Transcript Highlights:

• In both cases, it does come from the ratepayers.
• So it's, you know, I've seen that account work in practice in some cases.
• There are some cases where it is, there's some cases where there isn't.
• In the case of EV chargers, it's $26 per year.
• And if that were the case, we would be very happy to support this bill.

Summary: The committee heard several energy, water, and utility bills. SB 919 by Senator Grayson would extend the biomethane monetary incentive program through 2030 and authorize additional funding to support renewable natural gas projects by reducing interconnection costs. Supporters said high interconnection costs and the current tax treatment are major barriers to methane reduction projects; opponents, including TURN and environmental groups, raised ratepayer cost concerns and objected to rate-basing and additional public funding. The author said amended language would remove the rate-basing provisions and instead urge the CPUC to act quickly on its pending decision. SB 931 by Senator Laird would reauthorize the Community Impact Mitigation Program for the Diablo Canyon plant through 2030 to continue funding local emergency preparedness, fire protection, public safety, and school district costs. The County of San Luis Obispo and labor groups supported the bill, while TURN opposed it as a statewide ratepayer subsidy that could be funded from existing PG&E revenues instead of higher rates. Members discussed the bill in the context of the 2022 Diablo Canyon extension deal and the possibility of a future longer extension. SB 1215 by Senator Cortese would direct the CPUC to set deployment targets for EV charging in multifamily housing and evaluate progress, with amendments aimed at affordability and limiting system upgrade costs. Supporters said renters are largely locked out of home charging and that prior utility programs proved cost-effective; no opposition testified. SB 1359 by Senator Stern would require more deliberate CPUC review before major gas system investments, emphasizing electrification and non-pipeline alternatives. Gas utilities and several industry groups opposed it, arguing it could undermine the obligation to serve, create safety and reliability risks, and change the regulatory compact. The committee also heard SB 1125 by Senator Menjivar, presented by Senator Gonzalez, which would establish a statewide low-income water rate assistance program upon appropriation. Water agencies, environmental groups, and local governments supported the measure, while one member expressed concern that it lacked a funding source and could not overcome Proposition 218 limits; the bill was moved to Appropriations and the roll was left open. Finally, SB 1098 by Senator Perez would restrict the use of long-running memorandum and balancing accounts by investor-owned utilities, require exceptional circumstances for new accounts, and add sunset and cost-sharing requirements. Consumer advocates and large energy users supported tighter oversight, while the utilities and business groups opposed the bill as too rigid and potentially harmful to flexibility for wildfire, emergency, and safety-related costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I believe this is the case, but there's an exception on some of the price increases for people that
• for people are much higher than we're assessing in many of these cases.
• You know, I think that there are some reasons to charge more on certain cases, right?
• There's a need to analyze case after case after case.
• Petersburg agreed to settle the case for 2.5 million dollars.

Transcript Highlights:

• We do feel like that’s the case. We’ve had some discussions.
• But in this case, for Workforce Pell, you would. And that creates a lot of complexities.
• In the case of the ESL literacy program, state funding will completely run out June 30th.
• And in many cases, they're already working with private immigration attorneys. Thank you.
• But I think you’re not saying that that’s the case.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up the May Revision update on Proposition 98 and the school rainy-day fund. The Department of Finance said the minimum guarantee rises by $6.4 billion over the Governor’s Budget across the three-year window, with lower average daily attendance projections offsetting some of the revenue gains. Finance also described a reduced $3.9 billion settle-up proposal, increased deposits into the Public School System Stabilization Account, and an ending reserve balance of about $10.3 billion. The LAO said the revenue and LCFF adjustments were reasonable, but urged the Legislature to be cautious about delaying settle-up payments and to consider more budget resiliency, including larger cushions or other tools to protect ongoing programs. Members then questioned the administration and LAO about the size of the settle-up, the rationale for the reserve deposit, declining enrollment, and how lower attendance is creating savings that can be redirected to other school priorities. The LAO said the May Revision’s mix of one-time and ongoing spending was generally reasonable but recommended keeping a strong cushion and considering alternatives such as advance payments or pension-related savings. Questions also focused on how the May Revision’s funding mix affects districts if revenues weaken, and on the treatment of special education, discretionary block grants, and paid family leave costs for LEAs and community colleges. The committee next heard the community colleges portion of the budget. Finance described a higher SCFF COLA, increased apportionment costs, a student support block grant, deferred maintenance, Common Cloud, Calbright, credit for prior learning, and a one-time adult learner demonstration project. The Chancellor’s Office supported the core investments but asked for more funding for enrollment growth, changes to the SCFF growth formula, and a COLA for Student Equity and Achievement. The LAO recommended funding the statutory COLA increase, noted a $52 million current-year apportionment shortfall not yet included in the May Revision, and suggested the Legislature could instead direct some funds to enrollment growth, categorical COLAs, or one-time uses. Members also clarified how COLA and hold-harmless rules apply to different community college districts. Finally, the committee reviewed the proposed state implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. Finance proposed one-time funding for the Student Aid Commission and Cradle to Career data work, plus trailer bill changes to set up state approval of eligible programs. CSAC said the program is promising but highly complex, with new federal rules just released and significant data, regulatory, and systems work still needed; it said the state will not be ready by July 1 and that ongoing funding will likely be necessary. The LAO agreed that implementation will require careful trailer bill language and noted that ongoing administrative costs remain unresolved. Members asked about other states’ approaches and the practical effect on short-term workforce programs in California.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm a social worker, case manager for a long time.
• I know that there has been one test case, one single case, with the Court of Appeals here in Missouri
• on a products liability case.
• I'm not familiar with what would be the case if that were to happen.
• I'm talking about high schools in particular in this case.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• these cases have already been pled down. these cases have already been pled down.
• Does this section only apply to cases Does this section only apply to cases where<00:16:44.959><
• case? Nice to see you, Senator, as well. case? Nice to see you, Senator, as well.
• That that's certainly the case.
• That that's certainly the case.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In some cases, it makes sense to move it. In some cases, it might make sense to keep it on site.
• It's not in many cases.
• New Mexico Office of the State Engineer is willing to reconsider the use of dual-screened wells on a case-by-case
• New Mexico Office of the State Engineer is willing to reconsider the use of dual-screened wells on a case-by-case
• we're very positive about that opening. is willing to reconsider the use of dual-screened wells on a case-by-case

Summary: The committee first heard a presentation from the Environment Department on PFAS contamination in private wells in La Cienega, Santa Fe County. Staff said the plume likely came from historic use of firefighting foam associated with airport and National Guard fire-training activities, with possible additional contribution from septic systems and consumer products. They described the contamination as affecting about 200 private wells, the short-term response of providing residential filters through a $2 million legislative appropriation, and ongoing work to define the plume’s full extent, identify responsible parties, and consider longer-term regional water solutions. Members asked about filter costs, replacement schedules, disposal of used cartridges, follow-up testing, health studies, and whether cleanup or containment had begun; the department said cleanup would follow once the plume is fully mapped and that DOH is soliciting interest in a blood study. The committee also discussed the need to track disposal of PFAS filters and the possibility of broader statewide capacity for similar work. The committee then took up abandoned uranium mine cleanup. NMED and EMNRD staff reviewed the new uranium mine reclamation program created by HB 164, the state dashboard tracking sites, and the FY26 appropriation of $20 million for neglected contaminated sites, of which $12 million is being used for neglected uranium mines and the remainder for other contaminated sites. They said six contractors were hired, three priority sites in Grant County are moving forward quickly, and additional sites are being prepared for possible FY27 work. Members pressed for details on how funds are spent, why the revolving fund remains unfunded, how federal, state, tribal, and landowner requirements are coordinated, where contaminated material will be moved, and whether cleanup could also address homes built with contaminated materials. Staff said the work is governed by multiple regulatory layers, that the state is seeking an additional $25 million for FY27-FY28 plus a time extension, and that partnerships with tribes would require longer-term agreements. The committee also discussed federal cleanup efforts and the new Good Samaritan law, with members urging stronger advocacy for New Mexico sites, including tribal lands, and asking whether the Attorney General should pursue legal action against federal parties responsible for legacy contamination. Staff explained that some sites are already covered by settlement funds tied to responsible parties, while neglected sites are those with no responsible party and no other cleanup program. The committee then heard from EMNRD on Class VI carbon sequestration primacy. Staff said New Mexico currently has no operating Class VI wells, about 27 Class II acid-gas injection wells are operating, and only a small number might be candidates for conversion. They explained that the state’s primacy application would require more public outreach than federal rules alone, and that cost estimates for post-injection site care are based on long planning horizons, with some costs borne by operators and some by the state after closure. No votes were taken on the substantive items discussed; the committee approved the prior meeting minutes and took a brief recess between presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Jeff Sigon from the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board up at the testifier table in case there
• 00:00:58.960> in board uh up at the testifier table in board uh up at the testifier table in case
• there are any question questions so case there are any question questions so what<00:01:01.840> we'll
• In 1974, no less than a scholar than Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the case Richardson v.
• certainly there's been reference to case certainly there's been reference to case law<00:59:52.400

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Elections Committee met on February 6, 2025, and first considered the reappointment of Steven Swanson to the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board. Swanson described his background in legal aid, lobbying, judging, and international rule-of-law work, and said he wanted to continue serving the public. Committee members praised his experience and discussed the importance of campaign finance oversight, including preventing corporate participation in Minnesota elections. Senator Wosinski moved to recommend Swanson’s confirmation, and the motion was adopted. The committee then heard Senate File 529, a proposed constitutional amendment to state that elections shall be free, fair, and equal, and that no civil or military power may interfere with the free exercise of the right to vote. Senator Dibble presented the bill as a way to strengthen voting rights and provide a constitutional basis to challenge voter suppression, gerrymandering, and unfair campaign practices. Testimony in support came from David Fischer of Clean Elections Minnesota and Jean Massie of Fair Vote Minnesota, both of whom argued the amendment would protect access to voting, increase confidence in elections, and align Minnesota with other states that have similar language. Members discussed whether the amendment’s broad language could invite judicial interpretation or affect future election laws. Senator Koran questioned how the proposal would improve Minnesota’s already high turnout, while Senator Grant raised concerns that the terms “free, fair, and equal” were undefined and could shift power to the courts. Senator Lucero proposed an oral amendment to add “ensuring one eligible citizen, one vote” after the word “equal,” saying it would address concerns about future voter ID laws. The amendment was restated by counsel and discussed, with Senator Dibble saying it did not significantly harm the bill but suggesting it might imply a requirement he did not intend. The transcript ends during discussion of that oral amendment, and no final vote on the bill itself is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is just on child support services, the cases that we have.
• of cases.
• There are various Court of Appeals and Oklahoma Supreme Court cases on different levels of doing that
• I've actually had a lot of child support collection cases in my life.
• I mean, I have it with me in case you wanted it.

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee met to conduct the statutorily required four-year review of Oklahoma’s child support guidelines, which DHS said had not been reviewed on schedule in recent years. Deputy Director Don Zellner of DHS Child Support Services presented data on the number of children served, child poverty, rising costs of raising a child, wage trends, and the volume of child support orders handled by DHS. He also explained how the current guidelines work, including income withholding, shared overnight deductions, daycare, medical, transportation, and self-employment adjustments, and noted that the guidelines are based on gross combined income and currently cap at $15,000 combined income. Committee members, especially Senator Boren, questioned whether the current model fairly reflects modern family economics, including the cost of housing, the impact of shared overnights, and whether visitation issues should be addressed alongside child support. DHS said the guidelines are over 25 years old, that other states generally use similar gross-income models with shared-overnight deductions, and that Oklahoma’s administrative courts have been more receptive than district courts to DHS’s lower-income deviation approach. Zellner said DHS has also updated its practices to better account for low-income obligors, including allowing zero orders in some cases and reducing imputed minimum-wage assumptions, which DHS said has improved collections. Members also asked about transparency and public access to the calculations. DHS said the formula and income chart are in statute, the calculator is available on the DHS website, and the Excel-based tool applies the statutory chart and deductions. A public commenter asked where parents could see how amounts are calculated, and DHS explained that the statutory chart and calculator are the main sources. The committee discussed possible future reforms, including higher income caps, possible changes to shared overnight rules, and whether extracurricular or special child-related expenses could be considered through judicial deviation. No vote was taken; the meeting ended with the chair noting it was the last Judiciary meeting of the 60th Legislature and adjourning the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• If, in this case, they felt like the professor didn't do that, then they would reject the appeal, and
• Um, Representative, I think I understand that you're just wanting this to be not done ba kind of a case-by-case
• By case.
• So, if that is the case, what does a student who identifies as transgender need to do?
• Representative, in the case of a trans man who has had surgery, they're now going to be housed with women

Bills: HB3700, HB3315, HB3242, HB3379, HB3129, HB3132, HB2950

Keywords: education policy, grading system, student assessment, academic integrity, state funding, opinion conduct, higher education, bachelor's degree, feasibility study, Oklahoma State Regents, accreditation, credit hours, emergency declaration, gender, privacy, public schools, sleeping quarters, restrooms, criminal history, admissions process

Transcript Highlights:

• Last week we were down on tort cases in the trucking industry, but yesterday we threw wide the gates
• to torts, even bounty hunter cases purportedly against.
• And you might not even have to win the case to win at least $100,000.
• When we tell attorneys, be careful which case you take... ...because we might make you liable for the
• To the 1800s, to the 1900s, to this century, and you will not find one single case.

Bills: HCR35, SJR59, SJR84, SCR30, SB127, SB317, SB324, SB457, SB506, SB511, SB529, SB547, SB584, SB619, SB636, SB646, SB659, SB715, SB732, SB735, SB771, SB784, SB800, SB801, SB904, SB1026, SB1049, SB1065, SB1181, SB1224, SB1250, SB1383, SB1467, SB1524, SB1528, SB1531, SB1568, SB1585, SB1640, SB1681, SB1754, SB1757, SB1777, SB1972, SB1980, SB2007, SB2041, SB2046, SB2050, SB2055, SB2069, SB2080, SB2119, SB2138, SB2139, SB2154, SB2201, SB2225, SB2268, SB2306, SB2308, SB2310, SB2330, SB2366, SB2375, SB2392, SB2401, SB2422, SB2480, SB2514, SB2530, SB2533, SB2543, SB2544, SB2589, SB2610, SB2615, SB2623, SB2660, SB2662, SB2693, SB2695, SB2707, SB2722, SB2742, SB2753, SB2807, SB2843, SB2844, SB2858, SB2880, SB2885, SB2891, SB2925, SB2938, SB2986, SJR3, SJR18, SB5, SB914, SB963, SB1197, SB1415, SB1437, SB1786, SB326, SB767, SB769, SB783, SB1035, SB1271, SB1619, SB1637, SB1806, SB1, SB260, HB135, HB1109, HCR35, HCR64, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SJR84, SJR59, SCR12, SCR39, SCR48, SCR19, SCR30, SCR3, SB2023, SB619, SB2742, SB646, SB1026, SB2880, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB1502, SB507, SB1434, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB261, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB529, SB209, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB510, SB584, SB1085, SB2046, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB1524, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB517, SB1200, SB1845, SB1863, SB2681, SB2200, SB2199, SB1757, SB2050, SB2458, SB2201, SB2660, SB2662, SB1065, SB801, SB2533, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB1721, SB2366, SB1013, SB2797, SB2383, SB1754, SB2119, SB2448, SB1777, SB1283, SB2392, SB2076, SB2786, SB2876, SB2284, SB2225, SB1540, SB2929, SB1972, SB2540, SB2595, SB2217, SB715, SB2330, SB1383, SB500, SB1640, SB2001, SB2080, SB506, SB2514, SB2753, SB2398, SB1241, SB2927, SB2173, SB2538, SB898, SB1449, SB2529, SB1531, SB2846, SB2476, SB986, SB1181, SB2075, SB2154, SB2864, SB1359, SB2386, SB771, SB2844, SB2550, SB1351, SB1423, SB1931, SB2245, SB2589, SB2707, SB2807, SB410, SB659, SB2776, SB2693, SB2580, SB1980, SB1886, SB1234, SB739, SB456, SB127, SB1666, SB2843, SB2801, SB800, SB2055, SB784, SB2986, SB735, SB1012, SB324, SB2926, SB2938, SB2007, SB2138, SB1242, SB2615, SB1049, SB2310, SB1224, SB2972, SB1568, SB2841, SB2885, SB3016, SB2858, SB2610, SB2139, SB1856, SB2035, SB2308, SB2306, SB2041, SB1528, SB1681, SB1141, SB2401, SB2530, SB2375, SB547, SB1266, SB1373, SB1467, SB2069, SB2269, SB2480, SB2544, SB672, SB904, SB2695, SB2891, SB2422, SB2543, SB1854, SB317, SB2539, SB2532, SB2925, SB1250, SB2082, SB2203, SB457, SB2357, SB2721, SB243, SB1285, SB2568, SB1959, SB1442, SB1454, SB2520, SB2541, SB1708, SB1237, SB1844, SB1586, HB1392, HB22, SB1551, SB3039, SB2819, SB66, SB629, SB1015, SB2342, SB2903, SB2933, SB1965, SB2477, SB3029, SB2605, SB2419, SB1957, SB375, SB250, SB777, SB628, SB2523, SB2367, SB2703, SB2608, SB2778, SB3044, SB2965, SB2521, SB865

Keywords: spaceports, tax-exempt bonds, aerospace investment, Texas space economy, Federal legislation, education funding, Texas State Technical College System, capital projects, infrastructure, higher education, tax exemption, property tax, homestead, fire damage, constitutional amendment, Birding Capital, Matagorda County, wildlife, conservation, Texas Legislature

Transcript Highlights:

• However, even in the best case scenario, However, even in the best case scenario, we<00:27:02.680>
• <01:26:33.240> agreement Is this where a single case agreement Is this where a single case
• And those we do on a case-by-case basis and a one-off, very specifically because the rules related to
• <01:29:36.080> basis those we do on a a case-by-case basis those we do on a a case-by-case
• <01:54:23.560> particularly cases, particularly cases, particularly around around around caretaker

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we're going to let the judge who knows each individual case make these decisions on a case-by-case
• So, we're going to let the judge who knows each individual case make these decisions on a case-by-case
• So, we're going to let the judge who knows each individual case make these decisions on a case-by-case
• So, we're going to let the judge who knows each individual case make these decisions on a case-by-case
• So, we're going to let the judge who knows each individual case make these decisions on a case-by-case

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• One of their first test cases online.
• Now in for these things in rate cases.
• c> are rate cases uh we are rate cases uh we are responding<00:27:10.240> to<00:27:10.640>
• ,<00:32:26.320> you we're paying in a lot of cases, you we're paying in a lot of cases, you
• own or in the case of a school district. own or in the case of a school district.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , Center found that five of those cases, Center found that five of those cases, five<00:10:41.519
• <00:31:06.960> of happen not just in the cases of happen not just in the cases of seclusion
• And is cases for um older students.
• And in many cases, we do, and it helps us make the system better.
• And in many cases, we do, and it helps us make the system better.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Seclusion Working Group approved the minutes from its November 5, 2025 meeting and then heard presentations from Jessica Heiser and Aaron Sansmark of Solutions Not Suspensions and the Minnesota Disability Law Center on the misuse and illegal use of seclusion in schools. They described illegal seclusion as including use outside emergencies, for discipline or noncompliance, beyond the emergency period, in unregistered rooms, without parent notice, without required observation or documentation, for students outside the grade-limit rules, when meals/restroom/water are withheld, or when staff are not properly trained. They emphasized that Minnesota lacks a single reliable data source for identifying illegal seclusion and that families often learn about incidents late, if at all, making complaints and legal action difficult because of barriers such as time, cost, language, and access to advocates. The presenters summarized Minnesota Disability Law Center records, saying they receive about one seclusion-related case per month during the school year, statewide, and that in the cases reviewed over the last year the children were all boys with disabilities, including autism, ADHD, developmental delay, or emotional disabilities; three were white and two were children of color, and four of the five were age 10 or younger. They said all of those families pulled their children from school afterward, and that five of five cases potentially had valid illegal-seclusion claims, though only three pursued legal action. They also noted PACER reports many discipline and behavior calls involving seclusion but does not keep hard records. The presenters proposed better statewide data collection, including identifying school buildings, staff, or students involved, reporting incident duration, and adding a checkbox on MDE complaints to flag restraint/seclusion allegations. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on disproportionality. The presenters cited national research showing students with disabilities and students of color, especially Black boys, are disproportionately restrained or secluded, while acknowledging Minnesota does not have a single statewide racial aggregate for seclusion. Members discussed whether banning seclusion would reduce misuse and disproportionality, whether it could increase physical holds or injuries, and whether the issue should be viewed in the broader context of emergency interventions. Heiser argued Minnesota is moving in the same direction as federal actions and other states that have restricted or banned seclusion, and noted that the current birth-through-third-grade ban has reportedly reduced seclusion by 40%. Other members agreed disproportionality is a serious systemwide problem, but emphasized the need to keep the conversation focused on seclusion and emergency use. No additional votes or formal actions were taken beyond approval of the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• I was very honored to indict the first ever criminal wage-fixing case.
• Um during my criminal wage fixing case.
• Um, we filed a case against uh children.
• :23.440> Amazon<00:43:24.359> drivers, last case with the Amazon drivers, last case with
• Last year, we had a case where a fixed.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I can’t guarantee that that’s the case.
• spaces this has absolutely been the case spaces this has absolutely been the case here<00:32:03.919
• Paul as the case study, when they are converted in some cases, in many cases, especially if they're older
• As the case study, when they are converted in some cases, in many cases, especially if they're older,
• That's not the case here.

Bills: HF1277, HF812, HF457, HF633

Keywords: data centers, tax exemption, Minnesota statutes, economic development, employment growth, income tax, tax brackets, tax adjustments, Minnesota, tax policy, underutilized buildings, adaptive reuse, building conversion, historic preservation, downtown revitalization, vacant property, vacancy reduction, refundable tax credit, income tax credit, grant in lieu of credit

Transcript Highlights:

• So this is just one specific case.
• And in this particular case, Mr.
• In this particular case, it's a county and an ETJ. So someone's got 10 acres.
• Uh, in this particular case, just as in this particular case, the property was about 10 acres, let's
• A fee for future improvements in case that area were to grow.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so this particular, this bill particularly impacts the juvenile cases in that system.
• uh, make sure that they are appointing counsel to an attorney who is well qualified to handle that case
• Most youth had their cases dismissed or received a super supervisory caution notice.
• Well, I mean, in every case, you're, you're innocent until proven guilty.
• So in any case, you answered my question. Thank you. Yes ma'am.

Transcript Highlights:

• will take a case against school district.
• And in this case, I plaintiff prevails.
• in that case. in that case. >> Thank<00:33:19.919> you. >> Thank you.
• Uh, is would they feel the same or is this kind of isolated cases?
• same or is this kind of isolated cases? same or is this kind of isolated cases?

Bills: SF0035, SF0090, SF0072

Keywords: education, cell phones, smart devices, school policy, student conduct, school property, rental fees, youth activities, education policy, Wyoming legislature, teacher licensure, teacher mobility, interstate compact, education compact, licensure reciprocity, reciprocal certification, teacher certification, professional teaching standards board, out-of-state teachers, military spouse

Transcript Highlights:

• Case loads can very kind of depend on the severity and maybe that hospital system as well.
• <00:24:55.919> Len in that hour um but under that case Len in that hour um but under that
• there're may be reviewing about 50 cases there're may be reviewing about 50 cases or<00:25:09.159
• <01:03:40.200> periods that this is the case extended periods that this is the case extended periods
• <01:04:13.559> because can see and build a case because can see and build a case because sometimes

Keywords: 1183, house