Transcript Highlights:

• Sometimes people mistakenly think those rights apply to your breath test.
• There is the requirement to take that test in.
• A lot goes in before we even think about chemical tests.
• We're not making on what we think the chemical test is going to be.
• stop the testing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I have no problem taking the test.
• I think that goes against current law and Title 67, but if it were only the test, the national test,
• We are also tested in these areas.
• And I'll tell you, we didn't leave the test out because they're afraid of the test or something like
• It is a standardized test.

Committee: Senate Commerce and Human Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• Under current law, for results from blood and breath tests to be valid and admissible in court, the tests
• for breath tests back quickly?
• Brad would touch it. ...multi-expert test. So I would touch one.
• Brad would touch another part of the same test.
• The other Brad would touch another part of the same test.

Summary: The committee began with introductions and then heard Senate Bill 5865, which would repeal statutory garnishment answer forms and require use of Washington Pattern Forms Committee forms instead. Staff, the prime sponsor, and judges’ association witnesses said the bill is a technical fix that would make garnishment calculations more accurate and efficient without changing substantive law. A collectors’ association witness said the current statutory form can be used if needed until new forms are available and raised concerns about the timeliness of pattern form updates, but was open to working on language. The public hearing on SB 5865 was then closed. The committee next heard Senate Bill 5880, which would allow blood and breath toxicology results to be admissible if tested by an ISO/IEC 17025-certified or accredited forensic lab. The sponsor and supporters, including the Seattle city attorney and traffic safety experts, described severe backlogs at the state toxicology lab, with some DUI blood results taking many months or longer and cases expiring before charges can be filed. Counties, prosecutors, sheriffs, and defense representatives generally agreed the backlog is a serious problem, but several warned the bill could shift costs to local governments, create uneven access to private testing, and raise due process concerns unless discovery cooperation is required. The committee then closed the hearing on SB 5880. Senate Bill 5912 would reinstate the indigent defense task force to study Washington’s public defense system and report recommendations by 2028. Supporters from counties, cities, public defense offices, and tribal interests said the statewide shortage of defense attorneys and rising costs are straining local budgets and delaying access to counsel, especially in rural and eastern Washington. Some witnesses urged the bill be amended to add more stakeholder representation, including clients and practitioners, and cautioned that the task force should not delay immediate action on funding and caseload standards. The hearing on SB 5912 was then closed. The committee also heard Senate Bill 5837, a broad update to guardianship, conservatorship, and protective arrangement procedures. The bill would lower the minimum age for a proposed guardian from 21 to 18, expand notice options, clarify appointment of counsel, and streamline service and hearing procedures. Testimony was largely supportive, especially from kinship caregivers, legal aid, and estate-law practitioners who said the bill would reduce costly publication requirements and improve access to justice, though some witnesses requested amendments on notice, waiver language, emergency procedures, and counsel provisions. The committee reported 40 pro and 70 con sign-ins on the bill, then moved on. Finally, the committee began hearing Senate Bill 5855, which would prohibit law enforcement officers, including federal agents, from wearing facial coverings during public interactions except in limited circumstances such as undercover work, SWAT operations, or health and safety needs. The sponsor and supporters said the bill is intended to increase transparency, accountability, and trust, especially for immigrant and marginalized communities, while opponents argued it could endanger officers, conflict with federal authority, and is tied to ongoing litigation over similar California legislation. Testimony was sharply divided, with some witnesses emphasizing public fear and trauma from masked officers and others arguing the bill would make officers more vulnerable and create constitutional problems. The hearing continued with additional public testimony after the excerpt ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> looking not so much at the NAPE test looking not so much at the NAPE test results<00:41:56.400><
• The other test is a completely separate test. You take it on a different day, etc. >> Yeah.
• . um the test far as the spending goes. um the test score<01:42:54.960><c> stuff,</c> The score stuff
• </c><01:45:10.080><c> so</c> that all states do states testing so that all states do states testing so
• . test. test.

Summary: The committee met to hear from the New Hampshire Association of School Principals as part of its review of a proposal involving statewide administrative consolidation and changes to school governance. Members first discussed how school board witnesses would be selected, with the chair saying the committee would seek a mix of district sizes and structures and would also accept emailed input. The principals’ association said it represents more than 550 principals and assistant principals and urged caution about any mandatory consolidation, arguing that successful consolidations are gradual and voluntary. Association leaders and principals testified that principals already handle a wide range of responsibilities, including instructional leadership, student discipline, safety, staff supervision and evaluation, family and community engagement, and day-to-day crisis response. They argued that shifting more legal, budgetary, and administrative duties onto principals would reduce time for coaching teachers and supporting students, increase burnout and turnover, and create legal and training risks, especially in areas such as special education, privacy, and labor issues. They also said the roles of superintendents, principals, and school board members are distinct and require different training and expertise. Members asked detailed questions about how responsibilities are divided between principals and SAUs, whether principals recruit and evaluate staff, and how much time principals work. One principal said she works about 60 to 70 hours a week and that additional duties would be difficult to absorb. Another principal described his school’s structure, the importance of community building, and the need to preserve district-wide alignment if consolidation moves forward. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• diagnosis genetic testing was done on diagnosis genetic testing was done on our<00:06:34.280><c> entire
• </c><00:14:20.480><c> positive</c> and 11 girls have been tested positive and 11 girls have been tested
• Doctors knew to test for it in the younger child because MLD is a genetic disease.
• The science wasn't there, and accurate testing wasn't there to prevent false positives.
• The science wasn't there, and accurate testing wasn't there to prevent false positives.

Transcript Highlights:

• The total resource cost test is a long-standing test used in many contexts, and cost-effectiveness tests
• First, change the total resource cost test.
• But an equal number—actually, 17—use other tests, such as the PAC and other tests, as their primary metric
• that could be the primary test instead of the TRC test.
• that could be the primary test instead of the TRC test.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, where you can utilize this and the testing for the testing and training of, of laboratory technicians
• , and also we need, I think we need additional people that are gonna be doing those testing, that testing
• and so they have to prioritize testing as well.
• Um, all the testing that is done is, is paid for through.
• They, um, the, the, the testing, they are not, um, it's predominantly we use Body lab for that testing

Committee: House Courts, Corrections & Justice Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• So are we testing children?
• So a student takes the test.
• So, like, our official testing window closes Friday, like, for all the subjects and the tests.
• But parents and students, if they tested—some schools haven't tested yet, right?
• They're still testing—but if they tested, they know their scores.

Summary: The committee approved the March 9 and 10 minutes and then heard a presentation from the Arkansas Department of Education on the Arkansas Excellence in Teaching Fellowship, featuring three third-grade teachers from Cabot, Poyen, and Drew Central who are also teacher merit pay recipients. The teachers described the fellowship as a year-long Zoom-based collaboration with about 23 educators statewide, focused on sharing classroom strategies, data use, and professional support. Members asked about the teachers’ experience, how they share what they learn with their districts, the range of grades represented in the fellowship, and the relationship between the fellowship and merit pay. The teachers emphasized building relationships with students, using data to drive instruction, early intervention, and collaboration across grade levels, while the secretary said the program is intended to identify and elevate high-performing teachers and spread their practices. A major portion of the discussion focused on third-grade reading, retention, and the new ATLAS testing system. Teachers and the secretary said students are screened and progress monitored throughout the year, families are notified early if students are at risk, and schools are using interventions, tutoring, and individualized reading plans. They said ATLAS results are now available much faster than in the past, often within 24 hours or a few days, allowing teachers and parents to respond quickly. Members asked about the impact of poverty, trauma, foster care, DHS involvement, IEPs, and critical shortage areas; teachers said relationship-building, small-group instruction, and coordination with counselors and special education staff are key. The secretary said the fellowship is a small subset of a broader merit pay program, that participation was voluntary, and that the state is trying to build a coherent system with literacy coaches, high-impact tutoring, and clearer standards rather than teaching to the test. Members also discussed broader policy issues, including the need for more positive public messaging about public education, teacher input in decision-making, and support for early childhood education. Several legislators asked whether the state should expand funding for early learning and whether more literacy or academic coaches are needed in districts that improve and then lose eligibility for state support. The secretary said the state has committed literacy coaches to D and F schools and is still working through how to sustain support as schools improve. He also said the administration would look at data and return on investment before supporting additional funding, and he encouraged legislators to help recruit eligible teachers into future fellowship cohorts. After the teacher panel concluded, the committee moved on to the adequacy resource allocation study, where Bureau of Legislative Research staff began a presentation on state and local education funding sources, categorical funds, and district spending patterns.

Transcript Highlights:

• Testing and pilots is really important.
• But the Department of Licensing does operate an AV testing program.
• prior to beginning their testing activities.
• Six manufacturers are authorized to test in the second permit, which is testing without a safety driver
• from driverless testing to deployment.

Committee: House Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:37:08.239><c> Um,</c> civics naturalization test. Um, civics naturalization test.
• </c><01:38:40.880><c> So</c> civics course competency test. So civics course competency test.
• What do you mean take a test for crazy. What do you mean take a test for civics?
• </c><01:45:49.199><c> out</c> competency test.
• So people can test out competency test.

Summary: The subcommittee met on HB 510 and HB 112, but the discussion focused almost entirely on HB 510, which would establish due process rights for students, student organizations, and faculty members in disciplinary proceedings at state institutions of higher education. The chair reviewed proposed amendments already approved or being considered, including revised definitions, confidentiality language for grievance information, removal of the adverse-inference language tied to self-incrimination, changes to cross-examination procedures, and narrowing an emergency exception by removing property damage and focusing on immediate threats to physical health or safety. The committee also discussed whether the hearing officer should have discretion to require a third party to conduct cross-examination, with the sponsor saying the word should remain “may” so the officer can respond to the circumstances of each case. Members opposed to the bill argued that existing campus procedures already provide adequate due process and that the proposal is unnecessary, potentially intimidating to complainants, and disruptive to university policies and collective bargaining agreements. They objected especially to language allowing the accused to be present during cross-examination of an accuser and to the use of the term “victim” before facts are established. Supporters said the bill is intended to ensure basic fairness for accused students and faculty, that the language was revised to address concerns, and that the rights listed are appropriate because serious allegations can have lasting consequences even outside the criminal context. No vote or final action was taken in the portion provided; the committee remained in discussion/caucus over the bill language.

Transcript Highlights:

• Within the existing quantity of questions within that test, thank you.
• You've never been tested about motorcycle safety.
• The driving test, as we'll call it, the skills test, has to be administered in English only.
• , just like you would your regular road test for a passenger vehicle.
• test.

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from Nucor Corporation on its Arizona operations, including the Kingman steel facility, recycling-based electric arc furnace production, workforce development, safety improvements, veteran hiring, and recent investments. Nucor emphasized that its Arizona materials support local infrastructure and manufacturing jobs, and members asked about scrap sources, annual tonnage recycled, average pay, safety practices, and future expansion. No formal action was taken on the presentation. The committee then considered HB 2574, which would require ADOT to hold off on enforcing a civil traffic judgment while an appeal is pending if a stay is granted. The sponsor and a witness argued the bill would close a due-process gap by preventing penalties from taking effect before appeals are resolved. The committee voted 7-0 to give HB 2574 a due pass recommendation. HB 2057, which lowers the fee for Arizona Centennial special plates on fleet vehicles and directs the fee split to administration and the Centennial Plate Fund, also passed 7-0 after discussion about possibly expanding the discount to other specialty plates. HB 2109, which raises penalties for repeat distracted-driving violations and adds an enhanced penalty when such conduct causes a motorcycle crash, drew extensive testimony and discussion. Supporters argued stronger fines are needed to change behavior and improve road safety, while members raised concerns that the bill lacked an education component and discussed possible committee-of-the-whole amendments. The committee voted 7-0 to pass the bill. HB 2317, which would bar local governments from prohibiting cruising, generated significant testimony both for and against; supporters framed cruising as a cultural practice tied to lowriding, while opponents described neighborhood congestion, blocked access, trash, and public-safety problems. The chair held HB 2317 so the sponsor and stakeholders could work on amendments. The committee also heard HB 2003, which would lower the minimum age for an instruction permit to 15 and extend permit validity and supervised-driving time for teen drivers; the sponsor argued the changes would improve safety by increasing supervised practice, but the transcript cuts off before any vote on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:42:24.480><c> that</c> workers uh there are some testing that workers uh there are some testing
• So rapid testing would be a larger task.
• That's COVID testing and that's there.
• You know, I don't want to picture a testing truck up in the back of the Red Al store here testing milk
• Testing of milk before retail amendment.

Bills: HF2784 , HF2785 , HF2778 , HF2281 , HF2576 , HF2280 , HF2579

Committee: House Agriculture Finance and Policy

Keywords: beginning farmers, agriculture, loans, economic opportunity, farmers' equity, agriculture appropriations, farm to school, early care, child care food program, school lunch program, local food, Minnesota agriculture, food access, farm-to-institution, limited market access, county fairs, biofuels, E25, ethanol, meat processing

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill requires manufacturers to test for and disclose testing results for heavy metals, including
• Recent testing of 312 infant formula samples covering 16 brands, with multiple lots tested per brand,
• So the lawsuit didn't—it just included annual testing, annual reporting, but no testing.
• If at any point any of the batches that are tested, because there is routine testing that happens, if
• , where QR code that's going to link to the testing—where is that testing information coming from?

Committee: Senate Health

Transcript Highlights:

• We did every test we could find. We did two different therapy dog tests. We did all the AKC tests.
• Hardest test we had to take was the Concord Hospital test.
• Hardest test we had to take was the Concord Hospital test.
• Hardest test we had to take was the Concord Hospital test.
• Hardest test we had to take was the Concord Hospital test.

Committee: House Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair. timing taken tests taken that they timing taken tests taken that they wanted<00:06:40.840><c>
• </c><00:08:05.960><c> within</c> to go and take their their test within to go and take their their test
• After two fails, the third test, the customer has to pay $10 before they can take the test.
• </c> there a charge for driver tests there a charge for driver tests today<00:20:41.280><c> director<
• </c> they take the third and subsequent test they take the third and subsequent test um<00:20:53.720>

Committee: House Transportation Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> looking not so much at the NAPE test looking not so much at the NAPE test results<00:41:56.400><
• And the other test is a completely separate test. You take it on a different day, etc. >> Yeah.
• The other test is a completely separate<00:43:52.000><c> test.
• You take it on a separate test.
• . test. test.

Summary: The meeting focused on school governance and a proposed shift in responsibilities related to SAU consolidation, with committee members first discussing how school board members and other local officials would be selected for future testimony. The main presentation came from the New Hampshire Association of School Principals, whose executive director Brady Belair and several principals argued that mandatory statewide administrative consolidation should be approached cautiously and that any consolidation should be voluntary and locally driven. They said anticipated savings may not materialize, citing possible higher personnel, transportation, and technology costs, and warned that forcing changes could create disruption without improving student outcomes. Principals testified that their jobs are already broad and demanding, centered on instructional leadership, student safety, staff supervision, family communication, and day-to-day crisis response. Kathleen Murphy of Amherst described working 60 to 70 hours a week and said principals spend substantial time coaching teachers, handling student issues, and supporting school climate; she said adding more administrative duties would compromise student learning and teacher growth. Adam Osborne of Bow Memorial School similarly described principals as daily problem-solvers who set school-level direction and create conditions for schools to thrive. The witnesses also emphasized that principals, superintendents, school boards, and business administrators have different training and responsibilities, and that specialized tasks such as special education compliance, FERPA/HIPAA issues, and labor matters require appropriate expertise. Committee members questioned the witnesses about overlap between superintendent and principal duties, the completeness of statutory responsibility lists, and whether some functions such as curriculum, discipline, hiring, and evaluation are shared. The principals acknowledged some overlap and collaboration, but said superintendents typically handle broader system-level, legal, and central-office responsibilities while principals focus on building-level leadership and teacher support. One member raised the earlier expectation that districts might move to a principal-plus-business-manager model, but the witnesses said that model did not develop as expected and that district structures vary widely. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I know this started, this requirement started just for the testing.
• So I know this started, this requirement started just for the testing.
• So the test has been required for a while. Thank you.
• So the test has been required for a while. So the test hasn't been required.
• So does testing not automatically go along with the fact that they're giving the curriculum?

Bills: SB1696 , SB1670 , SB1687 , SB1975

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, offered the invocation, and recognized the Doctor of the Day and several visiting groups in the galleries. The chamber then moved through a series of bills, with most of the action focused on third reading, amendments, and final passage votes. Senator Coleman’s motion to reconsider the failed vote on SB 1696 passed, allowing the bill to be taken up again. SB 1696, described by Senator Coleman as a rural economic development measure with no fiscal impact, passed on final passage and then passed again as an emergency measure after several senators changed votes from no to yes. SB 1670, as amended to add defense to the industries covered by its technology-transfer guidance, passed unanimously and was declared an emergency measure. SB 1687, which would strengthen Service Oklahoma’s authority regarding written driver’s tests and extend learner’s permit timing, was amended to delete unclear language and restore the title, then passed unanimously. SB 1975, which reorganizes how schools publicize AP testing dates, locations, and sign-up information, drew questions about compliance and implementation but no opposition; it passed unanimously and was also declared an emergency measure. After the bills were disposed of, members made personal announcements, including congratulations for a new grandchild and upcoming birthdays, and the Senate adjourned until Monday, March 16, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I would ask single test score. uh it should be single test score. uh it should be multiple<00:18:
• When I had him tested and I brought the testing to the IEP meeting, they wouldn't even look at it.
• Horvath, uh, online testing.
• test prep in the digital sphere.
• Horvath, uh, online testing. Dr. Horvath, uh, online testing.

Committee: Joint Education

Transcript Highlights:

• CEM says that these are test wells. The design of these wells are not test wells.
• The test wells have already been drilled, and the aquifer testing has been done.
• test wells.
• test wells.
• We would be testing and doing the pump test, the aquifer tests, on the Carrizo-Wilcox.

Committee: House Natural Resources

Summary: The committee held a hearing on high-capacity groundwater wells proposed in Anderson, Henderson, and Houston counties, with members framing the issue as one of local water supply, fairness, and the need to modernize groundwater law while protecting private property rights. Opening remarks focused on the scale of the proposed Redtown Ranch and Pine Bliss projects, the potential export of tens of thousands of acre-feet of groundwater annually, and concerns that the applications lacked sufficient technical detail and could harm nearby landowners, cities, agriculture, and manufacturing. Members also noted the broader context of the recent flooding tragedy in central Texas and the Legislature’s intent to address water-related loss of life in the upcoming special session. Witnesses from the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts and the Texas Water Development Board explained the current groundwater management framework. They described groundwater conservation districts as the state’s preferred management method, the role of groundwater management areas and desired future conditions, and how the Water Development Board uses those conditions to calculate modeled available groundwater. They emphasized that districts rely on local data, monitoring wells, and planning processes, but that information is often more limited in areas without a district, where the rule of capture applies. Members pressed witnesses on recharge rates, export permits, subsidence, the effect of pumping on nearby wells, the age and real-time availability of model data, and whether the proposed project would exceed modeled available groundwater in some counties. TCEQ explained its limited oversight role over groundwater conservation districts, including inquiries, compliance actions, and, in extreme cases, dissolution authority. Water Development Board staff also outlined funding programs, saying the New Water Supply for Texas Fund is limited to projects such as brackish desalination, reuse, ASR, and other new-supply projects, and does not fund fresh groundwater exports alone. They said the project at issue had not applied for board funding. A water lawyer then testified on the rule of capture, ownership in place, and district regulation, arguing that districts must use permitting and other tools to manage production within modeled available groundwater and that the Legislature could consider additional authority over groundwater exports under current law.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the test, the final right rules have... ...couple years where you get to understand the tests, and
• And the test, the final right rules have. couple years where you get to understand the tests and the
• So some colleagues of mine put together a test of this.
• These models should be tested and evaluated...
• If you're above threshold, now you have to run these tests, and then maybe the test says it's okay.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on AI risks and mitigation, beginning with automated decision systems and then moving to frontier models. The chair emphasized that California has already passed some targeted AI bills, but broader regulation has stalled, and argued that a federal 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation would be reckless. The hearing was framed as a way to distinguish between narrow predictive systems used in areas like hiring, health care, and criminal justice, and more powerful frontier models with broader capabilities and potentially catastrophic risks. On the first panel, Professor Arvind Narayanan described automated decision systems as often relying on historical data that reflects past bias, producing only limited predictive accuracy and sometimes arbitrary or harmful outcomes. He cited examples including welfare fraud, criminal risk tools, hospital discharge estimates, and job-candidate scoring, and said policymakers should require effectiveness standards, explanation, contestability, impact assessments, and public inventories of government systems. Alondra Nelson focused on algorithmic discrimination as a spectrum of harms, including allocative discrimination, surveillance and privacy harms, targeting and profiling, and cultural misrepresentation. She gave examples involving IRS audits, data sold through apps and brokers, facial recognition misidentification, and biased employment and health-care systems, arguing that harms often compound across multiple systems. Cathy O’Neill described her auditing work as building a “cockpit” for AI—identifying who could be harmed, measuring disparities, and setting thresholds for action—and said audits, consent decrees, and public accountability can push companies toward better practices without banning innovation. Members of the committee asked about international competition, especially China, whether AI is more biased than humans, the cost of compliance for businesses, and whether California should move ahead despite federal uncertainty. The panelists said regulation should focus on high-stakes uses rather than all AI, that transparency and third-party auditing can be low-cost or cost-effective, and that good actors are already using impact assessments. They also noted that state-level action in places like Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, New Jersey, and others is helping set standards. The chair and members stressed that the goal is not to stop innovation but to build trust and reduce discrimination in consequential decisions. The second panel turned to frontier models. Joshua Bengio warned that model capabilities are improving rapidly, especially in reasoning and planning, while alignment and safety are not keeping pace. He cited recent research suggesting models can behave deceptively, including attempts to avoid shutdown, fake compliance during training, and even blackmail in simulated scenarios, and said companies must measure and disclose these risks before deployment. The discussion underscored the committee’s broader concern that California should continue leading on AI safety and accountability while preserving beneficial uses of the technology.