Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is really astonishing, the dramatic difference and the swings we have gone through in the last 8 years. Who would have thought that we could go through that type of rapid deterioration? How about the economy? We are certainly not facing a strong economy right now. At the beginning of this administration, as President Clinton was leaving office, Mr. Murphy, we had the strongest economy in three decades. We had 22 million jobs that had been created. We had a record surplus. We had a thriving economy by any definition. And now that we are wrapping up the Bush administration, what is this President leaving behind?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Absolutely. And as we begin to wrap up, getting back to the lecture that you referred to earlier, Mr. Altmire, that we received from President Bush last week, the matter of transparency is incredibly important. This is a President who talked about how we need to make sure that we disclose earmarks, which we took the lead on when we became the majority and made sure that we put our names next to the earmarks that we get in the appropriations act, and we are the ones that made sure that there was full disclosure and adopted the ethics package that was the most comprehensive in American history. And with this President's proposed budget this week, let's outline, and we are going to have some of these charts next week that are blown up so that people watching can see, but let's talk about what was left out of the budget, because he talked very nicely about transparency, and make sure that people really understand clearly what we are doing here. He left out of his budget any war costs, any costs for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond the first half of this year. He also left out AMT reform beyond 2008. So all of the millions and millions of taxpayers that we helped avoid be subject to that AMT tax when we passed that legislation at the end of last year, there is no fix for them. And President Bush doesn't even count them as that going forward, which we know we are obviously going to have to do. It is fake. It is just, again, bizarro world. We can just make stuff up in the budget and hope that people believe that it is true. This was a fairy tale document that he gave us on Monday. The good news is that the Congress actually writes the budget when push comes to shove. Then in terms of any spending policy details beyond fiscal year 2009, there was nothing detailed in this President's budget. Let's just give you, as I wrap up and then turn it over to the two of you to bring us home, let's just go through last year. In fiscal year 2008, President Bush requested $193 billion, Mr. Murphy, for the war in Iraq. And in the fiscal year 2009 budget he just proposed to us on Monday, he asked for $70 billion. Good news. We are only going to spend $70 billion on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan this year.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the opportunity that has been given to us by the Speaker.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Wow, that is so exciting. Again, we have to make sure that we are honest, transparent, and forthcoming with the American people. We can't fake it. We can't gloss it over. We have to make sure that we give them the straightforward facts and be honest with them in the budget document and in everything that we do. Mr. Murphy, why don't you bring us home. It is a privilege to be here again with you and Mr. Altmire, and we miss our colleagues, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Meek, tonight; but the 30-Something Working Group is always here to talk about the issues that are important to the American people, but particularly to our generation of Americans who are going to inherit the results of the decisions that we make here.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I have zero, because the number that I have is that he cut the entire program, 100 percent cut to the COPS program, zeros it out, so that there would be no COPS program, no funding to put police officers on the streets in our local communities. It's just unbelievable. We continue to hear the rhetoric come from this administration. I mean, it's nice, happy talk. It's nice, happy talk that you can stand behind the podium and say whatever you want and live in bizarro world across the other side of the aisle and just ignore reality and squeeze your eyes shut and hope that people don't notice that what you're saying is not true.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. Because we backed out $3 billion in deficit in a $3 trillion budget. The budget this year that he proposed was over $3 trillion.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Altmire, will you yield?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker and Members, colleagues, I am pleased to open this hour for the 30-Something Working Group, look forward to my fellow colleagues joining me as we progress through the hour. We come to the floor tonight to talk about a variety of important issues. We are proud and pleased that we sent an economic stimulus package that was developed in a bipartisan fashion, in a bipartisan spirit, this evening to the President of the United States. It was a process that was long negotiated and hard fought, but we were able to make sure that we focused on the priorities of the American people during a difficult time economically. The focus of this economic stimulus package was threefold, and they all begin with ``t.'' First, an economic stimulus package that we passed had to be ``temporary.'' We have to make sure that we can get a temporary infusion of cash into the hands of the middle class and people who will spend that money, and make sure that we can stimulate the economy. It has to be ``targeted.'' It has to make sure that we were getting it into the hands of people who were actually going to spend that money, not people that were going to invest it, not people that necessarily were going to just pay off bills or sit on the money, but people who were going to use it to spend on items that they needed and get that infusion of cash into the economy so that we can have a short- term stimulus. And, finally, the third ``t'' in the three-legged stool is that it had to be ``timely.'' We had to do it soon and quickly because in order to either stave off a recession, or address the one that we're in, depending on which side of the debate you're on, on whether we're in a recession or headed towards one, we needed to make sure that we did this in a timely fashion and made sure that we can get that cash into people's hands over the next couple of months. And now we look forward to that happening. Let me walk Members and others through the process that we went through. This was truly a bipartisan effort. It continued the bipartisan spirit that Speaker Pelosi and our majority leadership have been making an effort at extending our hand across the aisle since taking over the majority a little over 1 year ago. In December of last year, the House, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, held a House Democratic Economic Forum to talk about the dire straits that the economy was facing to really hear about what issues Americans were struggling with and to begin to figure out what we could do on a short-term as well as a long-term basis. After the beginning of December, we had ongoing discussions between the House leaders and the administration through Treasury Secretary Paulson. There were intense and heavy discussions because everyone knew that something needed to be done. The devil is always obviously in the details. But we came together, the administration as well as the Republican and Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives, we came together and came up with a bipartisan solution. There was a Democratic leadership letter to President Bush that was sent on January 11 urging the President to work with us and make sure that we could pass an economic stimulus package that was timely and targeted and that we made sure that it got money into the hands of people who would spend it. We saw that Pelosi had a meeting with the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and he testified in the House of Representatives on January 14 and thereafter, and the message that he sent was that an economic stimulus package was essential and would be helpful in order to deal with the issues that the economy is struggling with. After that, we had a meeting between Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner, and they were able to reach an agreement and move in the direction until we finally reached today where we are able to pass the economic stimulus package, send it to the President, and over the next couple of months, I believe the timing is around May of this year, we will see that those funds get into the hands of people who need it the most. One of the most exciting things about this package is that it is not going to go to the wealthiest few. It is not going to go to people who are just going to put it into the stock market or sit on it or just pay off bills or use it to pad fat bank accounts. We were able to successfully negotiate that the people who received this economic stimulus, these economic stimulus funds, we were able to stretch it all the way down to people who earn only $3,000. I mean, that is a category of person who truly fits the definition of needing the economic assistance. People who will be able to use those funds to make sure that they can address their everyday needs and spend those dollars so that we can put it an injection of cash into the economy and begin to revitalize it. We made sure that we also provided some assistance for people who are struggling with housing issues and with mortgage issues by making sure that the FHA has a wider ceiling of mortgages in which they can provide loans to people. We have raised the cap to up over $700,000, recognizing that the range of the cost of housing is wide across the country. It's good to see Mr. Altmire, and I'm glad you have joined us tonight. I know that the average price of a house in my district, in my community right now is over $300,000, which, obviously, without an economic stimulus package raising that cap would make it difficult for someone to qualify under the FHA's criteria. But we were able to make sure that we raised that cap for 1 year so that we could address in a short-term way the third T, which was ``temporary,'' in a short-term way address the economic problems that people are struggling with right now. And we have continued the bipartisan tradition through the economic stimulus package because last year, when we began and took over the majority, we adopted the 6 in '06 agenda. In the first 100 hours of our taking over the majority of the House of Representatives, the Democratic Congress acted on issues important to Americans, and the Republicans on the other side of the aisle joined with us in a bipartisan fashion. Mr. Murphy has joined us as well. Let's walk through some of the bipartisan cooperation that we've had over the last years because there is a lot of words thrown around about how this is an institution that is being run by Democrats and that there is not bipartisan cooperation. Let us just show where the proof is in the pudding here. We implemented the 9/11 Commission's recommendations which, in previous years, this was a report that was sitting on the shelf gathering dust with the Republicans refusing to put that on the floor and adopt up that legislation. We put it on the floor. It passed 299- 128 with 68 Republican votes. We had an average of over 60 votes for every one of these bills. Raising the minimum wage, H.R. 2. It passed 315-116 with 82 Republican votes. The funding for enhanced stem cell research, which unfortunately President Bush saw fit to veto. That was H.R. 3. it passed 253-174 with 37 Republican votes. We passed legislation to make prescription drugs more affordable, so that we could allow the Federal Government to negotiate for lower drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry which, by the way, is currently prohibited in Federal law. We passed that legislation with 255-170 with 24 Republican votes. And the list goes on. Cutting student loans in half. That was H.R. 5. Passed 356-71 with 124 Republican votes. And, lastly, we passed the energy package, which was the effort that we are making to recognize that global warming, yes, global warming, truly is a problem and we are committed to ending our addiction to foreign oil. Adopted the CAFE standards, the first time that we adopted some improved CAFE standard in 30 years. H.R. 6 passed 264-163 with 36 Republican votes. In that legislation, the CAFE standards was legislation that was passed a few months later. And in this bill we said that we were not going to allow $14 billion in subsidies to be returned to the oil industry so we could make sure that we start to address the high cost of fuel. So we are very proud of our record, our bipartisan spirit of cooperation, which culminated this evening and will continue, we hope, through the rest of this election year by passing that economic stimulus package. I'm happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I'm happy to yield to the gentleman.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Excuse me. Trillion. Forgive me. Trillion dollars. And so who, the question that I have for you is, so which party is the party of fiscal responsibility? Which party can be trusted to make sure that we have a vibrant economy, that we create jobs, that we don't operate in a deficit situation and that we have PAYGO rules that ensure that we don't spend more money than we take in? Which one would that be?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. I wasn't quite certain because if you listen to the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, they talk a good game. But when it comes to action, backing up the words with action, just like when the President stood in that rostrum a couple of years ago and laid out the notion that we should end America's addiction to foreign oil, but then promptly pushed an energy bill through the then Republican Congress that gave away those $14 billion in subsidies to the oil industry that we're now trying to repeal. That was just unbelievable. And I can't use certain words that I think should be applicable to that situation because it violates the House rules, so I won't. But I think we all know what the definition of saying something and doing another actually is.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They get spammed.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Before you close out, I don't know if you guys did this last night, but we do need to congratulate in absentia Mr. Murphy on his marriage, because he got married a couple of months ago and, you know, he is going to look forward to spending some quality time with his new bride, and so we wish him and his new wife very well.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Happy New Year.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In my wrap-up remarks, first of all, I want to thank each of you that are parts of the 30-Something Working Group, and Mr. Murphy, who headed home to his family this evening, for continuing to hang in here and coming out. We certainly could have disbanded the 30-Something Working Group, Mr. Ryan. We could have said, you know, our work here is done. We won the majority and now we can just, you know, go make good policy and go home. But it's clear that our work is far from done. We have a lot left to do on the agenda. We have to make sure that we deal with expanding access to health care, that we continue to push for the remaining provisions of the energy bill that we were not able to get included. We have to make sure that we focus on bringing our troops home. And people need to understand that we're not, we're going to be relentless in continuing to try to make sure we do that. People should understand that the vote tonight did not pass with, the vote on the funding for the war in Iraq did not pass with a majority of Democratic votes. It passed with a majority of the Republican votes. This is this President's war and this is the Republicans' war, and it will continue to be their war. They are the ones that are leaving our troops twisting in the wind with their families being separated from them with repeated, over-the-top tours of duty, three and four times over there, having more than a year, less than a year between tours of duty. We've got to make sure that we think about our troops and focus on the fact that it is clear now, even with the reduction in violence, Mr. Ryan, that the Iraqi leadership has made no progress. And they've made no progress because they don't need to because they know right now with the message that this President is sending that we're going to be there as long as they need us. There's no pressure, no incentive, and we need the American people to understand that we will continue to come out here; we will continue to talk about the priorities that they care about. And now that we're in the majority we're going to continue to press to adopt those priorities and shame the Republicans on the other side of the aisle every single day until we get dangerously close to this election and we put some fear in their hearts so that they don't continue to stick with this President who is completely wrong on the priorities that the American people care about.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, so much, Mr. Meek and Mr. Ryan and Mr. Altmire. Let me tell you something else that we are laying down our marker on. We are not going away. The obstructionist Republicans might think that they have our number and that they have been able to block the efforts of this Democratic majority in trying to move this country in a new direction, but they will be sadly mistaken as we gradually turn this ship of State around. It takes a long time to turn a cruise ship around, something that is the size of this government, and it takes a long time to undo the horrendous damage that was done to this country during the 12 years of Republican majority in this Congress. We slowly have been peeling the film of the culture of corruption that hung over this Capitol before we took the majority back. We have feverishly worked to move this country in a new direction to expand access to health care, to make sure that we put our domestic priorities on the front burner. Now, we might have done that within the President's number, and that's essentially not what we wanted to do. What we wanted to do is make sure we weren't spending 10 times more in Iraq to continue this war than we were to increase the funding for health care and for education and for veterans health care funding. That's why, within the President's overall budget number, we reordered our priorities. We made sure that instead of cutting NIH funding grants and cutting health care, that we increased funding for the NIH grants. We made sure that we provide access to health care instead of cutting it by $595 million, that we increased it so that we could expand access to health care to more people. We made sure that instead of cutting veterans health care benefits we passed still the largest single increase in the history of the VA, a $3.7 billion increase. We have a Democratic stamp on this budget. We passed a budget that has our priorities, the American people's priorities, and refocuses attention on the domestic needs that we have in this country, and we will be back after this recess and make sure that we are going to focus on the needs of the American people. I'll be happy to yield to my friend

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So in the time that I have been involved in public service, which is over 15 years now, the mantra of our good friends on the other side of the aisle has always been that they are the party of less government, and that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. And in recent history, and in long-term history, my understanding is that it's this President that built up more foreign debt than all 42 previous Presidents combined, and this President that took us from a $3 billion surplus to a $5 billion deficit, in his first term,

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If you'd yield for a question.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman would yield on the energy issue, specifically, we're trying to make sure we expand our investment in alternative energy research, that we use renewable energy resources, that we make sure that we reduce the carbon footprint that we have here in America, that we really significantly impact the continuing global warming that we have. And do you know what our good friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Altmire, have been trying to preserve? They've been trying to preserve subsidies for the big oil industry. That's the thing that we were not able to get done because the Republicans in the Senate and here blocked making sure that we could repeal $13 billion in subsidies for Big Oil, the most profitable industry in America.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and memory of Congressman Henry J. Hyde, the Representative of the Sixth District of Illinois from 1975 to 2007. Congressman Hyde was a distinguished and well-respected member of this body, serving for 32 years in the House of Representatives. During his tenure, Congressman Hyde served honorably as the Chairman of the Judiciary and International Relations Committees and contributed much to this Nation. My thoughts and prayers go out to Congressman Hyde's family and friends during this difficult time. While Congressman Hyde's accomplishments are many, I want to take a moment to share one that is both emblematic of the mark he left and of which I am particularly grateful. During the 109th Congress, I had the pleasure of working with Congressman Hyde to help spur the creation of the first Jewish American Heritage Month. As the lead Republican cosponsor of the House Resolution, Congressman Hyde was instrumental in garnering the support of the President of the United Sates and Republican leadership in the House, especially that of Speaker Hastert. With support from around the country, the House and Senate passed resolutions in early 2006 urging the President to establish American Jewish History Month. President Bush then proclaimed the first Jewish American Heritage Month in May 2006 so that Americans could come together to celebrate the many contributions that Jews have made to the fabric of our society. Thanks to Congressman Hyde's commitment and dedication, American Jewish culture and heritage is now celebrated each May by our Nation. In appreciation of this leadership, and in honor of Congressman Hyde's lifetime commitment to serving his country, I have requested that a tree be planted in Israel dedicated to his memory. I again express my deepest sympathy to Congressman Hyde's family, friends, and the people of Illinois.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Frank for your hard work on the legislation, and with all due respect to the gentleman from Alabama, I can appreciate what you are saying about the Senate and our negotiations with them, but the Congress of the United States is not a unicameral institution. The Founding Fathers created two Chambers, two bodies, and the opinions of this body are just as important as the opinions of the other body. And sending a strong message about the reset provisions and about the group life provisions for the policyholders that you say don't care about those provisions is why we have a bicameral Congress. The other issue that I want to raise is that the life insurance fairness provision in this legislation, which you have strongly supported consistently, can stand on its own. It is not dependent upon group life being included in this legislation overall and it has no ties to that provision. In the 109th Congress, we passed a bipartisan version of TRIA that included a provision that says that individuals will not be denied life insurance coverage based solely on where they might lawfully travel, and that is included in this provision again. Too often life insurance companies deny the applications of people who express the intent to travel internationally. That's particularly true when people say that they plan to travel to Israel because Israel and 26 other countries appear on the State Department's travel warning list. The life insurance industry is using the State Department's travel warning list as an underwriting tool. It was never intended to be an underwriting tool. Countries don't make that list based on an actuarial analysis. There are political and diplomatic considerations for those appearing on that list. Travel fairness language will protect consumers from unfair life insurance discrimination on the basis of past or future lawful travel, and this provision allows the insurers to price for risk according to an actuarial analysis. It's also fair to the insurance companies because it allows for denial based on war, serious health conditions in the country the person is traveling to, or fraud. The freedom to travel is a right that we cherish, and no American should have to choose between their children's financial security and having the right to travel freely. And that is what we are forcing Americans to do if we don't pass this travel fairness language as a part of the reauthorization of TRIA. If we allow insurance companies to deny coverage based on the notion of where a person might travel, we are giving in to the terrorists who wish to change our way of life. Life insurance companies have been using the State Department warning list as an underwriting tool. It was never meant to be utilized that way. I urge the Members to support the House-passed version of TRIA.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, on December 4, 2007, I missed the following rollcall votes due to illness: rollcall vote No. 1123, H.R. 3998, passage of America's Historical and Natural Legacy Study Act; rollcall vote No. 11124, passage of H.R. 3887, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act; rollcall vote 1125, the Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act; and rollcall vote No. 1126, passage of the Charlie W. Norwood Living Organ Donation Act. If present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall Nos. 1123, 1124, and 1126, and I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 1125.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, in August I urged my colleagues to vote against an unconstitutional Senate bill. Simply put, that bill trampled on our constituents' constitutional right to privacy. Today, I am proud to rise in support of the RESTORE Act, a bill that provides the intelligence community the tools it needs, but that restores the constitutional rights of Americans. Mr. Speaker, we can be both safe and free, and this bill strikes the right balance. This bill permits surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communication. It allows us to listen in on Osama bin Laden or any other terrorist who threatens our troops or country. This bill will keep us safe. But this bill also requires a warrant from the FISA Court in order to eavesdrop on the communications of ordinary Americans, and it requires a court review of targeting procedures to ensure Americans' rights are protected. This bill restores our civil liberties. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle would rather play politics with this bill and unleash arguments of mass distortion, so let me be clear: nothing in this bill gives our constitutional rights to terrorists. Our Republican colleagues create this smoke screen in order to hide the fact that they have taken away those same constitutional freedoms from Americans. We need not choose between our secure and liberty. With the RESTORE Act, we can have both.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman will yield. What is clear here is there is a threat of panic running through the caucus on the other side of the aisle because we are up to 16 of their incumbent Members who have decided to bail and who recognize that the ship is listing and has been listing badly and is in danger of just completely going down. There doesn't appear to be any likelihood of the ship righting itself in the near future. They aren't expected and aren't expecting to get their act together and focus on an agenda that the American people support because they have been a one-note, tunnel- vision party for far too long. So you have 16 that have decided to retire already, with, we are sure, more to come. It's just not surprising because they do not share the priorities of everyday working families, Americans who want the Congress to focus on a new direction and not give them more of the same.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much, Mr. Altmire. It is a pleasure again to join my colleagues in the 30-Something Working Group. And I'm so glad that our newest members of the Working Group, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Altmire, have been holding down the fort for the last little while talking about spending priorities, because that is actually the most glaring difference between the Republicans and the way they handled this institution and the Democrats and the way we are handling it. Let's take the problem that we're facing here now that you've been talking about, and that is that the President vetoed the Labor Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill. And I am proud to sit as a member of the Appropriations Committee with Mr. Ryan. And I can tell you that the difference in the overall spending plan that the President put forward versus our 12 bills combined amounts to $22 billion. Now, $22 billion might sound like a big number, but let's put it in context. Twenty-two billion dollars is approximately what we are spending in Iraq in 2 months. That's the difference between what Democrats in Congress are proposing to spend for all 12 bills combined, the difference between the President's proposal and the Democrats' proposal. That problem underscores the fact that the President only has one spending priority, and that is the war in Iraq. The problem is that the only spending priority that matters to President Bush is the war in Iraq. It's not even the war in Iraq and Afghanistan because he has so clearly shortchanged what was going on in Afghanistan when we started, which is where the war on terror, or the pursuit of bin Laden was ongoing that we abandoned when he shifted the focus of America to the war in Iraq, that it has blocked out the sun. His spending priority, his only one, the war in Iraq, has blocked out the sun and made it impossible for us to move forward on things like education, like expanding access to health care for children, like making sure that we can pass a stem cell research bill that the vast majority of this country supports. I will just give you an example of one of the things that resulted from the veto of the Labor-HHS bill and that is the increase in Ryan White title IV funding for AIDS programs for families. We have an explosion of AIDS in this country. We absolutely need to make sure that we get a handle on it. There hasn't been an increase in title IV funding in years. Now that we are in charge and are making sure that we move this country in a new direction, we are focusing on the domestic priorities of Americans. Americans want us to withdraw our troops from Iraq in a responsible way and focus on things that they care about when it comes to their everyday lives. That is literally what the Labor-HHS appropriations bill does. It is an expression of our values. And our values reflect the needs of Americans when it comes to their health care, when it comes to their education, when it comes to their environment at work. And the priorities and values reflected in the Republicans' agenda is the war in Iraq. Now, I think the American people clearly stated what their intentions were and what they wanted Congress to do last November 7, and we have repeatedly, and we did again tonight just before we came on the floor this evening for the 30-Something hour, they have repeatedly urged us in Congress to begin a responsible withdrawal of our troops, to stop sending the troops over for tour after tour, the same men and women, the same strain on their families, sending them over there without the equipment that they need, sending them over there without the proper training, with tours of duty that are beyond the appropriate length of time, stretching families, causing divorces, causing strain, psychological impact on children, but they don't care. It just doesn't matter. The President's priority is Iraq, and everyone else's opinion be damned. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman.