Transcript Highlights:

• We have 98% of state departments licensed for G5, which in state government, 98% of anything is very
• We are currently working with a state—I can't say the name of the state—but where we ended up replacing
• Those devices lead directly into the state network.
• audits covering all state entities.
• audits covering all state entities.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Cybersecurity and the Assembly Committee on Emergency Management held a joint informational hearing focused on maximizing the value of state cybersecurity investments, especially by fully using security features already included in existing vendor contracts. The first panel included representatives from Microsoft, Zscaler, and Palo Alto Networks, who described the products and services they provide to California and generally agreed that agencies often have strong adoption in some areas but still face challenges from tool overlap, limited staff, lack of awareness of available features, and the need for ongoing training and configuration support. They also discussed major threats such as ransomware, data loss, attack-surface exposure, IoT/OT vulnerabilities, and the growing role of AI in both attacks and defenses. Members pressed the vendors on whether state departments underuse purchased cybersecurity tools, how to improve utilization, and how to address the cybersecurity workforce shortage. The vendors said utilization is often constrained by staffing, procurement complexity, and the need to align tools with agency missions and maturity levels, but emphasized that training, leadership buy-in, and regular vendor-agency collaboration can improve results. They also discussed how AI can help with phishing triage, data-loss prevention, and security operations, while warning that agencies must manage AI safely and with human oversight. The second panel featured officials from the Department of Technology, Cal OES/CalSIC, and the California Military Department. They described statewide oversight efforts including audits, independent security assessments, continuous monitoring, advisory services, vulnerability disclosure programs, and workforce development initiatives such as the Information Security Leadership Academy and Cybersecurity Education Summit. Officials said some underutilization is real, but it is often tied to differing agency maturity, overlapping tools, and deliberate feature restrictions to reduce attack surface and complexity; they emphasized a balanced approach using people, process, and technology, with plans of action and milestones to hold departments accountable. They also noted federal uncertainty around MS-ISAC and the state and local cybersecurity grant program, saying California is advocating through federal partners and monitoring the impact. The hearing ended after public comment and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• This was at Bismarck State College.
• Gallian just stated? Sorry.
• And we see this in other states. The State of Washington has a fairly robust cybersecurity team.
• And then it states in there that the policy was within the state law.
• All of the states did report a big increase, but it fluctuates from state to state.

Committee: Joint Legislative Audit and Fiscal Review Committee

Summary: The Legislative Audit and Fiscal Review Committee met to receive a series of audit presentations, beginning with approval of the prior meeting minutes and a review of the state’s annual comprehensive financial report (ACFR) for fiscal year 2025. The State Auditor’s Office and the Office of Management and Budget reported a clean opinion on the state’s financial statements and described continued growth in net position, strong general fund balance, and significant Legacy Fund investment income. Committee members asked about how the report reflects long-term finances and how North Dakota compares with other states, and OMB noted that the ACFR is based on audited actual results rather than budget forecasts. The committee then heard the North Dakota University System audit, which also received a clean opinion but included four findings: misreporting of Strategic Investment and Improvements Fund construction money, insufficient monitoring of service organizations, improper bank reconciliations at several campuses, and investment/cash recording issues at Bismarck State College. University System officials agreed with the findings and said corrective actions were underway, including internal review of bank reconciliations and greater use of shared services. Members also questioned practices such as campus use of certificates of deposit and whether repeated findings were being adequately addressed. Additional audits were presented for the State Fair Association, State Auditor’s Office, Workforce Safety and Insurance, Housing Finance Agency, Housing Incentive Fund, Job Service North Dakota, the Retirement and Investment Office, PERS, the Center for Distance Education, the Securities Department, the Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigents, the Ethics Commission, and the Office of Administrative Hearings. Most received clean opinions with no findings; exceptions included a repeat component-unit issue at the State Fair Foundation, a securities personnel-evaluation finding, and a Housing Finance Agency finding involving a late return of escrow surplus. The committee also discussed broader oversight issues, including the need for independent auditing of the Ethics Commission, possible legislative changes to give the State Auditor more subpoena power and independent legal counsel, and future work on data analytics, cybersecurity reviews, and audit capacity. The meeting recessed for lunch after these discussions.

Transcript Highlights:

• U.S. states use factor apportionment. Most states, like California, just use sales factor now.
• All of those states rejected it.
• In the United States, for state purposes, we of course have formulary apportionment, where states can
• for further state deliberation.
• It's got an operation in State A. It's got half its sales in State A.

Summary: The joint informational hearing examined California’s taxation of multinational corporations, especially the state’s water’s-edge election versus worldwide combined reporting. The LAO and Franchise Tax Board explained the basic mechanics of unitary taxation, apportionment, and how water’s-edge generally excludes most foreign subsidiaries while worldwide reporting includes the full unitary group. FTB officials said water’s-edge filers are a small share of corporate filers but account for a large share of tax liability, and they described filing trends, industry mix, and the administrative steps needed to administer either system. Members and witnesses debated the policy trade-offs. Supporters of moving away from water’s-edge argued that it enables profit shifting, especially for large multinational and IP-heavy firms, and that eliminating it could raise significant revenue and improve fairness for smaller domestic businesses. They cited estimates of billions in potential revenue and said California already has the audit and reporting infrastructure to handle worldwide reporting, though some transition time would be needed. Opponents argued that worldwide reporting would tax foreign activity unrelated to California, create double taxation, increase compliance burdens and litigation, and could be difficult for foreign-based multinationals to document. They also warned that some of the revenue estimates are highly uncertain because foreign affiliate income is not directly observable. Committee members asked about foreign government pushback, the risk of companies leaving California, the effect on intellectual property shifting, and whether federal or Supreme Court action could block a change. Witnesses generally said major firms would be unlikely to leave because California taxes sales rather than physical presence, but some costs could be passed on to consumers. The panel also discussed alternatives such as conforming to federal international tax rules like NCTI/GILTI and adding anti-abuse rules. No vote or bill action was taken; the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our state has a choice.
• I'm sure State Police would...
• If we have charges, state charges, state criminal charges, pending against them, and they're moved to
• been filed in the state, or they're not being pursued in the state, before they leave our state, because
• Instead, the argument was, well, we as a state are a caring state, which we are, and thank you.

Bills: SB100

Committee: House House Judiciary

Keywords: burglary, aggravated burglary, dwelling, criminal law, property rights

Transcript Highlights:

• Huss, is: Can the state sue the county for a state civil rights violation?
• And this is a state law. So could this, would the state have standing?
• our state.
• I am outraged because we passed a state law governing state employees.
• to non-state employees.

Committee: House Courts, Corrections & Justice Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• So it does happen, again, also at a local or state, and again, not just federal here in the state of
• The 2025-27 state operating budget included a number of appropriations from the State General Fund to
• Eastern State Hospital.
• If I remember correctly, Washington State is one of the lowest states with law enforcement officers in
• on the state and local level.

Committee: House Community Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• entire state, active in 105 counties in the state of Kansas.
• Washington State University is the proud research and development arm for the state agricultural industry
• Soil health initiative and partnership with Washington State Department of Agriculture, State Conservation
• Well, as I noted earlier, Washington State agriculture is really valuable to the state of Washington.
• or the peer state, if we beat a peer state out.

Committee: House Agriculture & Natural Resources

Summary: The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee held an interim work session focused on Washington agriculture’s viability, competitiveness, and the effects of federal policy and trade. Department of Agriculture Director Derek Sanderson outlined the agency’s role in inspections, food assistance, pesticide and fertilizer oversight, disease control, and marketing, and described Washington agriculture as a diverse, export-oriented sector facing declining farm numbers, high labor and input costs, low commodity prices, trade barriers, drought, regulatory burdens, and pest and disease pressures. WSU CAHNRS Dean Raj Kosla emphasized the land-grant mission, extension network, education programs, and research capacity, highlighting precision agriculture, broadband needs in rural areas, and the importance of research and outreach to support growers and rural communities. Members asked about farm loss, workforce challenges, precision agriculture, and the cost of technology. Kosla said precision agriculture can help address labor shortages but is often cost-prohibitive and dependent on rural broadband; he described it as applying the right input, in the right amount, place, time, and manner. He also noted that WSU’s research and extension system supports crop development, soil health, forestry, youth programs, and agricultural training, and that the college is eager to partner with the legislature on priorities. Sanderson said the department is working on local food systems, farm-to-school grants, infrastructure, market development, pest and disease response, climate resilience, and access to land for new and underrepresented farmers. The committee then heard from WSU economist Randy Fortenberry on an agricultural competitiveness study and trade impacts. He said the study used producer surveys, case studies, and shift-share analysis for dairy, grapes, hops, potatoes, apples/tree fruit, wheat, and small/diversified farms, comparing Washington to national trends and peer states. His findings indicated that Washington’s competitiveness is declining in most sectors, with potatoes as the main exception; labor and regulatory compliance costs were especially significant in dairy, grapes, potatoes, and tree fruit, while small farms were more constrained by land access, capital, and profitability. On trade, he said Washington is highly export-dependent and vulnerable to retaliation, citing past losses in wheat, apples, pulses, and cherries when tariffs disrupted access to China and India, while noting current uncertainty around Canada, Mexico, Japan, China, and India. No votes were taken. The committee discussed next steps, including a December interim report on food security and agricultural viability and a final report expected by June 2026. Sanderson said the department had already held a stakeholder workshop and is continuing internal and external review, while the chair asked WSU to connect the committee with policy experts who could help identify practical solutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• During my time in state government.
• Our community in the state.
• United States.
• Palm Beach State College.
• Lou, Poli Daytona State College Randall die. Daytona State College. Joe jacket.

Transcript Highlights:

• Let me explain that there is no state like Oklahoma. There's no state that does it like Texas.
• in 1,750 in-state firms.
• of out-of-state surveyors.
• in-state opportunities.
• We have a lot of infrastructure across the state, with the state utility, as you can imagine.

Committee: House Administrative Rules

Transcript Highlights:

• , or is it strictly state?
• Maggard: Just state employees.
• These lines state that there was, and it was determined to be, a compelling state interest to rectify
• And a lot of state employees, and women state employees, are state employees because the salary is not
• State Employee Health Insurance Trust Fund.

Summary: The State Administration Budget Subcommittee met to consider four conforming committee bills tied to the proposed 2026-27 House General Appropriations Act. Rep. Maggard presented PCB SAB 26-04, the annual retirement bill, which updates Florida Retirement System contribution rates based on the annual actuarial study and was said to produce a $31.7 million state savings. He also presented PCB SAB 26-02, which addresses collective bargaining impasses for state employees by tying resolution to spending decisions in the appropriations act or implementing legislation. Both bills drew brief questions, mainly from Rep. Gantt, and both passed favorably on roll call. Rep. Miller presented PCB SAB 26-03, which reorganizes state audit functions and creates the Florida Accountability Office, consolidating legislative audit work into four divisions and adding whistleblower protections and reporting requirements. Rep. Gantt asked whether the bill changed the use of outside auditors and whether it had a fiscal impact; Miller said the work would be absorbed within existing resources and that the Legislature would retain responsibility. A taxpayer witness supported the bill and urged stronger local-government audit standards and broader whistleblower coverage. The bill passed favorably. Rep. Abbott presented PCB SAB 26-01, a broader appropriations conforming bill focused on the State Employee Health Insurance Trust Fund, prescription drug formulary changes, a health insurance assessment on agencies and vacant positions, the $3 traffic violation surcharge for the State Law Enforcement Radio System, Capitol complex space management, and changes to the Office of Supplier Diversity. Much of the discussion centered on whether a closed formulary would make medications harder to obtain, with Abbott saying prior authorization would still allow access and that the change was needed to control costs and protect the trust fund. Rep. Gantt and Rep. Robinson raised concerns about employee health benefits and the repeal of supplier diversity provisions, arguing the committee lacked data on the impact to minority- and women-owned businesses; Abbott said the changes would still allow small businesses to compete and that the bill was intended to save money and modernize procurement. PCB SAB 26-01 also passed favorably, and the meeting adjourned after all agenda items were reported out.

Transcript Highlights:

• Seven states are redistricting now in the middle of a decade, some blue states, some red states.
• Seven states are redistricting now in the middle of a decade, some blue states, some red states.
• There's no state law.
• Should you start at the top of the state, at the bottom of the state, or in the middle of the state?
• Florida has become more of a red state and less of a purple state.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituting identical House Bill 1D, to establish Florida’s congressional districts. The opening prayer and Pledge of Allegiance were followed by procedural remarks, then extensive floor discussion focused almost entirely on the redistricting proposal, its timing, and its legal basis. Senator Gaetz, explaining the bill, said the Governor had transmitted the map two days earlier, argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is not prohibited by law, and said the Governor’s stated reasons were to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts. He also said the legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal. Much of the debate centered on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Louisiana decision and whether it affected Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators Smith, Rouson, Sharief, Polsky, Arrington, Bracey Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and others questioned the short notice, lack of public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony, and whether the map diluted minority voting strength or fragmented communities of interest. Gaetz repeatedly said he was not offering legal opinions, that the Governor’s counsel believed the Fair Districts race-based provisions were inconsistent with federal law, and that any legal challenge would be for the courts. He also said the Governor’s mapmaker reported using census and demographic data, along with political data as one of many inputs, and claimed the map’s compactness was comparable to the current map. A motion by Senator Smith to temporarily postpone consideration of the bill failed on a 12-23 vote. After the Senate returned from a 30-minute break to review the new Supreme Court decision, debate continued. The chamber then substituted HB 1D for SB 8D, read the House bill, and advanced it to third reading. The transcript ends during debate on final passage, with Senators Rouson and Bernard speaking in opposition and arguing the map was procedurally rushed, legally vulnerable, and politically motivated.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are also changes to state financing mechanisms or health care provider taxes and state-directed
• Yes, there is a slight state savings for individuals disenrolled, but as stated, there are other costs
• within HR1 for the state, namely around provider taxes, that result in a net increase in state costs
• Does our state allocation decrease as well? I'm not sure what you mean by state allocation.
• And as we stated earlier, the state response must include progressive revenue streams.

Transcript Highlights:

• But we're not the most expensive state, we're not the cheapest state.
• But we're not the most expensive state, we're not the cheapest state.
• States would override the state constitutional premise?
• States would override the state constitutional premise?
• all across our state.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, approval of the prior day’s journal by roll call, and a long series of special guest introductions recognizing family members, interns, public servants, nonprofit leaders, students, and a park ranger honored for life-saving actions. Committee reports and Senate messages followed, including Senate nonconcurrence on numerous amendments to Senate Bill 1421 and the appointment of a conference committee on another bill. The main floor action centered on budget conference committee reports, especially House Bill 2002 on public education. Members debated whether the conference version fully funded the foundation formula, with supporters arguing it maintained record-level funding and opponents saying it left schools about $190 million short and relied on uncertain funding sources such as blind pension, lottery, and possible ARPA dollars. After a substitute motion to send the bill back to conference was defeated, the House adopted the conference report 83-68 and then third-read and passed House Bill 2002 by the same margin. The House then took up House Bill 2003 on higher education, where members discussed a move toward a future performance-based funding model while keeping current funding flat; the conference report passed 119-28 and the bill was third-read and passed 109-32. The chamber next considered House Bill 2004, covering the Departments of Revenue and Transportation. Debate focused on transportation funding, rural roads, and a small local safety project in Lebanon that had already been addressed by MoDOT. The conference report was adopted 128-21 and the bill was third-read and passed 127-27. Finally, the House began debate on House Bill 2005 for the Office of Administration and IT-related functions, with the sponsor and supporters emphasizing IT accountability, the Movers project, and the transfer of some staff to DSS; the transcript ends during discussion of that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• We want our state to be safe.
• We want our state to be safe.
• You look at other states.
• And the vast majority of those are non-state dollars. Of that, over 100... ...non-state dollars.
• need, things that the state...

Committee: Joint Energy Development and Transmission Committee

Summary: The committee met in Grand Forks, approved the February 26 minutes by voice vote, and recessed for a tour of the Mincota Power Cooperative headquarters before returning for presentations on large energy consumers, especially data centers. The first presentations focused on how North Dakota should respond to rapid growth in energy-intensive projects, with speakers emphasizing the need for reliable transmission, local decision-making tools, and factual information for county and township officials who are being asked to weigh major projects with limited staff and technical support. The North Dakota Transmission Authority director said local governments are being asked to make high-impact decisions on pipelines, transmission lines, large agriculture, wind, solar, carbon dioxide pipelines, direct-air capture, and data centers, and urged development of simple statewide decision tools and support from the League of Cities and Association of Counties. The Department of Environmental Quality’s air division director said North Dakota’s air remains among the cleanest in the nation, but large data centers can create air-quality concerns because of diesel backup generation; he said the department is requiring air monitors at some facilities and expects grid power and, potentially, cleaner natural gas backup to reduce emissions. Members asked about emissions standards, misinformation, monitoring costs, and staffing succession at DEQ. The Department of Water Resources director said North Dakota’s water law is based on common ownership and prior appropriation, and that data centers generally use relatively small amounts of water, often in closed-loop systems. He said the Missouri River and groundwater supplies are ample for projected needs, that the department’s permitting process protects senior water rights, and that even a worst-case data center scenario would use a very small share of Missouri River flow. Members asked about downstream impacts and compared data center water use with fracking. Later, McLean County State’s Attorney Ladd Erickson urged the committee to study how other states regulate data centers, warned against litigation-driven delays and overly broad local ordinances, argued reclamation bonding should be handled at the state level if at all, and said data centers can bring jobs and tax base but should remain subject to local zoning. The committee ended the morning session for lunch and later heard an EERC update from CEO Charles Gorecki on the center’s 75 years of work in energy and environmental technologies, especially oil and gas development and related research.

Transcript Highlights:

• states, and vice versa.
• states...
• It is it is stated it's okay.
• for the entire 50 states in the United States? Yes. Okay. Good to know. Yes, of course.
• senate and for state assembly.

Committee: House Elections

Transcript Highlights:

• states.
• in their state.
• in their state.
• to the states."
• is up to the states.

Summary: The Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee held public hearings on several House bills and later took executive action on two others. The committee heard testimony on House Bill 2242, which would let the Department of Health issue immunization recommendations and tie preventive-service coverage to federal recommendations as of June 30, 2025, while preserving access to vaccines and other preventive services. Supporters, including the Governor’s office and the Insurance Commissioner, said the bill would protect access, affordability, and stable vaccine purchasing; opponents argued it politicizes vaccine policy and gives too much influence to state agencies and outside groups. The committee also heard testimony on House Bill 2152, allowing terminally ill patients in hospitals, nursing homes, and hospice facilities to use medical cannabis under facility policies, with supporters emphasizing dignity, symptom relief, and safeguards, and House Bill 2088, joining the dietitian licensure compact, which supporters said would help military spouses, telehealth, and workforce shortages. House Bill 2110, on ambulance inter-facility specialty care transports, drew support from rural hospitals seeking more staffing flexibility and opposition from nurses and EMS personnel concerned about training, accountability, and patient safety. House Bill 2247, on veterinarian-client-patient relationships and telemedicine, drew support from the sponsor and some stakeholders as a workforce and access measure, but also criticism from the state veterinarian and others who said it could conflict with federal VCPR requirements and public health protections. House Bill 2340, expanding substance use disorder monitoring program eligibility to nursing assistants and stipend support, was presented as a way to help low-wage health workers stay in the workforce; there were no in-person testifiers against it. In executive session, the committee considered House Bill 2155, concerning the use of nursing titles, and House Bill 2531, aligning the ambulance transport fund quality assurance fee with federal regulations. Both bills received do-pass recommendations and were sent to the Rules Committee. For the public hearings, no final committee votes were taken on the other bills in this transcript, and testimony concluded on each measure after the committee heard from sponsors, agency officials, advocates, and opponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• , if adopted, establish the option for states or groups of states to waive certain federal health insurance
• However, the plan may not be implemented until the state obtains a federal waiver for a state-based universal
• The answer is step by step, state by state.
• in this state.
• We are asking you to allow voters in our state to vote on a new article to the Constitution of the state

Summary: The Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee held a public hearing on six bills, with the chair repeatedly emphasizing one-minute testimony limits because of the large number of sign-ins. The committee first heard SB 6292, which would create a joint legislative-executive committee on health care financing to study strategies for improving statewide access and coverage and report in 2027. Supporters, including the Health Care Authority, the Office of the Insurance Commissioner, community health centers, carriers, and provider groups, said the bill could help the state respond to affordability and system sustainability challenges and coordinate policy work across branches of government. The committee then heard SB 6258, which would create a non-disciplinary pathway for voluntarily relinquishing certain Washington Medical Commission licenses. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would provide a humane exit option for physicians and other licensees who are medically disabled or otherwise leaving practice, without forcing them into a disciplinary process. Testimony was overwhelmingly supportive, and the hearing closed with 17 people signed in pro and 2 con. The committee also heard SB 6182, establishing an abortion savings program funded by a new assessment on health carriers. Supporters argued it would recapture funds originally set aside for abortion care under the ACA and protect access amid federal changes, while opponents raised concerns about hidden taxes, lack of opt-out, and the impact on premiums and conscience rights. The hearing drew very large public interest, with 245 signed in pro and 1,775 con. The committee next took testimony on SB 5947, which would establish the Washington Health Care Board and prepare a state universal health care plan contingent on federal authorization and funding. Supporters from labor, health care, tribal, and universal coverage advocacy groups said the bill would position Washington to act quickly if federal waivers become available and argued that health care should be treated as a human right; opponents warned about costs, vagueness, and government overreach. The hearing then moved to SJR 8206, a proposed constitutional amendment declaring access to affordable health care a fundamental right. Supporters framed it as an aspirational commitment and a necessary step toward universal coverage, while opponents argued the language was vague, legally risky, and could create costly obligations. Finally, the committee heard SB 5823, which would require hospitals to employ or provide access to patient advocates to help patients navigate bills, records, and appointments. Hospital and patient coalition witnesses supported the goal but asked for amendments to clarify staffing, exemptions, and scope; the hearing closed with 20 signed in pro, 792 con, and 3 other. No votes were taken on the bills during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I've been all over the state.
• This isn't the state to practice in," which is my home state, the state that I chose to practice in.
• doctors from our state.
• doctors are leaving the state.
• Medicaid in the state.

Committee: Joint Revenue Stabilization & Tax Policy Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• and particularly our state budget.
• , the 1332 State Innovation Waiver that's offered through our state-based exchange.
• better understand our options in this state and what's working in other states as well.
• For FAP, the state fully funds both benefits and administration, as FAP is a state-only program.
• So HR1 says that as the state, the state, Benefit cost share hit.

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held a work session to review how H.R. 1 (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) could affect Washington’s Medicaid, long-term care, developmental disabilities, and food assistance programs, with a focus on implementation challenges, fiscal impacts, and likely coverage losses. Staff and agency officials explained Washington’s Medicaid financing structure, eligibility categories, caseload trends, and the role of the Health Care Authority and DSHS in administering Apple Health and related services. They also described how Medicaid expansion increased access to behavioral health services and how H.R. 1’s provisions are expected to affect the expansion population most directly. Health Care Authority and DSHS officials outlined several major H.R. 1 changes: new work and community engagement requirements for the Medicaid expansion population, six-month redeterminations instead of annual renewals, changes to immigrant eligibility, limits on provider taxes and state-directed payments, new cost-sharing requirements, reduced retroactive coverage, and changes affecting long-term care eligibility. They said Washington is still awaiting federal guidance on many details, but estimated that about 620,000 Apple Health expansion enrollees could be subject to work requirements, that roughly 30,000 immigrants could lose Medicaid eligibility under the new definition of qualified alien, and that some long-term care and developmental disability clients could be indirectly affected. Officials also said the state is working with other agencies to build shared verification systems and may seek a delay waiver, though they do not expect broad federal flexibility. The committee also heard that H.R. 1 immediately blocks Medicaid reimbursement for Planned Parenthood services for one year, with the state planning to backfill about $11 million to preserve access. In addition, officials warned that the law could reduce federal Medicaid revenue by billions over time and strain hospitals and emergency rooms as more people become uninsured. They noted that Washington’s rural health transformation grant application is due November 5 and could bring some funding, but not to offset coverage losses. No votes were taken; the session was informational only. The committee then heard a separate presentation on food assistance, where staff and DSHS described H.R. 1’s SNAP changes, including expanded work requirements, immigrant eligibility restrictions, higher state administrative costs, and a possible future state share of benefit costs tied to payment error rates. DSHS estimated a four-year fiscal impact of about $750 million for food assistance changes and said the state is working on system and policy changes across agencies before the new requirements take effect.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our state produces more college hockey players than any other state or Canadian province.
• Our state produces more college hockey players than any other state or Canadian province.
• But the state of Minnesota, as was just pointed out, is a preeminent state in hockey in the U.S., and
• </c><00:14:29.120><c> Representative</c> state of Minnesota. Representative state of Minnesota.
• We are by far the state important item. We are by far the state of<00:22:51.919><c> hockey.