor, uh, when our drafting attorney and PO policy analysts were listening to it, they discovered that uh, there was some mistakes in the legal analysis of what was drafted in the amendment that we adopted. And based on the, the questions by the good representative from Provo, um, we felt that the better thing to do would be to change it here. So we don't have to go to conference committee and we can send over a clean bill without any constitutional questions.

  ▶ Watch at 2:21:46

• S.B. 295 Intellectual Diversity in Education and Government · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Says drafting and policy staff found legal errors in the amendment adopted earlier, so the substitute removes it to avoid a conference committee and constitutional questions.

  Read what they said

  Um, yes. So based on our, um, discussion on the floor, uh, when our drafting attorney and PO policy analysts were listening to it, they discovered that uh, there was some mistakes in the legal analysis of what was drafted in the amendment that we adopted. And based on the, the questions by the good representative from Provo, um, we felt that the better thing to do would be to change it here. So we don't have to go to conference committee and we can send over a clean bill without any constitutional questions.

  ▶ Watch at 2:21:46

• S.B. 295 Intellectual Diversity in Education and Government · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Says the new substitute removes the added amendment so elementary schools keep their current practice, avoiding the constitutional questions raised.

  Read what they said

  Uh, thank you. Um, I, we've already had this discussion. I but that portion just, or the new substitute just takes out that amendment that got put in. Uh, we just took that one, that part out and the elementary schools will just be doing it the way they've always been doing it. And, um, there won't be those constitutional questions that were raised.

  ▶ Watch at 2:22:38

• S.B. 295 Intellectual Diversity in Education and Government · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Presents the new substitute, which removes the added amendment so elementary schools continue their current practice and the raised constitutional questions are avoided.

  Read what they said

  Uh, thank you. Um, I, we've already had this discussion. I but that portion just, or the new substitute just takes out that amendment that got put in. Uh, we just took that one, that part out and the elementary schools will just be doing it the way they've always been doing it. And, um, there won't be those constitutional questions that were raised.

  ▶ Watch at 2:22:38

• S.B. 295 Intellectual Diversity in Education and Government · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Explains the amendment allows elementary schools to have non-curricular clubs, which current code does not permit.

  Read what they said

  Um, yes. This is something that, um, we caught just our elementary schools in code have not had, um, curricular clubs before. And so this just makes a little amendment that they, um, can have the, the non-curricular clubs. So,

  ▶ Watch at 2:35:24

• S.B. 295 Intellectual Diversity in Education and Government · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Presents the bill, which adds higher education requirements on viewpoint diversity and guest speakers, and sets uniform club rules in public schools.

  Read what they said

  Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So HB or SB 2 95 adds new requirements for higher education intended to promote intellectual and viewpoint diversity. Um, it clarifies, clarifies the existing exemption for guest lecturers in academic courses and invited speakers to ensure that they are not restricted by the DEI pro prohibitions on university, on universities. Even if the speakers content touches on those topics, it adds a new public policy, a new public policy events requirement for universities to organize and host public policy debates and multiple perspective events each academic year with presenters presenting multiple different views. These events must be open to all students and staff and the general public and listed on a publicly searchable online calendar, …

  ▶ Watch at 2:36:08

• S.B. 295 Intellectual Diversity in Education and Government · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Says almost any club would be non-curricular, giving examples such as a girls coding club, Latinos in Action, and chess, and that a Bible study club would likely be allowed.

  Read what they said

  Um, pro, almost anything would be, um, considered non-curricular. The, the Girls Coding Club that was just mentioned could be a non-curricular, um, Latinos in Action could be a non-curricular, uh, the chess club. The, there's a multiple, like almost anything as long as it doesn't do degrade. So Mr. Speaker, could, um, Christian Bible Study be a non-curricular club? As a non-curricular club? I believe so, yes.

  ▶ Watch at 2:42:15

• S.B. 295 Intellectual Diversity in Education and Government · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Says the bill would not prohibit such discussion, and that the amendment applies only to elementary schools.

  Read what they said

  No, it would not. And, and, and thank you for asking that question. I just wanna clarify in the, in the amendment that that amendment right there is only for elementary school, uh, in the elementary schools, but you're, you're absolutely right. It would not prohibit any of that.

  ▶ Watch at 2:45:10

• S.B. 295 Intellectual Diversity in Education and Government · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  In summation, says the bill was developed with the Senate sponsor, USBE, and school district attorneys, and that it seeks institutional neutrality and inclusion, with possible name changes to clubs.

  Read what they said

  Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I really appreciate all the conversations that have happened about this. Um, I, I do wanna clarify. We, we did have extensive conversations with, or this, the Senate sponsored extensive concert conversations with yushi. Um, we've talked with USBE, we've talked with some attorneys within school districts who helped us with this language. Yes, there may have to be some name changes, but again, I agree with the, the last, um, uh, rep representative from Northern Utah that, um, we want this to be inclusion. So if, if some of those names need to be changed to say kids that code so that everybody feels welcome, that would be great. Again, we are going for …

  ▶ Watch at 2:47:34

• H.B. 527 Pharmacy Pricing Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Explains that a provision requiring PEHP to raise premiums has been removed, so the fiscal note returns to zero and no action is required.

  Read what they said

  Yeah, there was a provision in the bill that would've required PEHP to increase their premiums to cover the cost of the what was being proposed in the bill. That language has been stripping out, so that'll, that'll correct that. So that will not, that'll take the fiscal note back to zero and not require PDHP to take any action.

  ▶ Watch at 2:56:44

• H.B. 270 Healthcare Worker Post-Employment Amendments · House floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026

  Explains a language addition so the bill would not apply to someone working at a facility who is not working under the scope of their license.

  Read what they said

  Yes. It was just, um, a little piece of language that we put in to make sure that if someone was working for a facility or something, but not working under the scope of their license, that, that it wouldn't apply to, to them. And that was all.

  ▶ Watch at 4:22

• S.B. 72 Obscene Animal Abuse Material Amendments · House floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026

  Presents the bill on veterinarian non-competes, non-disclosures, and non-solicitation, which would apply only to agreements entered after May 6, 2026, and says it supports continuity of care and workforce flexibility.

  Read what they said

  Thank you Mr. Speaker. Pro Tem. Um, so this bill there deals again with, uh, non-competes this time in the veterinary space. There are three main pieces to this bill involving non-competes, non-disclosures and non-solicitation. The bill would prohibit veterinarian non-competes of any type, not just employee employer, unless the veterinarian has at least a 5% ownership stake in the, in the entity. Um, non-disclosure clauses in involving a veteran veterinarian. If the non-disclosure prohibits the veterinarian from discussing their experience working for a particular person and non-solicitation agreements involving a veterinarian in all three cases only these agreements entered into after May 6th, 2026 would be affected. So we're not going backwards. Um, this supports continuative care for your …

  ▶ Watch at 22:23

Show all 199 remarks →

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.