Transcript Highlights:

• only had three months of data.
• In addition to charge-level data, we also have data on the individual. I'm sorry.
• In addition to the charge-level data, we also have data on the individual.
• The pending felony count data.
• They have to match up the data.

Committee: Senate Human Services

Summary: The Senate Human Services Committee held a work session focused first on the impacts of H.R. 1 on Medicaid and SNAP, especially for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, older adults, and low-income families. DSHS Assistant Secretary B. Rector explained Washington’s Medicaid structure for developmental disabilities and long-term care, noting that most community-based services are optional under federal Medicaid rules and could be vulnerable if state budgets tighten. He described several H.R. 1 changes, including possible cost sharing, a lower home equity limit, work requirements affecting the ACA expansion population, immigration-related eligibility losses, and a future new waiver opportunity. He said Washington could see about 2,700 people lose Medicaid eligibility due to immigration status and that most people with DD or long-term care needs would likely qualify for work requirement exemptions, but he warned that reduced federal dollars could put home and community-based services at risk. Advocates and providers described the practical effects of Medicaid cuts on crisis services, supported living, and family stability. Dr. Eric Bolter said Washington has only a small continuum of services for people with IDD and severe behavioral needs, and that lower ABA reimbursement and other Medicaid reductions could shrink already limited outpatient, residential, and inpatient options, leading to more hospital stays and out-of-state placements. Scott Leavengood said supported living is already underfunded, with high turnover and staffing shortages, and warned that past cuts led to longer waitlists and fewer people served. Stacey Dimm of The Arc of Washington argued that HCBS is the main service system for most people with developmental disabilities and that cuts would push people into more restrictive and expensive institutional care. She also emphasized that many families already lack access to paid services and that workforce, housing, and family support shortages make the system fragile. The committee then shifted to SNAP and food assistance. DSHS Assistant Secretary Carla Reyes outlined H.R. 1 changes to SNAP, including expanded work requirements, reduced exemptions, tighter immigration eligibility, elimination of the SNAP education program, higher state administrative costs, and a new state share of benefit costs tied to error rates. She said about 129,000 Washington residents could be at risk under the new work rules, roughly 30,000 legal immigrants could move to the state-funded food program, and the state could face hundreds of millions in new costs. Anti-hunger advocates and food bank leaders said the changes would increase hunger and administrative burden while reducing benefits, and they stressed that food banks cannot replace SNAP. A SNAP recipient, Amy Rourke, testified that even with extensive civic involvement she barely meets the proposed work-hour threshold and said the rules would punish parents, caregivers, and people facing transportation or child care barriers. She urged the state to count caregiving, advocacy, and community service as qualifying work and to build more flexible pathways for compliance. In the second half of the meeting, the committee turned to juvenile rehabilitation caseload forecasting and court data. Caseload Forecast Council staff presented the current JR forecast, saying caseloads had declined for years, rebounded after COVID, and are now projected to remain mostly flat through the current biennium before rising modestly over the longer term. Members asked about the distinction between regular JR and adult-sentenced youth, and staff explained that longer lengths of stay in the adult-sentenced population reflect policy choices made in prior legislation. Andrew Peterson of the Administrative Office of the Courts described data-sharing efforts intended to help JR forecast admissions, including quarterly counts of pending felony cases and youth criminal history information. He said the courts began sharing some data in 2022 and 2024, but staffing limits interrupted the effort, and JR recently asked to resume and expand the information flow to support weekly forecasting and better planning for facility capacity.

Transcript Highlights:

• , we will not make for more accurate data, but simply less data.”
• The witness said superintendents are given their data, but what is published is statewide data and data
• , while what is published is statewide data and data by regional public health network.
• I am not a data expert.
• as the calendar year data.

Summary: The committee first noted that House Bill 398, concerning Holocaust and genocide studies, and House Bill 131 had already been handled previously and were off the schedule. It then took up House Bill 740, which would require the Department of Education to maintain permanent records for closed charter schools. After brief discussion about overlap with another charter-school bill that already addressed closure and records, Representative Freeman moved to table the bill. The committee voted 16-0 to table/ITL the bill, and it was placed on the consent calendar. The main discussion centered on House Bill 557, which would require additional information on school budget ballots, including average cost per pupil, enrollment history, and teacher-to-administrator ratios. Members raised concerns that the bill was duplicative of existing law, overly detailed, costly to towns, and potentially electioneering or cumbersome on ballots. Supporters argued it would improve transparency and help voters who do not attend deliberative sessions or use online resources. The committee did not vote on the bill during the discussion; instead, members moved into caucus and later indicated they would hold the bill until Monday for further review. Later, the committee turned to House Bill 699 on special education definitions and considered Amendment 0606H. The sponsor explained the amendment was developed with the Department of Education after hearing testimony and was intended to align state definitions with federal law and incorporate recommendations from a prior audit, including changing “functionally blind pupils” to “students with visual impairments.” Some members supported the changes as responsive to the hearing and audit, while others objected that the amendment was still confusing, had not fully addressed stakeholder concerns, and should wait for a more comprehensive special education audit. The discussion also referenced House Bill 754 and another amendment, but the transcript ends before final action on HB 699 is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, we don't have data for the state of Delaware employees.
• This is a bill regarding data centers.
• So this would apply to data centers at as many data centers, more data centers than you would have at
• The data centers do employ people.
• And particularly for our rural communities, a large data center or a data center that's coming in that's

Summary: The committee heard several bills, but much of the meeting focused on House Bill 306, which would require disclosure when a consumer is interacting with a chatbot rather than a human. Sponsor Senator Townsend described it as a consumer protection measure and said the bill is meant to keep pace with rapidly changing AI technology. Committee members and witnesses raised concerns about the bill’s enforcement structure, especially private rights of action and penalties that could apply even without actual consumer harm. The Department of Justice said the bill would apply where the conduct has a Delaware nexus, and that the disclosure requirement is the key consumer protection. Industry witnesses and chambers of commerce opposed the bill as drafted, arguing it would create broad compliance burdens and expose businesses to excessive litigation risk without a harm requirement or clearer safe harbor language. Earlier in the meeting, the committee discussed House Bill 429, which would update Delaware’s step therapy exception process to include biosimilars and interchangeable biologics. Senator Poore and supporters from Highmark and the Department of Insurance said the bill would modernize insurance law, improve access to effective treatments, and reduce costs; they cited national savings from biosimilars and said the bill has agency support. Members asked about Delaware-specific savings, patient switching, and how the process would work, but no vote was taken during the discussion. The committee also heard House Bill 310, which would exclude large data centers from Blue Collar Jobs Act tax credits; the sponsor said the bill is intended to ensure large energy users contribute more to state and local revenues, while supporters and opponents debated competitiveness and community impacts. House Bill 406, on allowing insureds to choose their auto repair shop, and Senate Bill 347, a cleanup bill related to medical debt collection and personal property levies, were also presented without opposition in the hearing. House Bill 253, concerning who may receive letters testamentary or of administration, was described as a cleanup to align statute with existing practice. The committee approved the meeting minutes, but the transcript does not show final votes on the bills discussed.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we would make decisions all the time based on data that Based on data that was provided by other
• I know criminal justice system data. I don't know education data.
• Or education data. I don't believe they assisted us in ever identifying data.
• And education data that we began to work with to help locate data for our work.
• we didn't know education data.

Summary: The hearing concerned a Legislative Ethics Board complaint against Representative Tara Simmons in Washington State OAH Docket 401-645. The judge outlined the process, the two issues on appeal—whether Simmons violated RCW 42.52.020 and RCW 42.52.070, and, if so, what penalty should apply—and admitted a number of exhibits by stipulation or prior ruling, while taking one exhibit under advisement pending an offer of proof. The board also moved to sequester witnesses, which was granted, and the judge deferred ruling on a motion to exclude three defense witnesses until after hearing the board staff’s case. Opening statements followed, with staff alleging Simmons used her position to benefit an outside organization and to secure special privileges, and the defense arguing the conduct was lawful, technical in nature, and consistent with prior ethics guidance. Board staff then called Kimberly Gordon, an attorney and founding board member/treasurer of American Equity and Justice Group (AEJG), as its first witness. Gordon testified that AEJG used data dashboards to make justice-system data more accessible, received state proviso funding sponsored by Simmons, and also received two donations from Simmons—$10,000 and $40,000. She said the first donation was intended to help hire Antoine Coleman, whom Simmons had recommended and who was later identified as Simmons’s romantic partner, and that AEJG returned the $10,000 and declined the $40,000 after concluding there was a potential conflict of interest. Gordon also testified that AEJG believed Simmons’s involvement in the organization and her communications about Coleman created ethical concerns. Gordon further testified about a second proviso intended to expand AEJG’s work into education data and its subcontract with Equity in Education Coalition (EEC). She said EEC did not perform the expected deliverables, prompting repeated communications with the Administrative Office of the Courts and a meeting involving Chris Stanley, where AEJG raised concerns that EEC was not complying and that Simmons had intervened in the dispute. According to Gordon, Stanley ultimately directed the parties to rewrite the subcontract and continue, but AEJG later moved forward largely without EEC’s assistance. The board staff introduced AEJG’s complaint and related timeline exhibits during her testimony. After direct examination, the hearing recessed for lunch, and cross-examination by Simmons’s counsel began when the hearing resumed.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:23:57.760><c> practice</c> conflicting data practice conflicting data practice classifications
• </c> interactions and for data sharing. interactions and for data sharing.
• center, the location and size of the proposed data center, whether the data center is located within
• ><c> the</c> the proposed data center, whether the the proposed data center, whether the data<01:33:14.719
• data centers, right?

Committee: Senate State and Local Government

Transcript Highlights:

• Statewide digital transcript data sharing environment.
• We're talking about a digital file of the data.
• And we've been getting sample data files to understand what data it is we need to make an admission decision
• We're really working right now on the data part of what data is needed and where does it land.
• But this is beyond the data.

Summary: The Early Learning and K-12 Education Committee heard three bills. Senate Bill 6052 would create a statewide digital transcript data-sharing environment for K-12 and postsecondary institutions, with student or parent permission required for disclosure. Supporters from universities, OSPI, school districts, counselors, and education groups said the bill would reduce paper handling, staff time, errors, and delays in admissions and enrollment, while improving security and student access; members asked about alignment with the High School and Beyond Plan, FERPA, apprenticeships, and out-of-state transfer issues. Senate Bill 6051 would allow local school boards to grant waivers or partial waivers of certain state laws and rules to individual schools, while excluding health and safety, civil rights, parental rights, basic education, and other protected areas. The sponsor said the bill is intended to give districts flexibility and surface recurring regulatory burdens, but OSPI, the State Board of Education, WEA, and school board groups raised concerns about broad scope, lack of definitions, possible impacts on special education and basic education compliance, and added complexity or legal costs. Some district representatives supported the idea of flexibility and relief from unfunded mandates, but suggested the bill needed more work. Senate Bill 5907 would expand ECEAP access for military families with incomes below 60% of state median income and prioritize children with deployed or single custodial military parents. The sponsor and supporters from ESDs, school districts, Head Start/ECEAP, child advocacy groups, and veterans organizations said military families face frequent moves, deployments, child care instability, and related stress, and that the bill would provide a modest, cost-effective benefit without state fiscal impact. In executive session, the committee adopted a proposed substitute and passed SB 5860 to Ways and Means, and adopted a proposed substitute and passed SB 5574 to Rules.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's again, just RAF descriptive data. Also on medical on exposed pregnancies. descriptive data.
• I would say there was some more data on needed, but the data on needs to be produced to look at this
• We have data.
• of data that you have?
• So I don't think that there was any data solid data that has looked at this.

Transcript Highlights:

• The third goal focuses on access to education data.
• O questions Data collection, kind of talk about Kind of the efficacy of our data collection program.
• Now, essentially, that data sharing.
• If you take Teacher's scores, when lumped together, do not provide as efficient data as data per teacher
• The data is not aggregated in the way it should be.

Committee: House A&B Education Subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• Attention to the most recent data, the 2022 data, shows that each of the segments' classroom and instructional
• Facilities was by far the most difficult area to collect data on. data that was useful and comprehensive
• So that data is a little bit better today.
• I mean, our I CAMP program has given us much more usable data.
• The data are pretty clear.

Transcript Highlights:

• then sell that data.
• Like OnStar, that collect your driving data and then sell that data to your insurance company, so they
• So you're the driving data that, I don't know. So you're the driving data that is being collected.
• Often, we don't have the data that this seeks to address.
• You said your data regulation process already dictates who can, like, if you can use, how that data can

Committee: House Insurance and Banking

Summary: The Insurance Committee held public hearings on House Bill 3328 and House Bill 2324. HB 3328, sponsored by Rep. Castile, is a broad homeowners insurance package that would redirect insurance dedicated fund money into a Missouri Stronger Homes Fund, create a Missouri Disaster Mediation Act for disaster-related claims, update public adjuster regulation, strengthen fraud provisions, add consumer notices, and establish roof-hardening grant programs. The sponsor and the Department of Commerce and Insurance said the bill is still being revised in a committee substitute, especially on public adjuster language and fortified roof standards. Committee members asked about the dedicated fund, mediation benchmarks, the role of public adjusters, and how the program would affect disaster recovery in places like St. Louis. Testimony on HB 3328 was mixed. The Department of Commerce and Insurance and several insurance industry groups supported the bill’s consumer protections, mitigation funding, mediation process, fraud language, and assignment-of-benefits ban, but said the public adjuster fee cap would likely be removed and that the bill needs technical changes for mutual insurers and roofing standards. Public adjusters testified in opposition to the cap as written, saying their fees are typically 10-15% and are disclosed in contracts, and that they were working with the sponsor on revisions. A shingle manufacturer also opposed the fortified roof language as drafted because some of its products may not fit the current standard. The committee then closed the hearing on HB 3328. The committee next heard HB 2324, sponsored by Rep. Lucas, which would restrict the sharing or sale of vehicle driving data and was described by the sponsor as a privacy bill aimed at stopping companies like OnStar from selling driving data to insurers. Opponents from the Missouri Insurance Coalition and NAMIC said the bill would not actually target OnStar, but would instead interfere with voluntary telematics-based discount programs used by insurers, potentially raising premiums and creating administrative burdens. They also noted existing federal and state rules already govern insurer data use and that the bill could create a mismatch between risk and pricing. The hearing on HB 2324 was then closed, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• There is data available.
• So in our data, and remember our data comes right off the payroll systems from our members who are employers
• And on a final note, data matters.
• So start with the data.
• any state-specific data.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Racial Equity, Civil Rights, and Inclusion

Summary: The Joint Committee on Racial Equity, Civil Rights, and Inclusion held a hearing on the impact of federal policy on the racial wealth gap in Massachusetts, the fourth in a series on federal impacts on racial equity. Chair Bud Williams and Chair Miranda opened by emphasizing that no bills were being heard and that the committee would instead take testimony from invited witnesses; public written testimony was also accepted. The chairs and witnesses repeatedly cited long-standing wealth disparities affecting Black and brown communities, including homeownership, wages, business ownership, and access to capital, and linked those disparities to federal policy changes, housing, education, health care, and workforce development. Administration officials testified first. Secretary of Labor and Workforce Development Lauren Jones described persistent labor market disparities, including higher unemployment for Black and Latino residents, lower median hourly wages, and underemployment among degree holders, and highlighted state efforts such as ESOL-for-work funding, workforce training grants, MassHire career centers, skills-based hiring, and the state equity dashboards. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kiami Mahania argued that poverty drives poor health, not the reverse, and said wealth gaps contribute to chronic disease, maternal health inequities, medical debt, and shorter life expectancy; she pointed to the Advancing Health Equity Massachusetts initiative, a health care affordability working group, and the governor’s push to bar medical debt from credit reporting. Assistant Secretary Juan Vega of EOED focused on entrepreneurship and procurement, citing technical assistance grants, founder support programs, place-based investment, the Business Front Door, and the need to broaden access to contracts, capital, and business growth opportunities. Committee members pressed the panel on the effects of the federal “big beautiful bill” on households, especially single-parent and Black women-led households, and on whether the state could develop more timely data systems instead of relying on federal numbers. Officials said the impacts were still being monitored, but warned that Medicaid and SNAP changes would likely hit lower-income households and community institutions hard. Members also asked about unions and apprenticeships, microbusiness definitions, supplier diversity, pay equity, and degree inflation; the administration said registered apprenticeships and skills-based hiring are key tools, and noted that wage equity reporting is still in its early stages. Later testimony from BECMA’s Nicole O’Bean stressed that tariffs, DEI rollbacks, immigration enforcement, capital gaps, and federal funding cuts are constraining Black-owned businesses and inclusive procurement, while Gastón Institute researchers described severe Latino homeownership and rent burdens, educational inequities, and the need for housing, labor, and education policy changes to close the wealth gap.

Transcript Highlights:

• And as far as the data, we heard some concerns about data storage.
• And as far as the data, we heard some concerns about data storage.
• </c> to protect their data. to protect their data.
• </c> um consents to sharing data. um consents to sharing data.
• </c> uh of health data. uh of health data.

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Transcript Highlights:

• , but what data do you depend on and where can we get that data quickly?
• Where can we get that data quickly?
• So all that data is there.
• Can we request that data?
• I'm assuming that's all coming from criminal data, not from DMV data. I could be wrong.

Transcript Highlights:

• center. ...want to pursue some sort of agreement with a data center or the build-out of a data center
• ...load on rates caused by the data center, specifically caused by the data center, can that additional
• to develop a data center or develop the plans.
• Is there a different way that data centers are done?
• Is there a different way that data centers are done?

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> and affordability, which is data and affordability, which is data centers.<00:03:27.239><c> And<
• For data the same in environment.
• </c> answer is for the new hyperscale data answer is for the new hyperscale data centers<00:03:58.600
• Not likely, including data go down?
• The data centers are booming right now, taking up a ton of energy.

Summary: The interview focused on Minnesota’s clean energy policy, energy affordability, and the state’s path toward its 100% clean electricity goal. The senator said Minnesota’s clean energy reputation comes from environmental concern, job creation, and lower long-term costs, noting that wind is now the lowest-cost generation source and that solar costs have fallen sharply. He said rising electricity demand has led to some increased coal use, but argued the state can still meet its 2040 clean energy target through continued renewable buildout, permitting reform, conservation, and demand response. A major topic was data centers. The senator emphasized both concerns and benefits, saying hyperscale data centers can bring substantial construction jobs, property tax revenue, and, under the 2025 law, payments to low-income energy assistance. He cited the Pine Island Google data center as air-cooled, with no water concerns, and said it will pay $5 million annually while funding 1,600 MW of wind, solar, and battery resources at its own expense. He also said Xcel’s filing projected a $1.1 billion ratepayer savings over 10 years, while urging the public to weigh both pros and cons, especially around water use and local tax impacts. The discussion also covered nuclear power and climate costs. The senator said the Senate has passed a nuclear study three years in a row and expects it to advance, while the moratorium on new nuclear plants remains tied to the Prairie Island Indian Community and unresolved nuclear waste storage. He argued Minnesota likely cannot reach its emissions goals without nuclear in the mix, though he acknowledged current nuclear is not cost-competitive and said future advanced or small modular nuclear could change that. On affordability, he pointed to climate-driven costs such as higher homeowners insurance and storm damage, and described Senate energy omnibus provisions including conservation, plug-in solar, and renewable development account projects such as a Como Zoo clean energy project. No votes were taken in the interview itself, but the senator referenced the recently announced budget deal and said he still needed to negotiate a renewable development account agreement between the House and Senate.

Transcript Highlights:

• WE HAD TO ADD A DATA GOD AND ALSO TOOLS FOR THE NURSING HOME.
• I WON'T BE READING THE DATA FOR EACH PLAN.
• CONTEXT REGARDING THE DATA.
• WHEN I LOOK AT THE DATA IT WAS ALARMING.
• Gerwig: I HAVE TO TAKE THAT BACK TO GET MORE SPECIFIC DATA.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you very much. impacts the reliability of the data. impacts the reliability of the data.
• So this data is really important.
• ,</c><02:39:31.680><c> which</c> data next to our prevention data, which data next to our prevention
• c><02:41:46.240><c> cleaning,</c> survey data to do the data cleaning, survey data to do the data cleaning
• </c> data. Thank you. Thank you very much. data. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• agreements, and governance of the data system to provide linked data the state can use in determining
• agreements, and governance of the data system to provide linked data the state can use in determining
• to sign the participation agreement for the purpose of data sharing with the C2C data system.
• No part of the data is used for training at all. This does not send data out.
• So it cannot... ...and data out, data does not leave our boundaries.

Transcript Highlights:

• One is the timeframe of this data.
• If there's data, if the data members of the commission want...
• So to the extent that people have questions, if you want to send them to us for data, additional data
• And your data is consistent with that.
• So and your data is consistent with that.

Summary: The Special Commission on Correctional Consolidation and Collaboration met on January 12 and heard a presentation from Department of Correction officials and UMass Chan researchers on DOC’s objective point-based classification system. DOC described how the system, in place since 2007, uses standardized criteria to assign custody levels and is intended to balance public safety with reintegration. Officials reviewed the system’s initial and reclassification tools, the role of trained classification staff, and the use of non-discretionary restrictions and discretionary overrides. They said the current population is about 16% maximum security, 74% medium, and 10% minimum/pre-release, and that discretionary overrides remain within national guidance levels. UMass Chan presented findings from a multi-year NIJ-funded study using historical DOC data from 2019 to 2022, focused mainly on male reclassification cases. Researchers said the scored custody level predicted institutional misconduct well, with stronger separation between minimum, medium, and maximum groups. They reported violent misconduct in the sample was under 5% over the follow-up period, while general misconduct ranged from about 30% to 45%. When DOC’s override-informed final custody levels were analyzed, predictive accuracy declined somewhat, and researchers said the reduction was driven primarily by non-discretionary restrictions rather than discretionary overrides. They noted that removing the non-discretionary restrictions, especially Code C civil-commitment-related restrictions, improved the model’s performance. Commission members and guests questioned whether the system overclassifies people into medium security, whether the low minimum-security rate reflects infrastructure and risk tolerance differences from other states, and how much historical practice and subjective judgment still affect placement. DOC officials said the restrictions are designed around safety concerns such as flight risk, serious legal issues, and medical needs, and that the system has been revised over time through revalidation. UMass researchers said there is no compelling evidence that release from minimum security is necessary for successful community outcomes once risk level is accounted for, and they emphasized that comparisons with other states are difficult because Massachusetts’ correctional structure is different. The commission asked members to submit follow-up questions for additional data, and a public commenter argued that the data suggest overclassification to medium security harms incarcerated people.

Transcript Highlights:

• My second question is about, you know, I've heard about the data says the data says, what's the data
• Is that what the data is?
• My second question is about, you know, I've heard about the data says the data says, what's the data
• Is that what the data is?
• Is that part of that data? Is that part of that data?

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard AB 106, an early-action budget bill providing $90 million one-time General Fund to support reproductive health providers affected by the federal H.R. 1 prohibition on Medicaid funding. Department of Finance staff explained that the money would be administered as grants through the Department of Health Care Access and Information because affected providers can no longer bill Medi-Cal during the federal restriction, which lasts through July 4, 2026. Members also discussed why the amount increased from an earlier $60 million estimate, with Finance saying the figure was updated based on additional claims data and provider information. The committee debate focused heavily on the policy implications of the funding. Supporters argued the bill is an emergency response to a targeted federal attack on Planned Parenthood and related family planning services, emphasizing that the funding would backfill non-abortion services such as cancer screenings, contraception, STI testing, mammograms, and prenatal care. Opponents questioned the use of General Fund dollars, the grant structure versus loans for other distressed providers, the Public Records Act exemption, and the bill’s priority compared with rural hospitals, developmental services, public safety, and other budget needs. Finance clarified that the federal funds at issue do not pay for abortion services and that the grant program would be open to eligible providers meeting criteria set by the department. Public testimony was overwhelmingly in support from Planned Parenthood affiliates, Essential Access Health, Western Center on Law and Poverty, the California Medical Association, family physicians, OBGYN groups, and others, while some commenters used the opportunity to raise unrelated budget concerns such as Medi-Cal dental cuts, IHSS, and CalHome funding. After discussion, the committee approved AB 106 on a 12-4 vote and reported it out. The chair also noted that a later hearing would examine broader H.R. 1 impacts in more detail.