Transcript Highlights:

• <00:37:36.120> structural structural review. Okay. structural structural review.
• . integration. integration.
• errors or failed in integration. errors or failed in integration.
• systems in an are vertically integrated systems in an open<01:38:17.920> structure,<01:38:18.800
• Those kinds of things are the benefits of a vertically integrated structure.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It will also update the curriculum to focus on program integrity. program integrity work. program integrity
• integrity approaches. integrity approaches.
• program integrity integrity controls. program integrity integrity controls.
• organizational structure and processes. organizational structure and processes.
• and structure our programs. and structure our programs.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• because structure drives behavior.
• , structure matters because structure<00:24:23.760> drives<00:24:24.159> behavior.
• structure drives behavior. structure drives behavior.
• structure or affiliate relationships. structure or affiliate relationships.
• integration and vertical integration<00:27:20.320> you<00:27:20.480> would<00:27:20.640

Bills: HB55, SB15, SB247

Keywords: fishing, licensing, jubilee, Marine life, Alabama, regulations, sex offenders, employment restrictions, first responders, public safety, juvenile offenders, local laws, registration requirements, picketing, protesting, residential protest, noise amplification, amplified sound, residential picketing, harassment

Transcript Highlights:

• The results structure for over 7 years.
• Can you have a different structure?
• And is transparency and and integrity.
• you have different incentive structures you have different incentive structures that<00:13:46.920
• but has not actually fixed the structure but has not actually fixed the structure and<00:15:18.839

Bills: HR113, HCR121, HR152, HCR162, SB2835, HR61, HCR67, HR94, HCR102, HR20, HCR19, HR98, HCR106, HR57, HCR63, HR96, HCR104, HR132, HCR140, HR133, HCR141, HR77, HCR85, HR90, HCR98, HR155, HCR165, HR156, HCR166, HR74, HCR82, HR190, HCR200, HR15, HCR13, HR83, HCR91, HR117, HCR125, HR193, HCR203, HR119, HCR127, HR114, HCR122, HR116, HCR124, HR22, HCR22, HR120, HCR128, HR32, HCR32, HR115, HCR123, HR138, HCR146, HR182, HCR192, HR88, HCR96, HR50, HCR54, HR169, HCR179, HR170, HCR180, HR31, HCR31, HR86, HCR94, HR23, HCR24, HR7, HCR8, HR12, HCR10, HR136, HCR144, HR108, HCR116, HR33, HCR33, HR175, HCR185, HR129, HCR137, HR192, HCR202, HR194, HCR204, HR19, HCR18, HR131, HCR139, HR163, HCR173, HR109, HCR117, HR56

Keywords: Hawaii, House Resolution, HR113, Mermaid Caves, Nanakuli, coastal hazards, sea caves, shoreline safety, public safety, digital maps, navigation apps, Google Maps, Apple Maps, point of interest, recreational destination, emergency response, drownings, rescues, cave safety, DLNR

Bills: HR113, HCR121, HR152, HCR162, SB2835, HR61, HCR67, HR94, HCR102, HR20, HCR19, HR98, HCR106, HR57, HCR63, HR96, HCR104, HR132, HCR140, HR133, HCR141, HR77, HCR85, HR90, HCR98, HR155, HCR165, HR156, HCR166, HR74, HCR82, HR190, HCR200, HR15, HCR13, HR83, HCR91, HR117, HCR125, HR193, HCR203, HR119, HCR127, HR114, HCR122, HR116, HCR124, HR22, HCR22, HR120, HCR128, HR32, HCR32, HR115, HCR123, HR138, HCR146, HR182, HCR192, HR88, HCR96, HR50, HCR54, HR169, HCR179, HR170, HCR180, HR31, HCR31, HR86, HCR94, HR23, HCR24, HR7, HCR8, HR12, HCR10, HR136, HCR144, HR108, HCR116, HR33, HCR33, HR175, HCR185, HR129, HCR137, HR192, HCR202, HR194, HCR204, HR19, HCR18, HR131, HCR139, HR163, HCR173, HR109, HCR117, HR56

Keywords: Hawaii, House Resolution, HR113, Mermaid Caves, Nanakuli, coastal hazards, sea caves, shoreline safety, public safety, digital maps, navigation apps, Google Maps, Apple Maps, point of interest, recreational destination, emergency response, drownings, rescues, cave safety, DLNR

Bills: HR210, HR142, HCR150, HR132, HCR140, HR133, HCR141, HR182, HCR192, HR96, HCR104, HR57, HCR63, HR56, HCR62, HR39, HCR43, HR48, HCR52, HR119, HCR127, HR111, HCR119, HR88, HCR96, HR120, HCR128, HR117, HCR125, HR51, HCR55, HR54, HCR58, HR149, HCR159, HR64, HCR70, HR42, HCR46, HR84, HCR92, HR92, HCR100, HCR172, HR172, HCR182, HR75, HCR83, HR116, HCR124, HR36, HCR38, HR73, HCR79, HR125, HCR133, HR136, HCR144, HCR60, HCR20, HR32, HCR32, HR115, HCR123, HR108, HCR116, HR7, HCR8, HR47, HCR51, HR178, HCR188, HCR48, HCR49, HR15, HCR13, HR107, HCR115, HR168, HCR178, HR62, HCR68, HR83, HCR91, HR147, HCR155, HR164, HCR174, HR169, HCR179, HR175, HCR185, HR106, HCR114, HR183, HCR193, HR85, HCR93, HR137, HCR145

Keywords: Earl Kawaʻa, Earl Kawaa, H.R. 210, House Resolution, Hawaii Legislature, Hawaiian language, language revitalization, mānaleo, native Hawaiian speaker, Hawaiian culture, cultural preservation, Hoʻoponopono, Kamehameha Schools, Molokaʻi, Oʻahu, community mentorship, traditional practices, āina-based education, kaiapuni, Peace Corps

Bills: HR210, HR142, HCR150, HR132, HCR140, HR133, HCR141, HR182, HCR192, HR96, HCR104, HR57, HCR63, HR56, HCR62, HR39, HCR43, HR48, HCR52, HR119, HCR127, HR111, HCR119, HR88, HCR96, HR120, HCR128, HR117, HCR125, HR51, HCR55, HR54, HCR58, HR149, HCR159, HR64, HCR70, HR42, HCR46, HR84, HCR92, HR92, HCR100, HCR172, HR172, HCR182, HR75, HCR83, HR116, HCR124, HR36, HCR38, HR73, HCR79, HR125, HCR133, HR136, HCR144, HCR60, HCR20, HR32, HCR32, HR115, HCR123, HR108, HCR116, HR7, HCR8, HR47, HCR51, HR178, HCR188, HCR48, HCR49, HR15, HCR13, HR107, HCR115, HR168, HCR178, HR62, HCR68, HR83, HCR91, HR147, HCR155, HR164, HCR174, HR169, HCR179, HR175, HCR185, HR106, HCR114, HR183, HCR193, HR85, HCR93, HR137, HCR145

Keywords: Earl Kawaʻa, Earl Kawaa, H.R. 210, House Resolution, Hawaii Legislature, Hawaiian language, language revitalization, mānaleo, native Hawaiian speaker, Hawaiian culture, cultural preservation, Hoʻoponopono, Kamehameha Schools, Molokaʻi, Oʻahu, community mentorship, traditional practices, āina-based education, kaiapuni, Peace Corps

Bills: HR210, HR142, HCR150, HR132, HCR140, HR133, HCR141, HR182, HCR192, HR96, HCR104, HR57, HCR63, HR56, HCR62, HR39, HCR43, HR48, HCR52, HR119, HCR127, HR111, HCR119, HR88, HCR96, HR120, HCR128, HR117, HCR125, HR51, HCR55, HR54, HCR58, HR149, HCR159, HR64, HCR70, HR42, HCR46, HR84, HCR92, HR92, HCR100, HCR172, HR172, HCR182, HR75, HCR83, HR116, HCR124, HR36, HCR38, HR73, HCR79, HR125, HCR133, HR136, HCR144, HCR60, HCR20, HR32, HCR32, HR115, HCR123, HR108, HCR116, HR7, HCR8, HR47, HCR51, HR178, HCR188, HCR48, HCR49, HR15, HCR13, HR107, HCR115, HR168, HCR178, HR62, HCR68, HR83, HCR91, HR147, HCR155, HR164, HCR174, HR169, HCR179, HR175, HCR185, HR106, HCR114, HR183, HCR193, HR85, HCR93, HR137, HCR145

Keywords: Earl Kawaʻa, Earl Kawaa, H.R. 210, House Resolution, Hawaii Legislature, Hawaiian language, language revitalization, mānaleo, native Hawaiian speaker, Hawaiian culture, cultural preservation, Hoʻoponopono, Kamehameha Schools, Molokaʻi, Oʻahu, community mentorship, traditional practices, āina-based education, kaiapuni, Peace Corps

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:10:48.160> and education systems are structured and education systems are structured and
• <00:23:34.559> Um one's structure and one's uh funding.
• Um one's structure and one's uh funding.
• structures itself around this topic. structures itself around this topic.
• <00:34:59.440> Um So that's the structure stuff.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The first pillar is integrated student supports.
• So what ties all of this together, I just want to underscore, is integration: integration of initiatives
• , integration of funding.
• But that's really hard, given the current structures that hold us back.
• I just need some way for innovative structures to be able to open up.

Summary: The joint informational and oversight hearing focused on community schools in California, with members emphasizing that the purpose was to examine effectiveness, implementation, and sustainability rather than the Governor’s budget proposal. The California Department of Education described the California Community Schools Partnership Program, created in 2021 and funded with more than $4 billion, including planning, implementation, extension, and county coordination grants. Officials said nearly 2,500 schools are participating and highlighted the statewide technical assistance structure, including the State Transformational Assistance Center, eight regional centers, county offices, and CDE support. Researchers from the Learning Policy Institute and UCLA presented early findings and implementation data. LPI reported reductions in chronic absenteeism and suspensions, along with gains in math and English language arts, with especially large benefits for Black students and other historically underserved groups. UCLA described the Annual Progress Report as a statewide improvement tool showing growth in capacity-building, shared decision-making, whole-child supports, and continuous improvement. Members asked about how the reports measure outcomes, how to interpret outliers, and how to distinguish community schools effects from other concurrent initiatives; presenters said matched comparison methods and deeper case-study work are being used, with additional statewide findings expected in June. Panelists from Oakland Unified, LAUSD/UTLA, San Diego Unified, and advocacy organizations described key elements of success: integrated student supports, strong family and student engagement, collaborative leadership, community partnerships, and school-site decision-making. They gave examples such as wellness centers, dual enrollment, student senates, parent leadership, and community campaigns that built trust and increased participation. Members also raised concerns about sustainability, implementation fidelity, and whether community schools improve participation in LCAP processes. Presenters said major barriers include unclear early guidance, the need for a mindset shift away from top-down models, and uncertainty about long-term funding for coordinators and other staff. The panel’s recommendations centered on stable ongoing funding, stronger technical assistance, shared governance, and embedding community schools practices into district and county systems.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's integrated into the call-taking system.
• I do think that structurally it's helpful.
• And this really brings the integration.
• mobile crisis and integrate 988.
• in mobile crisis and integrate in 988.

Summary: The hearing focused on California’s 988 suicide and crisis lifeline and the broader crisis response system, with members and witnesses emphasizing both the system’s life-saving role and the risks posed by funding gaps, rising demand, and uneven local implementation. Opening remarks highlighted the personal impact of suicide and the need to strengthen crisis response so calls are answered quickly and linked to appropriate care rather than defaulting to 911, emergency rooms, or law enforcement. State officials described the AB 988 five-year implementation plan, which sets goals around public awareness, equitable access, high-quality call/chat/text response, and better integration with ongoing behavioral health services. State agencies reported progress on infrastructure, coordination, and related behavioral health investments. CalHHS said California has expanded mobile crisis teams, crisis stabilization units, and youth behavioral health supports, and is preparing additional public awareness and grant programs tied to Proposition 1. DHCS explained that 988 is funded through a federal SAMHSA grant and the AB 988 surcharge, while Medi-Cal separately funds mobile crisis services; officials said the mobile crisis benefit is active in 53 counties and that statewide expansion remains a work in progress. Cal OES described the statewide technical buildout, including network infrastructure in all 11 crisis centers, interoperability with 911, and a pilot of next-generation routing and call-handling tools. The 988 California Consortium said call volume continues to rise sharply, missed calls remain a major concern, text/chat capacity is limited, and centers need more stable funding, better reimbursement, and stronger feedback loops with the state. County and community witnesses stressed that local systems need more flexible, sustained support to match the demand. Lake County described a peer-led rural mobile crisis model that has reduced law enforcement holds and increased housing placements, but said county-run mobile crisis teams still cannot reliably access 988 surcharge dollars and face reimbursement problems from Medi-Cal and commercial plans. Santa Clara County reported strong performance metrics, rapid call answer times, and a broad continuum of mobile crisis services, but said staffing and funding are strained and commercial reimbursement remains slow. The Mental Health Association of San Francisco said the peer-run warm line complements 988 by offering non-emergency support and warm handoffs, but recent budget changes forced cuts to Spanish-language service, federation support, and hours. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing; members mainly asked questions about surcharge levels, budget timing, coordination among agencies, data collection, and how to improve collaboration with frontline crisis centers.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's on us then to figure out how we better integrate behavioral health into it.
• Competitive integrated employment opportunities.
• To establish an additional governmental structure.
• Phase two is getting people into competitive integrated employment.
• Integrated, complete financial project.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we operate within a larger structure and we're a component piece of a larger structure.
• So, we operate within a larger structure and we're a component piece of a larger structure.
• is going to be the program integrity is going to be the program integrity unit.<00:20:19.760>
• So that's the nice thing about the way we're structured: we're part of a larger structure.
• is the integrity of the bidding process. is the integrity of the bidding process.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee chair opened by explaining that the committee has expanded from a traditional audit-follow-up role into an oversight role focused on whether audit recommendations are implemented and whether controls are in place to detect fraud. He said the committee was concerned about fraud uncovered in social service programs in other states and wanted to understand New Hampshire’s safeguards, especially around major contracts and program performance. Charles Buchanan, director of the New Hampshire Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, and investigator Tim Brackett described the unit’s structure and mission. Buchanan said the unit, housed in the Attorney General’s Criminal Justice Bureau, investigates and prosecutes fraud by health care providers serving Medicaid beneficiaries, as well as abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation of residents in health care facilities. He outlined common Medicaid fraud schemes such as billing for services not rendered, upcoding, using unqualified staff, drug substitution, kickbacks, supplemental charges, and inflated customary charges. He also described resident abuse/neglect and drug diversion in hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living settings. Brackett said his role is financial investigator/auditor and noted the unit is grant-funded and must include a prosecutor, investigator, and auditor. The witnesses then explained how cases reach the unit and how they are handled. Most referrals come from the state Department of Health and Human Services’ program integrity unit and from managed care organizations’ special investigations units, which look for fraud, waste, and abuse and refer credible allegations. Other sources include qui tam whistleblower actions, the national Medicaid Fraud Control Units association, citizen complaints, provider referrals, adult protective services law-enforcement referrals, local law enforcement, and federal agencies. Once a referral is received, the unit can accept or deny it; accepted matters may be investigated criminally or civilly, while nonviable matters can be referred back to HHS or other agencies for administrative action, including repayment demands and reimbursement offsets. No votes or formal committee actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• structure which um our organizational structure which can<00:04:21.600> be<00:04:21.759> very
• ,<00:04:33.759> because multiple salary structures, because multiple salary structures, because
• What will the 76.5 integrator do?
• ,<00:18:17.440> the those out and then your integrator, the those out and then your integrator
• integrator is on the hook of providing. integrator is on the hook of providing.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: Personnel Cabinet and Kentucky Employees Health Plan officials presented a request to replace the Kentucky Human Resources Information System (CHRIS), the state’s HR/payroll ERP system procured in 2007. They said the system supports core HR and payroll for about 48,000 state employees, 24 sheriff and county clerk offices, and the Kentucky Employees Health Plan, which covers more than 300,000 lives. Officials emphasized that SAP has said the system will be end-of-life and out of support by 2030, which would eliminate security updates, vendor maintenance, and tax-compliance support. They argued that replacement is necessary to protect sensitive personnel and health data, maintain payroll accuracy, and avoid major operational and cybersecurity risks. Officials described the project as a true replacement, not just an upgrade, and said the proposed $151 million request covers a five- to six-year implementation, stabilization, and ongoing maintenance period. They broke down the estimate as including roughly $54 million for software licensing and hosting, about $76.5 million for systems integrator/professional services, and additional amounts for independent verification and validation, dependent verification for the health plan, FSA administration, contingency staffing, and hardware-related needs. They said the cost increase from prior estimates was mainly due to inflation and updated requirements. They also noted that payments would be tied to deliverables and checkpoints, with third-party IV&V oversight, and that the cabinet expects to continue normal quarterly IT reporting to LRC while also providing at least monthly project updates because of the 2030 deadline. Committee members asked about the total cost of ownership, recurring operating costs, the size of the integrator contract, how vendor costs were estimated, and how progress would be tracked. Officials said they used market research, peer-state comparisons, vendor discussions, and independent reviews, including input from AON and a third-party QA resource. They explained that the integrator would handle requirements mapping, system design, configuration, training, change management, and implementation support across the Personnel Cabinet, KHP, and other stakeholders. No vote or formal action was taken during the discussion; the meeting consisted of testimony, questions, and answers on the funding request and implementation plan.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so in this way, we think that the reporting structure can be amended for the grants.
• But we'll start with the reporting structure. And reduce lunch numbers.
• They're organizing and integrating those programs.
• I think it may take a requirement... ...structure figured out and done.
• How do we integrate them? How do we streamline them?

Summary: The joint hearing focused on coherence in California’s education planning and reporting systems, especially the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) and related grant plans. Committee chairs and members described widespread frustration with duplicative, lengthy, and sometimes conflicting reporting requirements, while emphasizing that the goal was not to reduce accountability but to make planning more useful, stable, and student-centered. State Superintendent Tony Thurmond also previewed the Governor’s education budget priorities, including expanded learning, community schools, universal transitional kindergarten, literacy supports, and concerns about the proposed Prop. 98 deferral. Panelists from the State Board of Education, Fresno County Superintendent of Schools, and the Legislative Analyst’s Office said the LCAP was intended to balance local flexibility with statewide transparency, but has become overloaded by repeated revisions and additional requirements. They argued for fewer core reporting elements, more stability over time, better alignment of planning cycles, and integrated systems that reduce duplication. Fresno County staff described a multi-year calendar and support tools that help districts manage timelines, but said these tools only ease the burden rather than solve the underlying problem. The LAO noted that some newer plans, such as expanded learning and transportation plans, are narrative-heavy and often less informative than separate reporting requirements. Local district leaders and county officials described the practical effects of the current system: staff time diverted from instruction, multiple portals and forms, audit risk aversion, and planning documents that can exceed 100 pages. Several superintendents said coherent systems work best when districts have clear priorities, stable governance, and aligned budgets, and when state requirements are predictable and tied to outcomes like literacy, attendance, and student achievement. The California Federation of Teachers added that coherence also depends on meaningful collaboration with educators, classified staff, parents, and communities. Committee members repeatedly asked whether the state should streamline reporting, create a uniform portal, or develop a more unified grant-reporting structure, and Thurmond said the department was piloting a simplified common form and was willing to work with the Legislature and districts on broader solutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• So why modernization through integration?
• One is sort of integrated governance. What does that look like?
• The question is, do you have an integrated service delivery structure where...
• The question is, do you have an integrated service delivery structure where a person who lives and works
• And right now, with the local board structure, that does not happen.

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The meeting focused on the state’s “one door/no wrong door” workforce and social services modernization effort, with consultants Mason Bishop and Cameron Christie presenting recommendations. They argued that Arkansas should shift from fragmented programs and multiple access points to a more integrated system that promotes upward mobility, longer labor force attachment, better employer access to talent, greater efficiency, and faster adaptation to changes such as AI and economic shocks. They described the current system as overly siloed, with separate offices, portals, and funding streams that force job seekers and employers to navigate multiple doors and bureaucratic handoffs. The consultants emphasized that Arkansas should treat workforce and safety-net programs more like a coordinated franchise model, with a single point of access, one team, and integrated governance, service delivery, and financial administration. They discussed federal workforce waivers already submitted, a possible cost-allocation plan with the federal Office of Management and Budget, and a potential benefits-cliff pilot. They also said Arkansas Launch is a useful tool but not a full service-delivery system. Members asked how the proposal would affect DHS offices, local workforce boards, TANF, and disability-related services, and the consultants said TANF should be viewed as a workforce program and that Arkansas could consider co-locating or integrating staff, or even merging agencies as Utah did. Committee members repeatedly cited Utah as a model, noting its high workforce participation and lower reliance on Medicaid and SNAP, and asked whether Arkansas could use TANF and other programs to cross-train DHS workers and make county offices more work-focused. The consultants explained Utah’s 1990s reforms, later audits showing improved customer service, and the role of cost allocation in blending funds behind the scenes. They also addressed federal flexibility and said current waiver efforts are a fallback after a broader federal pilot proposal did not advance. The meeting ended with a request to continue examining case management, specifically whether Arkansas should case-manage people rather than programs, and the chair adjourned the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• So why modernization through integration?
• Number two is the integrated service.
• The question is, do you have an integrated service delivery structure where...
• The question is, do you have an integrated service delivery structure where a person who lives and works
• And so again, the idea is how do we create an efficient oversight structure, an efficient delivery structure

Summary: The committee met to hear consultants Mason Bishop and Cameron Christie discuss Arkansas’s “one door/no wrong door” workforce and social services modernization effort. Bishop argued that the current system is fragmented across multiple agencies, offices, and portals, making it hard for job seekers and employers to access services efficiently. He said the goal is to create a more integrated system that promotes upward mobility, longer labor force attachment, better employer access to talent, greater efficiency, and faster adaptation to changes such as AI and other economic disruptions. Bishop repeatedly pointed to Utah as a model, describing how that state combined workforce and public assistance functions into a single agency, used statewide cost allocation to blend funding streams, and improved customer service and outcomes after reform. He said Arkansas should consider integrating governance, service delivery, and financing, including possible waivers, a statewide cost allocation plan, and a benefits-cliff pilot. He also said Arkansas’s current local workforce board structure creates duplication and weak coordination, and that Launch is a useful tool but not a full service-delivery system. Committee members asked how the proposal would work in practice, including whether TANF could be used to cross-train DHS workers, how federal waivers might be obtained, how local boards would be affected, and how disabled clients would be handled. Bishop said TANF should be treated as part of a workforce strategy, that federal pilot authority for workforce reform nearly passed but did not, and that waivers are now the practical path. He also said Arkansas could either merge functions more fully or at minimum co-locate workforce staff in DHS offices statewide. No votes were taken; the meeting ended with plans to continue the discussion in August, including a focus on case management and whether the state is managing programs or people.

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't even know how much we are spending on it structure.
• Probably be 2028 before we totally, totally all integrated.
• , we are simply establishing a structure as this gets built out there.
• Everything in our home it with your life is up for grabs, integrating cybersecurity.
• The integration is going to be key.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:28:53.039> its and Japan is working to integrate its and Japan is working to integrate
• 00:44:13.520> uh seeing more integration with uh seeing more integration with uh traditional<00
• the world integrated with Apple Pay,<01:19:40.239> integrated<01:19:40.640> with<01:19
• Pay, integrated with Google Pay. Pay, integrated with Google Pay.
• One key note here in terms of structure One key note here in terms of structure for<01:19:46.159

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The Stable Token Study Commission held its first regular meeting, welcomed all remaining appointed members, and completed brief introductions from legislators and agency designees. The chair outlined the commission’s plan to use the first part of the enabling legislation as a “level-setting” discussion, focusing this meeting on the basics of blockchain, the current landscape for stablecoins and tokenized real-world assets, and leaving blockchain-based trust for a later meeting. No votes were taken. The main presentation came from Deanna Bario Zales of the Global Blockchain Business Council, who described stablecoins as increasingly converging toward fiat-backed or asset-backed models, with algorithmic designs viewed more cautiously. She said stablecoins are being used for payments, remittances, DeFi activity, cross-border transfers, retail use in high-inflation markets, and treasury functions, while noting risks such as peg instability, reserve transparency, counterparty and network risk, and possible capital flight from weaker banking systems. She cited growth in supply, wallet activity, and transfer volume, and said U.S.-pegged stablecoins dominate the market, with USDT and USDC leading. Zales also discussed tokenized real-world assets, describing them as digital representations of physical assets that can enable fractional ownership, liquidity, and faster settlement. She said the market is growing quickly, with institutional participation from firms such as BlackRock and Franklin Templeton, and projected continued expansion. She closed with an overview of regulatory developments, emphasizing the new U.S. stablecoin framework under the Genius Act, the proposed Clarity Act, OCC guidance, and similar regimes in the EU, UK, UAE, Singapore, Japan, and elsewhere, all of which she said are shaping compliance requirements and market development.