Transcript Highlights:

• So it's important for us to protect our freedom.
• How do you protect the professors from being unfairly targeted?
• Is somebody still protected? If someone says... Is somebody still protected?
• Yeah, those types of activities are protected.
• You would do what it takes to protect them.

Summary: The joint Senate and House Select Committee on Civil Discourse and Freedom of Speech in Higher Education convened for its first public hearing, adopted its proposed rules without objection, and framed the hearing as an organizational, invited-testimony-only session. Members repeatedly condemned political violence and the assassination of Charlie Kirk, saying the committee was created in response to concerns about civil discourse, intimidation, and hostility on college campuses. Several members emphasized that the goal was not to suppress speech but to protect open expression while maintaining order, due process, and institutional accountability. The first witness, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Commissioner Wyn Rosser, outlined implementation of Senate Bill 37. He described the General Education Advisory Committee, which is reviewing broad core-curriculum knowledge and skills and may recommend reducing the current 42-hour core, while leaving review of specific courses to individual institutions. He also explained the new Office of the Ombudsman, the board’s role in supporting it, and existing training and certification requirements for governing board members. Members asked about enforcement tools, transparency, and whether the ombudsman would investigate complaints involving censorship, retaliation, or political bias; Rosser said some enforcement exists in certain laws, but he deferred on the exact scope of the ombudsman’s investigatory authority and on issues outside the agency’s role. University of Texas at Austin President Jim Davis testified that UT Austin supports free speech, academic freedom, and civil discourse, and he described three areas of focus: speech on campus grounds, classroom discourse, and how people treat one another. He said the university enforces time, place, and manner rules, expects professors to present alternative views on controversial topics, and has created internal reporting and appeal processes for students and faculty. Members questioned him about heckler’s veto incidents, protests, off-campus participants, complaints about professors, hate speech, and whether the university would protect speakers and students from disruption or unfair targeting. Davis said the university would not tolerate disruptions, would use due process and factual review, and is working to align campus practices with the new law and regents’ expectations. Ricky Adam Jr. of Turning Point USA’s Club America described the group’s campus and high-school organizing, praised Charlie Kirk’s approach to open debate, and said the organization is expanding in Texas. He raised concerns about school administrators and a counselor at an Early College High School in Killeen allegedly interfering with a student club and withholding footage, and committee members said they would seek information and, if necessary, use legislative process to investigate. Members from both chambers reiterated support for free speech, criticized political violence and campus suppression of viewpoints, and stressed that future hearings would continue examining implementation and enforcement issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this bill does not protect the institutions individually.
• SB 98 is not just a policy, it's protection. We respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 98.
• So that's where the parents were getting blocked out. No longer a number you can use in FAFSA.
• So that's where the parents were getting blocked out.
• So the parents, if a student is applying for CADAA, their parents can use their identifying numbers in

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee heard several Senate measures focused on student access, workforce needs, and institutional stability. Senator Laird presented SJR 4, which urges the federal government to restore NIH funding cuts and protect California’s research universities; UC testified in support and there was no opposition. Senator Ashby presented SB 761, the CalFresh for Students Act, to connect Cal Grant applicants with potential CalFresh eligibility and expand qualifying programs; the bill drew broad support from higher education, student, anti-hunger, and county groups, with members sharing personal experiences with food insecurity and no opposition. Senator Cabaldon presented SB 520 to create a California Nurse Midwifery Education Fund for a new master’s-level nurse midwifery program, citing maternal health disparities and provider shortages, especially in rural and Central Valley communities. Supporters from the California Nurse Midwives Association and the Black Wellness and Prosperity Center emphasized workforce shortages and maternal mortality; one member raised concerns about the bill’s use of inclusive language, but the bill was otherwise well received. Cabaldon also presented SB 640, which would create a statewide direct admissions process to CSU for eligible high school seniors using existing data systems; supporters said it would reduce barriers, improve equity, and help declining-enrollment campuses, while members raised questions about special education students, rural access, dual enrollment, and measuring effectiveness. The committee voted SB 640 out on a 6-0 roll call. Cabaldon’s SB 744 would preserve California students’ access to enrollment and financial aid if a federally recognized accrediting agency loses approval, by treating affected institutions as accredited for state purposes; the bill drew no public testimony and advanced on a 4-2 roll call. Senator Cortese’s SB 494 would require classified school employees’ disciplinary appeals to be heard by an administrative law judge, matching protections already available to teachers and community college faculty; labor groups supported the bill, while school districts and administrators opposed it over cost, local control, and implementation concerns. The committee also heard SB 550, a revised pilot to allow San Jose State and a nonprofit, state-accredited law school to jointly develop a public law school pathway; supporters argued it would expand affordable legal education and public-interest careers, while UC and independent colleges opposed it as inconsistent with the Master Plan. Members debated access, jurisdiction, funding, and bar pass rates, and the bill advanced on a 4-2 roll call to the Judiciary Committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the idea was all residents would feel safe and protected in Washington State.
• So really focusing on protecting, limiting the data being collected.
• , meaningful protection, and a state level.
• And our communities are counting on you all to continue to protect all of us, to ensure protections are
• And in some cases, that parent is the sole breadwinner for the family.

Committee: House State Government & Tribal Relations

Summary: The Tribal Relations Committee held a work session on the Keep Washington Working Act, hearing first from the Office of the Attorney General and then the Office of the Governor, followed by testimony from the ACLU of Washington, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and One America. The Attorney General’s office described the 2019 bipartisan law as limiting state and local involvement in federal immigration enforcement, emphasizing privacy, minimal data collection, model policies for agencies, and the distinction between immigration status information and other personal data. The office said the law has not been challenged in Washington, noted similar laws in other states, and explained that agency attorneys coordinate to provide consistent guidance and defend the law in court when needed. The governor’s office said Keep Washington Working is being implemented across state agencies through case-by-case review of data-sharing requests, coordination with the Attorney General and privacy offices, and a new executive order creating an immigration sub-cabinet and reinforcing data privacy and community engagement. Officials pointed to federal funding exceptions, including Medicaid and other programs where data must be shared to receive funds, and said the state has challenged federal grant conditions in court. In response to questions, the governor’s office said it believes the statute is consistent with federal law, applies broadly to all Washingtonians, and is being monitored for unnecessary data sharing, including at the Department of Licensing. Advocates and the ACLU argued that Keep Washington Working is grounded in the anti-commandeering doctrine and is intended to keep state resources focused on state purposes rather than federal civil immigration enforcement. They said the law helps maintain trust so residents will seek police, fire, health, and licensing services without fear, but warned that federal enforcement and data-sharing practices are still harming communities, including people with lawful status and families separated by detention. Several speakers said the law is strong but could be improved through stronger enforcement, more consistent implementation across agencies and contractors, and possibly a private right of action. No votes or formal actions were taken; the chair closed by inviting follow-up on implementation challenges and possible legislative improvements.

Transcript Highlights:

• They have to know how to work with parents.
• We put in protections for that so that we can track that.
• We have a lot of protections in here.
• This is the responsibility of the parent.
• I really value the guardrails, the fraud protection.

Transcript Highlights:

• Survivors deserve that protection.
• Survivors deserve that protection.
• My adopted parents didn't know how to help me.
• They were not given the support they needed to parent me.
• And I begged to stay when my adopted parents came to get me.

Bills: SB5979 , SB6308 , SB6319

Committee: Senate Human Services

Keywords: opioids, substance abuse, dependent children, child welfare, caregiver substance use, court orders, shelter care, judicial discretion, family law, early childhood, family services, diversion programs, court-ordered assessments

Transcript Highlights:

• This year, I have my children in schools in schools and the parents know how it.
• This bill strengthens long-term stability while protecting small businesses.
• Their parents know they are in a safe, loving, and high-quality environment during the day.
• Their parents know they are in safe, loving, and high-quality environment during the day.
• This bill is a chance to protect our future and prevent cuts to health care.

Summary: House Finance held a public hearing on Gross Substitute Senate Bill 6346, a proposal to impose a 9.9% tax beginning in 2028 on Washington taxable income over $1 million for individuals, with related rules for residents, nonresidents, pass-through entities, estimated payments, penalties, credits, and revenue distribution. Staff explained that the bill would also fund several tax changes, including an expanded Working Families Tax Credit, sales tax exemptions for grooming and hygiene products, higher small business B&O credits, an early end to the B&O surcharge on very large businesses, and repeal of most retail services sales tax changes from last session. The fiscal note projected about $2.53 billion in additional state revenue in FY 2029 and $3.21 billion in FY 2030, with local revenue losses and significant Department of Revenue implementation costs. The chair also announced concerns about apparent fraud and duplicate records in the public sign-in system and set testimony rules limiting questions and shortening testimony time as the hearing progressed. The prime sponsor, Senator Jamie Peterson, said the bill was intended to make Washington’s tax system less regressive and to raise revenue for schools, health care, higher education, and other public needs while reducing the burden on lower- and middle-income residents. Supporters from labor, education, health care, child care, housing, poverty-reduction, and social service organizations argued that the bill would help fund essential services, expand the Working Families Tax Credit, and improve fairness by asking the wealthiest households to contribute more. Several individual supporters, including business owners and workers, said they were willing to pay more and described the need for better-funded schools, health care, child care, and public defense. Opponents, including former Attorney General Rob McKenna, business groups, construction and real estate representatives, and taxpayer advocates, argued the measure would function as an unconstitutional income tax, would be unstable and likely expanded over time, and would harm small businesses organized as pass-through entities. They said the bill would reduce investment, discourage entrepreneurship, and could drive businesses and high earners out of Washington. Some local government representatives supported the public defense funding but asked for more dedicated revenue and protection against local revenue losses from the bill’s sales tax exemptions. No committee vote or final action was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> is it provides options for protecting is it provides options for protecting every<00:02:56.320><
• I am a parent My name is Laura Jean.
• </c><00:15:45.240><c> and</c> must align with IDEA protections and must align with IDEA protections and
• And their parents need the help.
• Um, you're saying that parents are activists. Parents are here to talk about their kids.

Bills: HF3493 , HF4114

Committee: House Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• The Protect Act is designed to provide protection for those who are the most vulnerable.
• Yeah, we get that, but maybe there are protections like a hay bale that can protect the riders.
• And I'm asking you to protect children and pass the Protect Act. Thank you so much.
• Parents are actively looking for strong guidance and policies to protect them from ICE targeting them
• The Protect Act is a vital piece of legislation which does much to protect should be next.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security

Summary: The hearing covered several public safety bills and related testimony. On S. 2681, “Colby’s Law,” which would establish safety standards for BMX/motocross tracks, the committee heard emotional testimony from the family of a teen killed at a track and from advocates who said minimum standards are needed for barriers, medical staff, emergency planning, insurance, and oversight. A track owner and rider also testified that safety is important but argued the bill was incomplete and should better distinguish between BMX and motocross and include more specific equipment and weather-related rules. On S. 2680, a bill to expand emergency planning around aging nuclear plants and high-level nuclear waste sites, supporters from Cape Cod, medical groups, and anti-nuclear organizations urged a 50-mile emergency planning radius and stronger state preparedness, citing risks from long-term waste storage and inadequate federal oversight. The committee also heard testimony on a Barnstable home rule petition to allow certain emergency response vehicles to use red lights, with the town supporting the change to improve response times on the water. A substantial portion of the hearing focused on H. 5158, the Protect Act, which would limit state and local cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement. County sheriffs testified about how ICE notifications and detainers work in practice, distinguishing between criminal warrants and civil immigration requests to notify, and describing their discretion when people are released on bail or at the end of a sentence. Sheriffs said they generally notify ICE when requested, especially in cases involving serious charges, but emphasized the need to balance public safety, victim notification, and due process. Committee members pressed them on the impact of ICE pickups at courthouses and jails, and several lawmakers and witnesses argued that pretrial detainees taken by ICE can disrupt prosecutions and deny victims their day in court. Supporters of the Protect Act included labor, education, health care, and immigrant advocacy groups. They said immigrants and mixed-status families are living in fear of routine interactions with police, schools, courts, and hospitals, and urged the committee to ban 287(g) agreements, prohibit law enforcement from asking about immigration status or providing operational assistance to ICE, and add stronger protections for sensitive locations such as schools and health care facilities. Medical witnesses described patients and families avoiding care because of ICE presence, and educators said students are missing school out of fear. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing; the committee heard testimony and indicated it would continue receiving written testimony before taking action later.

Transcript Highlights:

• Not all parents, or for example alleged parents, are involved in the child protection system as parties
• </c> The parent support outreach program. The parent support outreach program.
• </c><00:37:02.560><c> We</c> child protection protection system.
• We child protection protection system.
• </c> interviewing parents and providers. interviewing parents and providers.

Transcript Highlights:

• working to improve that automatic enrollment process, but this rule will help inform and empower parents
• So I think we have some opportunity here to protect a lot of people's information. Thank you.
• Why do we not afford them the same protections? I urge you to pass this bill.
• All juveniles deserve the same protections. ... protections regardless of being in a secured facility
• Because sometimes in divorces, one parent will use it as a tool to keep the other parent in a marriage

Bills: HB2646 , HB3941 , HB5153 , HB5155 , HB5394 , HB 1106 , HB426 , HB4529 , HB3984 , HB4273 , HB 1097 , HB3940 , HB1941 , HB4377 , HB3153

Committee: House Human Services

Keywords: child care, task force, high-quality care, affordability, prekindergarten partnerships, foster care, transitional living, Medicaid reform, youth assistance, independent living, services for youth, employment training, educational support, mental health services, health care, public health, child health program, reimbursement, local health entities, maternal health

Transcript Highlights:

• It still has plenty of protections and just tries to help... Anything.
• It still has plenty of protections and just tries to help people get back into their homes or at least
• And every Californian deserves to know that the fire suppression systems protecting their homes...
• These are our kids, kids with teachers who knew their names, parents who loved them.
• Parents shouldn't be the last line of defense. Parents shouldn't be the last line of defense.

Committee: Senate Emergency Management

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:01:42.240><c> Rights</c> the judge know so that a parents Rights the judge know so that a parents
• </c> of home placement because the parents of home placement because the parents need<00:08:12.960><c
• rights because once you parental rights because once you terminate<00:08:41.640><c> parental</c><00:
• The parents could contact me, foster parents could contact me, and definitely grandparents.
• </c> courts and then you've had parent courts and then you've had parent attorneys<00:12:36.560><c> who

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to protect our kids, all kids, including... ...protect our kids, all kids, including trans kids
• The parents need to know. You're hiding that from the parents.
• The parents need to know. You're hiding that from the parents.
• The parents need to know. You're hiding that from the parents.
• There are no protections in this bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• The department's primary purpose is to protect children in Arizona, and the department is statutorily
• That culture of protect the child first, document second.
• experts—are actually expert in nothing except trapping parents when parents become dissatisfied and
• That is something that we as a body are supposed to be protecting: the rights of parents over their children
• And we want to make sure we do this right to protect them.

Committees: House Government , House House Government Committee of Reference

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm also a parent of a child with pretty significant disabilities.
• I also am a parent of a child that receives gifted education.
• I'm already seeing that. ...without that protection of the special education umbrella.
• And I also have been hearing from a lot of my constituents who are parents of gifted children.
• The parent who spoke up as a former member of the special ed faculty. “I spoke up.

Bills: HB30 , HB120 , HJR1 , SB210 , SB306

Committee: House House Education

Keywords: teacher residency, Teacher Residency Act, public schools, teacher preparation, educator pipeline, teacher recruitment, teacher retention, student teachers, apprenticeship, co-teaching, mentor teachers, residency stipend, teacher salary, level one teacher, charter schools, school districts, New Mexico education, teacher workforce, principal stipend, cohort model

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm sure she'll clear that up, a parent speaker, Raquel, who's a parent speaker, Sarah Bachez from Children
• But today, I'm here primarily as a parent.
• But today, I'm here primarily as a parent.
• This protection is key. This protection is key.
• Their parents have been absent from work.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Child Care Costs held its third hearing, focused on how transitional kindergarten (TK) fits into California’s mixed-delivery early learning system, with an emphasis on the Central Valley. Opening remarks stressed that TK and child care should complement each other, not compete, and that families need both part-day school-based options and full-day, year-round care. Committee members outlined hearing goals around aligning TK with existing programs, understanding family needs, and examining the economic impact of early learning on workforce participation and local economies. Panelists from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Every Child California, Early Edge, Children Now, and others described TK’s rapid expansion to all four-year-olds, the growth in enrollment, and related changes to state preschool and after-school programs. Witnesses generally supported TK but warned that its expansion has shifted enrollment away from community-based providers, especially centers and family child care homes, creating financial strain, vacant classrooms, and staffing challenges. They urged stronger partnerships between school districts and community providers, more flexible licensing and facilities support, higher and more uniform reimbursement rates, permanent authority for state preschool to serve two-year-olds, and better compensation and training for educators across settings. Parents and providers testified about the importance of trusted, culturally and linguistically responsive care, the need for infant-toddler and home-based options, and the difficulty of affording child care when TK is not full-day or does not fit family schedules. Several speakers emphasized that many families still face long waits for subsidies and that reimbursement and payment delays threaten provider stability. Public comment echoed these concerns, with providers calling for true cost-of-care rates, more vouchers, support for transportation and nontraditional hours, and protection from insurance and facility costs that can force programs to close. State education officials said California’s UPK system works best when TK, state preschool, Head Start, and community-based providers are treated as a shared system, and noted that planning and implementation grants and local coordination efforts have helped build mixed-delivery partnerships. The hearing ended without formal votes or actions, but committee members indicated they would continue gathering input to inform future policy and budget decisions.

Transcript Highlights:

• They don't want to talk to their parents about what's going on.
• They don't want to talk to their parents about what's going on.
• It is about protecting the taxpayer dollar. It's not about stopping collective bargaining.
• Also, what I heard was that we are in the business of protecting the taxpayer dollar.
• Parental rights are always in place over the bill of rights.

Transcript Highlights:

• It seems to me that would not be a real restriction, a real limitation, or a real protection against
• The short answer is I really don't know. real protection against those kind of real protection against
• They're seeking names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses of parents and students to actively
• </c> significant concern with parental significant concern with parental participation<02:30:57.399><
• </c> encourage um participation by parents encourage um participation by parents for<02:31:41.040><c>

Summary: The Judiciary Committee opened its hearing with a procedural discussion about a forthcoming Monday hearing, and the chair confirmed that any amendment deemed non-germane would be made public in advance and included in the calendar. The committee then took up House Bill 6, which would replace the word “citizen” in the Right-to-Know law with “any person,” allow requesters to specify the format of records, and expressly reference preliminary drafts circulated to a quorum or majority of a public body as disclosable material. The sponsor said the bill was intended to clarify existing law, remove uncertainty after a Rochester-related dispute over requester eligibility, and make records easier to obtain electronically unless doing so would be impossible, unusual, unduly burdensome, or harmful to recordkeeping integrity. Testimony was mixed. Cordell Johnston, speaking for himself as a municipal attorney, opposed most of the bill, especially the requirement that records be delivered electronically or by mail, arguing that out-of-state or out-of-country requests can be fishing expeditions that impose significant burdens on towns and clerks. He said local residents already can obtain records at town hall and that many municipalities voluntarily email records as a courtesy, but should not be required to mail large volumes of material. He also said the preliminary-draft language was unnecessary because such drafts are already covered when circulated to a quorum or majority. Representative Alexander raised concerns about the breadth of “any person,” potential abuse by bad actors, and the cost to municipalities, while Representative Peternell asked about whether the bill should account for nonresident property owners and business owners. The sponsor responded that limiting requesters by residency would not meaningfully stop abuse and said he did not know the bill’s fiscal impact, though he suggested it might improve efficiency. Yil Biset of the ACLU of New Hampshire testified in support of HB 6, calling it a modest and reasonable transparency measure. He said the preliminary-draft language was acceptable and consistent with existing exemption language in the public-meeting and documents statutes, and he said he was not aware of foreign-bot document requests occurring in New Hampshire. He also noted that current law already requires electronic disclosure when records exist electronically and can reasonably be provided that way. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a standard where K-12 can say, yeah, parents, here's your option.
• rights, constitutional protections, or the basic education requirements.
• It does have the protections about health and safety, protecting non-discrimination, but those are not
• year, and a military member parent who is a single custodial parent.
• I also had two parents who served in the Army.

Bills: SB6052 , SB6051 , SB5907 , SB5860 , SB5574

Committee: Senate Early Learning & K-12 Education

Keywords: digital transcript, transcript sharing, student records, education data exchange, K-12, higher education, community colleges, universities, school districts, charter schools, state-tribal education compact schools, educational service districts, data interoperability, secure platform, student consent, FERPA, privacy, education technology, records management, transcript standard

Transcript Highlights:

• Their parents are also here: Laura Michanelli is here, along with Thomas's parents, Patricia and Guillermo
• It is protected speech.
• You protect America. You protect the Constitution.
• It clarifies that a parent may seek a second opinion or differential diagnosis after a child protection
• We can vote yes on this bill, protect children, protect families, and I urge you to support House Bill

Summary: The House opened with prayer, a moment of silence for former member Chester Clem, the Pledge of Allegiance, and quorum verification. Members then adopted the special order report and a Rules and Ethics Committee report amending House Rule 15.3 to allow fundraising under certain circumstances during extended or special sessions. The chamber also recognized Deputy First Class Stefano Gargano as law enforcement officer of the day and several visiting groups in the gallery. On the floor, HB 1405 on a statewide project for missing persons with special needs passed unanimously, 109-0. The House then took up CS/CS/CS/SB 290, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services bill, which drew questions about surplus conservation lands and oversight by the Acquisition and Restoration Council; it passed 94-10. CS/CS/CS/HB 905, the “Fire Act” on foreign influence, foreign-country-of-concern restrictions, critical infrastructure, gifts, contracts, sister city agreements, and related ethics and criminal provisions, passed 80-20 after debate and a germane amendment was adopted over objections. The House also passed CS/CS/HB 1197 on information technology procurement and contracting, aimed at modernizing oversight of major IT projects, by 109-0. CS/CS/CS/HB 399 on land use development and development regulations passed 71-38 after extensive debate over development fees, manufactured homes, and reducing local supermajority requirements for comprehensive plan changes; an amendment to preserve Orange County’s rural boundary vote failed, and a strike-all amendment was ruled out of order. Members then adopted a technical amendment clarifying manufactured homes language. Several local bills also advanced: HB 1103 on local administration of vessel restrictions passed 109-0; HB 4051 and HB 4053 on Santa Rosa County fire protection district assessments passed 84-25 and 83-27, respectively, after compromise amendments; HB 4081 on the East Point Water and Sewer District passed 110-0; and HB 4093 on the Felsmere Water Control District passed 109-0. The transcript ended as the House moved on to HB 4095, with no final action shown.