Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:17:46.200><c> of</c> serve finally the office of of serve finally the office of of collaboration
• Our statement of purpose legislatively is to provide oversight to the executive branch of government
• </c><01:36:35.719><c> of</c> to as contested cases our statement of to as contested cases our statement
• They are free of political and economic conflicts of interest.
• </c><01:41:32.800><c> of</c> pays the cost of that of that hearing of pays the cost of that of that hearing

Committee: Senate State and Local Government

Transcript Highlights:

• solutions to the problem of school safety, the problem of public safety, the problem of mental health
• </c> the state of Minnesota, the lack of the state of Minnesota, the lack of leadership<00:03:45.920>
• Ignore the voice of all of the other legislators, all of the other districts, and just skip straight
• that's sort of the same language that I've seen out of Republican House votes uh in favor of uh Republican
• ><c> uh</c> of those kind of proposals, but it's uh of those kind of proposals, but it's uh that<00:07

Transcript Highlights:

• That bill addressed urban renewal districts and the addition of new construction in the budgets of fire
• I know in previous years, we've had issues with only one person being on the statement of purpose, so
• I just wanted to clarify that there is a... ...being on the statement of purpose, so I just wanted to
• fee of 2% and then interest is collected on that late payment.
• When the taxes are paid, but a couple of counties decided to keep those fees and interest funds.

Committee: Senate Local Government and Taxation

Transcript Highlights:

• Redistricting should be done carefully and considerately to further the interests not of a political
• I urge you to make a statement by voting in favor of this memorial.
• It's interesting that this bill is supported by Progressive Democrats of America.
• And then you lump together Corrales and Bernalillo with Placitas communities of interest.
• said, with Speaker of the House making a direct statement of what he was going to do to make our state

Bills: SR1 , SM1 , SM6

Committee: Senate Senate Rules

Transcript Highlights:

• Under one of the committee analyses, I was reading it, and I found this very interesting.
• I do have a couple of statements, but I'll get to some questions.
• I find it interesting that one of my colleagues described the economic development opportunities.
• I'm here on behalf of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, and in the interest of time, I'm also
• System because of our current public policies. Would that be a fair statement?

Bills: SB78 , SB235 , SB22 , SB310

Committee: Senate Senate Conservation

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 78, which would classify nuclear energy as renewable energy. Senator Thornton and supporters argued that New Mexico needs dispatchable, baseload power and that nuclear should be added to the state’s renewable portfolio standard because wind and solar are intermittent and require extensive land, mining, and battery storage. Supporters also emphasized nuclear’s zero-carbon profile, the safety record of U.S. Navy reactors, the possibility of small modular reactors, and the fact that New Mexico already uses nuclear-generated electricity from out of state. Opponents, including Senator O’Malley and Senator Charlie, argued nuclear is not renewable because it relies on finite uranium and creates long-lived radioactive waste, and they raised concerns about uranium mining impacts, waste storage, and the bill’s lack of a limiting principle. The committee voted 5-4 to do not pass the bill, with Senators Cervantes, Hamblen, O’Malley, Lopez, and Charlie voting yes on the do-not-pass motion and Senators Ezell, Scott, and Thornton voting no; the chair then explained that the vote reflected disagreement over whether nuclear should be labeled renewable, not opposition to nuclear power itself. The committee then heard Senate Bill 235, the Microgrid Oversight Act, with a committee substitute. Sponsor Senator Steinborn said the substitute would restore existing renewable benchmarks for microgrids, require large microgrids to meet zero-carbon targets by 2045, add reporting and PRC oversight, and close a loophole that could let utilities buy microgrid power and shift costs to ratepayers. Supporters, including environmental groups and community advocates, said the bill was needed to regulate large data-center microgrids such as Project Jupiter in Doña Ana County, which they said could drive major emissions, ozone, and nitrogen oxide pollution, strain water supplies, and undermine state climate goals. They also argued the bill would protect ratepayers and ensure transparency and community benefits. Opponents, including Americans for Prosperity, the Chamber of Commerce, oil and gas associations, Xcel Energy, PNM, Consumer Energy Alliance, and economic development groups, argued the bill would impose unnecessary regulation on private microgrids, slow investment, raise costs, and reduce flexibility for reliability projects and industrial development. They said microgrids are already regulated for safety and interconnection, and that the bill could discourage projects in New Mexico. In response, Steinborn said the bill was necessary because current law leaves a loophole for large polluting microgrids and because several major projects are already planned or underway. The committee heard extensive public testimony on both sides, but the transcript ends before a final vote on SB 235 is taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Then Section 7 of the bill is repealing the campaign disclosure statements, so Section 4 is the meat
• of it, as I alluded to.
• All of us are kind of, it's ingrained, the 48 hours.
• So sub 3, bottom of page 16 is the annual statement, as Chairman Steiner alluded to.
• Well, yeah, but that's kind of... that's kind of waiting.

Bills: SB2156

Committee: House Government and Veterans Affairs

Summary: The subcommittee met to review HB 2156, which reorganizes North Dakota campaign finance disclosure law by repealing Chapter 16.1 and moving the provisions into a new Chapter 16.2 with mostly technical cross-reference updates. Legislative Council and the Secretary of State’s office walked through the bill section by section, explaining that most language is carried over from current law, with some cleanup to definitions, reporting requirements, public access rules, and filing procedures. The committee discussed how the new chapter would apply to candidates, candidate committees, political committees, political parties, ballot measure groups, and conduits. Several substantive issues were raised and adjusted during the discussion. Members questioned the open-records language for expenditures and contributions over $250, the use of “deposit” versus “receipt” as the reporting trigger, and whether the 48-hour supplemental reporting deadline should be changed to three calendar days; the group ultimately favored keeping 48 hours and using “deposit” consistently. They also clarified reporting dates, including changing one special-election deadline from 40 days to 39 days, and confirmed that balances of campaign funds would be reported but not made publicly available. The Secretary of State’s office also explained that the bill would make late fees public and that the chapter-wide penalty for willful violations remains a Class A misdemeanor. The main policy change debated at length was the late-filing fee schedule. Members expressed concern that the existing penalties were too low to deter intentional non-filers, and after discussion the committee agreed to increase the final late fee from $100 to $500 while keeping the new public posting of delinquent filers. The committee also reviewed an inflation-adjustment provision for reporting thresholds and the “ultimate true source of funds” language, which was described as existing law being carried into the new chapter. The meeting ended with the understanding that additional drafting changes would be made and that the bill would be ready for further committee action later in the week.

Transcript Highlights:

• of turn this morning.
• I still am an attorney because of my trade, because of my time at the DA’s office, and because of my
• So I was never informed of the status of the bill.
• So I was never informed of the status of the bill.
• of entry-level pay.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Public Service

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Service held its third hearing of the 194th General Court session, taking testimony on several individual bills and home rule petitions, mostly involving retirement and pension-related relief. The committee chair outlined hearing procedures, including three-minute limits for individuals, ten-minute limits for panels, livestreaming, and the deadline for written testimony. At the end of the hearing, the chair noted that House matters heard that day must be reported by Friday, July 11, 2025, subject to extensions, and the committee adjourned after testimony concluded. Several witnesses supported bills seeking retirement credit or pension adjustments for public employees. These included H. 2917 for Dedham-Westwood Water District employees seeking pension buy-in credit; H. 2976 for Eileen Mullen to purchase creditable service for teaching in a criminal justice pilot program; H. 2996 for Virginia Cummings, a retired Department of Correction lieutenant seeking greater pension parity; H. 2977 for Wendy Lopieri to buy back part-time community college service; and H. 2989 for Wayne Taylor, who said he was mistakenly credited for fewer years of select board service than he expected. Testimony emphasized long public service, injuries, and what witnesses described as unfair denials or flawed interpretations of retirement law. The committee also heard testimony on bills involving post-retirement earnings and disability-related relief. Kevin Blanchett testified in opposition to H. 2931, arguing it would improperly reduce money owed to a regional retirement system and its members, while the bill’s sponsor argued the retirement board was seeking an excessive recovery based on law firm gross earnings rather than the individual’s earnings. Jamie Magarian described severe injuries from a 2018 crash and urged favorable action on his bill, with support from the State Police Association. Michael Palmer testified in favor of S. 1841, seeking to extend prior violent-crime retirement income-cap relief to his case after being shot on duty and later finding that even part-time private-sector work exceeded his retirement earnings limit.

Transcript Highlights:

• of of there being first broad latitude of of there being first amendment<03:11:03.920><c> right,</c>
• And so it's interesting to me that while the request to have charter schools added to all of those requirements
• And so it's interesting to me that while the request to have charter schools added to all of those requirements
• And so it's interesting to me that while the request to have charter schools added to all of those requirements
• And so it's interesting to me that while the request to have charter schools added to all of those requirements

Committee: House Education Policy and Administration

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm equally confident that House Bill 317 is not in the best interest of the community, law enforcement
• I'm equally confident that House Bill 317 is not in the best interest of the community, law enforcement
• acts of misconduct. it would all agency having any knowledge of those previous acts of misconduct.
• So I think that we've seen in some of these areas a decrease of alleged misbehavior of folks in power
• Do we want him to tell us what he took out of the bill? Anyone? No interest. Okay.

Summary: The Government Operations Subcommittee heard three bills. HB 1479, by Rep. Baker, created a public records exemption for lethality assessment forms and the victims’ answers under the domestic violence lethality assessment law. The sponsor said the goal was to protect victims and keep the form consistent statewide; a question was raised about whether other agencies such as DCF could access the information. The only public testimony was in support, and the bill passed 17-0 and was reported favorably. The committee then took up HB 317, by Rep. Fabricio, which would require complaints against law enforcement and correctional officers to be written and sworn, require officers to receive the complaint and supporting evidence before interrogation or discipline, and keep unfounded investigations out of personnel files and from being used for promotions or commendations. Supporters, including the Fraternal Order of Police and a state corrections PBA representative, argued the bill would protect officers from frivolous or retaliatory complaints. Opponents, including the Florida Police Chiefs Association and the Florida Sheriffs Association, warned it would undermine transparency, early warning systems, accreditation, and accountability, and could discourage legitimate anonymous complaints. Several members debated the balance between officer due process and victim protection; the bill passed 11-6 and was reported favorably. Finally, the committee heard HB 961, a Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles measure presented by Judge Maney. A strike-all amendment replaced the original language with a package aimed at improving customer service and efficiency in driver and vehicle services, including online title and registration requests, longer renewal periods for certain permanently handicapped persons, and a new misdemeanor offense for selling DHSMV appointment slots. The amendment and the bill as amended were supported by Florida tax collectors, adopted, and the committee passed HB 961 unanimously, 17-0, with a favorable report.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:05:17.199><c> of</c> is is one of the largest emitters of of is is one of the largest emitters
• The clerk must transmit those statements and any clerk response to the Secretary of State with the audit
• </c><01:02:00.720><c> of</c> elector or the board of of elector or the board of of commissioners,<01:
• </c><01:08:21.440><c> when</c> statement of the qualified electors when statement of the qualified electors
• It seems to me that in the statement here that any county officer is guilty of misconduct is a little

Bills: SF0069 , SF0070 , SF0016 , HB0078 , HJ0002 , HB0085 , HB0086

Committee: House Agriculture, State and Public Lands & Water Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• So, that's the official statement of the DOE?
• How many hundred thousands of dollars on trips? And you're saying that this is a financial burden?
• And you're telling us that you can't support it because of financial restraints.
• And you're telling us that you can't support it because of financial restraints.
• And you're telling us that you can't support it because of financial restraints.

Bills: SB3263 , SB3261

Committee: Senate Education

Summary: The joint committees heard testimony on Senate Bill 3263, which would create a state-supported endowment for University of Hawaii athletics NIL (name, image, and likeness) funding. University of Hawaii Athletics Director Matt Eliott supported the bill, saying NIL requires both immediate funding and a longer-term sustainable solution. He asked for several changes: lowering the initial endowment target from $10 million to $2 million so the fund could start sooner, allowing NIL reporting by team rather than by individual student-athlete, and clarifying that athletes may choose whether to use an agent, while still allowing certified agents or a parent/guardian if desired. Committee members raised concerns about using taxpayer dollars for athlete compensation, the burden on a small-state budget, and whether the university could realistically raise the required matching funds. Several senators questioned whether the university had a concrete fundraising plan and whether the endowment would meaningfully help UH compete with larger programs. Eliott said UH is already fundraising privately for current NIL obligations, had raised more than $1.6 million toward a $3 million annual goal, and would continue fundraising for both short-term needs and the endowment match. He also said the university is not trying to compete with Power Five schools on the same scale, but to be successful at its own conference level. Members also discussed transparency and privacy, with some senators arguing that if state money is used, the public should know how it is spent, while Eliott said individual student-athlete NIL information should remain private and team-level reporting would be preferable. He confirmed international student-athletes are eligible for NIL and said about 60 to 70 UH athletes are currently participating, with more than 100 expected next year. The discussion also touched on UH’s Mountain West media rights and local TV rights, with Eliott explaining that the conference distribution is expected to remain around $3.5 million and that local TV rights would be negotiated separately. No vote or final action was taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• of the concept of agree with this idea of the concept of looking<00:29:00.240><c> at</c><00:29:00.399
• Nobody's interested in getting rid of the beach or not doing things that would preserve the beach.
• that land so that they think of it as a leasehold and not a fee simple interest?
• situation</c><00:57:40.960><c> right</c> kind of overview of the situation right kind of overview of
• </c> supportive um um of of of having that supportive um um of of of having that discussion<02:24:13.920

Bills: HB1846 , HB2205 , HB1802 , HB1571 , HB2047 , HB2434 , HB2426 , HB2361 , HB2395 , HB1712 , HB2544 , HB1619

Committee: House Water & Land

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 1846, relating to shoreline mitigation districts. DLNR and the Office of Planning opposed the bill, arguing it would improperly shift regulatory roles between the agencies and prioritize private land interests over public trust and natural and historic resources. Supporters, including the Shoreline Preservation Coalition, Kahana Bay residents, and Hawaii Realtors, said regional planning is needed to address severe erosion, especially in Kahana, and that better coordination between state and county agencies could help move stalled projects forward. Testifiers emphasized that shoreline conditions vary by area and that science-based, region-specific solutions are needed. Members asked questions about whether existing law already allows regional planning and emergency shoreline responses. DLNR said it already has authority to process regional projects and cited an existing draft EIS for Kahana Bay that would proceed through normal permitting and public hearing channels. Supporters responded that the bill would provide a clearer regional planning framework and help communities facing urgent erosion impacts. No vote was taken on HB 1846 in the portion provided. The committee then took up HB 2205, relating to emergency erosion mitigation. DLNR opposed the bill, saying it already has authority to issue emergency permits and had recently done so quickly for a collapsed sidewalk at Queen Surf Beach, and warning that the bill’s language could weaken Act 16 by changing a prohibition on shoreline hardening to a requirement to merely minimize it. Kahana Bay representatives and other supporters argued the bill would create a limited, regulated short-term pathway for emergency shoreline solutions while long-term plans are developed, and said current permits have expired or stalled, leaving dangerous sandbags and no practical relief. Additional testimony from a private homeowner stressed that erosion is threatening homes and that private owners are often bearing the cost of protecting public shoreline access. The discussion remained focused on balancing emergency protection, public access, and long-term shoreline management, and no final action was taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• we would like to kind of make sure that we have as many of those that are interested in doing projects
• we would like to kind of make sure that we have as many of those that are interested in doing projects
• , then we would like to kind of make sure that we have as many of those that are interested in doing
• Our interest, of course, were specific to the destructive impacts of the aquarium trade.
• involvement with um our interest of any involvement with um our interest of course<00:58:36.880><c>

Summary: The joint committees first heard SB 1146, which would appropriate funds to the University of Hawaiʻi to develop an action plan and pre-engineering concept plan for debris management and water quality control in the Ala Wai Watershed. Testimony was largely supportive from DLNR, a UH student, and a special improvement district representative, while one speaker suggested the work should be coordinated with existing efforts to avoid duplication. Committee discussion focused on the multi-jurisdictional nature of the watershed, existing debris-trap work that captures only about 20 to 30 percent of debris, the role of the university in capstone projects and recommendations, and the relationship to the existing Geni project and other community efforts. Members also asked about costs, tracking progress, and the difference between water-quality improvements and the larger debris problem. The committees then voted to pass SB 1146 with amendments, including blanking out the appropriation and deferring the effective date to July 31, 2050. The motion passed in both committees, with votes recorded in support and no opposition noted during the decision-making. The committees also heard SB 321, which would deem certain fee simple privately owned lands transferred to adjacent property owners or community associations if specified conditions are met. Testimony was in support from several individuals, but members raised concerns about the lack of input from counties and the state, and about how the bill might affect roads already used by the public or maintained by local governments. After discussion, the committees voted to advance SB 321 unamended to the next committees, with the measure adopted in both committees despite one recorded no vote in the Water and Land committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• The majority of that borrowing over the next 10 years is interest and Medicare.
• A single point of interest on U.S. debt, and it takes years for it to roll in because of how much we
• A single point of interest over 10 years costs you $3 trillion.
• collections, all of it, is interest.
• So let's parse that statement. A goal of 2045 going from Palmdale to Gilroy.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I just wanted to share with you some of the patient stories of people that I have taken care of because
• As of January 23rd, As of January 23rd of this year, we visited 2,882 sites, and 357 of them were identified
• of 18?
• any of that?
• And our community, as you all know, has higher percentages of addiction, of suicide, of not making it

Committee: Senate Health

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on kratom and 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), focusing on public health risks, overdose deaths, and regulatory gaps in California. The chair opened by noting that FDA and CDPH consider kratom and 7-OH products unlawful for consumption, yet they remain widely sold in smoke shops, vape stores, gas stations, and convenience stores. The hearing was framed as part of ongoing legislative work, including a future review of AB 1088, and members emphasized the need to weigh potential benefits against risks and consider whether stronger safeguards are needed. Expert testimony from a toxicology professor and several public health and medical officials described kratom as a plant with multiple alkaloids, with 7-OH identified as the more potent opioid-like compound associated with tolerance, dependence, withdrawal, and respiratory depression. CDPH reported 362 kratom-related overdose deaths in California from 2019 to 2023 and 15 deaths involving 7-OH, while Los Angeles County officials described unexplained deaths in young adults that led them to expand toxicology testing and identify 7-OH as a common factor. County and state public health representatives said they have issued advisories, contacted retailers, removed products from shelves, and taken enforcement actions, but they stressed that local enforcement is patchy, under-resourced, and limited by unclear jurisdiction and lack of testing capacity. Medical witnesses said patients are presenting with 7-OH dependence and withdrawal in ways similar to fentanyl-related cases, sometimes requiring buprenorphine, methadone, or repeated naloxone. They argued that unregulated retail sales and misleading marketing make the products especially risky, and that a statewide framework would be more effective than a patchwork of local ordinances. Some officials said the safest current policy is to keep kratom and 7-OH unlawful for consumption, while others said any new regulation would need resources, packaging rules, and clearer authority for enforcement. Industry and consumer advocates urged the committee to distinguish natural kratom leaf from concentrated or synthetic 7-OH products. They argued that kratom leaf has long-standing use, that 7-OH should be targeted rather than the whole plant, and that regulation should focus on age limits, labeling, testing, serving-size caps, and restrictions on adulterated products rather than prohibition. Several speakers warned that bans could push demand to the black market and reduce access for people using the products for pain relief or harm reduction, while critics of the industry said the products are being marketed deceptively and that more comprehensive regulation is needed.

Transcript Highlights:

• I've already mentioned interest rates as one of the inputs that guideline 3 analysis is sensitive to,
• interest rates as one of<00:10:47.760><c> the</c><00:10:48.000><c> inputs</c><00:10:48.800><c> um</c
• rate forecast from the state economist or are those independent of whether that interest rate goes up
• That's what I was more interested in, is why use those instead of appropriation bonds. Sure.
• Today, the MSFA makes decisions in the best interests of the people of Minnesota by overseeing the maintenance

Committee: Senate Capital Investment

Transcript Highlights:

• of Louisiana.
• Of Jason Johnson for appointment as Undersecretary of Operations for the Department of Corrections and
• File item seven is a confirmation of Sarah Larson for appointment as the Director of the Division of
• It is a story of courage in the face of adversity, a story of people refusing to be defeated.
• It is a story of courage in the face of adversity, a story of people refusing to be defeated.

Transcript Highlights:

• THAT IS TYPICAL OF WHAT WE SEE IN THE BACK ROOMS OF ILLEGAL CASINOS.
• I'M NOT TRYING TO DIMINISH OR DISCOUNT ANY OF THIS BUT SOME OF US AND MIAMI DADE ESPECIALLY OF US WHO
• THE REST OF THE PROPERTY.
• A PERIOD OF TIME?
• REALLY THE LACK OF ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE OF THE STATUTORY SCHEME LEADS TO AS MR.

Transcript Highlights:

• And like I said, I can't think of one off the top of my head.
• that when you're a paraprofessional and you have this interest of becoming a teacher, wow, it's just
• I would be very interested in knowing what that consists of for the academic supports and interventions
• I would be very interested in knowing what that consists of for the academic supports and interventions
• Because I get a lot of complaints from my educators on PD, and some of it’s a waste of their time.

Summary: The committee first approved the March 9 and 10 minutes, then heard a presentation from the Arkansas Excellence in Teaching Fellowship Program featuring three third-grade teachers from Poyen, Drew Central, and Cabot, along with Department of Education Secretary Jacob Oliva. The teachers described the fellowship as a year-long collaboration among 23 merit-pay recipients from across the state, focused on sharing classroom strategies, data use, and professional support. Members asked about teacher experience, how the fellowship information is shared locally, the role of merit pay, and how teachers are addressing third-grade reading and retention concerns under the ATLAS assessment system. The teachers emphasized early intervention, relationships with students, small-group instruction, progress monitoring, and communication with families; they also described community supports such as churches, food backpacks, and local donations. Several members raised broader questions about poverty, trauma, social services, DHS involvement, and whether similar professional learning should be expanded to more teachers. Secretary Oliva said the fellowship is a small subset of a larger merit-pay program, that participation was voluntary, and that the state is working to improve literacy supports, clarity, and alignment across grades. He also said ATLAS results are now available to schools and families much faster than in the past, often within 24 to 72 hours, and that the state is using the data to identify at-risk students earlier and support intervention before retention decisions are made. The committee then moved to the adequacy/resource allocation presentation from the Bureau of Legislative Research. Staff explained that the report is part of the statutory adequacy review and focuses on state funding sources beyond foundation aid, including categorical and supplemental funds. They noted that districts and charters spent more than $7 billion in the 2025 school year, with roughly 49% from foundation funding and 51% from other sources over the last three years. The presentation outlined the four categorical funds—Alternative Learning Environment, English Learners, Enhanced Student Achievement, and Professional Development—describing their restricted uses, student-based funding formulas, and the ability of districts to transfer some money among categoricals while keeping it within allowable purposes. Staff said categorical funds account for about 4% of total spending, or less than $300 million, and reviewed superintendent feedback on whether those funds met district needs, with responses varying by category and district.

Transcript Highlights:

• think about the role of agriculture within all of this.
• of knew someone who might be on the program, and it helped get rid of some of that stigma.
• So in terms of So in terms of some of the effects of SNAP on the economy, here's a few data points.
• of that part of the economy.
• You're kind of in the middle of the pack.

Summary: The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee held a work session on food systems and food security, with no public testimony. The first panel focused on household food security and data. Marie Spiker of the University of Washington explained what food insecurity means, its health impacts, and the importance of reliable measurement, warning that the federal Census food security data is being terminated and that there is no true replacement. She described Washington’s WaFOOD surveys as a useful complement, not a substitute, and noted that they show food insecurity affects households at a range of income levels. Katie Raines of WSDA described the state’s food systems work, the need for shared data and dashboards, and the role of agriculture in both food production and the hunger safety net. Committee members asked about the $2.2 million state food assistance allocation, the scale of the SNAP gap, and how household size, housing costs, and other factors intersect with food insecurity. The committee then heard from Tracy Roof of the University of Richmond on the history of SNAP and its relationship to agriculture. She traced the program from Depression-era commodity distribution through the modern farm bill, emphasizing that food assistance has long functioned both as anti-hunger policy and as an agricultural and economic stabilizer. She highlighted how SNAP expands during recessions, supports retailers and farmers, and has become more important since the Great Recession because participation stayed high even as the economy recovered. Roof also noted that Washington has relatively high SNAP participation and low payment error rates, but that recent federal changes could reduce eligibility and shift more costs to states. Members asked how Washington compares to other states and why the program is structured as it is. A later panel featured the Washington State Food Policy Forum and a joint systems presentation from the Washington Farm Bureau, Washington Retail Association, and Washington Food Industry Association. The Food Policy Forum described its consensus-based recommendations on food insecurity, climate and water, regional food infrastructure, farmland protection, and farm viability, including more support for producer purchasing, water planning, and farmland conservation. The industry groups presented a systems map showing how agriculture, processing, retail, and transportation are interconnected, and argued that rising costs, regulations, labor and fuel expenses, retail theft, and thin margins make it harder to keep farms and stores viable. They said food security depends on store viability and local agricultural profitability, and promised to provide a more detailed list of policy recommendations. The final panel included state agency staff from DSHS, DOH, and WSDA. Bryce Montgomery said the Basic Food program serves about 920,000 Washingtonians monthly and warned that H.R. 1 could require Washington to pay up to 15% of SNAP benefits, broaden work requirements, and restrict immigrant eligibility. Karen Mullen described DOH nutrition programs, including WIC, farmers market nutrition benefits, fruit and vegetable incentives, and a fruit-and-vegetable prescription program, while noting funding instability and the end of SNAP-Ed. WSDA’s Katie Raines began describing ongoing food assistance and farmer support challenges, including farmer mental health and the need to address food insecurity across both producers and consumers.