Transcript Highlights:

• to you want to make an make a statement to you want to make an make a statement about<00:14:48.399
• versus not making a political statement.
• versus not make a political statement versus not make a political statement<00:19:09.120> making<
• /c><00:19:09.400> political<00:19:09.760> statements<00:19:10.120> if statement
• making political statements if statement making political statements if there's<00:19:10.400> a

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Who's the US in your statement?<00:25:55.120> The<00:25:55.360> libraries. statement?
• of interest statement.
• or the conflict of interest statement or the conflict of interest<00:51:28.000> statement.
• board an economic interest statement board an economic interest statement within<00:52:10.000>
• underlining uh disclosure statement underlining uh disclosure statement within<00:59:23.920>

Bills: HF3698, HF4243, HF4239, HF4241, HF4242, HF4240

Keywords: libraries, electronic books, digital audiobooks, licensing agreements, public access, campaign finance, elections, political contributions, disclosure, reporting thresholds, economic interest statements, financial disclosure, ethics, public officials, local officials, metropolitan governmental unit, metropolitan area, candidate filings, principal campaign committee, political committee

Transcript Highlights:

• That was how they read or understood the statement.
• allow me I will just read that statement allow me I will just read that statement it<01:14:14.520
• bacteria so I look at those statements bacteria so I look at those statements which<01:14:40.840
• that statement and I'm not I take that statement and I'm not doubting<01:14:52.360> the<01:14:
• cabinet and some of those statements cabinet and some of those statements right<01:14:59.560>

Keywords: 00:00:00 Call to Order/Roll Call 00:01:37 Discussion of 25RS HB 392 00:03:10 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 392 00:04:20 Discussion of 25RS HB 580 00:13:28 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 580 00:14:54 Discussion of 25RS HB 688 00:18:40 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 688 00:21:40 Discussion of 25RS HB 16 01:19:44 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 16 01:27:32 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 392, sponsored by Representative Proctor, which would help the Department for Behavioral Health, Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities pay for emergency medical and psychiatric services provided to patients outside state facilities when those facilities cannot meet their needs. Proctor described it as a continuing improvement bill to address payment issues for services delivered at community-based facilities. The bill received no substantive opposition in the meeting and passed the committee with favorable expression by a vote of 15 yes, 0 no, and 1 pass. The committee then considered House Bill 580, presented by Representative Kim Moser and Elena Sweezy, which tightens oversight of peer support specialists. The bill was described as building on House Bill 505 from the prior year by reinstating supervision requirements, adding parameters around group sizes, creating a pathway for temporary peer support specialists to become fully registered after nine months, and addressing Medicaid reimbursement and accountability concerns. Members asked about reimbursement; the sponsor said Medicaid was okay with the bill and that commercial insurance coverage would be up to insurers. Representative Fleming emphasized the need for stronger financial oversight of the peer support code. The committee adopted a substitute and title amendment, then passed the bill with favorable expression. House Bill 688 was then heard, with Representative Bratcher explaining that it addresses two issues: preventing fraud in nurse licensure by giving the Kentucky Board of Nursing more discretion to review out-of-state credentials, and expanding school authority to administer certain emergency medications. He said the bill changes the board’s authority from “shall” to “may” so it can verify transcripts, curricula, accreditation, and exam passage. During discussion, Representative Sharp explained his yes vote by noting the bill also adds rescue medications such as glucagon and Solu-Cortef and allows prescribed emergency medications for known conditions in schools. The committee passed the bill with favorable expression. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 16, which would leave decisions about adding fluoride to drinking water to local governing bodies rather than maintaining a state mandate. Supporters, including Representative David Hale, Dr. Jack Call, and Cindy Batson, argued that fluoridation should be a local choice and raised concerns about cost, potential health risks, and the precautionary principle. Opponents, including Dr. Steve Robertson of the Kentucky Dental Association, defended fluoridation as beneficial for preventing tooth decay and warned that local removal decisions could increase Medicaid costs and may not reflect the broader public interest. The transcript provided does not show a final committee vote on House Bill 16 in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Do you agree with that statement, Mr. Chairman?
• So are you saying that you agree with them or you don't agree with that statement?
• So you don't agree with that statement? Well, I'm not saying I agree.
• Do you still stand by that statement, Mr. Chairman? I do. Thank you. Two more questions, Mr.
• Do you agree with me on that statement? For the most part, I don't know how to answer that.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Whereas, Justice Thompson's statements violate or threaten to violate a client's right to due process
• <01:14:01.760> and statement and statement and quote<01:14:03.080> in<01:14:03.680>
• Whereas, Justice Thompson's statements Whereas, Justice Thompson's statements violate<01:14:46.640><
• Whereas, Justice Thompson's statements Whereas, Justice Thompson's statements violate<01:15:25.320><
• Whereas, Justice Thompson's statements Whereas, Justice Thompson's statements are<01:15:45.360> intemperate

Keywords: In an effort to stave off issues that may occur with long format live streams, we have split this stream into two parts., 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We are anticipating the record of decision. statement that was published in April.
• That's a fair statement, Chair Faye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
• It's documented in the final supplemental environmental impact statement.
• It's documented in the final supplemental environmental impact statement.
• Senator, if I could make a statement. Sure, go ahead. Thank you.

Summary: The Joint Committee on Interstate 5 Bridge met remotely with Washington legislative members to receive updates on the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program, including environmental review, cost and funding, tolling, and procurement for construction. Program staff said the final supplemental environmental impact statement was published in April 2026, with a federal record of decision expected in early summer. They described the recommended design as a single-level fixed-span bridge, centered I-5 alignment, C Street ramps, one auxiliary lane in each direction, and dispersed park-and-ride parking. Members raised concerns about transparency, the closed chat function, and the decision not to include two auxiliary lanes; staff said the one-lane option was recommended through consultation with partner agencies and analysis, but the final decision would come with the record of decision. Staff also said the diversion analysis projected less than 3% traffic diversion to I-205 in 2045, though members from Oregon and Washington expressed concern about impacts to their communities and asked for more detail on mitigation and decision-making. The committee also reviewed a major cost update. Staff said the full five-mile program is now estimated at $13.5 billion to $15.2 billion, with a likely cost of $14.4 billion, up from a 2022 estimate of $5 billion to $7.5 billion, citing inflation, schedule delays, scope changes, and more detailed risk modeling. They said the first funded phase has been reduced to a $5.68 billion package focused on the Columbia River bridge replacement, connections to I-5, Hayden Island and SR-14, bridge demolition, tolling infrastructure, and advancing light rail design. Funding for that phase was described as $5.69 billion, including $2.1 billion federal funds, $1 billion from each state, and $1.5 billion in projected toll revenue. Members asked what would happen if costs rise further; staff said the estimate includes substantial contingency, the project will use progressive design-build to manage risk, and the team will continue updating the finance plan annually. A separate tolling and traffic-revenue presentation explained that four toll scenarios were analyzed using regional travel demand modeling, a toll diversion model, and a post-processing review. All scenarios assume pre-completion tolling beginning July 1, 2028, a 50% low-income discount for eligible users, and exemptions for tribal preemptions, emergency vehicles, maintenance vehicles, and organized militia. Staff said the low-income discount would affect about 4% to 6% of annual transactions and reduce annual revenues by roughly 2% to 3%. They said Scenario 2 was used for the financial analysis and is sufficient to support the $1.5 billion toll contribution in the funded phase. Members asked about toll collection costs, revenue impacts of the discount, and how the scenarios differed; staff said collection costs are expected to be in line with other WSDOT toll facilities, but exact costs are not yet set because toll rates are not final. Finally, WSDOT staff outlined procurement and delivery steps for construction. They said WSDOT will be the lead contracting agency, using progressive design-build, with a request for qualifications targeted for early July 2026, a request for proposals in October, contractor selection in April 2027, construction starting in 2028, and tolling beginning in 2028. Staff said the approach is intended to consolidate scope, reduce interface risk, and allow transparent negotiation with an independent cost estimator, while preserving an off-ramp if a fair price cannot be reached. Members asked for more detail on timing, cost allocation, and the share of the first phase funded by tolls; staff estimated tolls account for about 26% of the first phase cost.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is not a statement bill.
• This is not a statement bill.
• One more statement, and we'll move then to Representative Howard.
• One more statement, and we'll move then to Representative Howard.
• One more statement, and we'll move then to Representative Howard.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And I will assign the floor statement to Senator Scheible. All right.
• Do you like to make any closing statements? Yes, ma'am. I'd like to address Mr.
• Ellison's statements regarding the air quality within an enclosed building.
• Would you like to make any closing statements?
• And not surprisingly, the floor statement is going to go to Senator Rogesh.

Keywords: 909, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Statements of interest and what we have in front of us is just a single line for the amendment, which
• These statements of interest are not updated until and unless the individual runs for re-election or
• So House Bill 1469 increases transparency by requiring public officials to update their statements of
• the need for people to make an open record request when seeking these statements.
• the need for people to make an open record request when seeking these statements.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, roll call, and a quorum present, then moved through a series of conference committee appointments and reconsideration motions. Senator Axtman successfully moved to reconsider House Bill 1160, which had previously failed, and the chamber later passed it. HB 1160 creates a statewide bell-to-bell policy restricting personal electronic devices during instructional time; supporters argued it would reduce distractions, improve mental health and academic outcomes, and help teachers, while opponents raised local control concerns. The bill passed 42-4. The Senate also passed several other measures, including HB 1247 on protecting student victims of sexual offenses, HB 1489 consolidating civil protection orders into one chapter, HB 1032 making municipal courts courts of record and updating related procedures, HB 1487 authorizing a Minot facility for the Highway Patrol and Bureau of Criminal Investigation with a line of credit and emergency clause, HB 1469 requiring annual online statements of interest for public officials, HB 1199 creating the Missing and Indigenous People Task Force and related MMIP initiatives, HB 1169 regulating paid veterans benefits claim assistance with consumer protections, HB 1209 directing a foreign adversary threat assessment, and HB 3018 as amended to study water, wetlands, and taxation of inundated lands. Most of these passed with strong bipartisan support, though HB 1169 drew substantial debate over veterans’ service options and HB 1209 passed on a narrower 40-7 vote. The chamber rejected or declined several other measures. HB 1455, which would have required the Indian Affairs Commission to review introduced legislation for tribal implications, failed 7-40 after concerns about an unfunded mandate and duplicative duties. HB 1259, which would have put North Dakota on year-round daylight saving time, was defeated 15-32 after debate over time zones, construction, recreation, and whether the issue should be left to future legislatures. HB 1555, dealing with statements of ownership for foreign organizations of concern, also failed 3-44. The Senate then moved to announcements and committee scheduling for later meetings and conference committees.

Transcript Highlights:

• That is just a statement. That is my statement. That is my statement.
• That is my statement. Let's all think about that for a minute. We got it, we got it.
• Is that a statement? That's a question. Are there any other questions, members?
• A statement? A statement, sure. Of sorts.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That is just a statement. That is my statement. That is my statement.
• That is my statement. Let's all think about that for a minute. We got it, we got it.
• Is that a statement? That's a question. Are there any other questions, members?
• A statement? A statement, sure. Of sorts.

Summary: The committee heard presentations on two Senate-passed HCRs that would refer constitutional amendments to voters. HCR 2040 would bar school districts from using public money or resources to support labor organizations, including payroll deductions for dues, use of internal communication systems for recruiting or political materials, and distribution of labor-related communications using public resources; it also would prohibit the state and political subdivisions from entering exclusive representation or collective bargaining agreements with labor organizations. The sponsor indicated an intent to concur with the Senate amendment, and the measure was left open for questions. HCR 2048 would amend the Arizona Constitution to prevent the state from confiscating money from scholarship accounts belonging to children of military families, and would void any later law or voter-approved measure after November 1, 2026, that violates that protection. Members asked how the proposal would work if a student moved out of state or no longer met scholarship eligibility requirements, and staff explained that funds could still be reclaimed if the student no longer qualified under the program. Questions also focused on the measure’s language making any conflicting future bill or initiative null and void, with staff explaining that courts would still apply severability principles in litigation. The discussion became sharply political, with one member criticizing the measure as a pretext to protect ESA voucher funds and another questioning whether the military-family framing raised DEI concerns. Another member argued the majority was using military families to shield fraudulent ESA spending and said voters wanted action on the issue. No votes were taken in the excerpt, and the chair ultimately closed the discussion after questions and comments.

Transcript Highlights:

• This isn't a statement on ASRs at all; it's a statement on local politics and how you treat your neighbor
• So that's my statement. I'm sorry about it, but it's true.
• I just made a statement that's... Stakeholders were able to make a statement.
• Is that a fair statement? That's the information.
• Is that a fair statement?

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a really detailed statement that includes the last five years of monthly fee increases, which is
• There are quarterly financial statements that need to be delivered to the resident association.
• And I'll just add one more: a copy of the annual disclosure statement.
• I just have an idea for the disclosure statement.
• And that includes audited financial statements.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission’s fifth meeting focused on consumer protections and resident rights in continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), with a presentation by Yvonne Choyah of UC Law San Francisco. She described California’s CCRC framework, including entrance fee structures, monthly fee increases, contract types (A, B, and C), disclosure requirements, and regulatory oversight. A major theme was that residents often do not understand the contracts they sign, while providers retain broad discretion over fees, transfers, terminations, and changes to the physical plant. She also emphasized that California’s regulator is understaffed and not well suited to oversee the complex financial and insurance-like aspects of CCRCs, and that resident complaints and litigation can be slow and difficult. Choyah and commission members discussed several consumer-protection issues, including refundable versus repayable-on-resale entrance fees, rising monthly care fees, the decline of life care contracts, and the need for clearer disclosures and better comparative data for prospective residents. She noted that California requires annual disclosure statements, resident bill of rights materials, and some fee-related reporting, but that enforcement and accessibility remain weak. Members raised questions about resident board representation, accreditation, refund requirements, and whether state agencies or resident associations could help explain contracts to consumers before admission. Choyah suggested stronger oversight, more financial expertise in regulation, and better transparency about ownership and fee-setting. The meeting ended with discussion of the commission’s next steps toward its August report. Staff said a draft report would be prepared from the commission’s discussions and circulated for comment before final revisions. The chair also announced staff transitions: Jennifer would be leaving the State House role, and Juliana Fernandez and Vicky Halal would be the main contacts going forward. The commission adjourned after thanking Choyah for her presentation and answering member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Then Section 7 of the bill is repealing the campaign disclosure statements, so Section 4 is the meat
• So moving on to subsection 5, this is your 48-hour supplemental statements.
• It also requires a candidate who is not running to only file the annual statement.
• So sub 3, bottom of page 16 is the annual statement, as Chairman Steiner alluded to.
• I mean, just like anything else, a job statement. Well, I think they have to.

Bills: SB2156

Keywords: campaign finance, disclosure, political contributions, election transparency, North Dakota Century Code, 908, all

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:

• I'm going to make brief opening statements, then I'll turn to Ranking Member Markey to do the same.
• Mulligan will be recognized for their statements.
• purposes of an opening statement. to serve in these roles.
• Ask unanimous consent that the nominee's full statements be included in the record.
• Yeah, my statement was just a little different.

Keywords: SBA, small business, nominations, Bill Briggs, Casey Mulligan, regulations, capital access, public support

Summary: The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship convened to consider the nominations of Bill Briggs for Deputy Administrator of the SBA and Dr. Casey Mulligan for Chief Counsel for Advocacy. The discussions highlighted the critical role of the SBA in promoting small businesses, with emphasis on overcoming challenges posed by excessive regulations and the need for improved access to capital. Several committee members expressed their concerns over recent layoffs within the SBA and the closure of district offices, which they believe undermine support for small businesses across the nation. The committee meeting saw extensive dialogue about the implications of regulations on small business operations and how the nominees plan to address these issues if confirmed. Public support for the nominees was acknowledged through letters from various stakeholders who advocate for small business interests.

Transcript Highlights:

• Mayor, we'll start with you if you have an opening statement. Thank you. I do.
• Mayor, we'll start with you if you have an opening statement. Thank you. I do.
• Mayor, we'll start with you if you have an opening statement. Thank you. I do.
• Mayor, we'll start with you if you have an opening statement. Thank you. I do.
• Mayor, we'll start with you if you have an opening statement.

Summary: The Legislative Joint Auditing Committee approved the February 13 minutes and then heard several committee reports. The executive committee report noted that audit and special reports were scheduled for presentation, one requested report remained outstanding, and staff was asked to review selected Benton County circuit court case transfers. The committee also received and adopted reports from the counties and municipalities committee, the education committee, and the state agencies committee. Those reports covered delinquent private water and sewer audits, education audit reports, and state agency findings such as duplicate vendor payments, collateral issues, record-keeping problems, and vehicle log deficiencies. In each case, the committee voted to file or adopt the reports, with some reports deferred for follow-up or for officials to appear at a later meeting. A major portion of the meeting focused on the City of Pine Bluff’s 2024 financial audit. Auditors said the city received a clean opinion overall, but management letter findings identified serious issues in the mayor’s office, Parks and Recreation, and the finance department. The Parks and Recreation finding involved $179,629 in manual receipts that could not be traced to city deposits, missing receipts from several facilities, $48,415 in unallowable purchases, $13,000 in questionable purchases, altered invoices, unapproved vendors, and missing equipment; those matters were referred to the prosecuting attorney, attorney general, Governmental Bonding Board, and Arkansas State Police. The finance finding cited weak cash-receipting and bank-reconciliation procedures and late or missing deposits. City officials, including the mayor, finance director, and parks director, testified that the problems predated the current administration and said they had taken corrective steps. They described hiring a forensic audit firm, creating or updating standard operating procedures, improving receipting and deposit processes, adding procurement oversight, and moving Parks and Recreation to electronic or system-based receipting. Committee members questioned the officials about oversight, nonprofit relationships, and whether theft or system failures were to blame. After discussion, the committee voted to file the Pine Bluff report. The next meeting was announced for June 4-5, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then lastly, the Florida Open Financial Statement System, which is also called LOGERX.
• The third tool is the Florida Open Financial Statement System.
• The third tool is the Florida Open Financial Statement System, also known as Logger X.
• This particular website is for the local governments to report their financial statements.
• Financial statements, internal control, and compliance issues.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Auditing Committee met to receive updates on Transparency Florida and related transparency tools. The Governor’s Office and the Department of Financial Services described the Transparency Florida website, the state payment and contract systems, and the local-government financial reporting system (Logger X/XBRL), emphasizing public access, searchable payment and contract data, downloadable reports, and ongoing upgrades. Members asked whether school districts and the Department of Corrections are included in these systems; staff explained that state agencies like Corrections are covered through Transparency Florida, FACTS, and the state financial reports, while Logger X is for local governments. Committee staff reported that the Transparency Florida Act’s requirements have been met and noted that any new recommendations would need legislative action; members were invited to submit recommendations by October 30. The committee then reviewed repeated audit findings for local governments and educational entities. Staff explained the statutory process for “three-peat” findings: first requesting an updated written corrective-action status, then possibly requiring an appearance before the committee, and finally taking further action if findings remain uncorrected. Most entities were recommended for written updates, while the City of Daytona Beach was singled out for an in-person appearance because of a repeated finding involving unexpended building permit balances. Members also raised questions about specific entities, including McIntosh, White Springs, Pahokee, and the Fred R. Wilson Memorial Law Library special district, with staff explaining the nature of the findings and noting that some entities may warrant further review. The committee adopted a motion to accept staff’s recommendations and to send letters to entities with uncorrected audit findings in late-filed 2023-24 audit reports. It also approved a motion directing the Auditor General and OPPAGA to conduct the required audit of the Department of the Lottery for fiscal year 2025-26, with the Auditor General handling financial, internal control, and compliance work and OPPAGA preparing operational recommendations. The meeting concluded with notice that the next meeting was tentatively scheduled for November 3 at 3:30 p.m., followed by adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• We got a joint statement.
• We got a joint statement.
• We got a joint statement.
• We got a joint statement.
• We got a joint statement.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The subcommittee met on October 14, approved the minutes, and then took up a large group of staff-suggested amendments to multiple regulations. Those staff amendments were approved without objection and were described as technical changes needed to comply with KRS Chapter 13A and other governing law. The committee then moved out of order to consider Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure regulation 2011 KAR 9:270, which governs buprenorphine prescribing and related standards. Board representatives said the regulation has been updated over time since 2015 and that the current amendments are intended to streamline the rule, remove outdated federal references such as the X-waiver, narrow education requirements to addiction-related topics, and create exceptions for settings like emergency rooms and certain pain treatment situations. The agency amendment would also allow buprenorphine monoproduct for up to 30 days when a patient is transitioning from a full opioid agonist, and would add physicians certified in addiction medicine as eligible specialty consultants. Board officials said the regulation was developed through a two-year process with a work group, informal outreach to medical organizations, and multiple comment periods, and they argued the rule is working because overdose deaths have declined and provider numbers have increased. Several witnesses and committee members raised concerns that the regulation remains too restrictive. Senator Rocky Adams noted that major medical organizations had said the proposed language could restrict access and worsen overdose risk, and he questioned whether the committee was being asked to choose between conflicting expert views. Opponents, including a medical student, a recovery advocate, and Dr. Colleen Ryan of the Kentucky Society of Addiction Medicine, argued the rule is outdated, creates unnecessary barriers to buprenorphine treatment, and should be repealed or substantially revised to align with federal guidance and evidence-based care. They said rigid requirements can discourage treatment and that addiction should be treated like other chronic illnesses. No final vote on the medical licensure regulation is reflected in the transcript excerpt, and the discussion ended with the chair preparing to hear from additional opponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• I would like to make a statement at the beginning.
• Recognize Dean Thompson for a brief statement.
• Just a brief statement. The Chair recognizes Mr. Wolf for a brief statement. Thank you, Mr.
• May I follow that with a brief statement? Chair recognizes Mr. Rosenthal for a brief statement.
• To make a statement. The Chair recognizes Mr. Rosenthal to make a statement. Very good, thank you.

Keywords: 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I'm proud to present House File 3940, which would require an environmental impact statement, or EIS
• In 2025, the state did 53 EAWs and only three environmental impact statements.
• three environmental impact statements. three environmental impact statements.
• An environmental impact statement is not about stopping projects.
• impact statement is not about<00:11:29.560> stopping<00:11:30.040> projects.

Keywords: 1183, house