The hearing was abruptly recessed for about 15 minutes when state Rep. Jenny Graham, R-Spokane Valley, attempted to ask questions of one of the bill sponsors but was silenced by the chair, Rep. Roger Goodman, D-Kirkland
Carleen Johnson
The Center Square Washington
See Grok’s analysis of this story
Lawmaker frustration boiled over Thursday in a House Community Safety Committee hearing in the Washington legislature on bills concerning Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers.
The hearing was abruptly recessed for about 15 minutes when state Rep. Jenny Graham, R-Spokane Valley, who is the ranking minority on the committee, attempted to ask questions of one of the bill sponsors but was silenced by the chair, Rep. Roger Goodman, D-Kirkland.
As reported by The Center Square, the legislation Simmons is backing would prevent someone from obtaining a law enforcement position in Washington, if they were hired to be a U.S. immigration and customs enforcement officer on or after Jan. 20, 2025.
Simmons, a Democrat with prior felony convictions, is sponsoring House Bill 2641, dubbed the “ICE Out Act of 2026,” along with Rep. Shaun Scott, D-Seattle.
“We have seen ICE agents breaking the windows of people’s vehicles. Snatching individuals off our streets and out of our communities….and using children as bait to detain their parents,” said Simmons.
That statement prompted Graham to call for a point of order, objecting to Simmons’ testimony.
A point of order is a formal objection raised by a member to alert the chair that the rules of procedure are being violated.
“Try not to use inflammatory phrases,” Goodman, D-Kirkland, told Simmons.
“The reports I am hearing from people is they feel ICE is ripping their families apart,” Simmons said. “It would be naïve of us not to prepare for the possibility of federal intervention here. All of this will end one day but these ICE officers will look for a new home. Not here.”
Rep. Brian Burnett, R-Wenatchee, who served many years as Chelan County sheriff, asked Simmons about the hiring cutoff date of Jan 20, 2025, referenced in the bill which states any ICE officer hired after that date can’t apply to be an officer in Washington.
“Why would you hold that against someone if they haven’t violated anything or had a criminal law violation,” asked Burnett.
“I’m hearing from our communities that a person who sees what’s going on right now and signs up for that and wants to be a part of that, we have questions about their character,” said Simmons….“I think right now everyone is afraid of ICE.”
Growing frustrated with the line of testimony from the sponsor, Graham asked the chair to recess the hearing, so Republican members could caucus and discuss the bill.
When the hearing concluded, Graham told TCS the sponsor’s testimony was inappropriate, and Goodman should not have allowed it.
“Talking about ICE officers not having character and breaking people’s civil rights. She’s just flat-out saying things that are untrue. These are people that are doing their lawful jobs, to uphold the U.S. Constitution and protect legal residents from harm from illegal foreign nationals and they didn’t want to talk about that any of the victims, like Laken Riley.”
Laken was a 22-year-old university student who was jogging when she was attacked and murdered by a Venezuelan man who had entered the United States illegally.
Graham said Goodman wouldn’t allow her to ask important questions of the sponsor.
“He’s been a chair for a long time, and he knows better than to act like that. That’s not how it’s supposed to go,” said Graham. “So, we definitely did have some fireworks with him making the comment that he’s the chair and he can do whatever he wants to, and I said, “no you can’t.”
No action was taken on the bill.
Another bill related to ICE – HB 2648 – limiting how local law enforcement can interact with ICE officials, received a public hearing with some spirited debate.
Sponsor Rep. Mary Fosse, D-Everett, is the bill sponsor, who opened her testimony saying law enforcement members are confused.
“What I’ve been hearing is a little bit of heartbreak about the activities that their witnessing and I’ve heard confusion about where state law ends and federal supremacy begins,” said Fosse.
Graham told Fosse she has major concerns about the bill.
“We definitely disagree and what I’m finding particularly concerning is we’re only talking about one side of this issue and ignoring the crime victims in this state that are being raped, robbed, murdered, assaulted by people that are illegal foreign nationals,” said Graham. “What about their rights?”
“It’s interesting that you talk about victims, because the victims I’m seeing is Renee. I’m seeing mothers and nurses being murdered,” responded Fosse.
As Graham interjected to bring up victims of illegal immigrants, Goodman interrupted to say she was not speaking to the bill.
Steve Strachan, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, testified in opposition to the bill.
“Our concern is that this bill adds even more reporting requirements at a time when local law enforcement is being called to do almost the impossible. We’re called on to ensure both the constitutional right to protest peacefully and also ensure of course that any violence toward any enforcement officer is neither encouraged nor allowed,” said Strachan.
“The predictable real world effect particularly of the community notification element would be federal officers would be less likely to call on local law enforcement for assistance when needed for public safety problems, resulting in more division, potentially more violence and more tension.”
No executive action was taken on the bill at the conclusion of the hearing.
This report was first published by The Center Square Washington.
This independent analysis was created with Grok, an AI model from xAI. It is not written or edited by ClarkCountyToday.com and is provided to help readers evaluate the article’s sourcing and context.
Quick summary
During a January 2026 House Community Safety Committee hearing, lawmakers sharply disagreed over House Bill 2641 (the “ICE Out Act of 2026”), which would prohibit law enforcement agencies from hiring anyone employed by ICE on or after Jan. 20, 2025. Sponsor Rep. Tarra Simmons described ICE actions as harming families and fueling fear, while Republicans criticized the tone and raised public-safety concerns; the hearing also featured a procedural flashpoint when Chair Roger Goodman stopped Rep. Jenny Graham from questioning testimony, prompting a 15‑minute recess.
What Grok notices
- Uses direct quotes to convey the intensity of the exchange, including Simmons’ framing of community fear, Graham’s objections to hearing testimony, and arguments (including from Strachan, as cited) warning about unintended public-safety risks.
- Highlights the bill’s specific hiring cutoff date (Jan. 20, 2025) and frames the proposal as part of broader efforts to reduce state and local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
- Describes a procedural clash in the committee—Graham being stopped from asking questions by Chair Roger Goodman—leading to a 15‑minute recess and underscoring partisan conflict over process as well as policy.
- Notes that no action was taken at the time on HB 2641 or the related HB 2648, helping readers track where the bills stand after the hearing.
- Points readers to primary sources for verification and additional context, especially the full hearing video and any amendments that may clarify how the hiring restriction would be implemented.
Questions worth asking
- How might a prohibition on hiring former or current ICE employees affect recruitment pipelines and the availability of experienced candidates for local agencies?
- How do highly charged hearing statements shape public perception of federal immigration enforcement, and what standards (if any) govern testimony tone and relevance?
- In practical terms, what public-safety challenges could arise from limiting local-federal cooperation, especially in joint investigations or emergency situations?
- How do procedural decisions—such as stopping questions during testimony—affect bipartisan deliberation and the perceived legitimacy of the legislative process?
- What evidence from other states or jurisdictions exists on how similar restrictions influence community trust, enforcement outcomes, and officer safety?
Research this topic more
- Washington State Legislature – HB 2641 and HB 2648 text, bill history, and status
- House Community Safety Committee – hearing recordings, documents, and testimony resources
- Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs – policy positions and statements
- U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement – policies and public information
- NCSL – resources on state approaches to federal immigration cooperation
Also read:
- Opinion: Inviting courts into health care policy discussion
Elizabeth New (Hovde) warns that Senate Joint Resolution 8206 could invite lawsuits by placing vague health care mandates into Washington’s Constitution. - Opinion: 24 States In. Washington Out? $732 Million Lost?
Vicki Murray argues Washington risks forfeiting $732 million in federal education funding if state leaders do not opt into the federal tax-credit scholarship program. - Opinion: Nationwide strike in support of illegals and opposing the rule of law?
Lars Larson argues that a reported nationwide strike reflects opposition to immigration enforcement and the rule of law, criticizing political leaders and media coverage. - POLL: Should councilors serving on boards be required to vote the way the full council decides?
A new poll asks whether Clark County councilors serving on boards should be required to vote in line with the full council’s position or retain independent judgment. - VIDEO: Washington lawmakers clash over bills directed at limiting ICE officers
A heated House committee hearing on legislation aimed at limiting ICE officers in Washington was temporarily recessed after sharp exchanges between lawmakers over testimony and procedural disputes.
