Transcript Highlights:

• Would that book be effectively banned under this law? Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.
• No, Senator Kuby, the bill does not ban any books.
• book, and no, I don't like the book that you showed, and that particular book I do take issue with,
• , like Maya Angelou's books.
• Yeah, I think it's important to point out we're not banning these books.

Bills: SB1433, SB1434, SB1435, SB1567, SB1571, SB1686, SB1745, SCR1024, SCR1025, HB2671, HB2676, HCR2044

Keywords: county boundaries, Maricopa, Gila, Pinal, Yavapai, Yuma, La Paz, local governance, Arizona Revised Statutes, Maricopa county, county division, new counties, intergovernmental agreements, special election, shared use agreements, education, explicit material, parental consent, student protection, library access

Transcript Highlights:

• Secondly, SB 17 goes far beyond any firearms ban in any other state, banning almost half of the firearms
• straw purchases through... ...the books for years.
• the ban of any handguns is unconstitutional.
• How many states have had success in banning AR platforms, AKs?
• states that ban high-capacity magazines.

Bills: SB48, HB250, SB17

Keywords: State Fairgrounds District, fairgrounds bonds, public financing, bond authorization, gross receipts tax, gaming tax, tax-backed bonds, infrastructure funding, Albuquerque fairgrounds, State Fair Tid, economic development, municipal bonds, revenue pledge, capital projects, New Mexico finance, technology, innovation, advisory board, entrepreneurial support, stakeholder representation

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> book and prediction? book and prediction?
• </c> can do a sports book bet as well. can do a sports book bet as well.
• </c> book on every adult cell phone. book on every adult cell phone.
• Well, should we ban it or shouldn't we ban it?
• </c> probably make that illegal or ban it. probably make that illegal or ban it.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't think there's necessarily one single definition for banned book, as the Authors Against Book
• You say it's a clear attempted book banning, and do you consider banning just that some people can't
• </c> attempted book Banning and do you attempted book Banning and do you consider<06:12:48.040><c> Banning
• </c> when we use the book term book ban and when we use the book term book ban and maybe<06:12:57.160
• </c><06:13:12.440><c> ban</c><06:13:13.440><c> thank</c> a book ban thank a book ban thank you<06:13:

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 763, an early bill concerning AED access at athletic events and venues. Representative Morris offered amendment 0743H to clarify the bill by removing charter schools from the language and tying AED placement to American Heart Association guidance, emphasizing that AEDs should be readily accessible within a reasonable walking distance rather than mandated on every field. The amendment and then the bill as amended both passed 17-0, and the bill was reported out as Ought to Pass with Amendment. The committee then considered House Bill 781, requiring school districts to adopt cell phone-free education policies, and a related bill, House Bill 131. HB 781 was amended to include charter public school boards, cover other personal electronic communication devices, require at minimum restrictions on student personal cell phones during class instruction, allow superintendent-approved exceptions for medical or language needs, protect students with medical needs or disabilities under Section 504, and set an effective date of July 1, 2025. Some members argued the amendment was too prescriptive and limited local control, while supporters said it still left districts flexibility outside classroom instruction. The amendment passed 16-1, and the bill then passed Ought to Pass as Amended 16-1. HB 131, described as a mirror bill, was then retained by a 17-0 vote. House Bill 398, a title bill requiring Holocaust and genocide studies to include impacts on people with disabilities, was moved to ITL after Representative Selig reported the genocide commission believed the topic was already being covered. That motion passed 17-0. The committee also agreed to hold several bills for later consideration, including HB 754, HB 1221, HB 360, and HB 699, citing the need for more review or missing copies. Finally, the committee took up House Bill 361, prohibiting mandatory mask policies in schools. Supporters argued the bill would preserve individual choice while preventing statewide or districtwide mandates in future public health emergencies, and cited a Department of Health and Human Services letter saying masks remain effective but decisions should be based on individual choice and risk assessment. Opponents emphasized local control and the need for districts to respond to different public health conditions. The transcript cuts off before the final vote on HB 361 was completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Book bans are not about protecting students, they're about controlling narrative.
• When books are banned or censored, it Undermines the very fundamental principles of our democratic society
• We want access to books that challenge us and help us see different perspectives and teach us how to
• Several years ago, when my school district banned books, I decided to speak to my school board.
• We distributed hundreds of banned and challenged books representing the diversity of our student body

Summary: Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT) held an advocacy day at the Texas Capitol with more than 300 young Texans and allies to press lawmakers on education policy. Speakers framed the event around student visibility in policymaking and criticized recent Texas actions on school vouchers, book bans, and legislation affecting LGBTQ students and classroom content. Representative Donna Howard briefly attended and voiced support for students having a seat at the table, citing a prior effort to add a student to a school board as an example of the kind of participation SEAT is seeking. Several student speakers described how voucher expansion threatens public schools and argued that public education is being underfunded and undermined rather than failing on its own. Others focused on LGBTQ inclusion, saying bills such as SB 12 and SB 13 would erase queer students’ experiences and make schools less safe and welcoming. One speaker also condemned book bans and censorship, arguing that students need access to diverse books and honest, inclusive education to think critically and feel represented. SEAT executive director Cameron Samuels closed by describing the group’s earlier organizing against book bans and internet restrictions and by connecting that work to broader demands for public schools, student rights, and safety. The event did not include any legislative vote or formal committee action; it was an advocacy press conference aimed at influencing lawmakers during the session.

Transcript Highlights:

• like the book that everyone wants to read but isn't.
• recommend a book about shipwrecks, but what we won't do is charge you more because you like books on
• </c> to sell you a book and recommend a book to sell you a book and recommend a book about<00:13:38.320
• </c> books on shipwrecks for those same books books on shipwrecks for those same books than<00:13:47.760
• Um, the on the wrong side of the ban.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• As a matter of fact, I like, when people refer to the word ban, I say we're not banning children from
• AB 1609 does not ban automation.
• instead of buying an e-book, and I think it's gross that Amazon can pull back your Kindle books just
• and just do physical books.
• and just do physical books.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 1159, which would update California student data privacy law for educational technology and college-level platforms. The author and supporters argued that students’ personal information is being collected and used far beyond educational purposes, including sensitive health and demographic data, and said the bill would limit misuse and add stronger privacy protections. Support came from privacy, labor, education, and civil rights groups, while opposition from college store and industry representatives focused on narrowing the definition of “operator,” preserving institution-related communications, and concerns about the bill’s private right of action. Members raised questions about how the bill would affect scholarships, financial aid, adult students, consent, and litigation; the author said the bill includes a right to cure and notice to the Attorney General. The committee voted 4-0 to pass the bill to Appropriations, with the measure placed on call. The committee then took up AB 1709, which would set a minimum age of 16 for social media accounts on platforms with specified addictive design features and create a youth safety commission. The author, pediatric and safety advocates, and several public supporters argued that social media companies intentionally design compulsive features that harm youth mental health, sleep, and development, and that the bill is a necessary product-safety response. Opponents argued the bill is overbroad, may be ineffective, raises First Amendment concerns, and could cut off vulnerable youth from important online support networks. Members focused heavily on possible amendments, especially a non-addictive feed option for younger users and strengthening the commission; the author said he was open to those changes and to further work with the committees. The bill was moved to Judiciary on a 5-0 vote and placed on call. At the end of the excerpt, the author began presenting a third measure, AB 2076, which would strengthen California’s Parents’ Accountability and Child Protection Act by adding nitrous oxide to the list of age-verified dangerous products, banning purchase with gift cards or store credit, and increasing penalties for large sellers. The author described nitrous oxide as increasingly accessible to minors online and cited enforcement gaps in the current law, but the transcript cuts off before testimony or action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• On behalf of Authors Against Book Bans and yourself testifying against the bill, is that correct?
• I end with an example of a book that is often banned. I find beauty in the book.
• Let's call this bill what it is, a book ban.
• If any of y'all take a history class, the people who ban books are never the good guys.
• Texas ranks third in the nation with over 500 banned books. ...from the most recent school year.

Bills: SB 13, SB 27, SB 57, HB1325, HB1655, HB3312, HB5526, SB13, SB57, SB207, HB441, HB591, HB5019, SB27, SB843

Keywords: lobbying, public funds, political subdivision, local government, county association, municipal lobbying, registered lobbyist, Texas Legislature, taxpayer lawsuit, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, government finance, county dues, state association of counties, sheriffs association, law enforcement officers, legislative advocacy, bill tracking, legislative alerts, Government Code Chapter 556

Transcript Highlights:

• He said the bill talks about physical things and that the books banned by this bill are books that would
• She said the bill does not ban books, but in her research and experience, and after going to several
• She said the bill does not ban books, but in her research and experiences, and after going to several
• Um the books that are banned<01:35:39.600><c> by</c> banned by banned by uh<01:35:41.600><c> this</c>
• But in my this bill does not ban books.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I introduced legislation to ban smoking on airplanes.
• Once that smoking ban went into effect, it wasn't long before smoking was banned in restaurants and public
• Williams makes clear in her books.
• As you observe... in your book it really didn't have to be this way.
• This book was targeting 13 to 17 year olds.

Keywords: Meta, Facebook, whistleblower, regulation, China, user data, artificial intelligence, testimony, Congress

Summary: The meeting of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism focused on oversight of Meta's foreign relations and representations to Congress. An essential witness, Sarah Wynne-Williams, a former executive at Facebook, provided testimony outlining significant concerns about the company's practices and its complicity in aiding oppressive regimes. The atmosphere was charged, with ongoing debates about the regulation of big tech companies and the ethical implications of their policies. The committee explored topics such as user data management, whistleblower retaliation, and the need for legislative measures to protect users and enhance accountability in the tech sector. A notable point of contention was Facebook's alleged cooperation with the Chinese government regarding the dissemination of user data and AI tools, leading to serious ethical implications.

Transcript Highlights:

• books.
• It doesn't ban any books. All it does is protect access to unemancipated minors and children.
• It doesn't ban any books. All it does is protect access to unemancipated minors and children.
• any books.
• These are images from books aimed at fourth graders, okay?

Summary: The committee first heard SB 1078, which would require courts reviewing public-records disputes to apply de novo review rather than deferring to an agency’s decision to withhold records. Senator Kavanaugh and a Goldwater Institute witness argued the bill would restore transparency and independent judicial review. The committee recommended the bill do pass on a 4-3 vote. The committee then considered SB 1184, which would add military division flags approved by the Department of Defense to the list of flags that HOAs and planned communities may not prohibit. Kavanaugh said the bill responds to HOA restrictions on veterans displaying unit flags. Members discussed whether the bill should also cover other flags, including LGBTQ flags, but no amendment was adopted. The bill passed 7-0. SB 1586 followed, requiring Arizona agencies to post federal guidance they create, adopt, or receive. Supporters said it would improve transparency; an opposing member said agencies already post such material and the bill was unnecessary. It passed 4-3. SB 1665, a state agency hiring reform bill, would require standardized hiring scores, interview panel grades, overall grades, and an appeal process for unsuccessful applicants. The State Personnel Board supported it as a merit-based reform, while ADOA opposed it as costly and burdensome, estimating more than $3 million in compliance costs and warning it could slow hiring. After extended testimony, the committee recommended it do pass 4-3. The committee also approved SCR 1024, which would require legislative candidates to reside in their district for one year and, if affiliated, be members of their party for one year before the election; it passed 6-1 after discussion about residency rules and ballot-measure concerns. Later, the committee heard SB 1135, which increases workers’ compensation burial expenses for fallen first responders from $5,000 to $10,000. Family members and first responders testified in support, describing the financial strain after line-of-duty deaths. The bill passed 6-1 with one member present. SB 1136, which allows surviving spouses of first responders to keep death benefits even if they remarry, also drew emotional testimony from widows and supporters and passed 5-2. The committee then took up SB 1435, expanding the existing prohibition on exposing minors to sexually explicit material to public libraries and making violations a class 6 felony; supporters framed it as child protection, while opponents warned it could chill library access and criminalize librarians. The bill passed 4-3. Finally, SB 1567 was introduced as another expansion of the same underlying law, prohibiting government entities and contractors from exposing minors to sexually explicit materials and from using public facilities for filming or facilitating sexually explicit acts; the sponsor described it as part of a broader effort to protect children, and the committee began discussion of the measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• banned—Maya Angelou's books, for example.
• Now, this is much more than a book ban, which on itself is bad enough.
• We've also heard this called a book ban. This is no such thing.
• In an effort to keep it short, no matter how many times they say it's a book ban, it's not.
• The book doesn't require the banning of any materials.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I say that this is not about banning books.
• I say that this is not about banning books.
• I say that this is not about banning books.
• I say that this is not about banning books.
• Talking about banning books—if we do not teach our kids to read, all books are banned for them.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I read the book on the program. I read the Read Right program.
• I used to pick up books and could not read any of the words. Ms.
• Tadlock's book, Read Right, as my guide, I tutored Riley twice a week from books of her choice.
• that test scores improved one year after the ban.
• Have you written up your statement or your ban or whatever it is?

Bills: SB6192, SB6206, SB5346, SB6125, SB5841, SB5907, SB5951

Keywords: education, reading, mathematics, student intervention, instruction, academic standards, child care, first responders, incentives, pilot program, mobile phones, cell phones, smartphones, school phones, classroom distraction, digital citizenship, media literacy, internet safety, cyberbullying, student mental health

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several education-related bills. Senate Bill 6192 would require structured literacy and numeracy programs, add math interventions similar to the existing third-grade reading “gate,” create annual STAR teacher bonuses for selected math and ELA teachers, and revise literacy endorsement standards. The prime sponsor said the bill is intended to refocus schools on core academics and use research-based instruction, while OSPI and ESD representatives supported the goal but raised implementation concerns about data access and the teacher award process. Testimony was mixed: some parents and students said the bill could help struggling readers and math students, while others, including WEA and several witnesses, opposed merit pay, grade retention, and what they viewed as overreliance on standardized testing or a single reading approach. Senate Bill 6206 would create a Commerce-run pilot program to incentivize child care providers serving children of first responders, especially during nonstandard hours, on short notice, and when children are ill. The sponsor and multiple law enforcement, dispatch, and labor witnesses described child care as a major barrier to recruitment and retention, particularly for women and shift workers. Committee questions focused on how the proposal would relate to existing DCYF child care subsidies and nonstandard-hours bonuses, and whether Commerce was the right agency to administer the program. Testimony was strongly supportive overall. Senate Bill 5346 would direct OSPI to incorporate mobile device use into digital citizenship instruction and report on school phone policies and barriers, with final recommendations due in 2028. Supporters, including students, parents, educators, and researchers, said phones distract from learning, contribute to social and mental health problems, and can be addressed through bell-to-bell restrictions. Opponents argued that local school boards should decide policy, that phones can be important for safety, communication, and medical needs, and that the bill was too vague. The committee also heard Senate Bill 6125, which would stabilize school funding for districts, charter schools, and tribal compact schools if enrollment-based state revenue falls below prior-year levels; the sponsor and witnesses said it would provide short-term stability amid declining enrollment and budget uncertainty. The committee then moved into executive session on Senate Bill 5841, which would require evidence of a financial aid application in high school and beyond plans.

Transcript Highlights:

• We let them allow or ban helmets or casts.
• We had a piece of legislation a year or two ago that some headlines said ban books.
• It, in fact, did not ban books. Schools got scared. They started acting like we banned books.
• We had a piece of legislation a year or two ago that some headlines said ban books.
• It, in fact, did not ban books. Schools got scared. They started acting like we banned books.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Would that book be effectively banned under this law? Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.
• The bill does not ban any books.
• book.
• So you believe it should be banned? Banned, I don't know.
• Yeah, I think it's important to point out we're not banning these books.

Summary: The committee approved the February 4, 2026 minutes and first held SB 1571. It then heard and advanced SB 1745, which would cap transaction privilege/excise tax rates in cities of 550,000 or more at 2.5% per classification unless voters approve a higher rate, with enforcement through the attorney general and state-shared revenue withholding for violations. Supporters argued it would protect taxpayers and restrain large-city tax increases; the bill was amended with a technical change and passed 4-3. The committee also advanced SB 1686, renaming Wesley Bolin Memorial Plaza as the Wesley Bolin and Charlie Kirk Freedom Plaza and authorizing memorial placements for Don Bowles and Charlie Kirk, which passed 4-3. The committee then took up SB 1567 and SB 1435, both aimed at restricting public entities, schools, and libraries from exposing minors to sexually explicit materials and from using public facilities for sexually explicit filming or access. Supporters said the bills were needed to prevent children from being exposed to pornography and to keep taxpayer resources from facilitating such material; opponents, including the ACLU, warned the definitions were broad, could chill speech, and could criminalize librarians and educators for handling literary or educational works. Both bills were amended and passed 4-3. SB 1435 also drew testimony about library access, sex education, and the risk of overbroad enforcement. The committee next considered SB 1433 and SB 1434, which would reorganize Maricopa County boundaries. SB 1433 would move portions of Maricopa County into neighboring counties, while SB 1434 would split Maricopa County into three new counties with a transition board and special elections. Supporters argued Maricopa County had become too large and unmanageable and that smaller counties would improve representation and water and regional governance; opponents said the proposals were costly, disruptive, and politically motivated. Both measures received due pass recommendations, with SB 1433 passing 4-3 and SB 1434 passing 4-3 with one not voting. Finally, the committee approved SCR 1024, requiring legislators to live in their district for one year before election, and SCR 1025, moving the legislative session start to the fourth Monday in January; both resolutions passed unanimously or near-unanimously, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• banned.
• This is all page one of this book.
• And this ban would interrupt that.
• And that was when all of the gay marriage bans were happening and that are still on the books in Missouri
• By imposing a total ban on transgender children and students By imposing a total ban on transgender children

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The committee first met in executive session on House Bill 2069, where members adopted a committee amendment, rolled it into a substitute, and then advanced the House Committee Substitute by a 7-4 roll call vote. The committee then took up House Bill 2016, which drew debate over a legal definition of anti-Semitism and concerns about free speech and cross-referencing a website to enforce the statute. After discussion, the bill was reported do pass by a 7-3-1 vote. The committee then opened a public hearing on four bills dealing with gender transition procedures for minors: House Bills 233, 1608, 1672, and 1854. The sponsors argued the bills would remove the sunset from the SAFE Act and make its restrictions permanent, saying the state should protect children from puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgery, and citing court rulings and studies from other countries as support. Opponents argued the measures would interfere with medical judgment, parental rights, and access to care, and several members questioned whether the bills were based more on ideology than evidence. Public testimony was sharply divided. Jamie Reed testified in support of the bills, saying her experience in pediatric gender medicine led her to conclude the treatments were harmful and rooted in homophobia; members questioned her about funding, expertise, and her claims. Dr. Brandon Barthel, an endocrinologist, testified against the bills, saying gender-affirming care is carefully evaluated, usually begins with counseling, and should remain available for selected patients with parental and physician involvement. The hearing continued with additional witnesses after the excerpt, and no final committee action on the four gender-related bills is shown in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• books.
• And we had this debate on the floor of the Senate: this does not ban books.
• It doesn't ban any books. All it does is protect access to unemancipated minors and children.
• any books.
• But these are the types of books that we're talking about.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> and Art Supply manufacturers are banned and Art Supply manufacturers are banned from<00:09:53.120
• </c> not include pens within their their ban not include pens within their their ban or<00:25:16.679>
• The amendment does remove keys from the ban, so it isn't just the key fob ban, but it's also keys.
• I read that report, and while they chose not to ban this, it does say that if we banned cadmium paint
• I read that report, and while they chose not to ban this, it does say that if we banned cadmium paint

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 737, which would amend Minnesota’s lead- and cadmium-related product restrictions and was re-referred to the Committee on Environment, Finance and Policy. Representative Bjorn Olson said the bill was prompted by a constituent who could no longer make cadmium-based art supplies in Minnesota, and he argued the law unintentionally swept in professional art materials that are used safely and are important to Western art culture. The committee first adopted the author’s A2 amendment, which broadened the bill to include additional exemptions beyond paint and pastels, including certain pens, mechanical pencils, and vehicle keys/key fobs. Testimony in support came from Darren Reenie of Wet Paint Artist Materials and Framing, who said artist paint and related supplies account for a significant share of sales and that the ban threatens independent art supply businesses and artists’ access to essential pigments. Josh Fiser of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation supported the key and key fob exemption, saying the current law is overly broad, exposure risk is minimal, and Minnesota should align with California and European Union standards. Bill Morgan of the Arts and Creative Materials Institute and Writing Instrument Manufacturers Association also supported the amendment, arguing there was little scientific basis for including pens, mechanical pencils, and professional artist materials, and citing prior reviews in the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the European Union. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, through Assistant Commissioner Kirk Kadelka, opposed broad exemptions and emphasized that no amount of lead is safe for children. He said the law was based on evidence from consumer products associated with elevated blood lead levels and argued that safer alternatives exist for many of the items in the amendment, including pens, mechanical pencils, and some key components. He also raised concerns about exposure during production and disposal. Committee members questioned the scope of the exemptions and whether the industry had workable alternatives. The A2 amendment was adopted, and the bill was then advanced for further consideration and re-referred as noted by the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• in the books next year, we are here to try to make those happen.
• We as an organization did not support the bag ban in Oregon.
• In particular, around the implementation, if there were to be a bag ban, an outright plastic bag ban
• But we also think that avoiding a complete product ban is important.
• Now, do plastic bag bans and fees Study as well by Ecology. Now, do plastic bag bans and fees work?

Summary: The committee held a work session on state environmental policy act (SEPA) implementation and carryout bags. Ecology staff Diane Buterak described the Clean Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements (PEISs) completed for utility-scale solar, onshore wind, and green hydrogen, plus a new PEIS underway for sustainable aviation fuel. She explained that PEISs provide broad planning-level analysis to help developers and agencies avoid or mitigate impacts, but do not replace project-level review. Members asked about permitting timelines, greenhouse gas emissions from different hydrogen production methods, water use, agricultural land conversion, battery fire risk, and tribal consultation. Buterak said the PEISs identify potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures, including fire response planning, early tribal outreach, and agrovoltaics as an option for solar projects. EFSEC’s Amy Hofkimer then presented the transmission-facility programmatic EIS required by SB 5165 for 230 kV and higher transmission projects. She said the statewide review covers new lines and certain upgrades/modifications, analyzes impacts to water, cultural and tribal resources, habitat, and other areas, and uses general measures, design considerations, avoidance criteria, and sensitivity maps to guide siting and corridor planning. She said the final document would be issued in early October. Questions focused on reconductoring, tribal lands, scenic areas, and whether the review could affect existing lines crossing tribal lands. A Grant County planning director, Jim Anderson Cook, said Ecology’s PEIS would help with cumulative impacts for clustered solar projects, but noted tight local review timelines and the need for strong pre-application coordination, especially on cultural resource studies and decommissioning plans. Yakama Nation attorney Shona Leverett argued SEPA is only an assessment tool and said tribes face barriers from short comment periods, limited confidential tribal input, weak cumulative impact analysis, and challenges in the FSEC process; she urged better upfront developer diligence and more effective tribal coordination. Puget Sound Energy’s Sarah Leverett said the utility needs efficient and predictable permitting to meet clean energy mandates while maintaining reliable service and aging infrastructure. She described the scale of needed clean energy and transmission buildout, including a 10-year process for the Energize Eastside transmission rebuild, and said more consistent SEPA and PEIS processes could help. Members asked about future generation sources, reliability, and hydropower as a firming resource; she said PSE is pursuing an “all of the above” approach and would welcome more firm, dispatchable clean energy options. The committee then shifted to carryout bags. Staff Jacob Lipson and Tracy Taylor reviewed Washington’s bag law, its preemption of local ordinances, the current 8-cent charge, the scheduled increase to 12 cents, and the 2025 change delaying the 4-mil thickness requirement until 2028 while adding a temporary 4-cent penalty for thicker bags. Ecology’s Peter Lyon said the agency emphasizes education and complaint-based enforcement, has received 872 reports, and has not yet imposed any fines. Commerce’s Kirk Esmond summarized a WSU study finding fewer plastic bags distributed but more plastic by weight, and said Commerce and Ecology support keeping the 2.25-mil standard and not allowing thinner single-use bags again. Retail industry testimony from Brandon Housekeeper said grocers comply with the law but oppose the added 4-cent penalty and thicker-bag requirement, citing higher costs and confusion in the policy changes.