Back and forth among legislators about Arkansas ACCESS higher education legislation
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – There was much back and forth at the Arkansas capitol on Monday as the ACCESS Act began its legislative journey.
The ACCESS Act is Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders' higher education reform plan. It stands for acceleration, common sense, cost, eligibility, scholarship and standardization.
Arkansas ACCESS higher education bills entered in legislature
The debate at the capitol mainly surrounded what should be excused versus unexcused for students in public and open enrollment public charter school districts who get involved in state politics.
Currently in the bill, state-supported colleges and universities would count as unexcused student absences for public policy advocacy or attempts to influence legislation and political protests.
Bill sponsors made an amendment Monday afternoon for schools to allow an excused absence for public policy advocacy or to influence legislation if parents provide written permission. Originally, that kind of participation would've been counted as unexcused.
However, political protests would still be unexcused.
Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders announces Arkansas ACCESS higher education reform legislation
The changes are being made after concerns about different consequences school districts have for unexcused absences, like being unable to make up missed assignments.
The bill has other aspects that many legislators seemed to be in favor of including raising the Arkansas Academic Challenge Scholarship from $1,000 to $2,000 for college freshmen and making a statewide application for all state colleges and universities.
An amended version of the ACCESS Act passed in the Joint Education Committee and is heading to the House and Senate floors.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
21 minutes ago
- CNBC
Watch CNBC's full interview with House Speaker Mike Johnson
House Speaker Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss the public feud between President Trump and Elon Musk, Musk's criticism of the GOP reconciliation package, fate of the bill in the Senate, cutting government spending, and more.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Problems proliferate in Senate for Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
Problems are multiplying for Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and other Senate negotiators in their bid to pass legislation to enact President Trump's agenda by July 4. Some Republican senators are barraging leadership with concerns about spending cuts for Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), while budget hawks are demanding more deficit reduction and railing against a House compromise to lift the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions. The latest headache for Thune and other Senate negotiators is a proposal being pushed by fiscal conservatives to root out more than $200 billion in what they're calling waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare — a controversial prospect giving the program's popularity. There are also differences between senators and the Trump White House about making permanent corporate tax cuts, such as 100 percent bonus depreciation for short-term investments and immediate expensing for research and development. Senate Republicans control 53 seats and can only afford three defections on Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says he will vote 'no' because it includes language to raise the debt ceiling by $4 trillion. And Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) says he's a 'hard no' on the House-passed bill because it doesn't do enough to bring the nation back to a pre-pandemic level of spending. Here are the issues that threaten to derail the Senate bill. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) are threatening to vote against the bill if it reduces Medicaid benefits to constituents, and they have yet to see what language the Senate Finance Committee will roll out on the issue. Senate and House GOP leaders insist the legislation won't cut Medicaid benefits, but the Congressional Budget Office released a report Wednesday projecting 10.9 million Americans will lose health insurance if the bill passes due to changes to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act coverage. 'I hope not benefit cuts, that's my bottom line,' Hawley said Thursday afternoon. GOP senators have raised concerns about proposals to limit states' ability to use health care provider taxes to collect more federal Medicaid funding and to require people earning between 100 percent and 138 percent of the federal poverty level to pay higher co-pays for Medical services. Several Senate Republicans are also raising concerns over a projected $267 billion in spending cuts to the SNAP, including Collins and Moran. The Senate Agriculture Committee is hoping to roll out text for its portion of the budget reconciliation bill next week but Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.) says the issue remains unresolved. 'We're still working on it,' Boozman told The Hill, adding, 'I wish it was' resolved.' Collins says she's concerned about language in the bill that would shift many of the burdens of administering the programs onto the states and penalize those states that have older systems for monitoring benefits. A growing number of Republicans are joining budget hawk Sen. Ron Johnson's (R-Wis.) call for more spending cuts in the bill, which Republicans project will reduce spending by roughly $1.6 trillion over the next decade. GOP senators, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the chairman of the Budget Committee, are calling for bigger cuts. 'I think the bill needs to be more fiscally responsible,' he told reporters Thursday afternoon. Some Republicans are now looking at a proposal to root out 'waste, fraud and abuse' in the Medicare Advantage program and are rallying around a proposal sponsored by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) to crack down on insurance companies 'upcoding' diagnoses to collect more Medicare reimbursement money. But the idea is dividing GOP senators. Hawley on Thursday said it would be 'insane' to start cutting Medicare, even though proponents of Cassidy's bill say it would be strictly targeted to waste, fraud and abuse and note that Democrats such as Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) support it. Sens. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, are digging in their heels over language in the House-passed bill to auction off government-owned spectrum, which they fear could impede the Defense Department's use of those frequencies for radar and communications. Rounds said the House language is a 'deal breaker' and urging that negotiators add language in the bill to protect spectrum frequencies used by the Pentagon for as long as the auction period lasts. 'It has to be modified,' he said. 'They've indicated that they would protect the spectrum [for defense] for the first round of auction items but one day after [the first round of auction] it's not protected,' he said. 'If they're serious about protecting that particular part of the spectrum, they just simply protect it until the auction authority expires in 2034,' he said. 'I've talked to the leadership here in the Senate.' The newest flashpoint in the negotiations is language in the bill that would restrict states' ability to regulate artificial intelligence for 10 years. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) says she would have voted against the House bill had she known that it 'strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years.' Other conservatives are flagging the provision as a major problem. 'I have a lot of concern about normal people who want to keep their job, want to protect their personal information. So we're just going to say for a decade that nobody can protect people? That's just nuts to me,' Hawley told reporters Thursday. Senate Republicans and Trump White House officials disagree over making corporate tax breaks, such as bonus depreciation and research and development expensing, permanent. The House bill phases out some of the most popular corporate tax cuts after 2029, and White House officials see an advantage in letting them expire after Trump's term in office, say GOP senators familiar with the negotiations. Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee made a pitch to Trump and his economic team at the White House Thursday to make the business tax proposals permanent, but the issue remains unresolved. Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) said that members of the Finance panel expressed their desire to make those tax provisions permanent, but he's not sure they moved the needle with Trump. 'I'm not convinced that we moved the needle. I think he certainly realizes how important it is to us, and I think he will go back and revisit it with his people,' he said. Republican senators say they're going to rewrite the deal Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) reached with House Republicans from New York, New Jersey, and other high-cost Blue States to raise the cap on SALT deductions from $10,000 to $40,000 for households earning up to $500,000 a year. The House-crafted SALT deal is projected to cost $350 billion over 10 years, and Republican senators aren't happy about it. GOP senators believe they can lower the cap somewhere between $10,000 and $40,000 — or find another way to substantially reduce the cost of the provision — and still get the bill through the House. 'It is too high,' Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) of the $40,000 cap on SALT deductions. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who is pushing for deficit reduction in the bill, called the SALT compromise a giveaway to 'an exceptionally wealthy, exceptionally small group of really high-income earners from a small handful of very highly taxed states.' 'We're subsidizing those states that impose high taxes,' he said. He said an 'overwhelming share of Republican senators' don't support the $40,000 cap level. 'There's a lot of support for setting that back down to some lower number, perhaps back down to $10,000,' Lee noted. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has warned Senate Republicans that they risk imperiling passage of the bill if they blow up the SALT deal. If the Senate modifies the legislation, it would need to pass the House again before heading to Trump's desk. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lombardo vetoes trans protections bills, in contrast to previous session
Transgender rights activists and supporters participate in the Trans Day Of Visibility rally on the National Mall on March 31, 2025 in Washington City. (Photo by) Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo vetoed two bills this week that would have enshrined a shield law for health care providers who offer gender-affirming care and ensured protections for transgender people incarcerated at local jails. The vetoes come as President Donald Trump, who Lombardo supported in the election, has escalated attacks against the LGBTQ+ community in the first few months of his second term and issued several anti-trans orders, including one that blocked federal support for gender-affirming medical care to patients younger than 19. The governor 'turned his back on LGBTQ+ Nevadans and their families—vetoing two critical protections just days into Pride Month,' Silver State Equality State Director André Wade said in a statement. 'These bills would have provided critical protections to transgender people seeking healthcare and their medical providers, as well as to transgender people in our criminal justice system.' To the surprise of many LGBTQ organizers, Lombardo in 2023 signed legislation that prevented insurance companies from discriminating against trans people on the basis of gender identity and required the Nevada Department of Corrections to adopt regulations to protect trans and gender-nonconforming people in prison. The move at the time made him an outlier among Republican governors and legislatures, which have supported and passed bills targeting the trans and queer community. Gender-affirming care is supported by a variety of health providers and medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics. But it has been a high-profile target, and several states, including Utah, have banned it. Democratic state Sen. James Ohrenschall has said prohibiting gender-affirming care will 'not only harm transgender individuals but create a climate of fear and uncertainty for health care providers who offer gender-affirming health care services.' Nevada law doesn't restrict medically necessary gender-affirming care, but many LGBTQ advocates and medical providers, including pediatricians, worried bans in other states could prevent trans youth from seeking care and doctors from providing it in Nevada. Ohrenschall brought legislation in 2023 that sought to enact a shield law for medical providers in Nevada but Lombardo vetoed the bill. With Senate Bill 171, Ohrenschall used the same language from the 2023 bill to yet again try to bolster protections for medical providers who offer gender-affirming care. It would have prevented a medical licensing board from punishing or disqualifying providers. The bill passed both the Senate and Assembly in party line votes. 'This bill was a clear opportunity to ensure that transgender Nevadans can access the care they need—and that providers can offer it without fear of legal retaliation,' Wade said. 'Transgender people in Nevada deserve safety, dignity, and access to life-saving health care. The Governor's decision puts all of that at risk.' In his veto message, Lombardo wrote that the bill 'would lead to complicated legal battles and uncertainty about what laws providers must follow' and put medical 'licensing boards in the awkward position of navigating potentially conflicting mandates in federal and state law.' The message was similar to his 2023 veto. The second trans bill vetoed by Lombardo, Senate Bill 141 would have required local detention facilities to develop policies that address the custody, housing, medical and mental health treatment of transgender, gender non-conforming, and intersex people incarcerated. Democratic state Sen. Melanie Scheible, who sponsored the bill, said during its hearing it was similar to legislation she brought in 2023 that required prisons to enact similar policies for trans people who were incarcerated. Lombardo signed that bill. All 15 Assembly Republicans joined Democrats to unanimously pass SB 141, but the Senate voted along party lines. In his veto message Lombardo acknowledged that he did 'which authorized the Director of the Department of Corrections to implement similar policies through regulation with Board of Prison Commissioners' approval.' 'Federal authority in this space is potentially evolving and, if altered, could conflict with the provisions of this bill leading to decreased state and local access to vital federal funding,' he wrote.
