Transcript Highlights:

• growth in incomes is going to continue to be in the extremely low and the very low income households
• threshold is lower than the 85% median income.
• And as you get to the top of this income scale, to 75% of state median income, 85%, those families will
• It's very limiting in what the community could do.
• You talked about that the incomes were increasing, and so they went into, or the Medicaid incomes were

Committees: Joint Human Services , Joint Human Services Committee

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• on fixed incomes.
• , which is a subset of the very low-income category.
• So I think we're trying to be mindful of not allowing all of the very low-income or acutely low-income
• So really, I recognize that we don't want. ...the very low-income or acutely low-income to be counted
• It should just be off limits that you don't do that.

Committee: Senate Housing

Summary: The committee heard SB 866, which would require jurisdictions that do not receive HAP grants to include homelessness data, strategies, and regional coordination in their housing elements. The author and supporters said the bill would close a gap in planning and create more consistent, data-driven local responses to homelessness. Opponents, including the League of California Cities and several cities, argued the bill would impose costly and duplicative reporting requirements on small jurisdictions, require data cities cannot control, and should instead be aligned with existing regional planning processes. Members raised concerns about burden on small cities, but also emphasized the need for statewide, standardized homelessness planning. The committee then heard SB 967, which would allow jurisdictions to count qualifying interim housing toward a portion of their acutely low-income RHNA obligations, with safeguards against double counting and reporting requirements for moved units. Supporters said interim housing is a faster, less expensive way to get people indoors and should be incentivized as a bridge from encampments to permanent housing. Opponents, including housing law experts and advocacy groups, argued the bill would blur the line between temporary shelter and permanent housing, weaken obligations to build deeply affordable housing, and create a two-tier system for the lowest-income Californians. After discussion, the committee passed SB 967 on a due pass motion to Appropriations, with several members voting aye and the bill held on call for absent members. The committee also considered SCR 131, a resolution calling for a coordinated state effort to end unsheltered homelessness and prioritize a broader set of interventions, including interim housing, prevention, and permanent supportive housing. Supporters described unsheltered homelessness as a moral and public health crisis and urged stronger state alignment and funding. One member explained an abstention based on concerns that the resolution’s language could be read as endorsing more funding without clear metrics or evidence of effectiveness. The author said amendments had already narrowed the language and was open to further changes. The resolution was adopted on a motion, with the roll held open for absent members. Finally, the committee heard SB 1238, which would strengthen oversight and transparency for homeowners associations and HOA management companies, including disclosures, reserve-fund protections, and a fiduciary-duty provision. The author and supporters said the bill would protect homeowners from mismanagement and improve financial clarity in common interest developments. Opponents from community manager and HOA groups said managers are administrative agents, not decision-makers, and objected especially to imposing a fiduciary duty to individual homeowners. Members generally supported the bill but flagged the fiduciary-duty issue and reserve-fund language as areas for further review, noting that some amendments had been agreed to and others would be addressed later in the process.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> refundable tax credits for low-income refundable tax credits for low-income families<00:23:00.000
• </c><01:06:19.599><c> or</c> correctly uh if they have income or correctly uh if they have income or
• </c><01:14:03.639><c> tax</c> million dollars worth of income tax million dollars worth of income tax
• Those people are disproportionately income-limited seniors and people living with disabilities, and so
• people</c><01:17:47.440><c> living</c> Income limited seniors and people living Income limited seniors

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• HB 5169 by Shaheen, relating to the limitations applicable to certain agreements provided by the rebate
• HB 5169 by Shaheen, relating to the limitations applicable to certain agreements provided by the rebate
• HB 5071 by Reynolds, relating to the applicability of limits on the authority of a political...
• HB5369 by Talarico relates to campaign contribution limits for certain entities.
• HB5462 by Oliverson relates to the regulation of earned income access providers and the Earned Income

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This initiative does not put any limitations on home size.
• However, and this goes to your question, there are capacity limits.
• Market, $162,000 income needed to afford that.
• These are limits that are set by DEP.
• The opposition comes from interests that are concerned that any limits at all, and any limits on large-scale

Bills: H5009

Committee: Joint Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions

Keywords: collective bargaining, worker rights, labor relations, public counsel services, state employees

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-03, House Bill 5000, which would allow single-family homes on smaller lots in areas with public water and sewer service. The hearing began with committee members outlining the Article 48 initiative process and then hearing from two subject-matter experts. Under Secretary Chris Clutchman of Housing and Livable Communities explained how the proposal would amend Chapter 40A, noted that Boston would be excluded, and said municipalities would still be able to adopt reasonable regulations on setbacks, bulk, height, and short-term rentals. He also flagged unresolved implementation questions, including how to treat wetlands, infrastructure capacity, and pre-existing nonconforming situations. Attorney Susan Murphy said the measure would significantly alter local zoning, could create conflicts with existing zoning districts and Section 3A/MBTA Communities rules, and raised concerns about infrastructure capacity and the lack of any home-size or affordability limits. Supporters of the petition argued that Massachusetts faces a severe housing shortage and that large minimum lot sizes are a major barrier to building starter homes. Proponents said the measure would legalize single-family homes on lots as small as 5,000 square feet with 50 feet of frontage where public sewer and water are available, and they cited polling showing public support for lot-size reform. They said the proposal could produce thousands of additional homes per year, help young families and seniors, and expand housing choices in high-cost suburbs. Committee members pressed the proponents on how the measure would interact with affordability, home size, frontage requirements, 40B compliance, and whether the bill would actually produce starter homes rather than larger expensive houses. The Massachusetts Municipal Association testified in opposition, urging the committee to take no action. MMA representatives argued that zoning is fundamentally a local decision and that the proposal would preempt municipal authority with a one-size-fits-all mandate. They also said the bill is impractical because public water and sewer service does not guarantee available capacity, citing examples of communities facing water and wastewater limits and costly infrastructure upgrades. MMA further argued the measure lacks affordability requirements and could be counterproductive, and pointed to existing and pending state tools such as Chapter 40Y, 40R-related proposals, and other housing funding or zoning reforms as better approaches. No vote was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's limited to that.
• It was clear that there had to be some fiscal limitations.
• So they put in the amendment to limit it to a million dollars.
• </c><00:37:54.520><c> in</c> be considered a source of income in be considered a source of income in
• </c> have to put it put that non- tax income have to put it put that non- tax income back<00:38:28.720

Committee: Senate Finance

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Within our city limits, we've net metered over 7.3 megawatts of rooftop solar.
• Within our city limits, we've net metered over 7.3 megawatts of rooftop solar.
• What's holding us back now are policy limits that no longer serve the purpose.
• Which is the residential income tax credit for solar, which is capped at $1,000.
• This is very important to extend for low-income and moderate-income folks.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused broadly on solar policy and several related bills, especially S. 2269, S. 2270, H. 3520, H. 3521, and related measures on distributed energy resources, municipal solar caps, permitting reform, and tax credits. Testimony from the Air Force supported S. 2232, which would exempt federal military installations from renewable energy production caps and net metering limits to support energy resilience at bases like Hanscom. Most other witnesses argued that Massachusetts needs to speed up rooftop, municipal, and community solar deployment to address high electricity prices, federal tax credit rollbacks, grid reliability, and climate goals. A major theme was streamlining permitting through automated or “smart” solar permitting, including a statewide platform managed by DOER. Permit Power, SEIA, Vote Solar, 350 Mass, and others said current local permitting is fragmented and costly, and that instant permitting could reduce soft costs and speed installations. Several witnesses also urged changes to interconnection rules, including flexible interconnection, remote inspections, and faster utility approval timelines. Some speakers raised concerns about small towns lacking staff to meet short deadlines and suggested a state-hosted platform to reduce the burden on municipalities. Another major topic was lifting caps on solar deployment. Municipal officials from Lexington and Cambridge said the 10-megawatt municipal cap and regional caps are blocking shovel-ready projects and should be removed, including for behind-the-meter municipal solar and MBTA-community housing. Other witnesses described additional limits on project size, net metering, and residential tax credits, and called for making the state residential solar credit refundable and larger. Several speakers also supported virtual power plants, distributed energy resource targets, solar canopies, microgrids, and expanded access for affordable housing, tenants, and low- and moderate-income customers. No votes were taken. Committee members asked questions about permitting timelines, grid modernization, the rationale for caps, balcony solar, and interconnection delays, and witnesses said they would follow up with additional information where needed. The hearing ended with broad support from industry, municipal, environmental, and advocacy groups for advancing the solar and distributed energy bills, while some witnesses opposed provisions they viewed as overly restrictive, such as mandatory SMART participation for all solar projects.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> generation students and low-income generation students and low-income students.<00:03:46.040><c>
• :07:32.280><c> in</c> Low-income and first-generation kids in Low-income and first-generation kids in
• liability</c><00:39:43.480><c> entity</c> Also, um the limited liability entity Also, um the limited
• </c> corporation income tax. corporation income tax.
• And so, corporation income tax.

Committee: Joint Appropriations & Revenue

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Votruba Young Scholars Academy 00:01:55 Taxation of Financial Deposit Institutions 00:36:50, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Washington ranks second to last in net farm income as a result.
• One is this is limited to certification requirements.
• income, just enough to survive with my family. 16 to 18 hours a day with limited income, just enough
• I know that I've seen some limited reporting on this.
• Thank you. afford, especially under the 72-hour time limit.

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 6045, which would place agricultural employees under the Public Employment Relations Commission for collective bargaining, including card-check or election certification, bargaining duties, and interest arbitration. Staff explained the bill’s scope, exclusions, enforcement provisions, and fiscal note, and members asked about the domestic-violence privilege language, the fiscal impact, and implementation timing. Public testimony was sharply divided: labor and farmworker advocates said the bill would correct a historic exclusion of agricultural workers and improve wages, safety, and dignity, while growers and industry groups argued it would raise costs, create coercive card-check concerns, and risk disruptions during short harvest windows. The sponsor closed by saying the bill was a starting point and that she would continue working with stakeholders. The committee then took up Senate Bill 6188, an agency-request bill on asbestos training rules. Staff said it would remove a limit on Labor and Industries’ rulemaking authority so the agency could adopt additional training and certification requirements beyond those specifically required by federal law; the fiscal note showed no fiscal impact. The sponsor and L&I said the change would let the state strengthen worker safety around asbestos removal, while the Building Industry Association opposed it, warning about divergence from federal standards and added costs. The hearing then moved to Senate Bill 6053 on domestic workers, which would create statewide labor protections including minimum wage and overtime, written agreements, notice requirements, anti-discrimination protections, and enforcement by L&I and private actions. Testimony from domestic workers, advocates, and caregivers supported the bill as a needed extension of basic protections, while L&I noted implementation costs and technical amendments. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 5852 on immigrant workers and I-9 audits. Staff described requirements for employers to notify workers within 72 hours of a federal inspection notice, provide copies of results and correction timelines, limit voluntary access to records without a warrant or subpoena, and prohibit retaliation, with enforcement by the Attorney General and private lawsuits. The Attorney General’s office and supporters said the bill would add due process and transparency and reduce fear during workplace raids, while business, hospitality, county, and small-business representatives argued it could conflict with federal law, create heavy compliance burdens, and expose employers to severe penalties and lawsuits. No votes were taken in the transcript; the committee heard testimony and closed hearings on the bills discussed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Finally. which have limits on how much money can be awarded and how frequently.
• , working-class, and middle-income Massachusetts residents.
• They need the ability to limit rent increases.
• We have limited resources, with less than 3% of Nantucket available to be developed.
• It is a recipe for economic disaster, primarily targeting low-income and middle-income people.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Housing

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing held its second introductory hearing to frame the session’s housing agenda. Chairs Cyr and Haggerty described the hearing as a chance to hear a wide range of perspectives on Massachusetts’ housing crisis, including underbuilding, zoning and permitting barriers, rising costs, and the need for both state and local action. The committee heard from court, municipal, advocacy, and regional housing leaders, with recurring themes of increasing supply, preserving existing housing, preventing displacement, and expanding resources for renters and homeowners. Chief Justice Diana Horan of the Housing Court said the court is handling more than 40,000 new filings annually with only 15 judges, and estimated the court would need about 21 judges to meet demand. She described complications from RAFT-related stays, mental health and guardianship issues, aging housing stock, and the new eviction sealing law, which she said was being implemented smoothly but may require additional resources if filings continue to rise. The Massachusetts Municipal Association and MAPC emphasized that municipalities need flexibility, funding, and better tools such as MassWorks, Housing Works, H-DIP, 40R reforms, inclusionary zoning changes, and a local option transfer fee; they also said local control concerns and long permitting timelines remain major barriers. MAPC and others stressed that supply growth alone will not solve the crisis and urged continued support for subsidized housing, access to counsel, and modular/off-site construction. Advocates and housing providers focused on displacement, preservation, and tenant protections. Homes for All Massachusetts and Mass Law Reform Institute called for rent stabilization, stronger tenant protections, foreclosure prevention, elimination of junk fees, continued funding for RAFT and HomeBASE, and expanded access to counsel. Mass Union of Public Housing Tenants said the state needs far more extremely low-income housing, more operating subsidy, and major investment to repair public housing, while also supporting tenant technical assistance during redevelopment. Franklin County’s housing authority warned that rural communities are being left out of many state programs and asked for a rural LIHTC set-aside, a permanent rural credit boost, and a review of housing choice programs. A Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation researcher presented findings that communities that add housing generally see stronger municipal finances, and that housing growth can improve property tax and state aid outcomes. Seasonal community representatives from Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket described extreme affordability pressures and the need for tailored tools. Nantucket’s housing trust chair said the island has made progress through local funding, inclusionary zoning, and deed-restricted units, but still needs a real estate transfer fee and faster ways to preserve year-round housing. Across the hearing, members and witnesses repeatedly returned to the need for a mix of production, preservation, tenant protections, and local flexibility, rather than relying on any single policy solution.

Transcript Highlights:

• households or at least 20% for very low-income households.
• Leavitt as a sponsor recognizes that we need both tools for low-income up to 80% area median income as
• Leavitt as a sponsor recognizes that we need both tools for low-income up to 80% area median income as
• well as moderate ...tools for low-income up to 80% area median income as well as moderate income up
• They're using that as an entrepreneurial way to supplement their income.

Summary: House Finance heard briefings on several tax and housing-related bills, including HB 1717 on a local sales and use tax remittance program for affordable housing, HB 1859 on expanding density bonuses for housing on religious organization property, HB 1960 on a renewable energy excise tax, HB 2133 on making a senior citizen center property tax exemption permanent, HB 2135 on extending a disabled veterans housing sales tax preference, HB 2140 on tax treatment for land transferred to government entities, HB 2442 on a broad package of local tax and levy changes, and HB 2559 on a local option short-term rental tax for affordable housing. Staff also described multiple proposed substitutes and amendments, many of them technical or aimed at shifting administrative duties, changing tax credits, or requiring voter approval. In executive session, the committee adopted a substitute for HB 1717 and reported it out unanimously with a due pass recommendation. HB 1859 was also reported out with a due pass recommendation after members discussed added flexibility for affordable housing on faith-owned land. For HB 1960, the committee adopted amendments clarifying tax administration and JLARC review, rejected an amendment that would have adjusted property tax levies to offset shifts, and then advanced the bill on an 11-4 vote. HB 2133 and HB 2135 both received technical amendments and were reported out unanimously, with members emphasizing the value of permanent or extended tax preferences for senior centers and disabled veterans. The committee then advanced HB 2140, which narrows tax consequences when land is transferred to a governmental entity and is used for current-use purposes, with members describing it as a fix for unintended burdens on landowners and farmers. HB 2442, a large local government finance package, drew the most debate; amendments to make new taxes credits against state taxes and to require voter approval were rejected, and the bill passed 9-6. HB 2559, which would allow a local option excise tax on short-term rentals to fund affordable housing, also saw rejected amendments on state tax credits, local control, and voter approval before passing 9-6. Throughout, supporters framed the bills as tools for local governments and affordable housing, while opponents argued they would increase taxes and should require direct voter approval or state offsets.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have, I think, over 40 people signed up today, so we're going to limit everyone to three minutes.
• I think over 40 people signed up today, so we're going to limit everyone to three minutes.
• Only one Of things, including support for low- and moderate-income people, is 19%.
• Since I'm a low-income resident, I'm currently receiving help with the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
• households and 10% deeply affordable to extremely low-income families.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee hearing focused on a broad set of energy efficiency, building decarbonization, school modernization, and lighting bills. Testimony generally came from municipal leaders, labor unions, environmental groups, and advocates who supported measures such as H. 3529/S. 2294 on building energy and decarbonization, H. 3577/S. 2286 on a zero-carbon renovation fund, H. 3476/S. 2275 on healthy and sustainable schools, H. 3565 on Mass Save zero-carbon assessments, H. 3477 on clean lighting and appliance efficiency standards, and the Dark Sky bills on outdoor lighting. Supporters argued these bills would cut emissions, lower utility bills, improve indoor air quality and school conditions, and direct resources to environmental justice, gateway, and low-income communities. Witnesses emphasized that Massachusetts’ older building stock and school facilities need major upgrades, and that state funding and financing tools are needed to close gaps left by declining federal support. Mayors, labor leaders, and environmental advocates said the proposals would create local jobs, expand apprenticeships, and help municipalities and schools undertake retrofits, ventilation improvements, heat pump installations, and other decarbonization work. Several speakers also defended Mass Save as highly cost-effective while urging new funding sources beyond ratepayer bills for larger-scale building upgrades. One representative asked about the difference between current Mass Save audits and proposed zero-carbon assessments, and the sponsor explained the new assessments would include heat pumps, solar, storage, wiring upgrades, and rate-structure guidance. There was also testimony on the Dark Sky bill, with astronomers and museum representatives arguing that better-shielded, downward-facing lighting would reduce energy waste, protect wildlife and human health, and preserve night skies without compromising safety. Committee members raised concerns about pedestrian safety and whether education might be enough instead of legislation; supporters responded that the bill follows established lighting standards and targets only unnecessary glare and skyward light. On the school bill, an open-shop contractor group opposed the measure, arguing its PLA and apprenticeship requirements would restrict bidding and reduce competition, while labor organizations strongly supported the workforce standards and prevailing wage provisions. No votes were taken during the hearing. The committee heard extensive testimony and several members asked clarifying questions, but the transcript does not show any final action or disposition on the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• to qualify: graduate from high school, have no felonies, be a resident student, and have a family income
• Under the bill, they would be repaying not their tuition per se, but a percent of their income for a
• It's just a question of their income.
• I aspire to pursue graduate school with limited loan and financial aid options, and I'm not sure if I
• It's scaled with income levels, avoiding the burden of many loan programs, and it avoids compounding

Bills: HB2148 , HB2132

Committee: House Postsecondary Education & Workforce

Keywords: education, pay it forward program, tuition, student loans, financial aid, state financial aid, financial aid application, postsecondary education, higher education, student aid, Washington Student Achievement Council, public records exemption, privacy, student records, personally identifying information, financial information, data sharing agreement, enrollment assistance, institutional records, FERPA

Transcript Highlights:

• But there's no budget limit to that. But there is a budget limit to rental assistance.
• </c><00:18:51.679><c> to</c> by the numbers uh the the income to by the numbers uh the the income to
• </c><00:19:04.080><c> So</c> that uh ratio to income would be. So that uh ratio to income would be.
• </c> Permanent housing is not time limited. Permanent housing is not time limited.
• </c> from families who have lost income from families who have lost income suddenly<01:29:58.880><c>

Bills: HF3425 , HF3424 , HF1385

Committee: House Housing Finance and Policy

Keywords: supportive housing, grants, housing assistance, funding, Minnesota Statutes, eviction, rent, nonpayment of rent, landlord-tenant, residential tenant, notice to quit, unlawful detainer, housing, lease violation, late fees, rental assistance, legal aid, tenant rights, Minnesota Statutes 504B.321, pre-eviction notice

Transcript Highlights:

• to its previous 100 PSI limit.
• group, communities that have both a high rate burden and low income.
• But the tier one is your median household income. ...to push those together.
• Tier one is your median household income at or below the statewide median household income.
• MHI. ...income is less than, say, 80% of the statewide MHI.

Committee: Senate Resources and Environment

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So at the federal level, your Social Security income, retirement income, is taxed in your federal income
• We had no tax, no Arizona income tax on Social Security.
• If you're over 60, then you do not have to pay income tax on the retirement income that you earn from
• It does not reduce the state income tax. So there's no cost to the state.
• Very soon, millions of Arizonans will file their state income taxes.

Summary: The House convened, approved the journal, recognized the Doctor of the Day, and welcomed several guest groups, including JAG students and students from Heila Ben High School. The chamber then moved into Committee of the Whole to consider HB 2153, the annual tax conformity bill, which was described by supporters as aligning Arizona tax law with recent federal changes and providing relief through no tax on tips and overtime, a larger child tax credit, a new child care expense deduction, and a deduction for certain retirement income. Opponents argued the measure would primarily benefit wealthy individuals and corporations, reduce state revenue, and leave some seniors out because the retirement-income deduction is tied to retirement accounts. Members also discussed the Department of Revenue’s already-issued tax forms and the need for certainty for filers. After extended debate, the Committee of the Whole gave HB 2153 a do pass recommendation by a vote of 31-26, and the House adopted the report and sent the bill to engrossing. The House then took up the Senate mirror bill, SB 1106, substituted for HB 2153, and after floor explanations of vote, passed it 31-27 with 2 not voting. Supporters said the bill would help working families, seniors, and small businesses and prevent filing confusion, while opponents repeated concerns about cost, fairness, and impacts on public services. The bill was transmitted to the Senate. Following the tax vote, members made several announcements, including birthday wishes and a tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and committee chairs announced upcoming cancellations. The House then recessed and reconvened for first reading and referral of a long list of new bills covering topics such as elections, health care, education, transportation, public safety, taxation, housing, and appropriations. The session ended with a motion to adjourn until the next scheduled meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• So at the federal level, your Social Security income, retirement income, is taxed in your federal income
• We had no tax, no Arizona income tax on Social Security.
• If you're over 60, then you do not have to pay income tax on the retirement income that you earn from
• Very soon, millions of Arizonans will file their state income taxes.
• As a reminder, today at 5 p.m. is the 7-bill limit that's in place.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:01:18.799><c> the</c> restrictive language that limited the restrictive language that limited
• </c> to provide low-income housing. to provide low-income housing.
• It limits taxpayer exposure.
• It limits taxpayer exposure.
• It limits taxpayer exposure.

Committee: Joint Finance

Keywords: Finance - Room 216, 3 February, 2026; 10:30 AM, 925, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Under in November, we measured at 3.52% of state personal income, as compared to the limit in this guideline
• </c> debt compared to State personal income debt compared to State personal income but<00:45:43.680><
• 45:59.200><c> this</c> as compared to the limit in this as compared to the limit in this guideline<00
• </c> reminder uh the Constitution does limit reminder uh the Constitution does limit our<00:47:04.880
• under</c> the the limit the 3.25% limit under the the limit the 3.25% limit under guideline<00:51:06.079

Committee: Senate Capital Investment

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Avista serves a service area and a customer base that is well below median income.
• We are 40% or more in some areas, asset-limited, income-constrained, employed—the working poor that the
• Ceded Low Income 120 blah passed in 2019 was well intended but had unintended consequences.
• pay more than 6% of income on energy costs every year.
• income on energy costs every year.

Bills: HB2426 , HB2606

Committee: Senate Environment, Energy & Technology

Keywords: pollution control, efficiency, appeals process, environmental regulation, hearing board, data protection, privacy, performance measures, reporting requirements, office of privacy, 904, all