Transcript Highlights:

• Currently, the cap is calculated as an amount not to exceed 10%.
• And if, if our cap is 24.6 billion, our floor it's 11.2.
• If you will increase the cap, that balance will be $39.
• With the fund, if the Cap were to change from 10 to 15.
• So we, we actually saw a large boost in federal income, which has increased the cap and our, so our cap

Bills: SJR 4

Keywords: term limits, state offices, constitutional amendment, governor, lieutenant governor, election reform

Transcript Highlights:

• There's no cap on that.
• So when you cap or cut us, you're not...
• This bill caps the rate at which...
• Capping further reduces the cap that cities and counties are allowing.
• A 2.5% cap makes it even more challenging.

Bills: HB17, HB23, SB 10

Keywords: property tax, school funding, enrollment changes, inflation adjustment, tax rate notice, property tax exemption, ad valorem tax, Texas Tax Code, nonprofit corporation, charitable organization, educational nonprofit, scientific nonprofit, agriculture support, youth programs, community education, county population threshold, large county, local government revenue, leasehold interest, possessory interest

Transcript Highlights:

• there's no tax cap. There's no tax cap. there's no tax cap. There's no tax cap.
• cap.
• A spending cap cap and a spending cap.
• <01:24:09.760> and tax cap or budget cap limitation and tax cap or budget cap limitation and
• <01:36:49.600> or vote on a tax cap or a spending cap or vote on a tax cap or a spending cap

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. substantial cap for um future wildfire substantial cap for um future wildfire victims.<00:
• that cap should be set at. that cap should be set at.
• cap, isn't that a high threshold? cap, isn't that a high threshold?
• a high liability cap. a high liability cap. Okay.<00:47:59.280> Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay.
• should look to them to adopt the cap should look to them to adopt the cap level

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint Senate committees heard HB 108 HD2, which would allow direct shipment of beer and distilled spirits by certain licensees and require liquor commissions to adopt rules. Most testimony came from craft brewers and distillers in support, who said the bill would help small and fragile producers reach customers, move limited or specialty products that wholesalers do not carry, and maintain relationships with visitors after they leave Hawaii. Supporters also argued that direct-to-consumer shipping would not meaningfully increase underage access because common carriers age-gate deliveries and require adult signatures, and that the measure would supplement rather than replace the three-tier system. Opposition came from the Hawaii Food Industry Association and the Hawaii Liquor Wholesalers Association, which said the bill could create problems with minor access and tax revenue and would allow out-of-state manufacturers to ship directly to Hawaii households. Supporters responded that similar concerns were raised when wine direct shipping was adopted and said the existing shipping and reporting systems can track and tax these sales. Several witnesses, including Maui Brewing, Ola Brew, Koloa Rum, Hana Rum, Koulana Rumworks, Koval Distillery, and the Brewers Association, described their small-batch operations, limited distribution options, and the potential for direct shipping to expand sales and jobs. Committee members questioned witnesses about underage access, tax collection, and the impact on the three-tier system. One witness discussed efforts to protect and potentially scale the Hawaiian spirit Okolehao through geographic and sourcing rules. The transcript does not show a final vote or disposition on HB 108 HD2 in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• know I don't think the $350 million cap know I don't think the $350 million cap and<00:41:57.640
• um cap Insurance cap<00:49:25.000> question<00:49:25.200> on<00:49:25.319> the<00
• cap?
• Like how many associations, anyway, we... a lower cap they'll just be helped less a lower cap they'll
• Does it count toward the bond cap?

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They have caps on both non-economic damages and punitive damages, and the caps are much lower than ours
• And you'll all recall that for independent providers, the cap is about a million dollars, and the cap
• In Colorado in 2030, the cap for injuries will be 875,000 dollars, and the cap for death cases will be
• half times the monetary cap.
• The cap was 600,000.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's the cap is currently at 100 megawatts, and this would lift that cap.
• The cap is currently at 100 megawatts, and this would lift that cap.
• The cap is currently at 100 megawatts, and this would lift that cap.
• The cap is currently at 100 megawatts, and this would lift that cap.
• lifting the cap of the hydro. lifting the cap of the hydro.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The cap has fallen so woefully behind.
• Recently, that cap has been more than doubled.
• I would have liked to have known more about those states without caps or higher caps before we got here
• And now it raises the cap, the malpractice cap.
• This bill establishes a 25% cap.

Keywords: March 10, 2026 - Regular Session, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And the cap, and this is important for how this question works, the cap was established as the tax collections
• Because the cap is simply the last year's cap plus wage and salary growth.
• Allow me a few remarks on the revenue cap proposal.
• Allow me a few remarks on the revenue cap proposal.
• the mathematical logic of the cap still stands.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on two proposed ballot initiatives: one to reduce the state personal income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years, and another to revise the state’s tax collection cap/62F process so it would be based on prior-year collections plus wage growth and include surtax revenue. The committee chair and House co-chair outlined the hearing process, and the first witness was Doug Howgate of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, who testified as the committee’s subject-matter expert on both measures. He said the income tax proposal would lower taxes broadly but would reduce state revenue by about $5.4 billion when fully implemented, with an estimated $800 million hit in FY27, and he discussed possible effects on competitiveness, taxpayer savings, and public finances. On the 62F proposal, he said the revised cap would make refunds more likely, could have produced several large refunds in recent years, and would reduce stabilization fund deposits and constrain recovery after recessions. Committee members questioned Howgate about competitiveness, outmigration, prior tax ballot measures, spending growth, MassHealth, and the interaction between the income tax and surtax. He emphasized that taxes are only one part of the state’s overall competitiveness and that housing, public services, and other factors also matter. He also noted that the surtax is constitutionally restricted but can still support ongoing spending choices. After his testimony, the committee moved to the proponents’ panel. Proponents of both initiatives, including representatives from Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, the National Federation of Independent Business, Pioneer Institute, and the Mass Opportunity Alliance, argued that the measures would improve affordability, help retain residents and businesses, and support job growth. They cited polling support, outmigration, small-business reinvestment, and comparisons to lower-tax states such as North Carolina. Their economist, Rebecca Paxton, said her model showed smaller revenue losses than critics claim and projected that the revised revenue cap would not create additional annual revenue losses while producing more regular taxpayer refunds. Committee members pressed the panel on competitiveness, prior ballot initiative implementation, and whether the measures would actually address broader affordability pressures; the hearing ended with the committee continuing to take questions from the proponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• Arizona actually does not have a cap, and Texas has a cap of 250,000.
• Mexico is capped at $250,000, and the PCF plus the primary layer is capped at $900,000.
• So they still will be capped. They will still get the benefit of the cap.
• There are many states that have caps, some states do not have caps, and very few states have PCFs.
• There is no cap, so when you say going after doctors, the Medical Practice Act creates a cap.

Transcript Highlights:

• The first is to raise the cap to 50% by 2055.
• The one is just prop to the cap.
• So this... ...the Governor's proposal increases the cap, or proposes to increase the cap, from 10% to
• We have a cap of a 20% increase.
• So the 10% cap has been reached.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held a hearing on proposals to reform California’s Budget Stabilization Account, or rainy day fund, ahead of the May Revision. Members and witnesses reviewed how Proposition 2 (2014) changed reserve rules, including mandatory deposits, a 10% cap on the fund, and limits tied to the Governor’s declaration of a budget emergency. LAO staff explained that California’s revenues are highly volatile, that current reserve rules are complicated by interactions with Proposition 98 and the Gann limit, and that under current law reserves would cover only about one-third of funding shortfalls in a benchmark scenario over 50 years. The LAO presented its report recommending a larger reserve target, including raising the cap to 50% by 2055 and pairing that with either broader, more flexible deposit rules or a simpler approach that deposits all excess capital gains. The Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to raise the cap from 10% to 20% and exempt BSA deposits from the state appropriations limit, while Assembly Member Valencia presented ACA 1, which would make similar changes and was described as an evolving proposal. Testimony generally supported saving more during boom years, but differed on how much to hardwire into the Constitution versus leave flexible, and on whether to broaden the deposit formulas beyond capital gains. Public witnesses and committee members raised additional issues, including whether reserve reforms should also address debt repayment, the treatment of unemployment insurance fund debt, and whether the Gann limit should be adjusted to better allow reserve growth. Supporters argued that stronger reserves would protect Californians from cuts during downturns and help the state weather volatility and federal funding threats. Some advocates warned that reforms should not come at the expense of current public needs, while taxpayer representatives cautioned against turning the BSA into a pass-through account that weakens constitutional spending limits. The hearing ended without a vote, with the committee chair noting the complexity of the issue and adjourning after public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• I have yet to find a cap in any state where there are caps that is as high as $6 million.
• What is a not cap? What is it worth? What is a cap? What is it worth? What is a not cap?
• And then if it's capped, we go back to the cap.
• And Colorado, I understand, is capped at 1.5 million. You mentioned Texas; it's capped at 250,000.
• I'm not sure who I'm subjecting to this at this point, with not a cap or a cap the way that the statute

Bills: HB99, HB49, HB164, SB30, SB43, SB50, SB136

Keywords: medical malpractice, malpractice reform, patient's compensation fund, PCF, health care liability, tort reform, damage caps, punitive damages, hospital liability, physician liability, nurse practitioner, certified nurse-midwife, outpatient facility, ambulatory surgical center, urgent care, free-standing emergency room, insurance surcharge, superintendent of insurance, New Mexico hospitals, medical review process

Transcript Highlights:

• That's the tuition and fee cap for a Winona State student, but the tuition and fee cap for a student
• That's the tuition and fee cap for a Winona State student, but the tuition and fee cap for a student
• That's the tuition and fee cap for a Winona State student, but the tuition and fee cap for a student
• That's the tuition and fee cap for a Winona State student, but the tuition and fee cap for a student
• That's the tuition and fee cap for a Winona State student, but the tuition and fee cap for a student

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Higher Education Conference Committee reviewed differences among the Governor’s, House, and Senate proposals for state grant parameter changes and their effects on state grant spending, North Star Promise spending, and average student awards. Nonpartisan staff explained that the proposals use different combinations of parameter changes, with the Governor’s and Senate plans modeled to avoid or minimize rationing, while the House plan would require rationing to balance the program. Staff reported projected biennium balances of a positive $29.836 million for the Governor’s proposal, a negative $60.758 million for the House proposal without rationing, a positive $994,000 for the House proposal with rationing, and a positive $3.623 million for the Senate proposal; North Star Promise balances also varied, with the Senate showing a positive balance and the Governor and House with rationing showing negative balances. Staff also said the Senate proposal would extend availability of the state grant appropriation and suspend surplus procedures through fiscal year 2029, allowing the balance to carry forward. The committee then focused on the House-only tuition and fee cap provision, which would limit the tuition recognized for state grant purposes for four-year programs to the University of Minnesota Twin Cities level, with 1% annual increases in fiscal years 2026 and 2027. House members said the cap was intended to address rising tuition, especially at the University of Minnesota, and to produce savings in the state grant program. The governor’s office confirmed the provision was not included in the Governor’s bill. Representatives from the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Private College Council opposed the cap, arguing it would reduce awards for low-income students and shift costs to students rather than address underlying tuition pressures; they also said it could discourage enrollment at higher-cost institutions. Supporters from Minnesota State argued the cap would improve fairness because students at lower-tuition institutions are effectively capped lower, while students at more expensive institutions receive larger awards, and they said the legislature should intervene in a variable that has grown substantially over time. Committee members questioned how the cap would work and whether it was tied to the Twin Cities campus rate. Testifiers clarified that the state grant formula is tied to the University of Minnesota level, but because Minnesota State institutions are below that level, the cap effectively limits their students to their own lower tuition while allowing higher awards at the University of Minnesota and private colleges. No formal vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the chair indicated the committee would continue with item-by-item review of the remaining parameter changes and hear additional testimony from agencies and institutions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Roman 1 is a enrollment cap.
• Um that cap is set at enrollment cap.
• enrollment cap? enrollment cap? Excuse<00:08:05.400> me,<00:08:05.520> one.
• ,<00:10:35.920> they're based on the enrollment cap, they're based on the enrollment cap,
• And you would be capped by the them.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee of conference on HB 751 reviewed amendment 2026-1904H page by page, focusing on open enrollment rules, capacity definitions, statewide enrollment limits, denial criteria, transportation, and funding. Members discussed clarifying that districts may set capacity at zero if they truly have no room, creating a statewide enrollment cap of 500 that can increase by 25% if it reaches 90% utilization, and exempting seats already used by open enrollment students before October 1, 2026. They also discussed how the Department of Education would allocate seats through rulemaking, while local districts would still set capacity, with grandfathered seats preserved where districts already allow open enrollment. A substantial portion of the meeting centered on when districts may deny open enrollment applications. The amendment would allow denials for reasons such as chronic absenteeism or disciplinary history, while requiring districts to consider whether those issues are tied to disability, McKinney-Vento status, foster care, or bullying. Members emphasized that such factors are to be considered, not used as the sole basis for rejection, and noted that the bill separately prohibits receiving schools from accepting or rejecting applicants based on pupil needs, special education needs, disability, aptitude, or athletic achievement. There was also discussion of whether interdistrict transfers should count toward open enrollment capacity, with a suggestion that a carve-out may be needed. The committee also reviewed provisions on program-specific capacity, continuous enrollment, and transportation. It was explained that capacity can apply to a school, grade, program, or class, including CTE programs, and that students may be denied if a specific program is full or if they do not meet prerequisites. The group clarified that open enrollment pupils would maintain continuous enrollment without reapplying, though there was concern about how that would work if district capacity changes over time. Transportation would generally be the parent’s responsibility unless required by an IEP or 504 plan, though students may use an existing bus route if seats are available and the receiving district allows it. On funding, the committee noted that the amendment changes the earlier HB 751 approach and instead ties open enrollment funding to base adequacy, differentiated aid, and an additional grant modeled on charter school funding, with dates removed at the department’s request. Members also raised concerns about how open enrollment would interact with existing tuition agreements and whether districts could use the new pathway to alter or pressure those arrangements. Department staff said districts would still be required to maintain a school of record and provide an adequate education free of charge outside the open enrollment program, and that if open enrollment enrollment became unusually large relative to district adequacy enrollment, the issue could be brought to the state board. No votes were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, as you may recall, we now have a school district budget cap and a town budget cap.
• > budget district budget cap, and the town budget district budget cap, and the town budget cap
• exceed a tax cap or exceed the 10%. exceed a tax cap or exceed the 10%.
• Number five touches the cap.
• the tax cap or not overturn the tax cap. the tax cap or not overturn the tax cap.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Outdated liability thresholds by increasing per-claim caps from 200 to 300 and the aggregate cap from
• review and adjust those caps every five years using the consumer price index while placing a 3% cap
• cap, an emergency cap, and a Medicaid cap.
• The caps in this bill at $300,000 and $450,000 are more reasonable than the other chamber's caps.
• Three, and finally, not allowing the settlement above the caps ensures that a cap is actually a cap,

Bills: S0330, S0474, S0694, S1120, S1216, S1366, S1442, S7018

Keywords: firefighter disability, law enforcement disability, correctional officer disability, correctional probation officer, presumptive disability, workers' compensation, line of duty presumption, heart disease presumption, hypertension presumption, tuberculosis presumption, public safety employees, first responders, physical examination, preemployment exam, medical specialist, Medicare reimbursement, employing agency, Florida Statutes 112.18, Florida Statutes 943.13, occupational disease

Summary: The committee heard and advanced several bills, beginning with SB 694 on compensation for the descendants of the Groveland Four. Senator Bracey Davis described the wrongful accusations, convictions, deaths, and long-term harm to the families, and an amendment added a $4 million appropriation and updated the recipient for Ernest Thomas’s family. Multiple family members, advocates, clergy, and supporters testified in favor, emphasizing the decades-long delay in justice and the need for accountability and repair. Senators from both parties spoke in support, and the committee reported the bill favorably after a roll call vote. The committee then approved SB 330 on disability provisions for firefighters, law enforcement, and correctional officers; SB 474 on military affairs leave and related benefits; and SB 96 on the Veterans Dental Care Grant Program. SB 96 drew the most discussion, with Senator Sharief explaining that the bill raises eligibility to 400% of the federal poverty level and moves $500,000 in recurring funding to the General Appropriations Act. Senator Wright and Senator Harrell raised concerns about whether expanding eligibility could worsen the existing waitlist, while supporters argued the change would help more veterans access needed dental care. The bill was ultimately reported favorably. The committee also passed SB 7018 on child welfare, making the Step Into Success pilot program permanent and statewide, adjusting visitor/background-check rules for foster homes, and creating a best-practices program through the Florida Institute for Child Welfare. SB 480 on information technology was reported favorably after amendments creating a central IT governance structure under the Governor’s office, adding vendor performance metrics and a preferred vendor list, and restoring criminal justice information security provisions. SB 1066 on the Ocklawaha River and Rodman Dam also advanced after extensive testimony from supporters and historians about partial restoration, recreation, and economic benefits; the sponsor said he would continue working through permitting questions before floor consideration. Later, the committee approved SB 1216 on educator compensation, which gives districts more flexibility on cost-of-living adjustments, advanced degrees, and performance pay caps, and SB 1120 on water management district oversight and reporting. The committee also reported favorably SB 1366 on sovereign immunity and claims against government, which would raise damages caps, index them to CPI, shorten claim deadlines, and cap attorney fees at 25%. That bill drew testimony from hospitals, cities, counties, school districts, and others, with some supporting the Senate’s compromise approach and others raising concerns about impacts on self-insured law enforcement agencies and attorney incentives. The meeting concluded with the favorable report on the bill after debate continued over those issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• So they were very mindful of the cap limitation, so that was neat to see. The cap limitation.
• long as it didn't push the total county cap past 3%?
• However, it wasn't a 3% cap that drove that down.
• So that's that 3% cap.
• So that's that 3% cap. The allowable percentage cap adjustment. So that's that 3% cap.

Summary: The committee met to receive updates from the Tax Commissioner’s office on property tax relief programs and related compliance work. Commissioner Brian Croshys reviewed the Homestead Property Tax Credit, Disabled Veteran Credit, and Primary Residence Credit, noting that the Homestead program expanded significantly after HB 1158, that some households are “adjusting out” of eligibility as incomes rise, and that the committee may want to consider indexing income thresholds. Members asked for additional data on bracket breakdowns, possible costs of eliminating income limits for seniors, and how many households are zeroed out by the combined programs. Croshys also discussed the simpler administration of the disabled veteran credit, the growth in participation, and the heavy workload and auditing safeguards built into the new primary residence credit system. He said the department found no material compliance findings and that the program is designed to be digital-first, with county auditors and the Tax Commissioner’s office both involved in review and notification. The committee recessed for lunch and later reconvened, with the chair noting that more detailed PRC information would likely be available at a September meeting. Shelly Myers then presented the statewide property tax increase, or “zero growth,” report and the 2025 statistical report. She explained how county auditors report levy and valuation data, how increases and decreases are counted, and which jurisdictions showed the largest percentage changes in countywide, citywide, school district, and park district levies. In the statistical report, she summarized recent trends in assessed values: agricultural values remained relatively flat, while residential, commercial, and centrally assessed property values increased over the past five years. She also reviewed statewide tax levies by property class and clarified that centrally assessed growth figures were annual averages. Members discussed how shifts in land use and annexation can make it appear that tax burdens are moving from ag to residential/commercial property. Myers then summarized the interim study on the 3% levy limitation under HB 1176, saying most counties complied without budget changes, while some used hiring freezes, deferred purchases, or reserve funds; 23% of counties had to reduce levies, and the affected funds were mainly general, road and bridge, and weed control. She said 12 counties reported zero new growth in the data and that 35 counties reported not using all of their cap. The committee also received an oil tax presentation from Croshys on the stripper well extraction tax exemption. He outlined the number of active stripper wells, the production and revenue implications of the exemption, and projections for future biennia under different tax scenarios. He said the exemption represents substantial savings to operators but also corresponds to production tax revenue that would otherwise be collected, and he emphasized that future outcomes depend on oil prices, well counts, and technology such as CO2 enhanced oil recovery. Nathan Anderson of the Department of Mineral Resources briefly answered a question about why Red River wells have a different production threshold than Bakken wells, explaining it was tied to completion costs and lateral length. The committee then heard from Charlie Gorecki of the EERC, who presented an analysis of typical Bakken well decline curves and argued that most oil is produced before a well reaches stripper status, but that keeping wells open and investing in refracturing or other interventions can recover additional production. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting; the main actions were receiving reports, asking for follow-up data, and scheduling further discussion for a later meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Two, the representative has stated a 3.5% fee cap.
• I agree that there needs to be a cap at some point.
• So the cap has to do with where that note—really, the only purpose of the cap is to give the retailer
• Because to me, that's not a cap then.
• It caps it at five years.

Bills: HB1268, HB3041, HB3075, HB3378, HB3463, HB3619, HB3620, HB3624, HB3722, HB4335

Keywords: retirement, public employees, deferred option plan, service credit, contributions, distributions, credit card transactions, payment methods, service charge, consumer rights, financial regulation, rounding, cash payments, public finance, Oklahoma Common Cents Act, political subdivision, science and technology, research, board appointments, emergency legislation

Transcript Highlights:

• tax rate above the current 10-cent cap? tax rate above the current 10-cent cap?
• , they wanted to go above the 10-cent cap, they wanted to go above the 10-cent cap, then<00:21:54.880
• go above that 10-centent cap. go above that 10-centent cap.
• only go two cents above the cap per 100. only go two cents above the cap per 100.
• 10-cent cap. >> It's kind of a cap, but not—understand. >> Thank you, Mr.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:04 Roll Call 00:00:23 HB 246 Discussion 00:02:47 HB 246 Vote 00:15:15 HB 613 Discussion 00:17:04 HB 613 Vote 00:29:09 Adjournment 00:30:37, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Local Government met with a quorum present and briefly introduced a guest before taking up two bills. House Bill 246, as amended by House Committee Substitute 1, would require animal control officers to complete training on recognizing child abuse and neglect. The sponsor and a young advocate testified that animal control officers often encounter warning signs in homes, cited data linking animal abuse and child abuse, and said the training would be free, brief, and housed by Prevent Child Abuse Kentucky. The committee substitute was explained as addressing local government liability concerns by allowing counties to opt out, tying the bill to existing reporting statutes, and clarifying that the training creates no investigative duty. Members asked about whether the training was one-time, how opt-outs would be tracked, and whether the information would be public; the sponsor and witness said participation would be tracked and the training/evaluation would be available through the organization. The committee approved HB 246 with favorable expression to pass on the House floor. The committee then considered House Bill 613, which would give Chapter 75 fire districts a process to seek a tax increase above the current 10-cent cap through public hearings and voter recall, while preserving local control. The sponsor and fire service representatives said the bill responds to modern fire district costs, including higher equipment prices, staffing shortages, declining volunteer numbers, and the shift to all-hazards service. They emphasized that any increase would be subject to notice, public comment, and a voter recall mechanism, and said the cap would remain in place unless the district used the new process. Members questioned the fiscal impact language, the meaning of the cap, and whether the bill effectively removed the cap; the sponsor clarified that the cap stays but districts could go up to two cents above it through the process, with voters able to recall the increase. One member passed on the vote due to concern about the indeterminable fiscal impact, but the committee still reported HB 613 favorably to the House floor. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, moving on to cap and invest.
• Trying to then layer in and shoehorn in the reauthorization of our landmark climate cap-and-trade, cap-and-invest
• I think those are my points on cap-and-trade.
• The last, completely unrelated to cap-and-trade, is related to the DMV.
• What we're doing with this cap-and-trade, cap-and-invest, whatever you want to call it, it's very, very

Keywords: 988, house, all