Representative Ken Ivory, sponsor of HB 488, told the Public Utilities and Energy Committee on the morning the measure was intended to restore a balance between state and federal authority and educate officials and citizens about ‘‘the structure of our government.’’ The committee advanced the bill, as amended, by a 9–1 vote; Representative Dominguez cast the lone dissent.

Supporters said the bill would establish three pillars: a continuing-education program for state and local officials, a convening/summit effort to bring state leaders together across party lines, and a mechanism to coordinate a multi-state federalism commission. ‘‘This is the culmination of about 15 years of work,’’ Ivory told the committee, adding that the bill seeks a ‘‘returning to that structure where we celebrate diversity in the states and that self governing ability.’’

The bill’s proponents framed the effort as educational and structural rather than partisan. Representative Thompson, citing the bill’s three pillars, said continuing education would ‘‘prepare us to wean ourselves off of federal influence and take more power and control back to the states.’’ Former Utah governor Gary R. Herbert, who joined the hearing online, said the initiative should focus on the relationship between states and the federal government and quoted James Madison in describing state powers as ‘‘numerous and indefinite.’’ Troy Smith, a professor at Utah Valley University, described a proposal for a state-supported, multi-state commission modeled on the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (1959–1996) to monitor congressional proposals for unfunded mandates, preemptions and other federal measures.

Supporters included nonvoting members of the proposed commission and representatives of education and policy groups. Jim Moss, former chair of the Utah State Board of Education, said state officials are ‘‘the heroes of federalism’’ and described agency-level regulatory burdens the proposed effort would review. Public witnesses who spoke in favor included Mary Anne Christiansen of Utah Legislative Watch and Rick Larson of the Sutherland Institute, both of whom urged committee approval.

A brief committee discussion touched on preemption and local government impacts. Representative Dominguez asked how the bill would affect state–local relationships and social services; Ivory replied that the statutes and court doctrine treat states and the federal government as supreme in their separate spheres and that the bill was intended to restore clarity and delegation.

Committee action: the committee first approved House Amendment No. 1 (motion by Representative Albrecht) and then voted to pass the amended HB 488 out of committee with a favorable recommendation by voice roll-call, 9 in favor and 1 opposed. The committee made clear supporters view the bill primarily as an education and coordination measure intended to reestablish institutional capacity for states to respond to federal actions.

What the bill would do: the sponsors described the measure as creating an ongoing education program for state officials, organizing a national summit to engage state leaders from across the political spectrum, and organizing a multi-state commission to monitor federal proposals and coordinate negotiation or litigation where necessary. Troy Smith said a state-funded, multi-state commission could ‘‘serve as a watchdog’’ to identify federal overreach and promote coordinated responses by the states.

The committee record shows support from the governor’s office, the attorney general’s office and academic partners; sponsors said they would continue outreach across partisan lines. No fiscal note or specific appropriation language was presented at the hearing. The committee did not adopt any amendments that change the bill’s stated core functions during the hearing beyond the adoption of the one amendment it voted to incorporate.

The bill now moves from committee with a favorable recommendation.

Documents and context cited to committee members included the Utah Constitution (Article I, Section 27) and references to the Federalist Papers and Federalist No. 45 during floor presentations. Proponents repeatedly framed the proposal as ‘‘structure, not politics.’’