Legislators / Calvin R. Musselman
Calvin R. Musselman
Republican · Senate District 4
Hear from them directly
Contact Sen. Calvin R. Musselman
- Email: cmusselman@le.utah.gov
- Phone: 801-773-1777
- Office: 4137 S 4100 W, WEST HAVEN, UT, 84401
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.
Calvin R. Musselman serves on:
- Economic and Community Development Appropriations Subcommittee
- Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environmental Quality Appropriations Subcommittee
- Government Operations Interim Committee
- Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee
- Political Subdivisions Interim Committee
- Senate Business and Labor Confirmation Committee
- Senate Judiciary Confirmation Committee
- Senate Political Subdivisions Confirmation Committee
- Senate Business and Labor Committee
- Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee
What they've said
374 remarks on 111 billsH.B. 436 Moderate Income Housing Infrastructure Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explains that the bill adds a pathway giving transportation priority consideration to cities whose housing supply grows 2.5% or more, with the adjustment capped at 7% and core scoring factors still dominant.
▶ Watch at 17:12Read what they said
Thanks Mr. President. This bill is a fairly simple policy adjustment and I wanna emphasize adjustment. Um, but I I want to briefly explain, uh, why it's important. First, the bill does not rewrite the transportation prioritization system that the Transportation Commission uses. They have their underlying formula that does not touch that, that does the lion's share When I, it probably doesn't even do it just to say it does the lions share. Most all priority is given under that formula. What the bill does do is add an additional pathway, uh, for communities that are actually producing housing. And this is how it, it does it Specifically, if a city increases it's housing by, by supply by 2.5% …
H.B. 436 Moderate Income Housing Infrastructure Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Responds that rural areas have separate funds such as the TTF, and that the adjustment is marginal, capped at 7%, and could act as a tiebreaker between closely ranked projects.
▶ Watch at 20:08Read what they said
There are of course priority funding that is, is that is especially like the TTF for the rural areas. And, and so I recognize that, that this may give additional concern. But again, I point out that there are specific funds that are available for those more rural areas. But I would just, I would just answer this by saying if a city is truly experiencing a 2.5% growth, which is a significant growth, they are going to stand in need of greater transportation needs on an immediate basis. That's, that's the idea behind it. But I want to clarify, and I, I, I did this in my, uh, kind of my presentation, but I, I think it can't, it …
H.B. 436 Moderate Income Housing Infrastructure Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Summarizes that the bill is sound policy and that the movement it allows is marginal, mainly a tiebreaker between closely ranked projects.
▶ Watch at 21:44Read what they said
I, I I I, I understand those concerns and I, I recognize 'em, but I also recognize of when I see sound policy, I wanna support it. And this is sound policy. There's where you have two and a half percent growth or greater, the need for, uh, for transportation is greater. That being said, this is such a marginal, small amount of movement. We're not talking about it leapfrogging in any kind of significant way. It's really almost viewed maybe as a tiebreaker, um, as it pertains to two municipalities that may be just head against the head under the prioritization list. That would be it. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.
H.B. 436 Moderate Income Housing Infrastructure Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Asks that the question be called.
▶ Watch at 22:24Read what they said
Oh, I would, I would call the question Mr. President. Thank You. Thank you. The question
H.B. 170 School Board Referendum Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Moves to circle second substitute H.B. 11, Wildlife amendments.
▶ Watch at 24:58Read what they said
Now you sure you wanna encircle? Wow. Um, motion to Uncer Second sub. Second subject to HB one 11. Motion to encircle. Second substitute house Bill one 11. Wildlife amendments.
H.B. 170 School Board Referendum Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Says he presented the bill earlier but the fiscal note had not caught up, so a colleague flagged it and the bill was circled.
▶ Watch at 25:22Read what they said
Mr. President. I had, uh, presented this bill in full earlier, but with the fiscal note. Hadn't caught up with it and our, my good colleague had caught that and we circled it, but I'll,
H.B. 582 Asbestos Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Presents H.B. 582, saying it limits asbestos testing requirements for residential properties of four or fewer units, exempts homes built on or before January 1, 1992, and keeps oversight for older structures and for planned renovation, demolition, or disposal projects.
▶ Watch at 1:17:24Read what they said
Thanks Mr. President. Um, this bill refines the conditions under which testing for asbestos or related materials is required on residential properties with four or fewer units under the bill. The relevant regulatory board cannot require asbestos inspections on properties built on or before January 1st, 1992. Streamlining the requirements for newer homes, the bill still allows asbe rules when there's a planned renovation, demolition or disposal project that could disturb asbe of materials, protecting workers and public, uh, safety where risk is greatest by narrowing regulatory authority. Um, this bill prevents the board from imposing one size fits all inspections that could burden homeowners with little to no risk. The bill retains asbestos abatement oversight on older structures, especially …
H.B. 582 Asbestos Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Notes there is no discussion, asks the president for summation, and moves that the House bill pass under suspension of the rules.
▶ Watch at 1:18:49Read what they said
Seeing no discussion, I'm gonna go to you for summation and a motion Call The question, Mr. President, the Question is, under suspension of the role shall first substitute House bill five eighty two pastoral call vote.
H.B. 289 Child Sexual Abuse Material Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Presents H.B. 289, which divides child sexual abuse material into real, apparent, and obscene categories, and explains the penalties for each and how the bill compares to current law.
▶ Watch at 1:25:52Read what they said
Um, hold on one quick second. So we're Mr. President, we'll talk about maybe some delicate materials for just a moment. Um, CSAM Child sexual abuse material. Um, and as I do so, I'll try to be as, as delicate as I can and I think I can do so. Um, our laws, uh, current definition of CSAM includes both REAL and AI generated, uh, for minors. This, uh, combination is problematic since it could lead to future challenges in court, which could then result in entire statute being overturned or convictions being lost. HB 2 89 fixes that problem to by dividing CSA into three categories or three buckets, if you will, where, um, which are real miners in …
H.B. 111 Wildlife Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Moves to replace the bill's text with a second substitute.
▶ Watch at 2:12:42Read what they said
and body, uh, first substitute HB one 11 Wildlife of Minutes and replace it with second substitute HB one 11.
H.B. 111 Wildlife Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explains that the substitute combines negotiated language from another bill, creating a poaching mitigation fund and changing guide and outfitter rules.
▶ Watch at 2:12:57Read what they said
Yeah, in fact I would, I would like to, 'cause there, there, there's a fairly substantive, uh, amount of addition from an, uh, from another, uh, negotiated portion of a bill. And I'd like to take a moment and go over that and then, and then vote if that's okay. Mr. Yes, That's great. Speaker Pro or President Proti. Um, so again, this has been highly negotiated language from, uh, another bill, but it, so it'll take me to go a moment to go through it, but, um, we can go through it in detail if you have questions. The bill strengths is wildlife law enforcement by creating a dedicated fund, primarily this is what it do. A dedicating fund …
H.B. 111 Wildlife Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Summarizes the underlying bill: nurse practitioner authority for permit and disability verification, lower late fees, online public notices, grizzly bear notification, and weapon discharge distances near buildings.
▶ Watch at 2:14:36Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President Proti there circling to the underlying bill, the main portions of it were, um, along the, uh, allowing a nurse practitioner to diagnose illness or injury, uh, which allows them to surrender, uh, to surrender a permit for medical reasons. So we're talking about wildlife permits instead of just a doctor allowing them, we're now, it would be allowing a nurse practitioner to do those same things. Allows a nurse practitioner to verify an individual has a physical or an intellectual disability, which allows them to ordain the disability or COR, free fishing license, season date extensions, et cetera. This bill will benefit rural Utahans and those who see a nurse practitioner for medical care next …
H.B. 111 Wildlife Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Says the bill combines parts of two bills and neither has a fiscal impact.
▶ Watch at 2:17:22Read what they said
Yeah, it, it is parts of two bills that are married and there is a no fiscal impact in either Bill.
H.B. 591 Nuisance Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Begins discussing a substitute for H.B. 242 on initiative and referendum signature gathering and removal. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 2:41:27Read what they said
Senator Musselman. Oh, here we go Brett. Thank you President. There should be a substitute three on
H.B. 242 Initiative and Referendum Signature Gathering and Removal Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Presents the bill, setting paid signature gatherer and removal requirements such as age 18, badges with unique numbers, a ban on misrepresentation, and limits on use of collected email addresses.
▶ Watch at 2:43:07Read what they said
Yes. Quickly. Mr. President, uh, as much as possible makes the rules the same for the paid signature gathers as those paid to remove the signatures requires individuals hired to be removed, signatures to be at least 18 years old. To provide statement on the impact of removing signatures from the ref referendum. Certify the collected certify. They collected the signatures wear a badge indicating they paid with a unique number assigned to them and prohibits misrepresentation and, and mirrors the Class A misdemeanor we have for the signature gatherers, gatherers, classifies or clarifies the email addresses collected as part of the initiative process cannot be used for other purposes than required notification related to the initiative. Uh, that's my …
H.B. 242 Initiative and Referendum Signature Gathering and Removal Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Says he did not hear a question and agrees to yield the floor to Senator Riebe.
▶ Watch at 2:44:33Read what they said
Did I I didn't hear a question to ask. Yield the question, but I'll, I'll yield if the good president wants speak. Senator,
H.B. 242 Initiative and Referendum Signature Gathering and Removal Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Answers that the age requirement mirrors the requirements already in place for paid signature gatherers.
▶ Watch at 2:44:44Read what they said
Um, this is again mirroring, as I said in my own Miss State. We mirroring the exact same requirements for signature gatherers. That's the answer.
H.B. 242 Initiative and Referendum Signature Gathering and Removal Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Repeats that the bill uses the same parameters as those for paid signature gatherers.
▶ Watch at 2:44:57Read what they said
One more time. It mirrors the exact same parameters as it is for p to signature gatherers.
H.B. 377 Real Estate Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explains that the substitute requires a report from the Department of Commerce to the legislature after a certain period following August 31.
▶ Watch at 3:07:02Read what they said
Do we have, do we wanna explain the substitute? Yeah. Really quickly, I apologize. Um, lemme click on that. It just requires a report from the, uh, department of Commerce to, um, the legislature after a certain period of time after August 31st.
H.B. 377 Real Estate Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Presents H.B. 377, which clarifies the 2025 changes allowing bifurcation of real estate licenses for property management, limits the property manager license to residential rental units, repeals the 30% security bond requirement, and sets rules for trust accounts and dual brokers.
▶ Watch at 3:07:41Read what they said
Uh, Mr. President. A year ago we had bifurcated or allowed the bifurcation of the real estate licenses for property management under certain circumstances, and this is to clean up some of the language, uh, some of the issues that we've had since that time. It delays the mandatory information date for early established property matters to January 1st, 2027. It strictly limits the scope of the property manager license to the management of residential rental units and repeals 30% security bond requirement. It allows property manager to operate without a separate trust account if ex explicitly agreed upon both to the property manager management agreement and the tenant lease agreement and mandates the creation of licensing rules for the …
H.B. 436 Moderate Income Housing Infrastructure Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explains that the Senate added clarifying language and a one-year freeze so entities currently in compliance stay in compliance, with the new prioritization taking effect after the next reporting period.
▶ Watch at 3:26:13Read what they said
We added a little bit of clarifying language. The only policy change, um, that we made in the Senate was adding essentially a one year freeze. So that if you're currently in compliance, you're still in compliance. Um, the new prioritization will take effect after the next reporting period.
H.B. 68 Housing and Community Development Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Asks Senator Fillmore whether the bill consolidates too much power under the executive branch and requests a response.
▶ Watch at 1:16:51Read what they said
Yeah. With the sponsor yield. Senator Fillmore, will you yield? Yes. Um, there's been some question as this is consolidating too much power under, uh, the executive branch. Could maybe, uh, maybe I have a couple questions, but could you, could you respond to that?
H.B. 68 Housing and Community Development Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Confirms that the bill creates no new powers and only consolidates what was already under the executive branch.
▶ Watch at 1:17:33Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President. I apologize. Um, so out of clarity, I think that was clear, but I just want to be clear. It does not create any new powers. It it consolidates what was already under the executive branch. That's correct. Thank you.
H.J.R. 18 Joint Resolution Urging Congress to Eliminate Marriage Penalties · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Moves that a list of House bills be lifted from rules and placed at the bottom of the second reading calendar. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:41:31Read what they said
Alright, here we go. Mr. President, I move that the following bills be lifted from rules and placed at the bottom of the second reading calendar in the following order. House bill 5 0 8 substitute three house bill 4 92 substitute three house bill 1 53 house bill 1 36 substitute four house bill 89 house bill 1 95 substitute one house bill two 70, substitute two house bill 4 0 8 substitute one house bill 3 2 3. Substitute two house bill 3 89 substitute three house bill 4 36 substitute one house bill 4 73 substitute two house bill 3 29 substitute three house bill 1 23 substitute one house bill 5 0 1 substitute two house …
H.J.R. 18 Joint Resolution Urging Congress to Eliminate Marriage Penalties · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Moves that HB 269, substitute two, be lifted from the Senate third reading calendar and placed on the second reading calendar. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:42:32Read what they said
Those bills will be placed at the bottom of the second reading calendar and that the order read. Go ahead Senator ml for Another motion. Thank you Mr. President. The second motion as I move that the following bill be lifted from Senate third reading calendar and placed after HB three 11 on the Senate second reading calendar. HB 2 69, substitute two. Thank you. That's the only bill on circled on the third.
H.B. 438 Artificial Intelligence Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Says he had reservations about the definitions in committee and asks where the line is between companion chatbots and general conversational AI tools.
▶ Watch at 1:46:19Read what they said
Um, Mr. President, I had some reservations about just the definitions in committee and I asked some questions and I just wanna further clarify to kinda settle my concerns. Uh, could this comp sponsor help me understand where the line is between true, uh, companion chat bots and more general conversational AI tool?
H.B. 438 Artificial Intelligence Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Asks whether the bill went through the AI policy lab.
▶ Watch at 1:47:22Read what they said
With follow up question, Mr. President, just, just at a clarity too, 'cause I, I didn't get a chance to ask the steering committee and I haven't asked it since. But, uh, did this go through the AI policy lab as a development in, in the policy?
H.B. 195 Precious Metals Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Asks whether the vendor would be chosen through a competitive RFP process.
▶ Watch at 2:27:09Read what they said
So as I understand it, the, the vendor would, it would go out on our R fps. Um, so it'd be a competitive process in choosing a vendor if I understand that.
H.B. 195 Precious Metals Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Asks whether choosing a vendor could favor a particular vendor based on the state's transaction volume in precious metals, and says he supports state gold investment.
▶ Watch at 2:27:20Read what they said
but the question is in, in this particular area, first of all, I wanna be clear, I think the state should invest a gold. I think this is a, a, a good thing that we've done already and, and we need to draft policy around that. But, but in picking a vendor, are we picking a, possibly building a particular vendor up by the amount of transactions that a state could do in, in this precious metal area? Senator
S.J.R. 17 Resolution Encouraging Innovation in Legislative Analysis and Information Services · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Asked how accuracy would be verified if AI produced the legislative summaries.
▶ Watch at 42:11Read what they said
Maybe I'll ask a few questions just to kind of get the ball rolling. Okay. So, um, what would you envision would this be, uh, would we use AI kind of to, what would we do to verify accuracy? Let's say ai AI produced the legislative, uh, uh, summaries. What would we do for accuracy to make sure that AI hadn't gone awry there? What would you envision there?
S.J.R. 17 Resolution Encouraging Innovation in Legislative Analysis and Information Services · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Asked whether the state would develop its own AI systems or use commercially available tools.
▶ Watch at 43:32Read what they said
Do you have any idea, is there, uh, is there any thoughts of developing our own AI systems or would it be commercially available tools? Do you have any insight there? Has there been any kind of alluding to what route that might, we might go there?
S.J.R. 17 Resolution Encouraging Innovation in Legislative Analysis and Information Services · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Moved to favorably recommend SJR 17.
▶ Watch at 45:49Read what they said
Well, I'll do the action. How's that? I, I, I move that we favorably recommend SGR 17 resolution, encouraging innovation in legislative analysis and information services.
H.B. 138 Child Abuse Homicide Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Asks how causation would be established for a suicide given other possible factors such as mental health and bullying.
▶ Watch at 53:33Read what they said
Suicide often has kind of multiple factors, right? Mental health and bullying, and maybe there's, so help me out with kind of establishing causation, right? That, you know, the abuse right, resulted in the, the, the, the, the suicide was direct result of abuse and not some other contributing factor that might have pushed them.
H.B. 138 Child Abuse Homicide Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Says he has concerns about the wording of the direct or proximate causation language in the bill. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 55:09Read what they said
So representative, I think where I'm having pause is on line 76, 'cause this is the trigger an individual's death under subsection two includes an individual's suicide if the suicide was a direct in the second word or proximate. Yes. So direct seems direct approximate result of the actor's conduct.
H.B. 138 Child Abuse Homicide Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Refers to a prior case involving the direct and approximate distinction and moves to favorably recommend the second substitute to HB 138.
▶ Watch at 55:55Read what they said
Okay. And I know there was a, there was a prior case a few years ago where, where there was a, a question between the direct and approximate. Okay, Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion. Yes, please. A motion to be, to favorably recommend, um, HB 1 38 child abuse homicide amendments. Actually, that'd be second substitute to HB 1 38 child abuse homicide amendments.
H.B. 547 Transnational Repression Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Musselman asks how local law enforcement would determine whether someone is a foreign adversary and whether federal law already covers this conduct.
▶ Watch at 1:05:34Read what they said
Yeah, so my question's gonna be for the sponsor, um, um, overlap federal law. I mean, how is local law enforcement even investigated as to whether or not somebody's a foreign adversary? And don't we already have federal laws that cover this? And and we are also Yeah, go ahead. You're,
H.B. 547 Transnational Repression Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Musselman asks why the bill covers lower-level offenses such as harassment and suggests reserving it for higher-level crimes.
▶ Watch at 1:06:30Read what they said
Okay. Second question. You, you've made it applicable to even some lower level stuff, harassment, things like that. I mean, I, I think this something like this probably should be more reserved for higher level crimes, but just quickly explain that and that I'll be done.
H.B. 442 Feminine Hygiene Products Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Moves to replace the fifth substitute of House Bill 442 with the seventh substitute.
▶ Watch at 1:11:53Read what they said
Senator Musselman? I can. Uh, so moved all we have motion to delete House Bill 4 42 sub five and Title and Body and replace it with seventh Substitute House Bill 4 42.
S.B. 324 Outcome-based Investment Grant Pilot Framework · House Education Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Presented SB 324, which would require outcome-based applications and independent evaluation for two pilot grant programs, with the Office of the Legislative Auditor General setting evaluation standards.
▶ Watch at 1:53:44Read what they said
Thank you. Um, Mr. Chair, um, I'm gonna give you a little bit of background real quick. The bill represents the next step. I believe in accountability policy making over time, public budgeting has evolved. First focused, uh, whether funds were spent lawfully, and then we required activity reporting what was done with the money, in other words. And more recently, we've en emphasized, um, measurable outcomes. You think of that when you, when you apply for, uh, funding, the modern EV evolution goes one step further. It's at, it's at ask the simple question. Um, did the funds, or did the funded intervention actually cause the intended outcome? Um, as we studied at evidence-based policymaking, we found that nationally …
H.B. 591 Nuisance Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Asks whether the 2035 date in the bill is correct.
▶ Watch at 1:55:48Read what they said
Oh, Senator Musselman, Um, there's an i i I, so this eliminates common law and Right. And, but it also says in the bill that you can still use it until 2 20 35. Is that the right date? Did I see that right?
S.B. 324 Outcome-based Investment Grant Pilot Framework · House Education Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Said the two grants were already funded through the normal process and that the bill applies the new framework to them, with the money already in the budget cycle.
▶ Watch at 1:57:50Read what they said
Yeah. Well, I wouldn't be here if it wasn't, but, yeah. So, uh, representative Moz, I appreciate the question. So again, these were two grants that were likely going to happen through the process. They have been funded, they went through that process. But instead of finishing that process, we plugged into this bill so that there's greater rigor and analysis on the grants instead of, 'cause otherwise, we would simply grant them and then they would come back and report by plugging it into this framework that I've created. We'll have an independent analysis and a greater rigor in that, uh, kind of reporting. So just to clarify for me, this money is already there for that purpose for …
S.B. 324 Outcome-based Investment Grant Pilot Framework · House Education Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Responded that a market for evaluators may exist and offered to have the legislative auditor general explain the options.
▶ Watch at 1:58:58Read what they said
Yeah, no, that's, that's, that's fair. That's possible that we'd be creating a, a I suppose that marketplace already exists, but that will be, uh, that, that will be part of, I suppose, a side effect of that. Um, I do have Cade Minchi here. You want Cade, do you wanna come up and just maybe talk about the possibilities there? Um,
S.B. 324 Outcome-based Investment Grant Pilot Framework · House Education Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Agreed to have the legislative auditor general come forward to answer questions. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:59:21Read what they said
Is that okay? Yeah, That'd be great. I brought in the big gun so We, we know, but, uh, just for the record,
S.B. 324 Outcome-based Investment Grant Pilot Framework · House Education Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Described the evidence levels the bill uses and said the auditor's office would create the standards and rules for judging whether grant metrics were met.
▶ Watch at 2:01:13Read what they said
Uh, well, it's based on evidence-based policy making and there's standardizations that are kind of, you, you can look at other states and what other states have done, kind of establishing what the different levels of what evidence-based is. I'm gonna allow Ola knowing those structures that are out there already to, to kind of set that standard. I shouldn't say I allow, we've, in this bill created rulemaking authority for them to create the rules of which that standard will be applied. But it's the standards of the, you know, the, the highest level randomized controlled trials, uh, at moderate levels, quasi experimental designs, and then of course the low level pre and post measurement. They, I'm giving really …
S.B. 324 Outcome-based Investment Grant Pilot Framework · House Education Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Restated that the pilot applies only to grants the legislature directs into the framework.
▶ Watch at 2:03:16Read what they said
I'm only gonna parrot, just so that it's clear what the good representative said. This is a pilot program program. It doesn't function unless we direct grants into it. The legislature has to do that. So it's not, it's not vacuuming up or requiring grant proce a grant valuation from any other grant. Just what we dictate. So,
H.B. 221 Coercion Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Presents H.B. 221, which addresses coercion and sexual extortion, including a felony for encouraging suicide through coercion, mandatory fines, and domestic violence classification for cohabitants.
▶ Watch at 25:32Read what they said
Perfect. Thanks Mr. President. Um, this bill is just dealing with, um, coercion as it happens to, uh, maybe more pedestrian term is sextortion. Um, so what this bill does, it makes a secondary felony for intentionally encouraging suicide, but it would take four times for that to take effect. Um, there's some, they wanna make sure that it's a repetitive, uh, nature before they increase that penalty. Mandatory fines not waivable a minimum of $10,000 for encouraging and extortion and 20,000 for on a first degree. Uh, extortion. Sexual extortion updates. It criminalizes refusing to delete or remove intimate images and using images to compel acts against victim's will and in cases of domestic violence, uh, classifies both sexual …
H.B. 221 Coercion Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Moves that second substitute H.B. 221 pass.
▶ Watch at 26:43Read what they said
President. Thank you. Motion is shall second substitute house Bill two twenty one pass. Roll call vote.
H.B. 370 Sex Offender Oversight Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Explains that the fiscal analyst missed part of the bill, so the fiscal note was revised, and says the latest change only coordinates county language.
▶ Watch at 1:29:19Read what they said
That was the result of the, there was, I actually, this was a new process for me to learn in my 10th year in the legislature, but, um, we found that the fiscal analyst had actually missed a part in the bill. And so that affected what the fiscal note was in the first place. And so we challenged it and were able to get it amended to better reflect the actual language in the bill. So it didn't require a change in the bill, it just lowered the fiscal note. Um, but this, this shouldn't change the fiscal note, this, this most recent change, this just was coordinating language that one county had asked for and then changed their …
S.B. 3 Current Fiscal Year Supplemental Appropriations · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Presents S.B. 313, a cleanup bill that changes some definitions and directs certain funding to corrections rather than another agency, because the division sits within that agency.
▶ Watch at 1:15:27Read what they said
Thank you. Got a simple cleanup Bill. This directs deals with a few definitions and then directs some of the money to corrections rather than AP NP. Um, that just makes sense because we've got a division with an agency and, and sending the funding through the agency is the appropriate avenue. With that, I'm open for questions.
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Moves amendment number one to the fourth substitute of S.B. 97.
▶ Watch at 1:28:37Read what they said
Thanks, Mr. President. I move amendment number one to the four, substitute SB 97 in my name.
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Explains that the amendment removes the reduced residential exemption for rental housing and keeps a consistent 45% exemption for residential property used as housing.
▶ Watch at 1:28:49Read what they said
You, Mr. President. The amendment removes the provision in the substitute that reduces the residential property tax exemption for rental housing and instead, uh, maintains a consistent 45% residential Exemption for residential property used as housing.
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Argues that a home used as a residence should get the same tax treatment whether owned or rented, and says property tax changes on rentals would likely be passed on to tenants.
▶ Watch at 1:32:40Read what they said
Yeah. Um, I'd make the assertion that the property is being used as someone's home. It should receive the same residential tax treatment, whether the occupant owns the home or whether they rent the home. And commercial triple net leases, the, um, the, uh, tenant is, is responsible for the tax. Um, in almost every residential agreement I've ever seen, when the taxes are adjusted, the, uh, the landlord has the right to be able to, uh, adjust the rent appropriately to, to account for the tax. Which means in practice we can talk about kind of the fantasy world, but in practice for certain, the, the, any adjustment in that tax is gonna be passed on to the tenant. …
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
In closing, says buyers mainly want homeownership rather than tax differences, and argues the change would be passed to tenants and worsen affordability, so the tax should be kept simple and neutral.
▶ Watch at 1:37:18Read what they said
Thanks, Mr. President. I've been in the real estate game for a long time and I'm one of those guys that just kind of blue collar realtor. I just meet with the normal crowd and purchasing and selling their homes. And I have not once ever, um, seen a circumstance where the individuals that are purchasing homes, especially first time buyers, where they're talking about taxes, what they want is the ability to have that American dream, uh, a home to live. It. It's, it's, it's, they're not concerned about necessarily whether 5% or higher or lower on tax. They want that American dream. They want to build equity. That's the reason people buy homes in in the us. That's …
S.B. 324 Outcome-based Investment Grant Pilot Framework · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Sponsor explains that the bill creates a pilot framework requiring independent analysis and audit of grant outcomes rather than grantee self-reports.
▶ Watch at 1:46:34Read what they said
different, uh, speech as to what I gave the previous. Um, on the second reading, I just want to, I I wanna point out that when we evaluate grants, this is what I've experienced. When individuals come back and report on grants they've received, the individuals are reporting on what their experience was and what they think was successful. The problem is, it's the grantee that's reporting on it. There's no Independence whatsoever in that analysis. What we've created in this bill is a framework which requires independent analysis, an independent audit, um, separate from what the grantee might think was successful. The independent audit will dictate or establish what was successful. Did the grantee meet the, meet the outcome …
S.B. 324 Outcome-based Investment Grant Pilot Framework · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Sponsor asks for a vote on the first substitute bill.
▶ Watch at 1:48:23Read what they said
Uh, call the question Mr. President. Thank you. And the question is, shall first substitute Senate Bill three twenty four pass roll call vote.
H.B. 438 Artificial Intelligence Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Moves to replace the first substitute with the second substitute for HB 438.
▶ Watch at 49:39Read what they said
Motion to move or adopt the second sub To, I'm sorry. Yeah. Is that right? Second sub, correct. Yeah, yeah, Yeah. Motion to adopt second substitute to HB 4 38. Motion before says DeLeT and title and Body First substitute house bill 4 38, and replace with second substitute house Bill 4 38. Discussion of that motion. Seeing none. Any further summation, representing I Waive Senator Musselman, I waive.
H.B. 438 Artificial Intelligence Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks what constitutes simulating a relationship, noting that AI tools he uses address him by title.
▶ Watch at 50:34Read what they said
I have a question or two. Yeah, So I, I, I'm, I'm reading through right now looking at definitions, but I just, what, what constitutes simulating a relationship? I mean, I, I look at the conversations I'm having with AI right now and it's calling me Senator Musselman. So I, I don't know what constitutes a relationship.
H.B. 438 Artificial Intelligence Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks how the division would detect violations and whether enforcement is complaint based.
▶ Watch at 53:03Read what they said
Um, and this may be, I don't know, I, I see, um, division back there, but, um, how does the division, I mean, how do you detect violations? What do you do? Is it complaint based? How's this going to work?
H.B. 337 Nicotine Product Tax Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Confirms the third substitute removed the DPS appropriation and asks about the cigarette tax change.
▶ Watch at 1:36:51Read what they said
I just wanna make sure I got the structure right and I apologize for repeating this. So just to outta clarity, so the third sub, we pulled out all the, the $2 million DPS appropriation, that's all gone. Yes, sir. So we're not worried about that anymore. Yes, sir. Um, and the tax on cigarettes is going from 17.25 to 15, or did it 15?
H.B. 337 Nicotine Product Tax Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks to confirm the vape tax rises from 56% to 71%.
▶ Watch at 1:37:21Read what they said
Per stick being cigarette, the, what's that? Mm-hmm. Per cigarette. It's not like A smoker, terminally, what is that stick? Alright. And then vape, the vape tag is going, the vape tax's going up from second to third, 56 to 71?
H.B. 337 Nicotine Product Tax Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks whether nicotine-free alternative chewing products would be taxed.
▶ Watch at 1:39:05Read what they said
Yeah, so I don't know if that particular name brand produces, uh, a alternative tobacco product that is not, that doesn't have nicotine in it, but let's say they did. Would that not be, that would not be, would that be isolated from this stack? So you have the exact same thing that's, let's say a natural true, true product, but it's not tobacco doesn't have nicotine tax. No tax, Like a caffeine. I, there's actually, because they have, I've just seen these alternative chewing tobacco to get you off chewing tobacco. It's just like chew, but it's not tobacco. I don't know what they make it of
H.B. 337 Nicotine Product Tax Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks why she emphasized combustion when chewing tobacco also causes cancer.
▶ Watch at 1:51:30Read what they said
You made combustion. The point does, doesn't chewing tobacco cause cancer. You said combustion. I'm so sorry, but can I, I, You said I said chewing, you said combustion was the point of which the, the, the, the, to concentrate on. But chewing tobacco is still cancerous. Right? So it's not com combustion's not the point there, the Ingredients in a, so yes. So the in, so it's a container. I'm trying to figure out why you use the term combustion. When chewing tobacco clearly
H.B. 337 Nicotine Product Tax Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Begins restating her argument about moving from tobacco to non-tobacco products.
▶ Watch at 1:52:19Read what they said
But clearly there's, there is, you, you, you, you made the, the argument for to going from tobacco to non-tobacco, um,
H.B. 337 Nicotine Product Tax Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks whether these products could also be a way for teens to start using nicotine.
▶ Watch at 1:52:30Read what they said
Okay. From, I'm gonna use my terminology. So you going from tobacco to non-tobacco products that are just nicotine products, you made the argument that, um, that, that that's a possible way for them to get off the product. But isn't it also a possible argument that that is a way for teens to get onto the product?
H.B. 337 Nicotine Product Tax Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Says the bill is headed the right direction but asks about the large jump in the vape rate from 56% to 71%.
▶ Watch at 2:03:50Read what they said
So I'm just, I, generally speaking, I think that you're going in the right direction, but it seems like awfully big swings try to help me out with the 56 to 71% increase from second to third on the, on the vape
H.B. 337 Nicotine Product Tax Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Says increases are likely coming but questions whether the pouch rate is right and notes the cigarette rate went down.
▶ Watch at 2:04:36Read what they said
Okay. You know, there's been a lot of chatter about this and, and just trying to figure out, I think if you're, I think the just kinda reality setting in and where if you're Blanding in the right spot on, the percentage increases. This isn't about, well, maybe it's still about for some, about, about, you know, accepting the reality. The increases are probably coming, but is the, is the numbers right here, um, policy wise and otherwise 56% on the, um, otherwise, I'm just gonna call it the, the tablets, whatever. Um, seems like a just a big, it's a big swing in comparison to what it was before, but you actually went backwards on the tobacco one portion,
H.B. 337 Nicotine Product Tax Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks for the reasoning behind lowering tobacco and raising vape and other product rates.
▶ Watch at 2:05:26Read what they said
Oh, I see. Yeah. Not backwards in terms of the total, But you went from second, from second to third, you went down on tobacco and up in the vape and the other products. Y Yes, sir. So just help me out the reasoning on that.
H.B. 337 Nicotine Product Tax Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Says a strong tax may be appropriate but this may be too much, leaving it to the committee.
▶ Watch at 2:06:37Read what they said
All right. I, I think the, you know, maybe a good swing of the ax is appropriate, but this may be too hard of a swing. I'm, I'm trying to balance that out in my head, but, uh, I'll leave it for the committee to consider the rest.
H.B. 59 Identification Verification Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Moved to replace the second substitute of HB 59 with the fifth substitute.
▶ Watch at 2:22:38Read what they said
Yeah, we move. We favorably recommend hb, uh, Let's do this. Uh, first motion. Motion to be replace second sub with fifth sub. Is that correct? So moved. Yes. Yes. The motion be forced is to delete entitled, embody second substitute Hospital 59. Replace it with fifth sub second house Bill. 59. Discussion of that motion.
H.B. 59 Identification Verification Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Moved to favorably recommend HB 59, fifth substitute.
▶ Watch at 2:23:14Read what they said
Uh, Senator Musselman Further motion? Yeah. Motion to favorably recommend HB 59. Uh, fifth sub Motion to favorably recommend HP 59 fifth sub discussion
H.B. 323 Solar Panel Disposal Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks the estimated cost per panel of the hazardous waste analysis and why an analysis is needed.
▶ Watch at 2:59:16Read what they said
Just, um, really quick, what's the, what's the cost per, what's the estimated cost for the hazardous waste analysis per panel? I don't even know what that is or what that means, but don't you just assume it's hazardous waste? Uh, why do you have to have an analysis? Yeah. Solar Panel, there's an analysis. I'll pay a fee. Do do something with it.
H.B. 323 Solar Panel Disposal Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Says disposing of solar panels seems as simple as disposing of oil and questions why an analysis is needed.
▶ Watch at 3:00:22Read what they said
We don't have to do that type of Analysis. Seems like it'd be simple. I, I take my oil in, I gotta get rid of oil, here's my money, dispose of my oil. I take a solar panel and I don't wanna biohazardous analysis. Here's my panel, here's my money. Dispose of it. Lemme do that right now. Right. Why, why are we doing the analysis thing? I still don't understand. I may, maybe I'm getting it towards the end of the day, Mr. Chair. I'm getting ornery, so I apologize if I'm coming up on me. It's, it's been a long day, and we apologize to this, and I apologize that, you know, being the last committee, we didn't …
H.B. 323 Solar Panel Disposal Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Suggests a simpler disposal process, such as a flat fee for dropping off panels, and says he understands the explanation.
▶ Watch at 3:02:02Read what they said
Yeah, I, I, I get it. But it just seems like you could just say, here's five bucks. Throw your panels over in this pile. I don't, I don't. Okay. Thank you.
H.B. 323 Solar Panel Disposal Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks whether an individual disposing of a single solar panel could be subject to the $10,000 fine.
▶ Watch at 3:07:15Read what they said
Okay. So in my summation, I'll just clarify then that the individual with like an individual with one solar panel, is that person going to be subject to a potential $10,000? Fine?
H.B. 387 Kratom Modifications · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Compared the two kratom bills and asked about the difference between the 2% and 0.4% alkaloid thresholds.
▶ Watch at 3:16:37Read what they said
Point out basically the same thing that you just did and just trying to look at a couple of the differences, similarities, the two bills. The other thing would be the, I'm not gonna try to pronounce the term What's Reine? Yeah. Whatever. Hydroxy mettre Hydroxy. Yep. Seven hydroxy 7 0 8 is a, is a great acronym As well. Seven. Oh, I'll do that from now on. Um, 2% alkaloid versus 0.4%. I think his is shows 0.4%. Yours is 2%.
H.B. 387 Kratom Modifications · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Restated the question comparing the 2% alkaloid fraction in HB 387 with the 0.4% in SB 45.
▶ Watch at 3:17:13Read what they said
What's the difference between HB 3 87 at 2% of alkaloid fraction. Okay. And SB 45 allows only 4.4% pure leaf raum. That's how the Vernon words are used. So I don't even know Yeah. What that means. So
S.B. 74 Motor Vehicle Civil Action Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Thanks the chair and says he had expected another bill to go first, so his materials were not yet up.
▶ Watch at 1:25:04Read what they said
Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair. Um, I was thinking he was going first so I didn't have it up. One quick second here, if you're ready. I'm ready.
S.B. 74 Motor Vehicle Civil Action Amendments · House Judiciary Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Presents S.B. 74, which sets transparency requirements for policy limit demands in motor vehicle liability claims, including notice to insured drivers and copying the insurer on correspondence, and says it does not change coverage, eliminate bad faith, or create a new cause of action.
▶ Watch at 1:25:22Read what they said
SB seven four is a transparency, transparency and fairness bill, uh, dealing with motor vehicle liability claims, specifically on how, um, uh, policy limit demands are handled and how insured drivers are notified when they may face, um, XX exposure. What it doesn't do, it doesn't change cover, it doesn't eliminate bad faith and it does not create a new cause of action. That's, I think, sometimes when we see these bills, we think that this is purely a policy guardrail bill. That's it. Um, so first, what happens when you, you, you know, you're, you've been in an accident and, and somebody's going to file a claim against you. If a claimant sends a policy limit demand letter to …
H.B. 157 Department of Natural Resources Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 41) · Mar 2, 2026
Moves to take up First Substitute S.B. 324, the outcome-based investment grant pilot framework, and asks whether it is on second reading.
▶ Watch at 32:16Read what they said
Motion to encircle. Um, first substitute 3 24. Motion is to encircle house bill. No, this is, sorry. Senate bill. Mr. President Pro. Yes. Senate Bill 3 24. Outcome based investment grant. Pilot program Motion is on circle house Bill 3 24. Outcome based. And this is on second, correct?
S.B. 324 Outcome-based Investment Grant Pilot Framework · Senate floor debate (day 41) · Mar 2, 2026
Presents S.B. 324, which sets requirements for outcome-based grant applications, including defined outcomes, measurement methods, comparison approaches, and independent evaluation.
▶ Watch at 33:30Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President ProAm. Um, this bill represents the next step and accountable policy making over time, public budgeting has evolved. First, we focused whether funds were spent lawfully, then we required activity reporting what was done with the money, in other words. Um, more recently we've even said measurable outcomes. The modern, uh, uh, evaluation goes one step further. Um, it, it asks a simple but important question. Did the funded intervention actually cause the intended outcome as we studied evidence-based policy and we found the nationally evidence is often described in tiers. At the highest level, you see randomized controlled trials and results that are statistically significant and replicable at a moderate level. You see quasi experimental …
S.B. 324 Outcome-based Investment Grant Pilot Framework · Senate floor debate (day 41) · Mar 2, 2026
Explains that the fiscal note covers the grants themselves, which could be funded through other mechanisms, and that the program structure is meant to add rigor and independence.
▶ Watch at 36:56Read what they said
So Senator Musselman, The, the grant, the money of the fiscal note are for the grants themselves, not for the creating or the structure of the program. The structure of the program is created essentially to review those grants. Those grants could be funded in or outside of this, uh, pilot program that's independent of whether or not the, this, this program, uh, or the structure of this program. The structure of this program is meant to be more rigorous, hold more accountability and have Independence. So in other words, these grants could have came in other methodologies through other bills or through other, uh, funding mechanisms. But they're being put into this bill specifically because it creates a far …
S.B. 324 Outcome-based Investment Grant Pilot Framework · Senate floor debate (day 41) · Mar 2, 2026
Summarizes that the bill's structure is the key point, that the grants are separate from that structure, and moves that the substitute bill be read a third time.
▶ Watch at 38:45Read what they said
I I would just resubmit the previous argument and summation. And that is the, the structure of the bill itself. And granted, um, that was, that was clarified that there may be no problem with the structure. Um, but again, these grants are separate from the structure. It doesn't mean they can't, I don't need to justify them in the program. But these grants may or may not have been otherwise provided in other mechanisms throughout the session, whether it be a, for the, for pure funding request or another bill. The, what what's critical here is that this is a far more stringent structure to analyze any grant. These grants happen to be picked either for greater rigor or, …
H.B. 188 Juvenile Justice Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Moves to favorably recommend HB 188, third substitute, to the Senate floor.
▶ Watch at 1:34:16Read what they said
Okay. Um, I move that we favor to recommend HB 180 8 third substitute. Is that right?
H.B. 345 Victim Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Musselman asked how much money the bill would involve and for an example of how it would work.
▶ Watch at 1:37:07Read what they said
I'm just curious. Yeah, it's great. There's no fiscal amount. You're, you're finding the Manti, I mean, what, what would, what would, give me an example. How would that work? I mean, how much money is there? What, what would you even
H.B. 158 Unlawful Tracking Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Asked whether the bill covers only persons or also built-in tracking devices in vehicles.
▶ Watch at 2:00:03Read what they said
Yeah, I, I just gotta clarify. So if, if, let's say this is only, only for a person, not necessarily a vehicle, right? Or no,
H.B. 158 Unlawful Tracking Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Said a vehicle owner, such as a leasing or rental business, could place tracking devices in vehicles it rents out.
▶ Watch at 2:00:41Read what they said
when you're out to dinner with friends. If, if You were, if you owned a product, let's say you're leasing vehicles or, or renting cars, you could put air tags in cars that you were renting to somebody and that wouldn't be Illegal. The owner of the vehicle, yeah.
H.B. 158 Unlawful Tracking Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Said renting out a vehicle with tracking is allowed, that he is not objecting, and that he wanted to make sure nothing unintended is covered.
▶ Watch at 2:01:01Read what they said
Okay. So if you're renting it out to somebody, you're allowed to do that. I, I'm not, uh, objecting to it. I just wanted to clarify. I'm not catching things here that we didn't mean to.
H.B. 158 Unlawful Tracking Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 27, 2026
Said the bill could lead to a civil stalking injunction, and that violating an injunction would be a crime. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 2:01:30Read what they said
Alright. Thanks. Well, and you say it's not illegal and I, I, I, I, I, I wanna say you're correct, but I, I also will say, I do think it would, um, give rise potentially to a, the issuance of a civil stalking injunction. So that's not a, a crime. But then once the stalking injunctions issued, then the violation of the injunction would be a crime. So Yeah.
H.B. 24 Criminal Penalty Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
Calls the question and moves that H.B. 24 pass, requesting a roll call vote.
▶ Watch at 33:55Read what they said
Yeah, I'd, uh, call the question. Thanks. Did I say Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. Senator. Senator Musselman looking at him talking to me. That's all good. Yes, you're good. Call the No, I'll go to, I'll keep with you. Call the question, uh, Mr. President Prote. And the question is, shall second subject to house Bill 24 pass Roll call vote.
S.B. 324 Outcome-based Investment Grant Pilot Framework · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Sponsor presented the bill to create an outcome-based grant pilot framework requiring defined outcomes, measurement plans, and independent evaluation, with two 4.5 million dollar grants as test cases.
▶ Watch at 38:09Read what they said
Okay. Um, The bill, this bill represents the next step in accountability policy making. Over time, public budgeting has evolved. First, we focused whether funds were spent lawfully, then we required activity reporting what was done with the money. In other words. More recently, we've emphasized on measurable outcomes. Think of your RFAs. The modern evaluation goes one step further. It asks a simple but important question. Did the funded intervention actually cause the intended outcome? Did the intervention cause the outcome? As we studied evidence-based policy, we found that nationally evidence is often described in tears. The is level, you see randomized controlled trials and results are statistically significant and, and replicable. At the moderate level, you see quasi …
S.B. 324 Outcome-based Investment Grant Pilot Framework · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Said the pilot applies only to grant programs that the Legislature specifically directs into it.
▶ Watch at 43:07Read what they said
It's not, the grant program's just gonna be to a specific program. Not So, so again, yeah, this is a pilot program. I suppose it could be implemented wherever the legislature sees fit. If there's a grant program, they would like to see funneled through this program, uh, pilot program to, for its analysis. They could, but unless it's funneled through meaning funded into this, then there it wouldn't, it wouldn't be widespread. You, you wouldn't apply it to every grant program out there. We would have to say, as a legislature, we want this grant program to go into this pilot program for that analysis.
S.B. 324 Outcome-based Investment Grant Pilot Framework · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Described the framework as letting the legislative auditor general set standards, with a sunset and possible future expansion.
▶ Watch at 44:06Read what they said
Yeah. So as I, I started as I kind of give the background evidence policy, making that whole kind of tiered process of what, what it might, what it might structure. Um, we're gonna let them come up that structure instead of in, you know, in code dictating what that we'll let them freedom to be able to structure that and then do the analysis or have independent analysis done. That way we can have some flexibility to adjust it as the program goes forward. There's a Sunset in the pilot program. They can make adjustments as they see how these first two programs go through. And, and I, I suppose just as I'm, I'm not gonna hide the ball …
S.B. 324 Outcome-based Investment Grant Pilot Framework · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Said the framework sets clear, more rigorous criteria and independent auditing that grantees would know before awards.
▶ Watch at 45:23Read what they said
That, that's right, Mr. Chair. And if I might, it not only will set up the framework for analysis, uh, after the, after the program's in place to report back, does it do what, what did the outcome, did it produce the outcome that it said it was gonna produce, but it also set up the framework so that the grantees or the individuals speaking the grant will know, they'll know, all right, this is the stringent kind of, uh, criteria of which I'm gonna be judged on. They'll know going in, um, what that is. And then that framework will be applied and then we can assess as to whether or not we want to continue the grants. It's …
S.B. 324 Outcome-based Investment Grant Pilot Framework · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Began the sponsor summation.
▶ Watch at 50:02Read what they said
Uh, uh, I would just, I would just say, Um, hold on just a second.
S.B. 324 Outcome-based Investment Grant Pilot Framework · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Explained the two 4.5 million dollar appropriations and the grant to up to two LEAs modeled on Houston Independent School District strategies.
▶ Watch at 50:37Read what they said
4.5 million to Utah State Board of Education, 4.5 million to the Utah Board of Higher Education For, For the Utah State Board of Education administered two, a grant for up to two LEAs to implement evidence-based strategies modeled under the strategies that the Houston Independent School District implemented beginning 2023. Number one, it holds teachers and principals accountable for improving student outcomes. Number two, higher, higher and retain high quality educators and school leaders through enhanced compensation coaching, extending uh, extending planning instructional supports to targeted professional
S.B. 324 Outcome-based Investment Grant Pilot Framework · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Said the two grants would go through the more rigorous pilot framework instead of the standard grant process.
▶ Watch at 51:20Read what they said
Look at what, what happened, what the results were going forward making. It's, it's implementing what they did in 2023. And then this, this framework that I've created, these grants will go through this framework instead of our standard framework. So what I've created is a framework that is a little more rigorous, not a little bit, it's a lot more rigorous than our standard framework. So these two grants could have just gone through our normal process and would have, but instead of going through that normal process, they're gonna go through this pilot program, which is far more rigorous than anything else we have.
H.B. 205 Substance Use Intervention Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks how funding for community treatment programs relates to high-offender cases and addiction treatment.
▶ Watch at 1:32:55Read what they said
Um, so I'm assuming, and maybe I shouldn't, but based on some RFA requests, um, or I shouldn't say RA, some requests for funding as it pertains to the CCCs, just explain how that's gonna play into this as it pertains, pertains to the high offender uses and the, and to, uh, you know, as far as treatment on addiction and mental illness. Uh, I think that that's important for the committee to know and make sure I understand. Uh, uh, I, I'm just barely putting two and two together that maybe that these tie together. And if you could explain that. Yes,
H.B. 205 Substance Use Intervention Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Confirms the point he is clarifying about expanding the programs.
▶ Watch at 1:35:22Read what they said
Yes, sir. That's what I want to clarify. Is that right? Yes, sir. Sorry about that. Okay, fair enough.
H.B. 205 Substance Use Intervention Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks whether the approach is aggressive and whether the system has the capacity to carry it out.
▶ Watch at 1:35:38Read what they said
'cause this is, this is, this is pretty aggressive, right? Yes, Sir. Yeah. And I, I like it, but it, it's aggressive. And does the system have the capacity to do it? That's the question.
H.B. 205 Substance Use Intervention Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks whether the courts have the capacity to process cases under the bill and cites a concern raised by the administrative office of the courts.
▶ Watch at 1:36:07Read what they said
So one last question. Um, you know, just of course, traditionally handle that lower level offenses. Do they do, do, do the courts themselves? I'm thinking, I'm thinking the end. Do the courts themselves have the capacity to be able to, if we, if we go to this route, which I, I, I'm going to vote for it. Do we, do we have the capacity to process it? So that was The concern from, uh, Mr. Drexel from the administrative office of the courts.
H.B. 205 Substance Use Intervention Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Moves to favorably recommend the first substitute of HB 205.
▶ Watch at 1:52:49Read what they said
Yeah. Move. We favorably recommend, um, first substitute HB 2 0 5 sub substance use Intervention amendment.
H.B. 423 Hit and Run and DUI Offense Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Says he generally agrees with the bill and asks whether the six-hour self-reporting provision was in earlier code.
▶ Watch at 2:16:06Read what they said
Just, uh, I generally, I um, I'm in line with you. Everything in the bill, especially in the third sub is the six hour self-reporting. Was that part of the earlier code? And forgive me if I have didn't find it myself in
H.B. 423 Hit and Run and DUI Offense Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks where the six-hour timeframe came from and whether there was a methodology behind it, saying it seems reasonable.
▶ Watch at 2:16:45Read what they said
Okay. And that, where did the six hours come from? Is that, I, I don't know. That seems reasonable to Be, but I don't, I dunno. When I did flight training, they said eight hours bottle to throttle. So maybe it's like beyond that they can't, couldn't really sample their BAC, but, um, I It seems reasonable. I just didn't know if there was some sort of methodology there.
H.B. 423 Hit and Run and DUI Offense Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Moves to adopt the third substitute to H.B. 423.
▶ Watch at 2:19:32Read what they said
So there is a third sub, a reminder. Oh yeah. So, uh, motion to or move? Yeah. Motion to move. Third. Substitute to HB 4 23. Alright,
H.B. 423 Hit and Run and DUI Offense Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Moves to favorably recommend the third substitute to H.B. 423.
▶ Watch at 2:19:51Read what they said
Another motion. Motion To favorably recommend third substitute HB 4 23. We motion favorably Recommend the third sub discussion.
H.B. 293 Public Education Student Athlete Protections · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Describes changes made to H.B. 293, including a six-week sport-specific moratorium, removal of the word consecutive, and holiday break coverage, and says the bill puts existing practices into code.
▶ Watch at 48:56Read what they said
Thanks Mr. President. Um, you may have heard you some concerns about this bill. That's probably the bad way to start off a presentation, but I believe all the concerns have been fixed. Most specifically, if you look at lines 44 in the bill, you'll notice that the word consecutive has been redacted. That was part of an amendment that we ran earlier for me to agree to, uh, force watch of this bill earlier. There was, uh, um, in earlier versions, it's almost easier to tell you what was pulled out of it so that you can feel comfortable with it. Um, and then I'll kind of express my thoughts and, and express maybe the floor or the, the …
S.B. 205 Law Enforcement Artificial Intelligence Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Presents HB 117 on organ donation, which would add links to organ donor information on the state tax and hunting and fishing license websites and require the Department of Health to rotate organ donation information on those sites.
▶ Watch at 54:20Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President Pro Timm. The bill is designed to increase number of people who, uh, are, are organ donors. It's simple that requires the bill or it requires in the bill to place a simple link both onto the Utah State Tax website and to the Hunting and Fishing licensing website, which are both heavily trafficked websites. Um, a link to information for being a donor owner, uh, organ donor. In addition to that, it would require Department of Health to set up a system to rotate other health issues on those sites and to pass that information on, uh, organ, organ donating. The whole point is try to get the level of organ donors up. That's the …
S.B. 205 Law Enforcement Artificial Intelligence Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Calls the question and asks for a roll call vote on first substitute HB 117.
▶ Watch at 55:48Read what they said
Call the question of Mr. President Pro. The question is, shall first substitute House Bill one 17 pass roll call vote.
S.B. 139 Notary Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Presents SB 139, which requires notaries to keep a journal starting May 6, 2026, phases in the requirement, exempts law firm and title company employees, requires unexpired ID with alternatives such as a credible witness, and allows remote notaries to reuse signatures on file.
▶ Watch at 1:03:10Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, effective May 6th, 2026, all new, uh, and renewing notaries must maintain a journal. That's what this bill is effectively doing. There's some other details in it, um, but the whole point is to provide evidence of what they've done, uh, on, on, on notaries. Most the standard of practice, most notaries are doing it, but not all are doing it. This will require them to do so. The requirement phases in to avoid disrupting current commissions and to assist the office of the Lieutenant Governor in messaging. Make sure everybody understands that Notary falls under the Office of Lieutenant Governor. Amongst other things, um, employees of law firms and title companies are exempted. And …
S.B. 139 Notary Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Explains that the bill's purpose is to provide a notary journal record, citing client complaints under investigation by the Lieutenant Governor's office where no journal existed.
▶ Watch at 1:05:54Read what they said
That's the purpose of a journal. Both, both. It's really best practice for the individual journal to protect them. Legally. They should be doing, it's crazy that they, they aren't, I'm, I'm just being a bit pedestrian. But, um, the nexus is that, that there's been some circumstances where there's been some, maybe some client complaints, Lieutenant Governor's trying to investigate, but there's no journal to investigate, so.
S.B. 139 Notary Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Responds about a separate bill on digital records and about the questions raised on his bill. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:08:07Read what they said
I, I'm aware of that one. I wonder who Do it Last, last night. I was aware of it at seven o'clock. But yeah, you see All these questions now I understand all your questions On my bill.
S.B. 139 Notary Amendments · House Government Operations Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Notes the bill is a second substitute reflecting input from several individuals and adjustments for online notaries and title companies.
▶ Watch at 1:09:12Read what they said
would you like to speak of the motion? I, I'll just, I'll just say that notice that it is a second sub. We've had several individuals that have, uh, provided input. We've made several adjustments for online notary, for title companies. We've made multiple adjustments and been really thoughtful about it. So, yeah. Thank you.
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · House Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Presents SB 73, which adds a 2% excise tax on transactions for harmful-to-minors content with 90% of revenue going to mental health programs and 10% to age verification enforcement, and requires age gating for sites meeting a 33.3% adult-content threshold.
▶ Watch at 1:03:30Read what they said
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for the opportunity to be able to present. Um, lemme get squared away here. So in order to kind of give you a little bit of background where this bill comes from in 2023, um, Utah passed SB 2 87, which makes online adult websites liable for harms to minors if they do not use age verification to prevent minors from accessing harm for materials. Um, we call that age gating. So if you hear the term age gating, that's what it's about. Um, SB 73 builds on that, um, by, uh, requiring age verification. We already do that, but I'm gonna explain what this is, how this is different, and ensuring companies …
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · House Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Explains that the Division of Consumer Protection would identify qualifying sites, share the list with the Tax Commission, and the 2% tax would apply to transactions of those sites such as monthly subscription fees.
▶ Watch at 1:10:16Read what they said
Yeah, no, let me, let me give, is, is it okay, Mr. Chair, if I please? It's, um, so this is an important question. 'cause this, this took a lot to kind of work through with the Department of Consumer Protection and with the tax commission, how we was going to establish who this 2% tax is, is, is assessed to. Right. That's, is that the exactly genesis of your question. Okay. And, and this is why it was important. I established that the Department of Consumer Protection has the ability, uh, we we're giving incode their ability to, in rule, establish the procedure for them to assess as to whether or not somebody has that 33 and a third. …
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · House Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Says the 33.3% threshold is a common figure already in code and that the Division of Consumer Protection will set the procedure for determining it in rule.
▶ Watch at 1:12:57Read what they said
Yeah. So that, that's, that's okay. Uh, it's, it's the same question that was asked just a moment ago, but I'll, I'll, I'll restate it. 'cause maybe I didn't quite say it clear enough. So I'm not going to establish that. But that, that, that level, that 33 a third is a common kind of, uh, threshold that is in code as it pertains to this type of material. So that isn't just out of whole cloth, that that was so understand that threshold is, has been used, uh, I suppose regularly, um, in, we've established in code or in this bill, the rulemaking authority for the Division of Consumer Protection to establish the procedure. We don't know what that …
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · House Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Defers the question to Katie Haas of the Division of Consumer Protection.
▶ Watch at 1:13:59Read what they said
But, um, I don't know, maybe Katie. So, I mean, if there's, if there's a company, I'm, I'm gonna phone a friend just for a moment, so, okay. I'll let her kind of talk about they've already had some experience in this world, so we're not throwing them into the fire as if that's maybe where you were going Well, of having to go look at this material. I'll let Katie answer. Yeah.
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · House Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Says companies that want to exceed the threshold will do so fully, and that borderline cases may need a chosen cutoff point.
▶ Watch at 1:14:20Read what they said
So I guess my thought is if you're a company, say you, you say, I had a company that had more than this. I thought, oh, I'll pare it back just enough to get me under that 33 and a third and kind of avoid Getting captured. I'm, I'm gonna answer my thought on that, then I'll let you, it's your bill. Go for it. Yeah. Yeah. Again, I'll let you kind of talk about the other, if that's okay with you, Mr. Chair, please. Um, listen, the folks that want to do that are doing this, they're gonna do it fully and completely. They're not gonna be fiddling around whether they're not at 33 and a third or not. …
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · House Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Explains that minors are not penalized for accessing such content, but companies are prohibited from allowing minors access, which is why age gating is required.
▶ Watch at 1:18:41Read what they said
We, we age gate. So somebody that's under the adult age of 18. It would be, it's not the, it's not illegal for the child to access. It's illegal for the, the company to allow the child to have access. Okay. Okay.
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · House Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Addresses possible constitutional concerns by noting a Texas age-gating law reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which applied intermediate rather than strict scrutiny to youth protection, and says this is part of the basis for the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:19:43Read what they said
There, there may be some concern that you might have. Um, on constitutional issues, I'm just gonna point out the same year that we passed our age gating law, there was a law that was passed in Texas. That law got challenged all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court made a decision that they would view it from an intermediate lens versus strict scrutiny as it pertains to the protection of youth. That it was a, that was a game changer, I suppose. Um, it's the first time if, in my knowledge, that they've ever made a decision to view such restraints from an intermediate, uh, view. And, and that's part of the basis for this bill, …
H.B. 277 Traditional Healing Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Asks whether the Division of Professional Licensing has investigated or disciplined traditional or indigenous healers.
▶ Watch at 1:55:23Read what they said
Um, so I, I guess I'm trying to figure out where this is, uh, exactly coming from. Has Dopel been investigating? Has there been a discipline issue or, or has any tribal or indigenous healers been under investigation?
H.B. 277 Traditional Healing Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Asks why the bill is needed if there have been no issues, and says it may cause more problems than it solves.
▶ Watch at 1:56:12Read what they said
So I guess that's, I guess that's why I'm asking that question. If there's been no issue and there there've been able to function with no pushback from the state, are we, I mean, I'm, I don't wanna plant weeds just to pull them. Sure. And, and so I'm, I'm, I I don't, I don't see the necessity of this. In fact, I think that it might cause more problems than it's, than you're solving. But
H.B. 277 Traditional Healing Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Asks again why the bill is necessary and whether the division has received complaints.
▶ Watch at 1:57:17Read what they said
So I guess just maybe a little more clarity as to the question I just asked. I'm trying to figure out why, why this is necessary. Is there, has there been issues, has there been complaints at Dole?
H.B. 301 Drug Recodification · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Moves to favorably recommend HB 301, first substitute.
▶ Watch at 2:01:50Read what they said
It's my privilege and my honor to favorably recommend HB 3 0 1. First substitute. Yeah. First substitute.
H.B. 301 Drug Recodification · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Praises Rep. Gwynn's work on the drug recodification and thanks him.
▶ Watch at 2:01:59Read what they said
And if I could speak to that. Okay. I just, I just, uh, this is a bit a, a bit of a work that the, the Good Representatives spent a lot of his time up here on the hill cleaning up a section of code that needed a lot of cleaning. And this is, this is a, this is tough work to drag through and I appreciate it. And he recognizes that I don't, I appreciate him. I may not have liked committees nor fire trucks for that matter, but that's an inside joke nobody else will get, but him and I. But, but, uh, yeah. Thank you. Thank you.
H.B. 301 Drug Recodification · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Moves to place HB 301, first substitute, on the consent calendar.
▶ Watch at 2:02:55Read what they said
I would, I would move that we pay place HB 3 0 1 for substitute drug reification on the consent calendar.
H.B. 105 Child Welfare Revisions · Senate floor debate (day 36) · Feb 25, 2026
Begins describing H.B. 117 on Oregon donation amendments, saying the bill is meant to help with the issue.
▶ Watch at 18:56Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President. HB uh, one 17 Oregon Donation Talk. Uh, uh, bill is, is, uh, trying to help
H.B. 117 Organ Donation Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 36) · Feb 25, 2026
Presents H.B. 117 as an information-focused bill to raise organ donor registration by adding a simple sign-up link to the state tax and hunting and fishing license websites and requiring hospitals to provide donor information before discharge.
▶ Watch at 18:59Read what they said
Uh, uh, bill is, is, uh, trying to help with, um, organ donations basically. And, and it's more of an information, provide information than it is any kind of, uh, directive. Only 55% of Utahans are registered or organ donors and I, I believe, and so does the sponsor that we can do better. And about 80 Utahans die every year while waiting for an organ donation. Over 950 people waited for donations. Often these wait times are years long. Approximately 300 people die yearly under circumstances where they could have donated lifesaving organs. The bill is designed to increase the number of people who are registered as organ donors. The bill requires placement of simple, of a simple link …
S.B. 74 Motor Vehicle Civil Action Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 36) · Feb 25, 2026
Presents SB 74, which sets requirements for policy limit demands sent to insurers in motor vehicle cases, including required information, written notice, a 45-day wait, and insurer disclosures about defense and indemnification, and says it does not expand coverage or eliminate bad faith remedies.
▶ Watch at 1:36:26Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President. In motor vehicle cases we sometimes see time limit policy demands sent to insurance carriers. These demands can create high pressure situations both for the insurer and for everyday Utah drivers who may not even know what's happening in those cases, it does three things. I'll simplify. It establishes that if someone makes the policy limit demand, the demand should include reasonable sufficient information to evaluate the claim, medical records, uh, description of the injuries, so on and so forth. Second, if the insurer declines the limits and the claimant chooses to contact the unrepresented insured directly instead of through the insurance company, it must provide clear written notice, explain the claim in plain language and …
H.B. 48 Criminal and Juvenile Justice Changes · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Asked how many individuals would be affected each year by the provision for 17-year-olds who turn 18 before sentencing.
▶ Watch at 1:02:11Read what they said
Um, how many individuals would be impacted a year, let's say, uh, just pertaining to the 17-year-old. So they're a juvenile, they commit the crime, and then they turn 18 as the trial progresses. And now we're in a circumstance where they could, the judge could decide whether or not they're gonna be tried as an adult or
H.B. 48 Criminal and Juvenile Justice Changes · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Asked for clarification about a plural reference in public comment.
▶ Watch at 1:02:40Read what they said
Yeah. Oh, okay. Sorry. Yeah, there was a comment in the public comment that that used a plural, and so I thought maybe needed clarification.
H.B. 48 Criminal and Juvenile Justice Changes · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Asked whether the same problems could arise with a 16-year-old.
▶ Watch at 1:03:40Read what they said
So, could the same problems be with a 16-year-old? Couldn't they have the same issues
H.B. 48 Criminal and Juvenile Justice Changes · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Asked how many individuals would be affected in a year, suggesting a small number.
▶ Watch at 1:04:28Read what they said
How, how, how many individuals would be, let's say, in a year, this has to be a fairly small number. One, two.
S.B. 304 Protective Order Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Said he reviewed both versions, had concerns about the original bill's language, and is more comfortable with the first substitute, so he will vote for it.
▶ Watch at 1:40:44Read what they said
I wanna speak to that motion. I have thoroughly reviewed both bills. Um, I really had some concerns about, um, the first bill, the original bill. Not, I don't, I don't have any concerns about Senator Stratton's motivations 'cause I know that he really wants to help. And, um, but I, I had some concerns about the language and so I want to compliment him. Um, I, I am very much more comfortable with the first sub, so I, I'll be voting in favor of that.
S.B. 304 Protective Order Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Moved to favorably recommend the first substitute of SB 304 to the Senate floor.
▶ Watch at 1:59:08Read what they said
Yeah. I, I apologize. My computer. 3 0 4. 3 0 4, uh, I move that we favorly recommend it's first substitute 3 0 4, right?
H.B. 306 Reinvestment Fee Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Asked about the carve-out for larger master plan developments and how the fee is set differently for those not carved out.
▶ Watch at 41:20Read what they said
Yes, Senator Musselman. Yeah, so I guess I, I clearly see what you're, you're doing here. Um, but clearly there's a carve out for larger master plan developments. And I, I think I understand you're, you're suggesting that those larger master plan committees have more, uh, amenities, thus they get to continue. Um, let's see. Tell me again what you're adjusting for the carve out and what you're adjusting for those that aren't carved out.
H.B. 306 Reinvestment Fee Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Asked what the cap is for the carved-out HOAs and who guided where the line was drawn.
▶ Watch at 42:44Read what they said
Okay. Yeah, I, I apologize, Mr. I just to, we got, I gotta get to kind of what I'm thinking. I, I recognize what you're doing, but, um, so what's the cap on those that are carved out then? So, 0.5. So it just remains at 0.5 and That it's always been 0.5, Right? Yeah. So in the early two thousands we capped it at 0.5. And, and Then where did you get kind where to carve, carve out where to make the, I guess the, I'm assuming the ombudsman kind of guided you on where to draw the line.
H.B. 306 Reinvestment Fee Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Moved to adopt House Amendment #1 to H.B. 306 substitute.
▶ Watch at 45:31Read what they said
Uh, I move house amendment nu number one to HP 3 0 6 for sub.
H.B. 306 Reinvestment Fee Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Said he had nothing to add and waived further comment on the amendment.
▶ Watch at 45:43Read what they said
Yes. But is there anything you want to add to that? Yeah, No, I'll wa Okay.
H.B. 306 Reinvestment Fee Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Moved to favorably recommend H.B. 306 first substitute as amended.
▶ Watch at 46:03Read what they said
Five to zero. Mr. Chair, I'd like to favorably recommend HB 3 0 6. First substitute as amended.
H.B. 255 Health Care Sharing Ministry Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Says the current wording reads as harsh and suggests softer language, such as stating that payment is not guaranteed; describes his experience with these plans and asks whether the sentence lands too harsh.
▶ Watch at 54:11Read what they said
Well, yeah, if I could just ask for the sponsor. I, uh, in reading the text, it does seem to land a bit harsh. Um, and I'm wondering if you're open to amendment. I I just was just playing with words before the witness, um, even testified. And I thought, because it seems almost, almost like you're pushing back against this industry and that, uh, to, to, to paint a negative stance. And I think something a little softer like this is not insurance and payment of medical commences is not guaranteed. Something along those lines might land a little less, a little more appropriate and more and less abrupt in, in the face of, of what I use this, …
H.B. 255 Health Care Sharing Ministry Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Says he would vote no unless the bill is amended, and asks to move on to the next agenda item while amendments are worked on.
▶ Watch at 59:07Read what they said
Well, I'll, I'll just chair, I'll look for you for some advice here. Right here. I'm a no right now I'm a no un unless we can look to amend. So I, I would, I would be interested in moving on the next side of agenda to see if we can work on it. Otherwise, I'd be a No. Okay.
H.B. 374 Speech, Language, and Hearing Occupations Licensing Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Musselman asked whether there are any issues for people already licensed who are transitioning to the new process, and whether they are addressed in the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:08:52Read what they said
Uh, I had actually turned on the light to make the motion, but you, you beat me, but, uh, just out of a, just outta sake of clarity on, on, it's, if, if you'll allow me chair please. There's, there's no, is there any issues with those that are already being licensed in transitioning from the, the new process? That's all, that's all considered in your bill or is that even impacted?
H.B. 41 Construction and Fire Codes Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Asks for clarification on how the bill changes the sprinkler requirement for residential structures.
▶ Watch at 1:12:59Read what they said
Yeah, can you just clarify again what you, you had mentioned about removal of the sprinkler requirement. Just clarify that for me real quick.
H.B. 41 Construction and Fire Codes Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Confirms that the bill keeps the sprinkler provisions consistent so the codes do not conflict.
▶ Watch at 1:13:27Read what they said
Okay. So you're just making sure that it doesn't push, push up against each other. Mm-hmm. I suppose. Mm-hmm. Okay. Alright. Thank you.
H.B. 414 Dental Hygienist Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Moved to place HB 414 on the Consent Calendar, noting it has zero fiscal notes.
▶ Watch at 1:18:57Read what they said
Chair. Um, I'd move that we put HB four 14 on consent. Motion is to put the, uh, the bill on consent. It has a zero fiscal notes that would qualify.
H.B. 380 Hospital Workplace Violence Reporting Requirements · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Asked what the 2032 extension changes and what the enhancement is.
▶ Watch at 1:21:42Read what they said
Yeah. What was, so it goes to 2032, that's the extension? Yes. Yeah. And, uh, what's the enhancement from what to what?
H.B. 380 Hospital Workplace Violence Reporting Requirements · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Read the bill's enhancement language and asked whether the penalty goes from a misdemeanor to a felony.
▶ Watch at 1:22:24Read what they said
In One section it talks about assault or threat of violence against healthcare provider, emergency medical service worker or health facility, employee owner or contractor penalty. Well, mine won't link, but, Oh, sorry. It's, let's see, I'm looking for the exact enhancement. Okay, so let me read this. Sorry. I wish I had a, a violation of subsection two is a Class A misdemeanor. Now withstanding subsection three A, a violation of subsection two is a third degree felony if the actor cause a substantial bodily injury and acts intentionally or knowingly, that's the current enhancement that was put in place previous to this. So it goes from a a to a felony, or did I misunderstand that?
H.B. 380 Hospital Workplace Violence Reporting Requirements · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Said he is comfortable with the enhancement and will review the existing section.
▶ Watch at 1:24:15Read what they said
I, Mr. Chair, I think I'm, I'm okay with it, but if I'll, I'll just talk with good spots. We'll just kinda look at the old section and make sure it was appropriate. It's a, it's, yeah, it looks like it stacks it a a bit, but yeah, we'll look at it.
H.B. 380 Hospital Workplace Violence Reporting Requirements · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Said he will support the bill but questioned whether the enhancement is deterring violence, noting that if it is not, there may be a larger problem.
▶ Watch at 1:25:45Read what they said
I'm, I'm still gonna support it, but the whole idea of these is to deter. And if we're saying that it's not deterring it, then there may be a functional problem that goes beyond this. So, um, I'm just saying, I'm, I'm not, we, we don't need to, we don't need to go down a long road on it. But Juab I'm just saying if the facts are showing that it isn't deterring it, then there's another problem On enhancements is what you're talking About. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's the point of it, right? I mean, that's the entire point.
H.B. 380 Hospital Workplace Violence Reporting Requirements · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Said he supports the data collection and would wait for the data before deciding whether to extend the enhancement.
▶ Watch at 1:27:03Read what they said
I'm all, I'm absolutely all for that until we get some of the data to see. Do we need to extend it? Maybe we don't.
H.B. 380 Hospital Workplace Violence Reporting Requirements · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Moved to favorably recommend HB 380.
▶ Watch at 1:30:50Read what they said
Not to adjourn, but do motion to favorably recommend HB three 80? Motion to favorably recommend HB three 80.
S.B. 74 Motor Vehicle Civil Action Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Explains that the third substitute clarifies procedures for policy limit demand letters and insurer correspondence and disclosure, with language negotiated with trial attorneys and insurers.
▶ Watch at 1:19:38Read what they said
Yeah. Thanks Mr. President. The substitute clarifies procedural requirements around policy limit demand letters, which is the same thing that the sub two did in addition to correspondence with unrepresented insurers and ensure disclosure obligations. This is just done in negotiations with trial attorneys and with the insurance companies in language that they could agree to. Um, it does effectively the same thing, but agree more agreed upon language.
S.B. 74 Motor Vehicle Civil Action Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Says the bill requires policy limit demands to include sufficient information and allow at least 30 days to respond, requires a 45-day written notice before suit when an unrepresented insured is contacted directly, and requires insurers to disclose whether they will defend or indemnify and the right to independent counsel.
▶ Watch at 1:20:32Read what they said
Um, I actually said in there that it does affect the same thing. It, it does effectively the same thing in, in total scope, but it, it's far more directed in its approach. Um, in motor vehicle cases, when some, uh, when we sometimes see time limit policy, uh, demands sent to the insurance companies, these demands, uh, can create high pressure situations. If you've ever been sued, you'd know both from insurers and from everyday Utah. Drivers who may not even know what's happening behind the scenes, the bill does three things. First, it establishes that if someone makes a policy, uh, limit demand, the demand should include reasonable, sufficient, sufficient information to evaluate the claim, like medical records, …
S.B. 125 Theft Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Presented SB 125, which would make theft of a low-value public transportation fare a misdemeanor rather than a felony when the enhancement applies, and said the enhancement was not intended for small fare violations.
▶ Watch at 1:33:41Read what they said
I am on then. Thanks Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to be able to present. I'll be, um, hopefully brief and brilliant. I'll leave the latter for your judgment. Um, but I will be brief. Um, SB 1 25, um, it came to my attention that there's, uh, a segment of our population that can't afford necessarily private transportation. So they use public transportation and that segments sometimes can be in circumstances where they have, um, negative impacts on their criminal record in the background. Um, and they take public transportation and on occasion they may not not pay for that ride. Should they be punished for that? Yep, they should. The question is, is under this particular section of …
S.B. 125 Theft Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Thanked the committee for the opportunity to present and waived summation.
▶ Watch at 1:39:17Read what they said
Uh, I just, thanks for the opportunity to present. I'll waive summation. Okay. I'll waive. Yeah. Okay.
S.B. 223 Sales and Use Tax Exemptions Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Explains S.B. 139, Notary Amendments, which would require notaries to maintain a journal, a practice most notaries already follow.
▶ Watch at 31:19Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President Proti. Um, SB 1 39 Notary Amendments, um, basically requires what is already a standard of practice and that is, uh, for notaries to, uh, maintain a journal. Um, uh, most notaries already do this,
S.B. 139 Notary Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Presents S.B. 139, saying it codifies current notary practice, exempts title and law firms from keeping a journal, requires acceptable unexpired IDs, and makes mostly cleanup changes to language on electronic notaries and notary associations.
▶ Watch at 31:33Read what they said
Um, uh, most notaries already do this, but this is putting into code what is done in practice and, and for the few that don't, it, it's better for them. It's better for the individuals that are normalizing for that they do, um, keep the journals. It does make an exception for title companies and for law firms, title, agency, title companies one and the same. Um, that they don't necessarily have to keep a journal. I think it's still good practice, but they don't have to encode. The reason for that is simply that they have enough paperwork that accompanies, um, any part of, of, of, um, notarizing documents that would essentially Trump or be, um, so far beyond …
S.B. 139 Notary Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Moves that the bill be read a third time and put to a vote. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 33:10Read what they said
I move that SB 1 39 notary amendments be read for a third time And the question is, shall second substitute Senate bill 1 39 pass.
S.J.R. 11 Joint Resolution Recognizing National Blood Donor Month · Senate floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Begins remarks on S.B. 73, Online Age Verification Amendments, by referring to a previous statement he made.
▶ Watch at 46:27Read what they said
Senator Musselman, Mr. President Proti. Um, as I had stated in previous address, uh, um,
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Presents S.B. 73, which would impose an excise tax on transactions for content harmful to minors, require age verification for adult websites, and appropriate funds for enforcement through the Division of Consumer Protection.
▶ Watch at 46:36Read what they said
Utah asked SB 2 87 making no adults websites liable for harms to minors, um, the do not use age verification and, um, that was passed and sponsored by it at the Good Senator from Davis County that sit behind me and my gratitude to him. And I think Utah was a gratitude to him as well. But this bill s to be 73 builds on that foundation. Um, it establishes a 2% exercise tax, like a sales tax on transactions for content harmful to minors. Um, use the new tax revenues as follows. Set 90% of will go into mental health, early prevention treatment, public education and research related to the harms of adult content to minors and 10% …
S.B. 241 Early Literacy · Senate floor debate (day 34) · Feb 23, 2026
Asks how many third graders would be held back under the bill and what cohort that would affect.
▶ Watch at 1:52:08Read what they said
Yes. The sponsors agreed to yield the questions First. I'm gonna preface this with an apology if you've already covered this material, I apologize, but I, I've, uh, just a question on, do you have an idea of the cohort of, I suppose we have an idea of the benchmark where third graders are currently, what cohort of third graders will be held back?
S.B. 259 Evidence Declaration Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 20, 2026
Asks whether failing to sign the statement would be a misdemeanor when the evidence itself was gathered legally.
▶ Watch at 1:06:54Read what they said
And Mr. Bullock, I'm, I'm not an attorney. I'm more Joe the plumber, um, on the, on the committee, both practically Joe, the real estate broker And, and symbolically. So when the attorneys pontificate on theory, I asked the more pedestrian questions of, of, uh, maybe process. Um, so just in, in a practical sense, uh, all, all, all the materials were gathered legally, but in the process of, of paperwork processing somebody forgets to sign, is, is the act of signing the misdemeanor or not signing the misdemeanor or the act of what, what happens at that point? Everything's gathered legally, they simply don't sign it. Now they guilty of a misdemeanor class a misdemeanor, $2,500. Fine. You're in …
S.B. 262 Law Enforcement Usage of Unmarked Vehicles · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 20, 2026
Asked how the bill would affect rural sheriff's offices that use an unmarked vehicle for both investigations and traffic stops.
▶ Watch at 1:51:39Read what they said
Um, you've got, uh, uh, agencies that probably can afford marked vehicles and then have unmarked vehicles for purposes that are investigatory in nature. But then there's agencies, let's say in more removed rural places where let's say a sheriff's office has a couple of marked vehicles and one unmarked vehicle, um, for purposes of investigation, but still use that for traffic stops. Now we're in a circumstance where we're gonna have to make certain, either that, that sheriff, let's say, and I'm using a specific example, that sheriff would either, either have to no longer have the access to an unmarked vehicle, or just not pull anybody over if he happens to be out in his regular duties. That …
S.B. 262 Law Enforcement Usage of Unmarked Vehicles · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 20, 2026
Asked for the location of a spot where a trooper sits north of Enoch.
▶ Watch at 2:00:11Read what they said
Joel, the plumber. What was that? What was that Spot again? What, where was the tree? So, can you just send me a pin?
S.B. 139 Notary Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Explains that the second substitute clarifies that vendors may use signatures on file for journals and makes some general technical changes.
▶ Watch at 32:24Read what they said
Uh, clarifies that vendors may use signatures on a file for journals. This is for remote notaries. It's the whole bill is about, uh, making some guidelines and, and the journals for notaries. But remote notaries, uh, wanted to make some changes and they're, they're not substantive in policy. They're mostly, um, just clarification, but, uh, for the detail, um, clarifies that vendors may use signatures on file for journals rather than obtaining new physical signatures aligning with existing remote online notary process. And then, uh, include some general technical clarifications. That's it.
S.B. 139 Notary Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Presents the bill as updating notary journal requirements, exempting law firm and title company employees from certain journal duties, and requiring unexpired IDs with alternatives such as a credible witness.
▶ Watch at 33:27Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. President. Um, this is, uh, some clarifications and some guidelines and a bit of shift in policy as it pertains to notaries more specifically around their journals. Um, uh, renewing notaries must maintain a journal to provide evidence and notarization the requirement phrases or phases in to avoid disrupting current commission, uh, commissions and to assist in the office of Lieutenant go that are with messaging employees, employees of law firms and of title agencies or title companies are exempt from the work related tasks that, as it pertains to the journals, mostly centered around the fact that they have so much, um, paperwork that's involved in that process. Um, so the, the journaling is a bit …
S.B. 139 Notary Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Responds that the bill allows a credible witness to attest to identity when someone has no valid ID, such as a resident of a retirement center.
▶ Watch at 36:12Read what they said
Thanks. Thanks for the question, Mr. President. Yeah, the, the, the bill does deal with that scenario in anticipation of it. Um, although we are talking about a fairly small segment of the population that would evolve, it's a very real one and it's a very real scenario where that possibly could be of issue. Um, the overall idea of not having an expired id, I think probably falls on most people's, um, ears receptively of that. So we can avoid some fraudulent, potential fraudulent activity as a, as round IDs, but there's certainly that circumstance, especially in a retirement center or even just with an elderly folks, uh, that may be no longer, um, driving and having an active …
S.B. 139 Notary Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Explains that the bill carves out a narrow exception allowing identity to be validated with an expired ID plus attestation from a credible witness.
▶ Watch at 38:01Read what they said
I, I think this is a carve out for, uh, for this specific, anticipating the specific scenario that the, the good Senator just pointed out, Mr. President. So it's in order to maintain the idea or the, the, uh, security of an actual ID that is unexpired, which is pretty universally accepted as as, uh, a proper form of id. There is a scenario that was spelled out here that is carved out in the bill for the exception to that. Um, what we don't want is just in regular societal intermixing in with title companies or attorneys or banks, somebody using an expired id. Um, so that's what it's trying to prevent. But there is the rare circumstance where …
S.B. 139 Notary Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Gives closing remarks and calls for the question on the bill.
▶ Watch at 39:13Read what they said
I will waive some and, and, and, uh, call the question. Thank you Mr. President.
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Explains that the third substitute removes lines 13 through 76 on Division of Consumer Protection rulemaking so the bill aligns with a related bill on app store rules.
▶ Watch at 1:04:32Read what they said
Yeah. Um, we are removing lines 13 through 76 from the bill, which defines the division of Consumer Protection rulemaking. Um, in the app store in, there's another bill that's on the other side that's in the app store. They're removing that portion. It was, this portion we're removing was to align it with that bill, but they're removing it from that bill. So we're removing it from this bill. It's simply redacting that it's not substantive to the actual bill overall bill that, um, what we're trying to do in this bill. So it's just a removal because we want to be in line with that other bill. Thank you for that explanation.
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Presents SB 73, which requires age verification for websites with content harmful to minors, imposes a 2% excise tax on such transactions with revenue directed to mental health programs and enforcement, and sets penalties and a $4 million appropriation for the Division of Consumer Protection.
▶ Watch at 1:05:32Read what they said
Thanks Mr. President. Um, there's a fair amount of detail in this bill and I wanna be, make sure that I cover all, all the aspects of it. Um, so I'll, I'll be a few moments here, but in 2023, Utah passed SB 2 87 making adult websites liable for harms, uh, to minors if they did not use age verification to prevent minors from accessing harmful material. We have a good, a good senator behind me to thank for that. Um, SB 73 builds on that bill requiring age verification and ensuring companies that produce material harmful to minors help fund enforcement compliance for mental health support for teens as well. That's the overview. Here's the details. There is …
H.B. 268 Towing Notice and Ownership Rights Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Presents H.B. 268, saying towing companies must send vehicle owners a notice and cannot collect storage fees if they do not.
▶ Watch at 1:17:01Read what they said
Senator Musselman, Mr. President, the, the Bill's a simple notification bill. Uh, when a towing company tows a vehicle, they're required to give a notification to the owner of the vehicle. Um, and there's certain cases where that notification isn't given and it'd show up to get your vehicle after days and days and realizing is gone and, and you have quite the storage, storage bill. This doesn't require additional, um, addresses anything. It's the same as it was before. You simply go to the, send the notification to what's last known address with the DMV. Um, it just makes it so that when you, when you go and they have not sent the notification, then they cannot collect those …
S.B. 111 Veterinary Post-employment Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Sen. Musselman says he has concerns about singling out one profession and prefers a more comprehensive approach to non-compete rules.
▶ Watch at 2:34:56Read what they said
Um, yeah, I actually was, uh, a yes voting committee and moved it forward and I, I, I still feel that it was the right decision, but in, in thinking through it and, and reading through the bill and in contemplation with other bills that are coming, I, I think, I'm afraid that we are in a circumstance where we are picking winners and lurs. I like the idea. I don't like non-competes. I don't like them. And I would agree with some of my other seatmates as it pertains to this, but this is for certain, picking a very specific industry and there's plenty of other industries or professions that were, would fit in this category, dentists and so …
H.B. 378 Fugitive Dust Mitigation Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Asks why the fee provisions are placed in statute rather than in administrative rule.
▶ Watch at 59:08Read what they said
So just real quick so I can understand. Um, first, you've, you've put fees in code, which isn't, it always makes me a little nervous, so I see it in code. Don't be nervous. You could've done it in code, you could have done it in rule. Why, why do it in code versus just rule?
H.B. 378 Fugitive Dust Mitigation Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Asks how the fees offset the cost to government and what the fees will be spent on.
▶ Watch at 59:37Read what they said
Correct. Secondly, um, just so I'm clear, how when we do fees up here, up here, uh, we always want it to offset the specific cost that it's gonna cost the government. And I'm assuming that that's gonna be established rule. So what exactly is the fees? What if collected? What is it being spent on and for?
H.B. 378 Fugitive Dust Mitigation Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Confirms the caps and asks whether the fees will be set in rule.
▶ Watch at 1:00:17Read what they said
Okay. The caps are correct. So they're just gonna make and rule these fees, correct?
H.B. 378 Fugitive Dust Mitigation Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Says the fee would expire and could be adjusted in rule going forward.
▶ Watch at 1:01:21Read what they said
I get that. So it's expiring, then you could, you could ultimately adjust in rule that fee going forward.
H.B. 378 Fugitive Dust Mitigation Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Says the bill has collaboration and full support, and moves to place H.B. 378, second substitute, on the Consent Calendar.
▶ Watch at 1:03:22Read what they said
Gi, given the, the, the good representative has, has been collaborative in the work and far as I can tell, both industry and, and no opposition. No opposition whatsoever, and in fact, full support. I'd like to move to put this on consent.
H.B. 243 Gambling Revisions · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Moves to favorably recommend HB 243 and asks to speak to the motion.
▶ Watch at 1:10:01Read what they said
I'd like, uh, make a motion that we favorably recommend HB 2 43 gambling revisions. Speak to that if I could.
H.B. 243 Gambling Revisions · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Says proposition-style bets can create incentives to affect game outcomes, which he believes taints sports betting, and states support for the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:10:10Read what they said
One of the pro I think people look at, uh, our state and even look at bills like this, and they think, they think in terms of, you know, we just don't like gambling, but there's a side effect that's taken place, right? We've seen it happen. We've played out in the news with, with, uh, especially these, these kind of peripheral bets where I can just lay off a little bit in my game and only score 28 instead of 30. That's just enough to shave and, and, and for these bets to, uh, you know, go one way or the other. And all of a sudden I've, I've affected the outcome of the game. It taints the whole …
S.B. 298 Programmable Money Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Asked how a federal central bank digital currency declared legal tender would interact with the bill's guardrails.
▶ Watch at 1:23:38Read what they said
Yeah. So, um, this is both you, Senator Stratton and as well as your co-presenter. Um, this is, this is a world that I'm, I'm trying to understand, but as, as far as it, let's just say, um, the, um, Congress decides to make CDB or is it CBDC? Yeah. CDDC, uh, legal tender Central Bank digital currency. Yeah. Central Bank digital currency. If they, let's say they decide that now it is legal tender and we have this law, is there a conflict between their supremacy over currency and what is legal tender and what we would be doing in this bill as far as the guardrails that we'd be putting on it? I guess that's a question for …
S.B. 298 Programmable Money Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Asked whether defining federal digital currency as not legal tender in Utah would limit residents' use of it if Congress made it legal tender.
▶ Watch at 1:27:09Read what they said
I, I, I, Mr. Chair, I, one follow up question, I gotta make sure I understand. So, the guardrails in this, is it not redefining c potential federal digital currency as not legal tender in our state? Is that what we'd be saying? And if so, how would the public be able to use it if the federal government decided Congress decided to make it legal tender? Because I, I, I think I heard you say that the public could still use it, but aren't we defining it as a state as not legal tender? Oh, that's a good point. That's a good point. So I, I think, you know, the, the goal of this legislation is to make sure …
H.B. 193 Transgender Medical Procedures Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Raised concern that PEHP includes many self-governed risk pools for municipalities, counties and universities, and that dictating their coverage may go too far.
▶ Watch at 1:44:12Read what they said
Yeah, you and I have talked earlier and I, I'm, I have some concerns about this version as well. Um, the version, this version, because you, you have PHP, then you have the state employee pool, then you have multiple pools within the PHP world, right? Like everything from municipalities to counties to universities. And each of those universities or, or municipalities are self-governed, as it were. Um, and they are in and of themselves their own risk pools. And as far as, it's one thing to say to the state risk pool, we, uh, you know, as a state, we want this policy, but then we're gonna be reaching down to the rest of those risk pools. And I, …
H.B. 193 Transgender Medical Procedures Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Asked whether sub-pools like universities use private or donated money in their funding, which would mean the state is dictating private dollars.
▶ Watch at 1:47:38Read what they said
If I might, Mr. Chair, please go ahead. This may be even a question for the chair, given some of your knowledge of this, um, as well as the presenter, but in, in, in establishing the rate at a, let's say a, a pool that is a sub pool, I'm gonna call it a sub pool. We, I think we'd, let's say a university or a municipality, let's use a university. Do they, do they use private money as part of that pool funding in any way, shape, or form? Do you know the answer to that? Is it purely from collection of dues, or is there private money that's ever part of that? You understand why I'm going, what …
H.B. 193 Transgender Medical Procedures Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Clarified that the committee was still on the motion to substitute.
▶ Watch at 2:31:23Read what they said
No. I was thinking we were on the sub. No. Just to adopt the sub. We're still on the motion to sub?
H.B. 193 Transgender Medical Procedures Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Said he would vote no because PEHP consists of independently funded risk pools and he is not convinced the Legislature should mandate their benefits.
▶ Watch at 2:34:52Read what they said
I probably will make absolutely no fans in the room, but I'm gonna be a no, I don't believe state DAX dollars should be used for fund elective transition surgeries. But however, PHP is not just state employees. It's a collection of independently funded risk pools included university, cities, counties, and school districts. Those entities are funded funding their own coverage. They're their own actual actuary actuarial pools. I'm not convinced the legislator should mandate their benefits. So again, I'm, I know I'm not making any fans on either side. That's, that's where I'm at, of which I've communicated that to you earlier.
H.B. 37 Used Oil Management Act Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Moves by unanimous consent to take up First Substitute House Bill 82.
▶ Watch at 45:26Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President. Motion encircle First substitute 82. Motion UNC encircle First substitute house bill 82.
H.B. 82 Judgment Information Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Explains that the bill would show only the last four digits of the Social Security number and the month and year of birth instead of the full date, along with full name and address, to distinguish people with similar names, and calls it a privacy bill.
▶ Watch at 45:55Read what they said
the entire social security number could be included. This would mandate only that the last four of the social security as well as on the birth date instead of the exact date we give the month and the year. Now this is in combination of the full name so they can delineate between two individuals that may have similar names and it also includes your full address. So full name last four birth, month and year and address. So it's a privacy bill. That concludes my presentation. Mr. President,
H.B. 268 Towing Notice and Ownership Rights Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Explains that H.B. 268 requires towing companies to give proper legal notice to the vehicle owner or lienholder before charging fees, and that a company that fails to give required notice loses the right to collect storage and impound fees and must return the vehicle.
▶ Watch at 1:13:48Read what they said
Thanks Mr. President Proti, um, uh, HB 2 68, um, strengths as notice requirements before enforcing towing costs. So, um, it makes clear that towing companies must provide proper legal notice to vehicles own vehicles owner or any lien holder before charging fees. If that notice isn't provided as required, the towing company will lose the ability to collect towing storage and impound fees. The notice from the towing company must be posted within two business days. The notice must be submitted to the last known address of, of the party. Um, so it, it doesn't, if the towing company submits a notice like they're supposed to under this bill, there'll be no problem in collecting and they have a …
S.B. 75 Educator Salary Adjustment Eligibility · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Sen. Musselman presented SB 75, which would add registered nurses to the list of positions eligible for the educator salary adjustment.
▶ Watch at 1:31:12Read what they said
Thanks Chair. So, so much for doing that. Um, I do have a seat mate here that will be part of the presentation. Uh, Marie Evans, she'll introduce herself, of course, and, and state who she represents. And as part of that, um, presentation, but the bill's actually very simple. If you look on page two of, of the bill or lines, um, line 41, it adds registered nurse. And what it adds to is the list of eligible. Um, well, I'm gonna read exactly what it is. The, the list of individuals that's eligible for the salary adjustment or auto auto salary adjustment. Um, this list was created some time ago. I can't tell you exactly why the list …
S.B. 75 Educator Salary Adjustment Eligibility · House Education Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Sen. Musselman said the bill targets registered nurses, generally full-time positions, which the fiscal analyst primarily reviewed.
▶ Watch at 1:41:35Read what they said
Mr, Mr. Chair, if I might Yeah, please go ahead. It's one of the reasons we made the adjustment to be, be specific to registered nurses. There are some that may be have different labels. Now that's not, that was done in an early sub. So what you're looking at is registered nurses, which the idea is to target the most, um, that would be full-time. And of course, as I, as I understand it, as the fiscal analyst looked at this, it was looked, they looked at primarily full-time, uh, full-time positions.
S.B. 105 Use of Force Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Asks about the difference between the two versions of the bill and what happens if a justification hearing finds the force was justified.
▶ Watch at 2:24:19Read what they said
So I, I suppose I, I want to understand the justification hearing, and I, I think I do, but I, I, I'm not sure why the sponsor decided to land on, I, I don't know what the differences are between the two versions of the bill, except one does have the justification area and this one doesn't. But, um, in the scenario that they just went over where the charges for the, for the, in this particular case, uh, if the justification hearing was still, let's say, applicable in this bill, and they went through the justification hearing and, and the justif, the result of the justification hearing was that, that it was not justifiable. All things move forward the …
H.B. 250 Utah Retirement Plan Exchange · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Sen. Musselman said he would limit his questions and asked how the platform would decide which plans and providers are eligible.
▶ Watch at 42:11Read what they said
First, I'm gonna limit my questions based on how many presenters we have. How many more presenters have gotten in the room? Mr. Uh, we've got One, one. I'll be quick then since we got another one. Sure. Um, just the, I love this idea. I, I'm just try to settle my nerves on, you know, gatekeeping and kind of being, um, neutral and objective criteria for, for which plans get on the system. I, I suppose you understand what I'm asking. Um, could you just speak to that, either one of the three of you, but representative, this is your ball game. So, yeah,
H.B. 250 Utah Retirement Plan Exchange · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Sen. Musselman asked who would decide which providers could participate on the platform.
▶ Watch at 43:07Read what they said
Oh, I understand that. I'm trying to figure out, so who, who, who gets to decide which plans get to participate in this? Meaning the providers? That's what I'm asking. Oh, Okay. Yeah, go ahead and do that.
H.B. 250 Utah Retirement Plan Exchange · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Sen. Musselman asked the treasurer how guardrails could be set neutrally so the government would not appear to be gatekeeping.
▶ Watch at 43:37Read what they said
Okay. Then I guess my question is to treasurer. So how do you set those guardrails in a way that can be neutral and, and not look like the government's gatekeeping?
H.B. 250 Utah Retirement Plan Exchange · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Sen. Musselman said caution is needed with the guardrails so the free market is not unduly restricted.
▶ Watch at 44:19Read what they said
You mentioned it in your statement, Trevor, that one of the red states, you know, kind of some of the hesitancy because you're, you're putting government in as a kind of a gatekeeper, right? And instead of just allowing the free market, and, and I understand what this is doing though, it's a good idea. I'm, I'm in favor of it, but we have to be really cautious in those guardrails. And, and I don't know, has the other states done this
H.B. 250 Utah Retirement Plan Exchange · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Sen. Musselman listed price, service level, plan size, and plan types as factors for the guardrails.
▶ Watch at 45:06Read what they said
All right. And, and just real quick on that structure, the, the idea that I see behind that would be looking at those guardrails would be price, service and plan size plan set up. So the types of, types of plans that would be available on there. And then of course, price has to be taken into account. And then just, uh, what, what, uh, what type of service level would be provided to the small employers? Okay. Thanks Mr. Chair.
H.B. 250 Utah Retirement Plan Exchange · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Sen. Musselman moved to favorably recommend HB 250 as substituted.
▶ Watch at 45:51Read what they said
I move, we free or recommend rather I move, we recommend HB two 50 for substitute.
S.B. 76 Residential Rental Payment Reporting Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Sen. Musselman asked whether the bill regulates rent reporting that already happens and expressed concern that guardrails on fees, caps, and re-enrollment could limit market growth.
▶ Watch at 1:03:42Read what they said
The bill doesn't expand rent reporting opportunities. It just regulates the actual report rent reporting. Right? It doesn't expand it because you're not requiring it. It's volunteer. It's, but you're putting guardrails on that reporting, right? It's setting up a pathway, I would say. But I hear what you're saying, but I do hear what you're saying that it does it, the, the opportunity and option still remains without it. So, to follow up, Mr. Chair reporting already, already happens. I get that. Not, not, not on a widespread scale, but certainly the free market allowed for rent reporting and that rent reporting right now is growing, I think naturally. And my concern is by putting guardrails on it, even …
H.B. 268 Towing Notice and Ownership Rights Modifications · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Says he had the same reservations about notification as Sen. Ipson, and that under the bill a towing company only needs to show proof it sent the letter in order to collect.
▶ Watch at 1:26:00Read what they said
Yeah, I'll only just say that I had the same reservations to Senator Ipson, even though I'm the floor sponsor about that notification. And, and you know, this just puts a, in a circumstance where the, the towing company just needs to show proof that they sent the letter. If they sent it, then they can collect if they didn't, however, it changes things.
H.B. 404 Sex-Designated Housing Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Asked what the bill would do for a landlord facing federal housing rules, and the sponsor responded that the bill does not violate federal law and that it addresses a state-law issue.
▶ Watch at 1:48:35Read what they said
for this? For test Fire? It's not necessarily for, for the sponsor. Just as it relates to that question. Mr. Chair, if I could Yes, go ahead. Is that okay? Um, so without this bill, those that are in the private sector could, at their own, uh, kind of decision making process to go ahead and implement this, this, and their, their risk would be whatever that would be possibly pushing back against what was just pointed out by the witness that there's a federal, you know, prohibition or guidelines on this. But my question is, what, what, what does this do? What would, if we pass this bill, what does it do for that individual in that circumstance? Meaning …
H.B. 356 Drug Distribution Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Musselman begins presenting Second Substitute House Bill 24, which the Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Interim Committee recommended.
▶ Watch at 58:40Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President Proin. Um, this bill is recommended by the Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Interim Committee.
H.B. 24 Criminal Penalty Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Moves that second substitute HB 24 be read a third time and calls for a roll call vote.
▶ Watch at 1:00:35Read what they said
Uh, I say I I'd move that, uh, second substitute to HB 24 criminal penalty minutes. Be read for the third time. The question is, shall second substitute house bill 24? Be read a third time roll call vote.
S.B. 125 Theft Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Presents S.B. 125, which would reduce a repeat-offender theft charge from a felony to a Class A misdemeanor for a lesser theft such as an $8 UTA fare theft, while keeping it a misdemeanor.
▶ Watch at 1:18:31Read what they said
This is the, this is the bill just to remind, um, Mr. Speaker or Mr. President Proti rather that, um, I'd presented earlier and, and, and just kind give some background for an individual that a certain body of the individuals that, uh, may reside in along the Wasatch front that may, um, steal a ride on UTA, um, there's a circumstance where there's a section of code trying to deal with, uh, repeat offenders or the, or offenders that have had felony level thefts or felonies on the records where they commit some other equivalent crime to re help try to prevent that kind of repetitive theft to, uh, kind of increase the penalty on that repeat, even if …
H.B. 82 Judgment Information Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Presents HB 82, which narrows the personal identifying information required for a valid judgment lien on real property against an individual debtor, such as the last four digits of the Social Security number and only the month and year of birth.
▶ Watch at 1:40:39Read what they said
Thanks Mr. President. Um, this Bill narrows the personal identifying information required to create a valid judgment lien against real property when the debtor is an individual. Right now you're required to give your full social security number and your full date of birth along with your full name and driver's license home address. This bill simply does what we've already been doing in many sections of, of government and that is when a social security is number is required. You only have to give your last four and when your birth date is required, you don't have to give the exact date, just the month and the year. So you have the full identify identifying information of the full …
H.B. 222 Limitation of Actions Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Asked whether the bill applies only to greenhouse gases and whether civil actions over other chemical exposures would remain available even when a company follows its permits.
▶ Watch at 38:13Read what they said
Oh, go ahead, Senator Musselman. Um, thank You. Maybe too, I think you made it fair to clear, but I just want to ha be asked the question anyway and make sure that I understand it. So, this is pertains to only greenhouse gases. So if, if a company is in, within the following regulation, they've out all the permits, they're doing everything right, you, you couldn't bring civil action based on greenhouse gas emissions, but if there were other chemical exposures, let's say that that occurred, that that wouldn't, that wouldn't exclude civil action as it pertained to maybe some other chemical exposure, even if they were within following regulations and and so forth. Is that fair?
H.B. 222 Limitation of Actions Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Moved to recommend the first substitute of H.B. 222 favorably.
▶ Watch at 43:27Read what they said
Mr. Chair, I move to, uh, that we recommend HB 2 22. First substitute. First substitute HB 2 22.
S.B. 74 Motor Vehicle Civil Action Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Introduces SB 74 and says he will speak specifically to the second substitute.
▶ Watch at 57:37Read what they said
to two, uh, number three, Senate Bill 74 seat Belt, civil Action Amendments Representative Musselman. Um, Mr. Chair, I'll be speaking, uh, solely to sub two, which is substantially different from the first rendition of this bill. So if I could get, uh, it's up to you, Mr. Chair, if you'd like to move that or move that during committee action, but I will speak ex Explicitly, um, to Senator Balderree.
S.B. 74 Motor Vehicle Civil Action Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Explains the substitute's focus on time-limited demand letter standards, insurer disclosure duties, and preserved bad-faith protections, and says talks with insurers and trial attorneys on language are continuing.
▶ Watch at 58:38Read what they said
Thank you. I just want to explain really quick the, the major difference between the first, uh, rendition and the sub. Because the bill addresses procedural insurance reform, the seatbelt issue raises a broader evidentiary and, and comparative fault, um, questions keeping the bill focused allows meaningful progress while leaving the broader tort reform discussions for separate considerations. So let me give you just kind of a quick, um, reasoning behind the bill as it stands before you now. And that is, uh, often we have individuals up here running bills and or defending, uh, the insurance companies. And we have bills that are up here. I suppose you could, maybe I shouldn't say defending form behalf of trial attorneys. …
S.B. 74 Motor Vehicle Civil Action Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Moves that the committee favorably recommend SB 74 second substitute.
▶ Watch at 1:05:02Read what they said
I, I Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd move that we favorably recommend SB 74 second substitute.
H.B. 299 School Response to Sexual Offense · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Asked whether the sponsor consulted law enforcement and juvenile justice bodies, and was told the language was shared with CCJJ and others.
▶ Watch at 1:12:55Read what they said
Mr. Chair? Yes. Senator Musselman. Did you, did you consult with, um, law enforcement bodies like, uh, CC j jj or other similar entities, uh, to, to help you craft this? So if, so I'm assuming they're here today, today to support the bill or no, um, not seeing it, maybe. Okay. So you did consult with ccc, JJ on the language.
H.B. 299 School Response to Sexual Offense · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Explained that the bill adds definitions of adjudication, arrest, and charge and clarifies the word committed in an existing policy, and said the concerns in the email may not apply; asked the sponsor to confirm.
▶ Watch at 1:13:40Read what they said
Okay. Alright, thank you. Yeah, so I, you know, I'm looking at, um, line 36 of the bill, which is existing language, and it talks about the conduct and discipline policies under sections 50 3G dash eight dash 2 0 2, which is not part of this bill. So all this bill is doing, this is not creating a new conduct of discipline, uh, requirement. All this bill is doing is adding three definitions, the of the words adjudication, arrest, and charge. And then also, uh, clarifying when a student has committed, um, the, a serious offense or sexual crime. The word committed is being replaced with arrested for, charged with, or adjudicated in the court. So all I see …
H.B. 248 Family Law Modifications · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Asks whether the $35,000 threshold for driver's license action would make it harder for people who need a car to earn income to pay support.
▶ Watch at 2:17:15Read what they said
But I got a couple questions anyway, I apologize. Um, so it just occurs to me on a practical level if even though 35,000 is ridiculous, I mean that's a pretty high bar that you've set, but doesn't that, doesn't it just exacerbate for most people have to have a car to be able to earn income in order to pay child support? My, what am I, have you already thought of this? I'm
H.B. 248 Family Law Modifications · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Acknowledges the response and asks a follow-up question.
▶ Watch at 2:18:36Read what they said
to because there's no enforcement. So, okay. One, one other question, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
H.B. 248 Family Law Modifications · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 17, 2026
Asks how other states handle continued support payments after child support ends and whether those payments have an end point.
▶ Watch at 2:18:43Read what they said
So I'm, I'm, I'm trying to figure out how many, how the other state to do it as far as continued bowel support after child support ends and there's this whole slew of different, but is there, and this is gonna reveal my ignorance, is there just no end if they can just continue on forever? Or is there an end point at some point? Yeah,
S.B. 125 Theft Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Explains that the first substitute clarifies the definition of theft by stating that taking merchandise without paying retail value is theft.
▶ Watch at 1:28:37Read what they said
Uh, thanks Mr. President Proti, I believe there should be a first sub on the system. Is there a first sub? I would like to move the first sub. Mr. Thank You. Will you explain the difference? Yeah, yeah. It's actually just a clarification. And, and on the sub itself, it goes down to, I believe line 94. It's describing what a theft is. And interesting enough, um, they had to clarify that as part of that theft, that you would take the item without paying the retail value. So they actually didn't have in there the fact that you didn't pay for it. So we're going to put that in there as a be to be abundantly clear. That's …
S.B. 125 Theft Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Agrees to take questions on the substitute.
▶ Watch at 1:29:35Read what they said
I will. And this is on the sub? Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Yes, go ahead.
S.B. 125 Theft Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Says the substitute only adds clarifying language on line 94 that theft means taking property without paying retail value, and that it does not change how the underlying bill treats theft of services.
▶ Watch at 1:30:13Read what they said
That, that the only thing that the sub does is add that clarifying language on 94 that says when you steal something, you're stealing it without paying for the retail value. It's just a clarification that came in that was requested that has it, it has bearing on the underlying sub, but it doesn't change the, uh, or the underlying bill. It doesn't change what we're doing the underlying bill. So your question is, is still, I will explain in the, once the subject is adopted, that it does exactly what you were thinking that it did and it will continue to do so. So substitute one, changes theft of services to merchandise Senator Bussel line 9,900 and or 94. …
S.B. 125 Theft Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Explains that the bill carves transit fares such as a UTA ride out of the felony theft of services provision, which lowers penalties, and responds to concern about expanded penalties.
▶ Watch at 1:31:50Read what they said
Thanks Mr. President Prom. Um, so this section of code is meant to, is meant to prevent, um, kind of habitual theft, especially theft of, of, you know, maybe a little larger scale where we're talking higher, um, degrees of, of activity, felony activity. And it was pointed out to me that there's, there's a population that that, uh, in from my area and as well as Salt Lake of individuals that, um, may be put in a circumstance where they have taken a, a ride on UTA or tracks and, um, they had a position of where they would theft of service of a $8 ride. Well, in that circumstance, that individual could be put in a put in …
S.B. 125 Theft Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Moves that first substitute S.B. 125 be read for a third time.
▶ Watch at 1:33:47Read what they said
I move that the SB 1 3 5 first substitute be read for a third time
S.B. 245 Impact Fee Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Introduces the bill and explains that Amendment #1 makes it apply only going forward, at the request of municipalities.
▶ Watch at 33:06Read what they said
Thanks, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to present. Um, there is an amendment that I gonna Say you have an amendment. Yeah. So I'll leave it to the chair's discretion, um, on when you wanna move that, but basically all that amendment does is, uh, I think it's prob, I I thought it was self-explanatory in it, but we're just making sure that everybody's aware this does not go back in time. It's not retroactive. So it's just making sure it only in effect May six going forward. So, pretty simple. Was that at, at the request of the municipalities and, and I thought that it was appropriate. So, um, if I might continue though, Mr. Chair with the, Why …
S.B. 245 Impact Fee Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Presents the bill, which clarifies that impact fees may be spent only on improvements in the facilities plan in effect when the fees were collected and requires clearly defined service areas.
▶ Watch at 33:54Read what they said
Normally, I just kind of present, I don't necessarily read from a script. I do want to follow along pretty clearly with the language that I want to present here. So it's not ambiguous in any way, but Utah already has one of the strongest, most constitutionally sound impact fee systems in the, in the country. This does not change that framework at all. It simply clarifies that a recent district court ruling found ambiguity in our state regarding whether impact fees must be spent under the impact fee facilities plan that was in place when the fees was collected. The court essentially said the legislature did not clearly limit expenditures to the plan, in effect at the time of …
S.B. 245 Impact Fee Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Responds that the amendment may address the fiscal note concern because it does not apply retroactively.
▶ Watch at 37:00Read what they said
Yeah, two thoughts. One, that's a great suggestion. Two, maybe, and I don't know this, but the amendment may solve that, uh, uh, fiscal note in the first place because we're not going back in time. I don't know that for sure, Mr. Chair. That's a possibility.
S.B. 245 Impact Fee Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Suggests that if a statutory study schedule exists, a municipality's updated impact fee study could replace the regular required study.
▶ Watch at 37:26Read what they said
Sure. Right. Yeah. And so if there's a, if there's a statutory study time period, and I can't remember what those are, instead of looking them up, we'll give you and alleged research a chance to figure that out. But if there's a scheduled thing, maybe what you can do is if they update their study based on this requirement, then maybe they don't need to do the regular statutory one.
S.B. 245 Impact Fee Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 13, 2026
Addresses concerns about water and sewer systems, noting that downstream impacts should be considered in city engineering and planning.
▶ Watch at 42:24Read what they said
I, I, I would, I just wanna address some of the concerns that were earlier iterated, and I might have to be a bit pedestrian in the language that I use here. So I, I hope the chair will forgive me, but, um, I used to be a journeyman plumber, as some of you may know. And so I'm, I'm pretty intimately familiar with water systems, storm drain systems and sewer systems. I'm glad you said you were intimately a I'm glad that's what you chose to be aware Of, and I'm glad that you're continuing with the humor. But, um, Uh, As it pertains to systems, I understand that, and I think intuitively we recognize that a supply line …
S.B. 257 Domestic Relations Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Asked the sponsor to walk through the changes to the genetic testing portion of the bill.
▶ Watch at 53:31Read what they said
Um, can you just walk me through the genetic testing portion of it? Uh, um, make sure I understand what you changed the bill as it pertains to genetic testing and the request on genetic testing?
S.B. 257 Domestic Relations Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Asked whether existing law already prioritizes child stability and whether the bill goes further in those circumstances.
▶ Watch at 58:09Read what they said
Um, You Asked No, I did ask, but it, it appears to me the courts are, the code was already designed in a way to prioritize the stability of the child. But this goes further to further for those circumstances where it's still keeping in mind or higher priority, the stability of the child over. Yes.
S.B. 257 Domestic Relations Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Asked whether anything in the bill is retroactive, noting that laws are usually prospective, and asked for the question to be restated.
▶ Watch at 58:33Read what they said
Okay. One last question is, um, I'm trying to make sure I understand. Could there be any circumstance where retroactivity, or going back in time based on just this, for a safe instance instance, who was the father and, and I, I, some of some, this is fairly complicated and I'm trying to wrap my mind around it, but we always try to write laws up here that don't go back in time. It doesn't appear that I can see that in this, but there are some possibilities where it could be, um, going back in time. Is that, am I missing something there? Or, or not? Um, can you rephrase the question? Yeah, I don't understand. Um, we don't, …
H.B. 24 Criminal Penalty Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Sen. Musselman moved to favorably recommend HB 24, the second substitute, to the Senate floor.
▶ Watch at 2:08:45Read what they said
I move to re uh, favorably recommend HB 24 criminal penalty amendments, the second sub to criminal penalty amendments, rather.
H.B. 24 Criminal Penalty Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Sen. Musselman said the bill reduces some enhancements and uses administrative violations for lesser conduct while keeping strong penalties for dangerous conduct.
▶ Watch at 2:08:54Read what they said
I'll, I'll speak to that real Quick. Okay. Please. Um, yeah, this is the, the good chair could, could applaud. 'cause overall this is a reduction in, in enhancement or opposite of that, right? And, um, oftentimes we can do this administratively through administrative violations instead of criminal conduct. This is, this is, you know, keeping strong penalties, maintaining high fines, is targeting, you know, the true criminal classification towards dangerous conduct instead of some of these, um, lesser penalties and using administrative violations. So with that, that's
S.B. 196 Wrongful Lien Act Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Musselman said he had skimmed the bill and asked whether a clerical error in drafting could make the provisions unenforceable.
▶ Watch at 37:52Read what they said
I, I'm, I'm skimming through really fast and everything makes sense to me. Um, I'm just wondering if you dealt with in drafting and I, I couldn't find it if there's, lemme see how I put this. Um, if there's a, a, maybe a clerical area that, that could cause a problem with unenforceability or anything along those lines. And I don't know if I'm, if I'm going way too far in the weeds, Mr. Ashton, I, I, I don't know. But is there a possibility that we could be catching up, you know, something that's just a clerical error that makes it unenforceable and, uh, 'cause we're, we're, it's being pretty prescriptive right? In dictation here. Do you understand …
S.B. 196 Wrongful Lien Act Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Musselman asked about a clerical error such as an abstracting problem and said he would like to discuss remaining questions offline.
▶ Watch at 39:42Read what they said
Yeah. All right. If you don't mind, Well, clerical error as in not abstracted to the property, what would a Clerical Yeah, yeah. Maybe something like that, I suppose. Right? But on its face, it would still be unenforceable, I suppose, if I, I'm inclined to vote for, but maybe we could just talk and, and just make sure that I'm, I'm clear on couple things. We could do this offline. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. Happy To. Thank you.
H.B. 258 Insurance Coverage Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Musselman asks the chair for latitude to ask follow-up questions on the same topic.
▶ Watch at 55:15Read what they said
Yeah, the, if the chair would allow me a little bit of latitude, this bill's on the same question that was just asked earlier, but I wanna bring additional clarity because I think it's a fair question and I'm mostly for my own framing. Um, but if you, you don't mind, maybe a couple questions, Mr. Chair. Is that okay? Looks like it's okay. Thank you.
H.B. 258 Insurance Coverage Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Musselman asks whether the bill reaches ERISA and self-funded plans and whether it could lead to lawsuits, and says the chair may need to clarify this.
▶ Watch at 55:33Read what they said
Um, the, so, you know, traditionally speaking, we, as it pertains to insurance, we'll, we'll set guardrails and maybe do definitions, but we're, we're not too descriptive. But, um, and I voiced some of my concerns to you earlier. And so I, I looked and, uh, we have done so in the past we've dictated, uh, uh, mental health parody cover on autism mammograms. We've, we've done similar things in the past, so, but I, I do it with a great deal of hesitation because of the same concerns that we, we, um, there was expressed earlier, but there are self-funded plans. I'm trying to look and see. Um, I think they're, and I may need some help from the …
H.B. 258 Insurance Coverage Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Musselman says that if he votes for the bill it would be as a light-touch measure and that he is weighing the question.
▶ Watch at 57:45Read what they said
Okay. So the last part of my question is, is if I were inclined to vote for this, it would be that it is a light touch. So help me bring some clarity to this. 'cause right now I'm on kind of on the point where I think I'm, I don't know, I'm bouncing back and forth right now in my head trying to balance this. This isn't about the actual topic. I think what's fair, you know, what's fair, providing that avenue is fair, but Right. Right. So,
H.B. 258 Insurance Coverage Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Musselman asks whether the bill only applies when an insurer covered the original transition and whether its purpose is equal treatment.
▶ Watch at 58:14Read what they said
Um, the, the question is, is, alright, so you're doing it, you're only mandating if they've pro if they've offered the transition in the first place, right? If they've already done that side of the conversation and they've said, okay, we're going to do, let's say that they just do just hormonal parts of the transition. And that particular private insurer does not wanna do any surgical, like maybe they say we don't do surgical transition, but we will do hormonal transition, then if that person wants to detransition later, if they have regret, or if they decide, you know what, I want to go back to my biological sex, then they would need to pay for ho hormones for …
H.B. 258 Insurance Coverage Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Musselman says staff clarified the bill does not affect ERISA plans and recalls that PEHP previously did not cover transgender care until a court case.
▶ Watch at 1:00:13Read what they said
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Further clarification is, um, just reaching out to staff and the drafting attorney clarification was that the plan or the bill does not affect ERISA plans? Okay, Thank you. So it would be just that, uh, 20% commercial mark. Interesting. And I don't know if there's anyone from PHP here that can clarify, but it was my understanding that the PHP originally did not cover any kind of, uh, transgender care. And then there was a, a court case that basically forced them to, so they would kind of be in a situation where now they, they would be required to provide the, the, the de degender care as well. So anyway, I, …
H.B. 258 Insurance Coverage Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Musselman says he needs clarification because PEHP is part of the commercial market.
▶ Watch at 1:01:17Read what they said
Okay. I would have to have some clarification on that, because if it's just the commercial market, PEHP is part of the commercial market, I feel like it says, let's look at the language here. Okay. Well, if it does, then that actually would be in total alignment with the other bill. Yeah.
H.B. 258 Insurance Coverage Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Musselman says that if the bill applies to PEHP it raises a new set of questions.
▶ Watch at 1:02:04Read what they said
Okay. Well that's good to know. Well, Mr. Chair, that brings a whole nother set of questions then. If it does, Go for it. Uh, man. Alright, because I was not thinking, um, that, that this was wrapping in PHP, that's a whole nother set of questions.
H.B. 258 Insurance Coverage Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Musselman asks whether there is a fiscal note on the bill and questions how it can be zero if the bill covers PEHP.
▶ Watch at 1:02:22Read what they said
So is there, is there a fiscal note on this bill? I heard We don't have a fiscal note. Do we not, I don't know how there can, if it wraps in PHP, there has to be a,
H.B. 258 Insurance Coverage Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Musselman says the zero fiscal note suggests little need and asks whether the bill addresses a problem that exists.
▶ Watch at 1:18:18Read what they said
Senator Musselman, Um, Mr. Chair, if I might, um, so the fiscal note is zero, which as I understand it, and as has been clarified, it appears that, um, that means that PHP doesn't anticipate the use of it, meaning there is, there is no one within the P system that is looking to detransition. Now that being said, it may not be that, it may be, it's just a very, very, very small number, so it doesn't land. Um, but none, nonetheless, that doesn't negate necessarily what you're, what you're doing here as far as parody and equilibrium. So, but I I, I, I always have a concern of we just looking for a problem that doesn't exist. So …
H.B. 258 Insurance Coverage Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Musselman asks whether hormone therapy is used in detransition, noting that he found drugs prescribed during detransition.
▶ Watch at 1:19:58Read what they said
Yes, please. It was, it was stated, um, earlier that, uh, in Detransition that there isn't hormonal therapy used in Detransition. Can you speak to that as I, as I'm scrubbing and I cross reference it five times up here, and it appears that there is drugs that are prescribed during detransition. So do you, are you aware?
H.B. 258 Insurance Coverage Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Musselman says he will vote yes with hesitation, citing the possibility that some people want to detransition, and notes his position may change on the floor.
▶ Watch at 1:25:05Read what they said
I, I'm, I'm gonna vote yes, but, uh, I'm, I'm hesitant. And I, and I'm not guarantee that that's where, where I'll land as it sits on the floor. I have to think through this a little further, but nevertheless, I'm voting yes because e even if there is a concern that some that detent and may due to social pressure, there's a possibility and we at least have to recognize there's a possibility that some, some within that realm want to detransition because they want to detransition because it wasn't the right decision. That is possible. Perfectly reasonable, uh, possibility. And, and to the, in that vein, I think we, I think this is light enough touch, reaching down …
S.B. 258 Infant at Work Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Asked whether agencies would face internal pressure to adopt rules allowing the program even where it may not be appropriate.
▶ Watch at 1:32:45Read what they said
So as I understand it, this is a choice, right? Any agency can still choose as to whether or not they participate. They can set their own rules, they can set their own guidelines. Do you think there's, so there's clearly, there are some agencies where this are certain office of environments where this isn't gonna work. You, you cannot a hundred percent do this. Yes. But do you feel that there's any pressure for those agencies internally to still, uh, create rules that allow for it, 'cause pressures that other agencies that can allow for it then put it in rule and allow for it? Do you understand what I'm saying? There's kind of an internal social pressure to …
H.B. 209 Voting Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 24) · Feb 12, 2026
Rises in support, saying the state constitution already requires citizenship to vote and the bill creates a verification mechanism while preserving federal access.
▶ Watch at 1:27:43Read what they said
Mr. President. I, I, I wanna rise to support. I, I've watched this legislation with some concerns and thoughts about, um, are we trying to solve a problem that we don't have? But I wanna remind, um, my colleagues as well as Mr. President that, uh, it's already in our constitution. Our constitution clearly states that, uh, there's a requirement to be a citizen to vote. Our, our founding fathers of the state and the Constitution found it fit to put it in there. They put it in there. Other states, surprisingly don't have that. But this has been thoughtfully worked in a manner that I think is approachable or, uh, uh, implementable by the clerks. It creates a verification …
S.B. 37 George E. Wahlen Memorial Highway Designation · Senate floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Explains that the bill would name a section of State Route 126 in Weber County the George Wallen Memorial Highway, honoring a Utah Medal of Honor recipient and veteran, with no operational or funding changes.
▶ Watch at 19:20Read what they said
after George Wallen in a memorial status. So, state Route 1 26 in Weber County, which is known to 1900 West of most of the individuals that live locally under this bill, would be named to the George Wallen Memorial Highway. This bill simply adds that honoree designation. There's no operational or funding changes necessarily. Um, but I want to give you a little quick background. I've done this before in committee and on second reading, but I want to reiterate it. George Wallen was a Utah native from Ogden. He was also a Medal of Honor recipient for extraordinary heroism during Yo Jima in World War ii. By way of reference, there's only five medal of, uh, honor members, …
S.B. 230 Consumer Credit Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Asks whether the bill reduces, increases, or decreases consumer choice.
▶ Watch at 53:39Read what they said
Um, I just really, I think fairly quick, um, does this reduce or increase or decrease consumer choice?
S.B. 230 Consumer Credit Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Asks whether average interest rates would rise under the change and whether upfront fees would offset that.
▶ Watch at 54:00Read what they said
Okay. Fair enough. Um, and does the, um, want the lenders just adjust? Would the average rate increase with this change, or would it, if it does increase, it would be a wash with what the charges are on average with the upfront fee versus a, that's a complicated question, but I think you understand where I'm going, right? Yeah.
S.B. 204 Physical Therapy Payment Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Moves that the committee favorably recommend SB 204.
▶ Watch at 1:26:53Read what they said
Yeah, if a motion would be appropriate, Mr. Chair, I'd move that we recommend SB 2 0 4 physical therapy payment amendments.
S.B. 204 Physical Therapy Payment Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Describes his own frequent physical therapy visits after joint replacements and says physical therapy has become like a primary care provider for him.
▶ Watch at 1:27:06Read what they said
I'd like to speak to that if I could please. Uh, I, I, heaven forbid one should be pragmatic up here, but I'm just gonna give you a pragmatic experience for me. I see my dentist once a year. I see my, my doctor twice a year. I see a skin doctor once a year. I see a physical therapist over the past five years, an average of 20 times a year. So it, it's pretty pragmatic for me just because I've had, uh, three replaced joints in the past five years. So I, I know I'm not the norm, but that's the reality that I face. So from a purely pragmatic perspective of a, of a, of a insurance …
S.B. 177 Product Pricing Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Asks how a disclosure-only requirement would work in practice, including whether it would bar discounts or ads.
▶ Watch at 1:41:50Read what they said
Yep. Um, let's see. I forgot what it was. Hold on. Let me, I I've got it. Um, so this is in essence, uh, a just a, a warning or a, a disclosure, right? That, that that's, so if it's just a disclosure that would prohibit you, did you suggest that would prohibit from giving discounts or ads or help me out how that would actually work in practice? Right. Um, so this would be unique to Utah, right? I don Don't know. I'm just trying to figure out if how that
S.B. 177 Product Pricing Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Presses on how the disclosure would work in practice and whether it would inhibit the use of algorithms for discounts.
▶ Watch at 1:42:42Read what they said
Right? Uh, Okay. But that, I just want, I just want to know how that would work in practice, not what New York did or prohibition. What, how would that inhibit an individual? I I understand how it, uh, how would it inhibit the, the practice of using the algorithm for advertising and offering discounts by having that, uh, disclosure on there? That's what I'm trying to figure out.
S.B. 177 Product Pricing Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Says a disclosure might hurt promotions and thanks the witness.
▶ Watch at 1:43:19Read what they said
Okay. So they would just in lieu of, because the disclosure somehow might hurt the promotion. Okay. All right. I understand that. Thank you. Thank
S.B. 177 Product Pricing Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Asks whether the state's AI lab could review the bill and provide input before it moves forward.
▶ Watch at 1:49:43Read what they said
Senator Musselman? Yeah, I, I meant to ask this question earlier. I just missed getting it, but I had asked you earlier, and I just want to get a sense of, of maybe if you thought about it more, but, um, we have the AI lab now under the, I think it's under the Department of Commerce. Um, and that's the whole point of that lab, as I understand it, as it pertains to AI and technology, is to, you know, submit this to 'em, let them provide, you know, research on it. They have, they're all set up to take a look at this, take everybody's, you know, kind of input that are in this world and be able …
S.B. 182 Attorney Admission to Jail Facilities Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Sen. Musselman said he will vote yes and plans to talk with the Sheriffs' Association afterward to confirm the arrangement.
▶ Watch at 2:02:30Read what they said
Yeah, I think I'll, I'll vote in favor of that. Um, it, it appears that based on what you had, you had stated that, that you, you believe that the Sheriff's Association was communicated with the uac, which seems reasonable. And that's, uh, looks like that's probably where this amendment language came from, maybe from them, I suppose, but it, it makes it land a lot better. But, uh, I'm gonna vote yes just to qualifier that I'm gonna talk to the Sheriff's Association after and just kinda make sure everybody's in the right spot.
S.B. 210 Nicotine Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Votes no for now, saying he is still considering the penalty increases and may change his vote on the floor.
▶ Watch at 2:23:00Read what they said
Senator Musselman Ish. Oh, sorry. Senator Musselman. I'm gonna be a no, just so it's not unanimous, but I, I'll I could be convinced to change that vote when it gets to the floor if it does. I, I, I'm still turning wrap my mind around some of these, uh, increases in penalties, um, up to the Class A and just kind of across the board there. So on subsequent end, the possibility of making some changes as was requested earlier.
S.B. 31 Office of Professional Licensure Review Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Asked whether the increase in NP hours is the only place the bill raises requirements.
▶ Watch at 2:48:42Read what they said
So overall, if as I look at this bill, there's lots and lots of what I would generally speak, look at as a conservative, your, I think, minimizing hurdles. So an even expanding practice. If, if you were just to simply say, out of all the different aspects, and there's a lot that you changed in this bill, is, is the item that was earlier that we were talking about in increasing those hours, is that the only, only section where you've, in essence, increased maybe the, uh, requirement or increased the hurdles with exception of, well, what is that? Is that the only spot you've ever increased?
S.B. 31 Office of Professional Licensure Review Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Said the bill is good except for the hours item, about which he has reservations, and compared it to the process in another bill.
▶ Watch at 2:49:30Read what they said
That's, that's what way I looked at it as well. I, I do have some reservations along those lines as well, although this is somewhat overwhelming to me. Um, there was a lot of numbers you were throwing out there, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around them up here. But this, this is in my mind, a great bill short of one item. And I'm, and, and that item is the only part that I'm, uh, that I'm caught up on. Um, and I suppose, you know, your, your last bill, the one, was it one 50 on the technology? Yeah. Mm-hmm. Man, that was, that's just one of those things where I'm, I'm so excited for …
S.B. 31 Office of Professional Licensure Review Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Asked about patient safety data, noting physicians appear to face malpractice suits more often than PAs and NPs.
▶ Watch at 3:04:09Read what they said
Um, you mentioned patient safety several times, and I, again, I, I get some, what I'm gonna ask is coming from me and not knowing exactly all the details of this, but just doing quick research here, malpractice suits, it appears that physicians, uh, that clearly physicians are, are sued under malpractice more often than the mission. Uh, physician assistants, nurse or practitioners. I don't know what the, you can't quite access complaints, um, in, in Utah through Doppler. I'm sure there's another way I could access, but I couldn't get it. So can you just speak to that? Yeah, because we keep talking about patient safety, but it clear the data is not quite
S.B. 31 Office of Professional Licensure Review Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Followed up that narrower practices would imply less training is needed.
▶ Watch at 3:05:10Read what they said
Senator, uh, just a follow up, but isn't that, I suppose the, the point there would be the, it, by their nature, their practices would be less wide and less, um, put them in a circumstance where they need less training. And I suppose, um, I, I, I, I recognize there's a difference. That's, that's clear, but it's all about economies of scale, I suppose.
S.B. 31 Office of Professional Licensure Review Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Voted yes but expressed reservations that the increased NP hours still feel arbitrary without more complaint data.
▶ Watch at 3:17:24Read what they said
I know you're tired. Um, I'm gonna vote yes, but I, I, I want to, I just wanna state, I have some reservations. I I think this may be the first time I voted for an increase or in a hurdle to a licenser to have been up here. Maybe not, but that's what it feels like. Um, and I have some reservations that I, I wish that I could have. We could have fettered out more of the complaints and the details of those complaints and the justification for under those claim complaints through Do o Doppler, the justification for the increased hours. 'cause it still seems, even though that's a negotiated number, and I recognize that I respect …
S.B. 75 Educator Salary Adjustment Eligibility · Senate floor debate (day 18) · Feb 6, 2026
Says the bill adds registered nurses to the list of individuals eligible for the educator salary adjustment, and that he will answer any questions before calling for a vote.
▶ Watch at 16:52Read what they said
Senator Musselman, Mr. President, I've, I've gave an impassioned speech as to why registered nurse would be included in the list. I I don't think it's necessary to re rehash that argument. That's, this bill is simple. It's adding registered nurse to the, to the list of, uh, individuals that would qualify for the, um, educator salary adjustment. That's what the bill does. Simple as that. Um, I'll answer any questions. Thank you. Say no questions back to you for, for a motion or any summation. Uh, call the question, Mr. Thank you.
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Presented SB 73, describing age-verification enforcement by the Division of Consumer Protection, a 2% excise tax collected by the Tax Commission, and a restricted account for youth mental health.
▶ Watch at 50:19Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is working good. Yeah. Um, there's a sub on the system, sub one two SB 73, as well as an amendment. Um, I will be speaking to the sub after it is amended. Um, if we want to do that first, I would, I'd love for that to happen. And I can, I can go, go ahead and speak to the sub and we'll, we'll do it during committee action. Okay, perfect. Um, last, uh, two years ago, um, a good senator in our body ran a bill SB 2 87, which was, um, created age gating. And there are several other states that had done similar work. Um, during that time, that particular bill …
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Explained that the tax applies to paid access transactions, replacing an earlier gross receipts tax, and that typical monthly costs would be small.
▶ Watch at 1:00:56Read what they said
So the first iteration, uh, you might see in the bill, I actually had a different tax and it was a gross receipts tax. Mm-hmm. Which would've been completely different. That presented multiple problems. Yeah. Mostly at the collection level, just it's, it's gross tax are, are difficult. Uh, number one and, and number two, uh, I, I, I simple's generally always better. Um, so, but you're absolutely right. Some of these charge zero, there's no money. So there'll be no tax, there'll be no tax on, on, on those interviews 'cause there's no, there's, there's no transaction to tax. So that's just Reality. So we are taxing a transaction. We are absolutely taxing a Transaction. And I imagine we …
S.B. 73 Online Age Verification Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 5, 2026
Described the amendment, which concerns the Tax Commission imposing the tax and referrals from the Division of Consumer Protection.
▶ Watch at 1:06:56Read what they said
I, I, I spoke to at the very beginning. It's just about, uh, the tax commission, uh, imposing the tax and, and, and the referrals coming from the, the Division of Consumer Protection.
S.B. 75 Educator Salary Adjustment Eligibility · Senate floor debate (day 17) · Feb 5, 2026
Moves that Senate Bill 75, Educator Salary Adjustment Eligibility, be read a third time.
▶ Watch at 1:00:39Read what they said
Uh, I would move that, uh, SP 75 educator salary adjustment eligibility. Be read for a third Time. Thank you. And the question is,
S.B. 72 Obscene Animal Abuse Material Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Asked for clarification on how the bill's obscenity test applies to animal crushing material that does not appear sexual.
▶ Watch at 41:50Read what they said
Yes. I'm sorry. Senator Musselman. Um, So I, I, I guess I, if can, can you just bring a little clarity to this? This is clearly animal crushing gross, weird, strange. But there is a test. How does that, how does that meet the, I I don't, I'm not sure what the test is called. Constitutional test if it meets sub acidity, but it doesn't seem to be sexual in nature. Maybe that is, I don't, maybe, what am I missing here?
S.J.R. 1 Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Evidence Concerning Crimes or Other Acts · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 4, 2026
Says he has reservations about the bill, supports it today, and would vote for it on second reading if the defense's suggestions are reasonably addressed.
▶ Watch at 2:58:46Read what they said
Yeah. Uh, if I could maybe ask a question, I promise I won't just read from chat GBT I'll actually ask a question. It's your prerogative. Uh, yeah. Um, as you maybe you had seen in the, uh, last year, I'd add some reservations on this, but I, I, I passed it forward and I I still have those reservations and I think even though I, I recognize the clarity you just provided as it pertains to rule 4 0 3, that I think there were some other suggestions they gave that were reasonable whether or not you feel they're reasonable. Yeah. I, I suppose that's a conversation to be had, but I, I, I think that some adjustments might …
H.B. 39 Prison and Jail Standards Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 16) · Feb 4, 2026
Presents H.B. 39, which would require state prisons and county jails to follow unified standards, undergo regular independent inspections, and move away from self-policing.
▶ Watch at 52:37Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President Proti. Um, this is Bill is recommended by the law enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee mandates that all state, um, correctional facilities and county jails operate under a system of independently administered standards to submit to regular independent inspections. They, uh, for the most part, they are adhering to, uh, the standard, but this is unifying so we're all on the same page. The exact same inspection with an independent inspection. Um, a wound moves away from quote unquote self-policing by requiring that standard independently administered inspection. Um, and it moves into a regular schedule of inspections. Insurers ongoing compliance rather than one time fixes building public trust. That's my presentation. Mr. Speaker or Mr. …
H.B. 39 Prison and Jail Standards Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 16) · Feb 4, 2026
Moves that H.B. 39 be read a third time.
▶ Watch at 53:36Read what they said
I'd move that, uh, HB 39 Prison and Jail Standard Amendments be read for a third time.
H.B. 65 Construction Code Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 3, 2026
Says his light was on for an earlier question and asks it now.
▶ Watch at 1:40:51Read what they said
That was on the early One, but yeah, I can ask it now if that's
H.B. 65 Construction Code Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 3, 2026
Asks whether the provision means portions of a remodel that are not touched would not have to meet current code.
▶ Watch at 1:40:56Read what they said
So I'm, I'm not sure, sure. I completely understood, um, on not touching a particular, so give me the, gimme a for instance, maybe in the real world, you're doing a remodel, let's say, and there's a portion that you're not touching of the remodel. So that portion wouldn't have to be held to a standard to, to meet current code. Is that what that's trying to, that's what you're clarifying on that?
H.B. 98 Residential Notification Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 3, 2026
Asked whether the notification requirement could raise issues under federal law protecting people in these facilities.
▶ Watch at 1:57:04Read what they said
So I, I generally, I agree with what you're doing here, and I think, uh, good, uh, Senator, that, that motion to approve this is, I'm, I'm probably on board there, but this is a, potentially a, a protected class of people that would be at these group homes, potentially. Is there any issues that we have on that would bump out against, with this notification with any kind of federal law? I mean, They, you're, if I could, they are protected under federal law. Absolutely. So With the notification in and of itself, would that be an issue with the, that they being protected class? That's what I'm trying to figure out.
S.B. 215 Eviction Record Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 3, 2026
Sen. Musselman said one year is uncomfortable for him but he will go along with it if the Rental Housing Association is satisfied.
▶ Watch at 2:07:07Read what they said
I would, I would echo what Senator Comore said. 90 days is really quick. I I, the one year is actually uncomfortable for me, so you did good there. If you landed in a good spot, I would've been 18 months, but hey, I'll, if the, if the Utah Retinal Association is good with it, then I'm good with it, so, okay.
S.B. 139 Notary Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 3, 2026
Presented SB 139, which would require notaries to keep a journal, with exceptions for law firms and title companies, and a carve-out allowing identity to be attested by nursing home staff when an unexpired ID is unavailable; said the substitute changes are mostly clerical.
▶ Watch at 2:08:18Read what they said
Mr. Chair? I have, um, li the basic with the Lieutenant Governor's office with me mostly to answer questions. She won't necessarily be part of the presentation unless you have questions that I can't answer. So, um, notary amendments is, is, uh, fairly simple in that most notaries, um, would have a journal, but they're not required to keep a journal. It's a best practice. They ought to do it. Um, this bill is going to codify that, that, that they do have to keep the journal. Um, it's, it's of course critical in record keeping. Um, it, it, it, uh, um, well, I I wanna make one clarifi clarification. There is an exception in the bill for two, um, …
S.B. 139 Notary Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 3, 2026
Responded that many notaries already keep journals, that the requirement is not overly burdensome, and that it reflects best practice.
▶ Watch at 2:12:44Read what they said
Yeah. I, I, I recognize I've had a lot of experience with notaries and I'm not minimizing that. 'cause I've also had experience with notaries, uh, that are in really small towns and remote places. Um, generally speaking, many notaries already keep a journal, even those in remote remote circumstances. This is really trying to reign in, um, what is considered best practices nationwide, but also in Utah. I, I don't see it restricting. I I see where you're, what you're thinking, but I don't see it restricting overall most do this. And it's actually not an over burdensome task. It's just a, you're just literally keeping a journal with you and dictating what you just did. Um, it's not …
S.B. 139 Notary Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 3, 2026
Said he was not familiar with the journal details and deferred to staff.
▶ Watch at 2:13:44Read what they said
I, I, I don't know the, I've never watched them do it. I don't, I, well, I actually, I have watched them do it, but I didn't pay attention to the details, so I'm gonna defer to my seatmate here.
S.B. 139 Notary Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 3, 2026
Deferred the question to staff.
▶ Watch at 2:14:32Read what they said
I'm, I'm gonna defer again. You have to, you have to pass it down through generations. I don't know. Uh, I'll let Lila
S.B. 139 Notary Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 3, 2026
Moved to favorably pass SB 139, then moved to replace the bill with the first substitute.
▶ Watch at 2:16:11Read what they said
I'd move. We, um, favorably pass SB 1 39 notary. But actually we got the move that sub. Did we? Yeah, I don't think we ever moved the sub. Did we go ahead and make that motion? Um, I, I move that we move sub one to SB 1 39 notary amendments.
S.B. 139 Notary Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 3, 2026
Moved to favorably recommend the substitute bill.
▶ Watch at 2:16:50Read what they said
And, uh, now, uh, additional motion I'd, uh, move that we pass out favorable recommendation for substitute SB 1 39 notary amendments
S.B. 150 Healthcare Providers Scope of Practice Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 3, 2026
Said his microphone light could not be turned off.
▶ Watch at 2:26:29Read what they said
I couldn't, yeah, I couldn't get it to turn off. For some reason I couldn't either.
S.B. 13 Statutorily Required Reports and Presentations Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 15) · Feb 3, 2026
Explains that the bill includes a coordination clause tied to another bill.
▶ Watch at 19:02Read what they said
Um, just a coordination clause between this bill and another bill that doesn't do anything of substance.
S.B. 13 Statutorily Required Reports and Presentations Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 15) · Feb 3, 2026
Moves to concur in the House amendments to the bill.
▶ Watch at 20:46Read what they said
Senator Musselman, place that motion one more time. Yes, Mr. President. Motion to Concur. Motion to concur.
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 2, 2026
Presents S.B. 30, which revises Utah's human trafficking penalties and definitions, including separate labor and sex trafficking provisions and a new patronizing section, and describes the substitute.
▶ Watch at 33:51Read what they said
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Um, thanks for opportunity to present as always. You got a big crowd here. It's, everybody's a bit quiet. I don't know. Maybe that's good. Maybe that's bad. I don't know. We were hoping you'd take a little while longer so we could play in some music. All right. Yeah. Um, so to give you a little bit of background on this bill, um, in looking at the section under human trafficking, we, we have a pretty heavy hand when it comes to human trafficking in our state and for good reason, right? You, you human traffick in our state, we're gonna, we're gonna throw, quote unquote the book at you. Um, but that book, just so …
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 2, 2026
Responds that employers who knowingly take part in labor trafficking face the same penalties.
▶ Watch at 41:14Read what they said
Yeah, they do. And to be clear, if I use that as kind of a opposite clarifi colorful clarification of two opposite ends of the pool, you know, farmer hiring laborers and a somebody throwing, you know, young women in a van. But if the farmer is knowingly participating in labor trafficking, meaning he's hiring and he knows they are the same penalties, apply.
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 2, 2026
Explains that knowing conduct is the core distinction, while a person who did not know the workers were not legal would face a different, lesser penalty.
▶ Watch at 42:05Read what they said
That's the simplest form of the distinction. Yeah. It both require a guilty act, which would be acting, right. Um, but, uh, guilty mind if you know that's what's happening. Or if you say we're a contractor and didn't know that the people that were funneled there were that right. Were not legal. It'd be a different, still a penalty, but not the same as an active human trafficker. That's what we're trying to, to distinguish.
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 2, 2026
Says that even reckless conduct remains a felony and is not the same as trafficking young victims.
▶ Watch at 42:30Read what they said
I should also clarify, even if, even if you're found guilty, I apologize, Mr. Chairman. Oh, you're good. Add to this. Um, even if you're found guilty recklessly, we're still talking felony here. Yeah. Nobody's walking on this. It's still a felony. We're just talking. Do we go, do we throw somebody in prison for life? It is just not the same as the people that are trafficking the young girls from Asia that we caught in the massage parlors.
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 2, 2026
Says the reckless offense would carry no mandatory minimum and would be a felony sentenced within existing ranges.
▶ Watch at 43:06Read what they said
The minimum if you were under, under knowingly the all that would remain the same on the minimum standards that wouldn't under recklessly. What's the, is there's no minimum under recklessly or it Would be whatever is currently under the law as it pertains to that particular penalty? Felony, that particular felony, Felony, 30 degree felony. I don't think there's minimum. There's not, there wouldn't be minimums. Okay. Thank you. That'd be up to the judge, I guess I Suppose outside of the recommendations for that particular felony.
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 2, 2026
Explains that human smuggling is a separate offense under existing code that the bill did not change.
▶ Watch at 44:18Read what they said
So, human smuggling is a different crime, although it's in this section. We didn't touch human smuggling. Human smuggling is a separate crime punishable under the current code of human smuggling. So if you fall under the deaf and of human smuggling, then we didn't adjust that code. I don't know. That probably doesn't answer your question. 'cause I don't, um, maybe I didn't understand your question, Dr.
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 2, 2026
Apologizes for confusion and says he is looking at the substitute text.
▶ Watch at 44:46Read what they said
Members, I apologize. I, I, I apologize. I'm looking at the, you're looking at the sub. Yeah, and I'm not Oh, so That's why no wonder you were confused.
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 2, 2026
Says the section was written to avoid stacking penalties and that this point may need further clarification.
▶ Watch at 47:33Read what they said
So one of the, one of the, one of the reasons that we, that we specifically went into this section and tried to clarify is so there wasn't stacking right. And that's what you're getting at, right? I'm asking if there is stacking Yeah. And I, and as I understand it, that, that you cannot stack as I understand it. But that may be something we could clarify further.
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 2, 2026
Says the question may be answered during public comment or later. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 48:27Read what they said
I'm looking to phone a friend. I'm hoping that somebody might be able to answer that question in public comment. If not, we'll answer it.
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 2, 2026
Says the question will be sent to the drafting attorney and restates the third degree felony penalty for the reckless offense.
▶ Watch at 48:42Read what they said
We're, uh, we're gonna keep that in the background and we're contacting the drafting attorney just to see if we can make sure we get clarity for you. Um, I did clarify that the penalty for the third degree felony is zero five. Right? Depending on the circumstances for if it were recklessly.
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 2, 2026
Says the life sentence applies only when the offenses are committed knowingly.
▶ Watch at 49:39Read what they said
No, that's not quite right. Not quite right. If You knowingly do them, they are tend delight Knowingly. Yes. Yes. Yes.
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 2, 2026
Says the mens rea standard leads to a third degree felony with a lesser penalty.
▶ Watch at 49:51Read what they said
That, that's where the men's rea applies. That's where you have a third degree. It's, it's just a lesser penalty. That's the point of,
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 2, 2026
Confirms that changing the penalty for unknowing conduct is the purpose of the bill.
▶ Watch at 50:00Read what they said
That's the point of the bill. That's absolutely what the Bill does. That's okay. That's what we're trying to change here.
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 2, 2026
Says criminal activity is charged the same way whether by a business or an individual.
▶ Watch at 50:13Read what they said
Uh, if you, if you're hiring, so if You're talking criminal, that criminal activity is criminal activity, right? Doesn't matter how you're performing or what guys you're performing on or individually, you're gonna be charged with the criminal activity. It doesn't matter if it's a business or you're an individual. If you're okay individually, You're gonna be charged. So let's say
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 2, 2026
Says that under current law the hypothetical could have carried 10 years to life if the workers were illegal.
▶ Watch at 50:37Read what they said
Could, and there's some, there's some people there and said, Hey, I need a hole dug in my backyard or whatever, pay you a hundred bucks. A guy jumps in your car and you take 'em to your house and dig a hole. That's, that's the point of my bill, uh, representative. The, if you went down and did that and they were illegal, you potentially could have, could have gotten 10 years to life. Yeah. That's potential.
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 2, 2026
Says the hypothetical is unlikely to be prosecuted and that knowing conduct is treated differently.
▶ Watch at 51:13Read what they said
not both knowingly is different. What you're describing probably is unlikely prosecuted under that circumstance. So that's an extreme ex circumstance. There's that possibility.
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 2, 2026
Says prosecutorial discretion applies and that the prior law would have required a life sentence, though a lesser penalty is now possible.
▶ Watch at 51:47Read what they said
And, uh, well, I'm going, can't, we can't apply every single case and there has to be some prosecutorial discretion. But does that case get applied to this? Or maybe there's another law that, that I I think you misunderstanding. So they could apply if it was applied before in that circumstance, which I don't, again, I'm not saying that it would, I don't think it would've, that would've, what they would've had to pursue would've been tend to life. Now they could pursue a lesser penalty. Do I think they would in that case? No, I don't.
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 2, 2026
Adds that the substitute makes a second offense more serious, while a first offense is treated less harshly.
▶ Watch at 59:22Read what they said
So if I can add to that, just because I'm, I'm not a lawyer, and he is, and he gave all the technical aspects. In other words, if you do it once, you're not in so bad of trouble, you do it twice, you're developing a pattern and you're gonna get in worse trouble. Fair enough. Okay. That's what the, that's what the sub really does.
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 2, 2026
Closes by saying the bill increases protection for minors and adults while reducing penalties for those who are not truly culpable.
▶ Watch at 1:05:14Read what they said
Just quickly. Hey, listen, it's a, it's a tough lift in our state. It's, it's far easier to increase penalties in a bill than it is to overall do a decrease in penalties. It's way harder. But we've done this in a very nuanced and thoughtful way where the truly bad actors are still being punished and fully punished. In fact, we think in a more, in a more exact and precise way, and yet still protect the individuals that maybe are potentially caught up in human trafficking that just shouldn't be. And, and, and, and those folks being prosecuted or not prosecuted for that matter appropriately. So,
S.B. 161 Evaluations in Guardianship Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 14) · Feb 2, 2026
Begins speaking on Senate Bill 37, which concerns a memorial highway designation for George Wallen, and says some listeners may not know of him.
▶ Watch at 17:17Read what they said
Mr. President Pro Tem. Uh, if, if you haven't heard of George Wallen, then you may not be involved with the,
S.B. 37 George E. Wahlen Memorial Highway Designation · Senate floor debate (day 14) · Feb 2, 2026
Presents SB 37 to name a stretch of road in Weber County the George E. Wahlen Memorial Highway, honoring Wahlen's military service and his community work.
▶ Watch at 17:25Read what they said
the veterans or, or the military as, as it stands right now. Our VA hospital is named after George Wallen. And in addition to that, our, uh, there's a retirement center in Weber County that deemed after George Wallen. And he is a Weber County, was a Weaver County resident, and of course, um, uh, grew up there and he, and he served in the military in actually three different conflicts. But most particular, um, the reason that many might recognize George Wallen, um, is because of some heroic acts in I yoa. Um, and it was through the, the, the awards that came from that, that, uh, and coupled with his work within the veterans world, especially as it …
S.B. 37 George E. Wahlen Memorial Highway Designation · Senate floor debate (day 14) · Feb 2, 2026
Moves that SB 37 be heard for a third time.
▶ Watch at 20:55Read what they said
Uh, I would move that this SB 37 Georgie Wall Memorial Highway be heard for the third time.
S.B. 37 George E. Wahlen Memorial Highway Designation · Senate floor debate (day 14) · Feb 2, 2026
Moves that SB 37 be placed on the time certain calendar for February 9 at 2:30.
▶ Watch at 22:23Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President. I would move that, uh, SB 37 Georgie Wall Memorial Highway. Be heard on the time certain calendar on February 9th at two 30.
S.B. 124 Child Welfare Modifications · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Asked to confirm that the bill creates a court-approved warrant letting workers enter when access is refused and there is no removal order.
▶ Watch at 45:59Read what they said
Um, so the, so I'm just clear what, what the, kind of, the meat of what precedent this would set. The bill creates a court approved, uh, investigative warrant. So child welfare workers can lawfully enter if access is refused and they don't have a removal order. Is that, have I got that right?
S.B. 124 Child Welfare Modifications · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Restated his understanding of what investigators would be allowed to do under the bill.
▶ Watch at 46:57Read what they said
I get, I get it. I'm just wanting to make sure where we were and where we're gonna be on the, the the, what we're allowing the investigators to do. So be, if this bill passes and, and access denied by the parent and they don't have a removal order, this would allow them to do everything you just said. That's where we'd be moving from into, right. I'm not saying that that's necessarily a bad thing. I'm just trying to make sure I fully understand where we're moving from into, and that's, and I'm, I've got it.
S.B. 124 Child Welfare Modifications · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Said parental rights and privacy must be balanced against hard cases and asked what would trigger use of the new warrant. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 49:37Read what they said
Um, alright, so I, I, I understand that and, and I understand your circumstances. We we're just, we, we have to balance parents' rights and we, we always talk about these extreme circumstances where I'm really familiar with the case you were referring to, um, and the tragedy, no doubt, but we're always balancing, you know, how much do we gonna infringe in parental rights here and, and privacy. And, and I'm inclined to, I'm inclined to move it forward, but we can't do it just, just because there's really hard to hear stories. We have to balance that, right? So what, what, this is gonna reveal some of my ignorance here. Um, so we go from one standard to …
S.B. 124 Child Welfare Modifications · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Voted yes, saying the 'credible threat' language makes him nervous and he has suggested changes he hopes are worked out.
▶ Watch at 1:24:30Read what they said
Um, I was headed on this. I'm gonna vote yes, but only the Senator and I have spoken and in, and the credible threat makes me nervous. And I think if we can find that in code, that would make sense to me. And I've made suggestions and if we can work that through, then I, I'd be satisfied. So yes.
S.B. 125 Theft Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Presented SB 125, which would keep theft of transportation services by repeat offenders at a misdemeanor rather than a felony, citing a homeless person's roughly $7 train fare as an example.
▶ Watch at 1:25:35Read what they said
All Mr. Chair. I suppose it's rare occasion that we have a bill presented that reduces penalties, but that's exactly what this bill does. Although it's a very, very, very, Can I cheer out loud? Yeah, sure. It's a very light touch. I I'm gonna explain generally what it does, and then we can get into the details of it, uh, as necessary. But in this, this particular section of code kinda, it, it deals with those that may be repeat offenders. They've committed a felony and they've done some felony theft. Again, the, or, or theft again, that, that can be, that second offense over a time period can be increased to a felony, even though it would normally …
S.B. 183 Surveillance Camera Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Musselman said there may be another way to address the issue and that he would talk with the sponsor and law enforcement offline.
▶ Watch at 1:44:10Read what they said
Just really quick, based on the, what just happened with, I, I think there's another way to skin the cat. I think there's another way to do what they were wanting to do. And I'll, I'll, I'll talk with you offline on it though, and, and try to get with law enforcement and I think there's another way. So thank you. We'll talk.
S.B. 188 Construction Trades Education Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 29, 2026
Asks whether the contractor license covered by the bill means general contractors or all contractors.
▶ Watch at 53:30Read what they said
Thanks. Um, I had a couple of questions, so I'm just making sure I understand this. So when it, in this chapter, when it says a contractor license, is that a a general contractor or is that any subcontractor or what, what license is that? Is that a or are all encompassing? So this specific part of coding run, it helps us with this, my understanding is for the general contractors.
S.B. 188 Construction Trades Education Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 29, 2026
Asks whether contractors could meet their continuing education requirement only through the council if they are members.
▶ Watch at 55:16Read what they said
Okay. So it could be a, another type of contracting license, but they would have to be a member of this counts. Correct. Okay. And just to clarify, this is for continuing education. So my understanding is that general contractors get six hours every two years for continuing education. So they pick, you know, when I think many industries or professions do that, this will only say if you're a member of the Utah Mens Council and that is what you're trying to get your continuing ed hours on, you can take the training from them only if you're a member of their council.
S.B. 188 Construction Trades Education Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 29, 2026
Expresses pause, noting contractor types not on the list, and questions whether putting this in code was a good idea.
▶ Watch at 1:10:38Read what they said
I, I do, I do have a little pause and I'm just, and and it's not necessarily about this organization 'cause I'm looking at the list and I started scrubbing lists as fast as I could go. What's not on the list is concrete contractors, framing contractors, drywall contractors, finish coverage, installation contractors, fire suppression. I mean, I can keep going. So I'm, I'm weighing what was just testified to as to where do we stop. I'm not sure I'm gonna push back against the general contract or the, the home builders associate a little bit. I don't know if it was a good idea to do this in code, but we did it. And so here we are. Um, …
S.B. 202 Mowing Ordinance Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 29, 2026
Commented that residents who move next to golf courses or farms often complain about mowing or farm activity, comparing it to his experience with hay cutting and a neighbor's horse barn.
▶ Watch at 1:26:32Read what they said
I I just make a comment. Probably not even worth, uh, this is a good bill. Um, but it's just fascinating, right? The, the people that wanna live next to a golf course but then want to complain about the mowing at five 30. It's similar. My, my father and I used to, uh, farming, you know, he'd get up and cut the hay and people always wanna live next to the open field, but don't want to deal with the reality of a, of a farm field next to 'em. So it Is exactly, It's one of those quandaries. Yeah. It, it, it, the, the quandary is like the people moving in, you know, there's been a a, I …
S.B. 13 Statutorily Required Reports and Presentations Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Apologized for confusion and asked which bill the committee was on.
▶ Watch at 36:19Read what they said
I have to, I have to apologize. Are we on SB 13 or are we on 30?
S.B. 13 Statutorily Required Reports and Presentations Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Presented SB 13 as a committee bill that removes outdated or redundant reporting requirements from the law enforcement interim committee, and said remaining reports and data still reach the committee and the public safety data portal.
▶ Watch at 36:31Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Chair for the opportunity to present thank you to the committee members for allowing an, an old friend into your quorum. And, and, uh, I'll be brief. Um, this is, this is of course was an in interim bill and a committee bill. Um, so you'll recognize it certainly. But, uh, um, this is possibly, I've already had the envy of other committees saying, Hey, we should do that. Will you do it? Will you put this in your bill? And I'm like, no, you do. You clean up your own committee. That's right. Um, so, uh, just remove certain reporting requirements in the law enforcement and criminal justice interim committee. These committees had a significant number …
S.B. 13 Statutorily Required Reports and Presentations Amendments · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Explained the amendment removes a master list of reports that agencies do not use, so they no longer have to keep feeding it.
▶ Watch at 38:58Read what they said
Yeah, can you give me just one quick second? Yeah. So, and um, this was brought to me, uh, just, just recently, but, uh, in, in talking with the drafting attorney and, and several other sources, we recognize that there's, there's a master list that nobody uses and we're having to feed this master list. Um, and, and it's just basically redundant. Um, we, we deal with it in other ways. The, the, the bodies that reference it, um, uh, don't actually use it. They're still having to feed this master list. So we're, the language is just to, uh, correct that so that we don't have that redundancy within law enforcement reporting agencies. And it's as simple as that. …
S.B. 18 Criminal Offense Modifications · House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Presented SB 18, a technical cleanup bill, and explained one substantive change restoring a third-degree felony penalty for a described offense that was unintentionally left at the misdemeanor level.
▶ Watch at 40:58Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, as efficient as our process is and as redundant, our process is in creating bills and those bills developing, uh, and passing through the, uh, process and, and going into code. Sometimes we miss a thing or two. Usually they're, um, uh, mostly, um, you know, commas and, and word changes and slight definition changes. Um, and that's essentially for the most part, with one exception. What this bill does is clarifying some, uh, some, you know, making some technical changes. But I wanna point out one, because it is an item of substance, I'll point it out so that it doesn't seem that I'm just giving the same old, this is a cleanup bill …
S.B. 4 Economic and Community Development Base Budget · Senate floor debate (day 9) · Jan 28, 2026
Presents S.B. 4, which sets the FY 2027 base budget for the Economic and Community Development agencies at FY 2026 ongoing levels, with the adjustments described, and notes that changes may come in supplemental bills.
▶ Watch at 17:01Read what they said
Musselman. Thanks Mr. President. The, this bill provides a base budget for the four agencies overseen by the Economic and Community Development Appropriation Subcommittee, the Department of Alcohol Beverages Services, the Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity, the Department of Cultural and Community Engagement, and the Department of Workforce Services. As a reminder, the base budget starts, um, these agencies at the same level as FY 2026 ongoing appropriations. This Bill Appropriates three, uh, 300 and see 303.63 million and state funds for FY 2027 matting. The final ongoing amount for FYA 2026 with the exception of this, of some EAC approved amounts in December, which consisted of, uh, restoration of lapsed balances for ongoing projects, which consist of 125,001 time …
S.B. 63 Assault Modifications · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Sen. Musselman mentioned a trip to Mexico City last year where he toured an MMA training facility, and joked about the film Nacho Libre.
▶ Watch at 53:37Read what they said
So, uh, some of you may recall that I went on a delegation to Mexico City last year during the session with CSG West. And I'm just bringing that up. Senator Brammer. 'cause I got to tour and visit an MMA facility where they train. It was kind of cool in Mexico City. So I, for a second, I thought you were going to reveal your Lu Chador identity. No, but I have seen that Jack Black movie several times. But anyway, uh, nacho Libre. Okay.
S.B. 71 Evidence Retention Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Asked whether the bill changes how long evidence is kept in life-of-incarceration cases.
▶ Watch at 1:10:15Read what they said
Um, I, I may misunderstand, but just on storage cost burden. So life of incarceration, keeping evidence, is that, are we tweaking that or is that already in code? Am I missing something? There?
S.B. 80 Physician Practice Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Asked whether any physician has ever been threatened with discipline for refusing to participate in executions.
▶ Watch at 1:20:55Read what they said
So on the surface, this seems reasonable, but has there ever been a case where a physician was threatened with discipline for refusing to participate in executions, uh, that you're aware of?
S.B. 80 Physician Practice Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 27, 2026
Asked whether the bill could include protections for physicians who do participate in executions.
▶ Watch at 1:21:56Read what they said
I, I, I'm not sure that Okay. Fair enough. I think reasonably it's on the surface, but let me just ask you kind of one, since we were talking ethics and the flip side of this and trying to make sure what this bill's actually trying to do, protect physicians, right? Um, on the flip side, you don't offer any protection of the bill if, if physician does participate, and I think that's what the chair was alluding to in participation in an execution. Um, could there not be protections designed into the bill specifically to provide protections for the ones that don't participate as well or do participate?
S.B. 145 Lobbying Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Says the guardrails seem reasonable but raises possible concerns about bonus contract details and suggests reviewing the contingent-fee language further with the sponsor.
▶ Watch at 48:38Read what they said
So it seems on its surface reasonable guardrails and exceptions that you've put in here, and it seems like you've thought through this fairly well, but there may be some, some concerns on the, the, we could, might fe her out. Um, but I, I may talk with you online on that, 'cause we're just talking really not conceptual, not conceptual problems, but more details. Especially, I, I, I think the, maybe the most meaty portion is the enforcement of contingent fee prohibition. That's, would you agree that's probably the most meaty portion of this, or the significant, most significant policy reach? That's the primary point of the bill. There's a lot of definitional cleanups that was requested by staff, …
S.B. 45 Kratom Adjustments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Musselman asks whether natural kratom is still converted by the body into 7-OH.
▶ Watch at 1:15:35Read what they said
Um, so that I was clear. So the, are you, so if we, if they just had just natural, um, creto, the body still converts to 7 0 8, which creates the addictive qualities that we're talking about.
S.B. 45 Kratom Adjustments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Musselman notes that common over-the-counter drugs like ibuprofen can also cause liver damage and invites a response.
▶ Watch at 1:16:21Read what they said
One more follow up question really quick. I just wanna talk about liver damage just for a quick second because there's a lot of different products that are over the counter that cause liver, ibuprofen. My wife, unbeknownst to her liver damage for ibuprofen Very true. And, and quit using it and reversed itself, but oh my goodness. Didn't think that that would happen. Right. So I'm not sure that that, uh, motivates me as, as much because you know, there's other products, but I'm gonna make that statement allow you to respond to it.
S.B. 45 Kratom Adjustments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Musselman asks whether gabapentin was being laced into kratom products.
▶ Watch at 1:24:40Read what they said
Yeah. Okay. You, you gave a list fairly quick and I, I didn't write down fast enough, but one of them was the, basically the compounds that are being laced, you're finding laced into it. One of 'em was gabapentin, I think. Did I misunderstand that? So,
S.B. 45 Kratom Adjustments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Musselman asks what the gabapentin combination does.
▶ Watch at 1:25:20Read what they said
Alright, so the second one's, my question does fentanyls, you can set that aside. I understand gabapentin, I think that's more of a nerve blocker, but, but is that somehow, what does that mean? What's that doing? What's the combination?
S.B. 45 Kratom Adjustments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Musselman concludes the gabapentin combination appears purposeful.
▶ Watch at 1:26:34Read what they said
So the reason I was asking that chair is to try to figure out is that coincidental? Because in this circumstance right, we were just finding is it coincidental or purposeful being added to it to, to either to an enhance a high or to make it more effective. And it sounds like yeah, based on what you're saying, your experiences, it's, it's purposeful. They're adding it People that by design people are abusing it and, and specifically when they do, they add it to other things. Alright,
S.B. 45 Kratom Adjustments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Moved to pass SB 45 out with a favorable recommendation.
▶ Watch at 2:28:16Read what they said
Senator Musselman, I, uh, I'll move that we pass out with a favorable recommendation, SB 45 Creative adjustments.
S.B. 149 Licensing Modifications · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Sen. Musselman asked whether there is demand for the bill and what problem it addresses among private investigators.
▶ Watch at 2:54:47Read what they said
Uh, just one quick question. Uh, first of all, I guess this is gonna reveal my ignorance, um, Senator Weiler, but is there, is there a clamoring for this? I mean, what's the problem? Is there a problem out there with private investigators? It seems, everything seems, Reason, I just don't know where it's coming from.
S.B. 149 Licensing Modifications · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Sen. Musselman asked a question about the bail bond clothing requirement. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 2:56:15Read what they said
Oh, and by the way, I, when I read that last bullet point about the clothing, I'm thinking, is it a bikini?
S.B. 134 Court Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 4) · Jan 23, 2026
Will vote yes while raising concerns about the timing and public perception, and suggests considering a Nevada-style panel model in the future.
▶ Watch at 55:01Read what they said
Senator Musselman, I wanna rise today to somewhat explain where I'll be voting on this and to also, uh, reiterate some of my concerns. Um, I'll say at the outset, I will be voting in favor, although I've been going back and forth and back and forth, and the good president's heard my concerns. Um, but I, I, I think some of what I'm going to say is just gonna be echoing of what some of my seatmates have already said. But I, I, I think they're worth reiterating and reaffirming. Um, there's no question that the timing of this, uh, proposal raises concerns. No question. The recent, some of the recent, uh, events have, have put us in a …
S.B. 37 George E. Wahlen Memorial Highway Designation · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Explains that the bill was presented in interim committee with a unanimous vote and asks the chair how much of the presentation to repeat or whether to expedite.
▶ Watch at 21:47Read what they said
Um, Mr. Chair, we had actually presented this during interim committee and it was a unanimous vote in interim committee. I, to be honest with you, I don't know the internal structure sometimes as to why things land in committee and why they don't. But this could have been a pass, but it didn't. So we're here again, I'm just looking for you to tell me how much of the presentation you'd like me to reiterate or if you would like to expedite.
S.B. 134 Court Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Musselman expressed reservations about efficiency and asked the sponsor to consider Nevada's model of a seven-justice court sitting in three-judge panels.
▶ Watch at 1:26:52Read what they said
Senator Wilson. I, I had some reservations about this. In fact, I still have reservations that I've spoke to you about that, um, multiple occasions. Um, part of that is that I'm not certain that the efficiency comes with the adding the judges, and I've spoke to you about that as well. And although what I'm gonna propose here, I I, I do so recognize, and it's kind of at the last hour, and I'm not proposing necessarily amendment, but just something for your consideration that if we're truly gonna try to be, um, more efficient, maybe there's a model out there that could provide that efficiency. And you can only do that model with seven judges. Coincidentally, um, that …
S.B. 134 Court Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Musselman said moving to seven justices seems reasonable but the panel model could deliver the efficiency sought.
▶ Watch at 1:30:18Read what they said
Yeah, if I may, Mr. Chair on that again, I, I I get the concern from the public and I've had the same concern. What, you know, seven Okay. That, that seems like a reasonable one. There's lots of states that have gone from five to seven, Nevada being one of 'em, they're similar to us. They did it almost 30 years ago. The question is, is does it do what we're truly trying to do and be in more efficiency? This is a model that could do that. If we could think if it, if there's room for it, then I think we should consider it.
S.B. 134 Court Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Musselman questioned the claim that seven justices weakens decision-making, noting several states have seven-member courts.
▶ Watch at 1:45:50Read what they said
So at the very beginning, you suggested because they would go from five to seven, that, that somehow would water down or negate the ability for them to make, I'm not sure how you stated it, but it was, I'm just confused at one part. And that is Nevada's at seven. Iowa is at seven. Connecticut's at seven. Arkansas's at seven. Kansas at seven Mississippi's at night. Do all those states just, they, they just can't do the same thing that our court can do, because that's what you just suggested.
S.B. 134 Court Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Musselman said she had made two separate arguments and raised timing only later.
▶ Watch at 1:46:18Read what they said
No, the timing's d you, you bifurcated those two Arguments. So if you're, if you're looking at the timing of having five No, No. You bifurcated those two arguments. You made the argument at the beginning that it was watering down their ability decision and you didn't suggest the timing until Oh, okay. Later in your
S.B. 134 Court Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Musselman asked whether all states with larger courts are confused.
▶ Watch at 1:47:12Read what they said
If you add two more, It might make it more confusing. It's actually not in, are, are All the states confused that have seven or eight or nine,
S.B. 134 Court Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Jan 22, 2026
Musselman said he still has reservations given the political climate but believes the policy is right and will vote for it in committee without committing further.
▶ Watch at 2:36:29Read what they said
Senator Musselman. Thank you, Mr. Chair for, uh, your gracious and allow us to each, to kind of explain our positions here. And because this is a complex issue and it is a, it, it, it sets a precedent, it moves a great deal of good, I think, into our courts as far as, um, you know, ability to effectively do things well. And I'm, I'm hopeful for that. And I, I get, there's some reservations as well. In fact, I still have reservations and, um, uh, I, I don't know where I'm gonna be, uh, as it moves forward. I am, but I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm balancing company issues. You know, it's, it's, if you are, if you remove …
S.B. 90 Occupational Licenses for Veterans and Service Members · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Asks whether the requirement to take licensing exams is explicitly stated in the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:00:26Read what they said
Yeah, I apologize. I missed portion there. So if I ask a question, you think, well, they answered it there. It's 'cause I was out of the room. Um, nonetheless, uh, I I I know the testimony was that you still have to take the exams. So is that stated in there that we just relying, because it's not stated in in the bill, because I can't find it in the bill necessarily, that you, you have to take the exams. Is it explicitly spelled out in the bill or are we just relying on Dopple for that dictation and not calling on it specifically?
S.B. 90 Occupational Licenses for Veterans and Service Members · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Asks whether the bill spells out that tests or evaluations are required in code.
▶ Watch at 1:01:00Read what they said
And I have a couple other questions. Friends, how about, um, background checks and, and, uh, I mean the, this makes sense to me, but there's, it's not as simple as just time in the education you have to have. You gotta check some other boxes here. So the question is, is this, I, I, I'm, I'm, I'm scrubbing trying to find it, but I don't know that it spells it out the bill that the, the tests or evaluations are required in code.
S.B. 90 Occupational Licenses for Veterans and Service Members · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Says he would prefer the bill explicitly require tests and evaluations equal to current standards.
▶ Watch at 1:02:00Read what they said
It does. I I, I suppose I would rather either have, in the bills explicitly spelled out that the test and valuations have to be the same or e equal to or greater than maybe just equal to what's currently required or explicitly spelled out. The doppel may implement any, anything that they see fit in test and evaluations that would be equal to what is the standard for the industry.
S.B. 90 Occupational Licenses for Veterans and Service Members · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Asks whether the sponsor worked with the Veterans and Military Affairs Commission and whether it supports the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:02:45Read what they said
Um, one other question, Mr. Chair, if you don't mind. And I, I suspect there might be some other questions for Mr. Director. Um, gimme just one second here. And I, I guess this may be getting in the weeds a bit. I, I like this bill, but maybe I'll ask cut offline. But let me just ask you, did you, did you, uh, Senator Baldry, did you work with the, um, veterans and Military Affairs Commission on this bill already? And what do you mind just giving, what was the result of that? Did they, are they in support of it? I'm assuming they are, but do you know, or
S.B. 90 Occupational Licenses for Veterans and Service Members · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Says he supports the bill but wants details spelled out to avoid possible lawsuits.
▶ Watch at 1:04:59Read what they said
Yeah, I, I don't get me wrong, I'm, I fully support it and theoretically it's, it's great. Sometimes the devil's in the details, right? And, and, and I, I just want to be explicit 'cause there could be some that cause lawsuits and so on and so forth. Hold on. I, you know, I shouldn't have to take the test. If we more detailed we are in that process, I think the better. So
S.B. 90 Occupational Licenses for Veterans and Service Members · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Asks whether people trained outside the military could qualify under similar pathways.
▶ Watch at 1:05:47Read what they said
I, you know, and I'd had a couple of similar questions, but one question I thought of is, um, and I think this is a, a direct concept. The military obviously is oftentimes very good trainer and of employee employment trainer. Um, are there other situations where an individual could receive similar training that could potentially qualify them under, you know, in a similar fashion, only just not military? Is there, I don't, I don't know. Is is that possible? And, you know, I think about that, you know, in situations where an individual maybe weren't, they weren't in the military, but they still received s you know, significant training that, uh, that maybe could fall under the kind of …
S.B. 90 Occupational Licenses for Veterans and Service Members · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Says the question is not critical and suggests discussing it offline.
▶ Watch at 1:06:56Read what they said
Okay. Yeah. I, and lemme just, yeah, maybe we can just talk offline. Okay. It's not, I don't know that it's critical, but it just got me thinking that I just wanna make sure that if there's other situations where an individual could, you know, be, receive, uh, training in a trade or, or anything like that, that, uh, maybe could fall under the same umbrella.
S.B. 90 Occupational Licenses for Veterans and Service Members · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Spoke on the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:07:29Read what they said
No, that's fine. Just, sorry, just one thought came to me. That's always dangerous when you're in a middle of a committee meeting and some random thought comes to your mind, you know.
S.B. 120 Towing Modifications · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Musselman asks what happens in a county with no towing ability, using San Juan County as an example.
▶ Watch at 1:23:49Read what they said
I suppose maybe I, I don't know, um, if I even want ask the question, but, 'cause this is just practical. I'm just thinking of practical terms. County of origin, you're on the county line. Let, let's say county doesn't have any tow, any ability to, I don't know that there is a county in Utah that doesn't have the ability to tow, but maybe there is. So what do you do in that county? Well,
S.B. 120 Towing Modifications · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Musselman questions how practical the county-of-origin requirement is in northern San Juan County.
▶ Watch at 1:24:36Read what they said
So let me ask you how practical, this is really practical. That happens in the northern part of San Juan County. It's closer to Moab or Grand County than it would be a towing yard in Monticello. Logistically, it seems like we'd be stepping over ourselves. Well,
S.B. 120 Towing Modifications · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Musselman asks whether the radius is 10 or 15 miles and notes cross-county situations could create the same problem.
▶ Watch at 1:24:59Read what they said
Is that a radius of 10 miles? Right. 15. I mean, if we're going 30 miles, well you can in where, in the basin That's across the county line. Two different directions and you could end up with the same situation. So if there's an easy way to address that, we can figure it out.
S.B. 101 Specialized Product Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Says online sales of these products are difficult to address, that the bill covers on-shelf products, and that the issue is still being worked on.
▶ Watch at 1:37:55Read what they said
Well, I, I'll give Dr. Foray some time. The bottom line is those are difficult. We're still trying to solve that problem, that nut. Um, it's not like, uh, traditional sales. I mean traditional sales, if you're captured, you know, if you're buying it through Amazon or something, we captured a lot of sales tax. This would be a specialized tax. Um, we haven't completely solved that problem and this would be dealing with, you know, on shelf products at this point, but we're still exploring how to, how to solve that one.
S.B. 75 Educator Salary Adjustment Eligibility · Senate Education Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Introduces Marie Evans, a school nurse supervisor, and explains that the bill adds school nurses to the educator salary adjustment list, and that he will propose an amendment specifying registered nurses.
▶ Watch at 1:54:46Read what they said
Thank you for coming today. Am I, am I on? Yep. Oh, very good. The light's not on down here. I have, uh, Mr. Chair, if it, if it pleases you, I want to introduce my chair mate here. Um, Marie Evans, she's a school nurse supervisor with the school district, and happens to be my constituent. Um, very good. We'll talk about whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. I think it's a good thing. She thinks it's an okay thing, I suppose. Um, nonetheless, uh, she brought to my attention, um, maybe what could have been, and quite possibly was an, an error. Um, but we can leave that to history and the, and the, and …
S.B. 75 Educator Salary Adjustment Eligibility · Senate Education Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Clarifies that the amendment would add registered nurses to the educator salary adjustment list and reads the related appropriation language.
▶ Watch at 1:58:25Read what they said
Um, I just wanna make sure I'm clarifying what we're doing here. This is adding them to the list of educated salary adjustment. Right. So if the case that wasn't perfectly clear, but I wanna read the line below where we'd add registered nurse In recognition of the need to attract, attract, and retain highly skilled and educated educators, the laser shall annually appropriate money for educators salary adjustments.
S.B. 111 Veterinary Post-employment Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Notes federal and state actions on non-competes and asks whether the market is moving away from them on its own.
▶ Watch at 2:56:23Read what they said
So the FTC tried to issue a nationwide non-compete ban back in what, 2024. And then that was overturned because it was, it was a non-compete that rolled in non-disclosure and non-solicitation. And I don't know the case particularly, but, uh, but I know generally and, and they, they were overturned and pushed back because it was too broad. And so there's a whole patchwork of this non-compete compete states. There's like five or six of 'em that have the support, the banning of non-competes. Um, but I, I, I, generally speaking, I don't like non-compete. So I, this falls favorably to my ears, but I have the same concerns that that was previously just, uh, expressed by Senator Wier. …
S.B. 111 Veterinary Post-employment Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Asks whether the same issue applies in dentistry.
▶ Watch at 2:59:14Read what they said
Is it, is it the same for, you have the same issue for, for instance, Dennis?
S.B. 111 Veterinary Post-employment Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Says he is inclined to support the bill but suggests its non-disclosure and other terms may be too broad.
▶ Watch at 2:59:31Read what they said
Yeah. Now I, I don't know if that's the right direction or not. I I, I'm inclined to vote for it. Mm-hmm. Just because I, I'm, I'm not a fan of non-compete in the first place. Sure. But it may be, it may be that it's a bit broad and if you restrain a little better, it might land in a better place. 'cause you've got, uh, it's non-disclosures. Yeah. It's, I mean, you can't, I mean, yeah, if I'm, if I'm a, if I, I'm, I'm on the side of, if I own a practice, yeah. I'm not gonna, because I, I, I may actually have a trade secret. Maybe, maybe there's not one in veterinary. Maybe. Maybe. But …
S.B. 111 Veterinary Post-employment Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Asks whether the witness would have signed a non-compete knowing what he knows now.
▶ Watch at 3:06:54Read what they said
Oh dear. Um, so is there, I, I'm just curious, had, had you, had you, let's say you came to this state and, and you were aware when you signed that you were aware of that non-compete, would you, let's just say in this moment, would you have not assigned it? Would you have not signed the contract?
S.B. 111 Veterinary Post-employment Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Asks about employer concerns over hiring out-of-state veterinarians and suggests a narrower non-compete might be workable.
▶ Watch at 3:07:17Read what they said
Alright. But you're here now and you're glad you're in Utah, apparently, huh? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um, given, given what you know now and what you experienced, do you think there's an issue with somebody hiring somebody like you coming outta state that won't sign a and, and they simply, all right, you know what? We, we can't afford you to come in, take some of our clients 'cause that's, somebody's gonna follow you. Sure. You leave. They're going to, that's just reality. That's just not paying it otherwise. Yeah. Makes it difficult to recognize that, that that's gonna happen. I'm, I really like the idea of died non-compete. I think it's too broad. I think you, you probably have …
S.B. 111 Veterinary Post-employment Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Asks how prevalent non-competes are in corporate versus independent veterinary practice.
▶ Watch at 3:09:21Read what they said
One, one follow up question, please. Is this, and, and I'm, I'm doing, I'm having AI scrub as fast as I can to figure out Yeah. How prevalent this is and figure out where, where the, where the free market is in this world. Yeah. Is this more prevalent amongst the corporate veterinary world than, let's say a private smaller practice as far as non-competes? Um, is, and can, can you speak to that with some level of assurity or you, would you be
S.B. 111 Veterinary Post-employment Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Moves to pass S.B. 111 favorably, while saying he has reservations about singling out one profession and sees an employment trap.
▶ Watch at 3:17:51Read what they said
I'll move that we pass with a favorable recommendation, SB one 11 veterinary post-employment amendments. And I'd like to speak to that if I can. Just really quickly Yes, go ahead. I, I, I, I think I've expressed it clearly. I have some my reservations. I think we are picking a specific, um, specific industry or profession where there's other professions that's clearly have the same issue. Uh, there, there may be some, uh, some wisdom and having o overarching non-compete type legislations in our, in our state. Um, and I think that that, that learning from the experience that clearly the FTC had would be wise. That being said, I think for the reasons that have been stated here, …
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 2) · Jan 21, 2026
Presents S.B. 30, explains the knowing and reckless standards in the bill and the new patronizing offenses, and says the bill is meant to scale penalties to awareness.
▶ Watch at 11:26Read what they said
Thanks Mr. President. I, I'm gonna reiterate a couple of things that I gave in the second reading just to make sure that the body recognizes procedurally how we'd done things as it as it pertains to the interim committee. As I can know, there can be some reservations there. I presented the bill, the bill that you have before, you once had the committee consider it, and then waited a full month with interchange with the committee and other parties then presented it again before I asked for the vote. So they had two full opportunities to consider it and still got a unanimous vote. But that being said, I, I recognize even after presentation there was appropriate maybe …
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 2) · Jan 21, 2026
Answers that the commercial wording aligns with federal definitions, that parallel code still covers non-commercial exploitation, and that the bill does not undermine other prosecutions.
▶ Watch at 17:26Read what they said
So we, we have paralleling sections of code. There's sections of code that deal with, um, non-commercial or human trafficking exploitation of Myers. They're, they're heavy penalties as well. Those still can be prosecuted for. This doesn't touch any of that. What this does is align with federal statute on a accepted definition so that it's better for prosecutors so that there's clear definable what is human trafficking? Human trafficking is about profit. That's it. That is the sole purpose. There's all sorts of nastiness that comes with it, of course, but it's about profit. It's the commercialization of human beings. It's the exact definition we need. But it doesn't undermine any other segment of code that can be prosecuted …
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 2) · Jan 21, 2026
Says other provisions such as child rape and sexual exploitation cover such conduct.
▶ Watch at 18:42Read what they said
Yeah, for certain there's child rape, which is on the books. There's sexual exploitation, there's all sorts of different sections of code that they go after. Most specifically though, child rape.
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 2) · Jan 21, 2026
Summarizes the bill as making the trafficking code more precise and gives an example of a farmer who hires a worker unknowingly, saying the bill addresses that case.
▶ Watch at 19:03Read what they said
And then I'm gonna emotion, I would just sum up with our, our current code is, is heavy handed, but that's not what this bill is primarily about. It's about being more precise. It's a little too vague, it's a little too broad. And because of that broadness, it does actually weaken prosecutor prosecutor's ability to go after, uh, a specific action or a specific ill in our community because defense attorneys can argue these ambiguities. And by isolating and being very specific in the code, it weakens their ability to argue ambiguous ambi ambiguity. But it also gives the ability for the prosecutor to go after directly, uh, the, the, the actions that we find most reprehensible. And for …
S.B. 13 Statutorily Required Reports and Presentations Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Presents S.B. 13, which reduces the number of statutorily required committee reports by moving some into the public safety data portal and eliminating others.
▶ Watch at 13:05Read what they said
Thanks Mr. President. Um, in an effort to try to be more, uh, streamlined and more proficient in our job. Um, as an interim committee, we were overwhelmed with the amount of reporting requirements that, um, we had in our committee. And, and in reviewing those we realized many of these reports were simply weren't happening and many of them were just, um, not necessary. Um, and given that we had passed HB two 20, which was the public safety data portal, um, much of the reporting that was required in committee, um, would be much more efficient simply if they were put into the portal. So in an effort to clean up the amount of reports that come have …
S.B. 18 Criminal Offense Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Presents S.B. 18 as a committee bill that corrects cross references, subsections, a missing penalty, and a citation, and clarifies a title, and yields for questions.
▶ Watch at 24:51Read what they said
Senator Musselman, Mr. President SB 18 is a, uh, committee bill. Um, there was several cross references and, um, subsections that had some errors that we were cleaning up. In addition to that, we actually inadvertently, um, didn't include a penalty specifically dealing with Juab jutting material harmful to a minor. It was a, just a typo that we'd missed it, but this puts it in appropriately as what was intended from the previous legislation and offenses. Uh, it amends the offenses and names and, and corrects a citation for a public assistant fraud by recipient of a public assistant. Uh, just clarifying that particular title as well. Um, I vote him for questions.
S.B. 18 Criminal Offense Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Says there are no substantive changes and that the edits correct typos and mislabeling from previous legislation.
▶ Watch at 26:03Read what they said
There are no substantive changes. These were all, all these were intended in the previous legislation. They were just in essence corrections to some typos or mislabeling.
S.B. 18 Criminal Offense Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Moves under suspension of the rules that S.B. 18 pass.
▶ Watch at 26:23Read what they said
Any summation or, and, and a motion I would move under the suspension of the rule that we pass SB 18 criminal offenses modifications.
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Explained the bill's revisions to human trafficking offenses, its new penalty structure, and new patronizing offenses, and said it is meant to protect good-faith employers while strengthening prosecution of traffickers.
▶ Watch at 42:14Read what they said
Thanks, Mr. President. Um, this committee Bill is the result of extensive discussions between myself, law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and, and the attorneys general's office. We've met multiple, multiple times in joint discussions and one-on-one discussions, um, just by way of procedure for, uh, for you, Mr. President. We actually presented this once in committee, in, in the form that you see it now, prior to asking for a vote and allowed the committee members to look at it over a month and consider it based on my presentation and then represent it before asking their vote so they could fully, um, understand and fully wrap their heads around, um, the changes that were made in a, in a …
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Said he has a chart comparing previous and current law and offered to answer specific questions or review the changes section by section with the senator. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 47:36Read what they said
Mr. President, Senator Vickers. I, I do have a kind of a chart that shows what the previous law was and what it is now that I could share with, um, my seatmate that there's quite a bit of data there. Um, whether or not I can answer a specific question, I can try to do, so if there's a specific question on a particular item or I can sit down with the, with the good, uh, senator and, and kind of go over it verse by verse and show the differences.
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Agreed that the bill could be moved to third reading so the comparison chart can be shared. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 48:12Read what they said
I I can, yeah, that'll work. Okay. Why don't we do that? That helps, helps a Ton. Yeah, I'm my hand too. That's great.
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.