smith, jason Rep 2%

ways and mean comm 10 24

https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/jason-t-smith

9 2%

2021

427Supporting Tribal Management of BisonWildlife, Environmental Justice, Public Lands/Forests

2021385Transformative Climate, Jobs, and Justice Investments (2x Score)Climate Change, Air, Clean Energy, Environmental Justice, Transportation, Public Lands/Forests, Water, Other

2021385Transformative Climate, Jobs, and Justice InvestmentsClimate Change, Air, Clean Energy, Drilling, Environmental Justice, Public Lands/Forests, Transportation, Water, Other

2021379Censuring Paul GosarJustice and Democracy

2021272Taking Action on PFAS ContaminationToxics/Public Right to Know

2021260Restoring the Voting Rights ActJustice and Democracy

2021247Pro-Environment Funding PackageOther, Climate Change, Clean Energy, Clean Air, Clean Water, Environmental Justice

2021217Protecting People from PFASToxics/Public Right to Know; Water

2021208Investing in Transportation and Water InfrastructureClimate Change, Transportation, Water, Clean Energy, Environmental Justice

2021206Building Climate-resilient Wastewater InfrastructureWater, Climate Change

2021201Investing in Climate-Smart and Pro-Wildlife InfrastructureTransportation, Climate Change, Wildlife

2021196Removing Confederate Statues from the U.S. CapitolLands/Forests, Justice and Democracy

2021185Repealing Assault on Methane Pollution SafeguardsClimate Change, Dirty Energy

2021169Corporate Climate Risk Disclosure RequirementsClimate Change; Other

2021145Increasing Awareness and Reporting of Hate CrimesOther, Justice and Democracy

2021132Washington, D.C. StatehoodJustice and Democracy

202191Protecting Dreamers and Immigrants Fleeing DisastersJustice and Democracy, Other

202170Protecting the Rights of Workers to OrganizeOther, Justice and Democracy

202162Voting Rights and Democracy ReformsJustice and Democracy

202145Protecting Public Lands and Waters Across the WestPublic Lands/Forests

202117Impeachment for Incitement of InsurrectionJustice and Democracy

202111Certifying Pennsylvania’s Electoral VotesJustice and Democracy

202110Certifying Arizona’s Electoral VotesJustice and Democracy

2020242Phasing Out Harmful Fishing GearOceans, Wildlife

2020203Increasing Funding for Renewable Energy Research & DevelopmentClean Energy, Climate

2020182Protecting the U.S. Postal ServiceJustice and Democracy

2020166Pro-Environment Funding PackageOther, Environmental Justice, Water, Dirty Energy, Drilling, Lands/Forests

2020164Slashing EPA FundingOther, Water, Air, Environmental Justice

2020163Blocking Trump’s Inadequate Soot StandardAir, Environmental Justice

2020156Removing Confederate Statues from the U.S. CapitolOthe

---

2020 Slashing EPA Funding

House Roll Call Vote 164

Issues: Other, Water, Air, Environmental Justice

Representative Jason Smith (R-MO) offered an amendment to H.R. 7608, the State, Foreign Operations, Agriculture, Rural Development, Interior, Environment, Military Construction, and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2021, which would have slashed the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) program funding to align with the draconian cuts proposed by the Trump administration. Adequate funding of the EPA is critical to ensuring that the federal government can implement and enforce the various statutes that protect public health and the environment in order to fulfill the promise of clean air, water, and healthy lands for all people. On July 24, the House rejected the Smith amendment by a vote of 155-256 (House roll call vote 164). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.

----

an 10 24

One pillar of Vice President Kamala Harris' economic platform is to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans, calling on billionaires to "pay their fair share" of federal taxes. Now, the chairman of the House of Representatives committee overseeing taxes is crying foul.

On Wednesday, Rep. Jason Smith (R-Missouri), who chairs the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, complained about Harris' plan to Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo. In the clip journalist Aaron Rupar posted to X (formerly Twitter), Smith defended the historically low tax rates of the richest Americans and called the vice president "ridiculous" for suggesting they should be increased.

"What's so ridiculous is for her statement to say that the rich should pay their fair share," Smith said. "It's just a talking point that she throws out there... Her policies are absolutely atrocious."

However, Harris' argument that U.S. billionaires aren't paying historically low tax rates is backed up by hard data. Earlier this year, French economist Gabriel Zucman wrote in the New York Times that the wealthiest Americans paid just 23% of their income in taxes in 2018. Previously, the top 1% of Americans paid more than 56% of their income in taxes in 1960, and taxes still took up 52.7% of their incomes in 1970.

After Ronald Reagan's inauguration in 1981, the richest saw their tax rates drop precipitously, paying just over 35% of their incomes by the time Reagan left office in 1989. This trend continued after George W. Bush signed new tax cuts benefiting the rich into law in the early 2000s. Barack Obama extended those tax cuts in 2010, and Donald Trump signed even larger tax cuts into law in 2017. By 2018, the bottom half of U.S. income earners paid approximately 24% of their income in taxes, while billionaires paid an even lower rate. Zucman explained that the primary reason for this is that in the United States, work is taxed at a higher rate than assets.

"[W]hile most of us live off our salaries, tycoons like Jeff Bezos live off their wealth," Zucman wrote. "In 2019, when Mr. Bezos was still Amazon’s chief executive, he took home an annual salary of just $81,840. But he owns roughly 10percent of the company, which made a profit of $30 billion in 2023."

"If Amazon gave its profits back to shareholders as dividends, which are subject to income tax, Mr. [Jeff] Bezos would face a hefty tax bill. But Amazon does not pay dividends to its shareholders... Instead, the companies keep their profits and reinvest them, making their shareholders even wealthier," he continued. "Unless Mr. Bezos, Warren Buffett or Elon Musk sell their stock, their taxable income is relatively minuscule. But they can still make eye-popping purchases by borrowing against their assets. Mr. Musk, for example, used his shares in Tesla as collateral to rustle up around $13 billion in tax-free loans to put toward his acquisition of Twitter."

This is where the tax plans of the two major parties' presidential nominees come into focus. While Harris is aiming for generating more revenue from assets held by the richest in her call for higher taxes on unrealized capital gains over $100 million, Trump is campaigning on renewing his tax cuts from 2017, which overwhelmingly benefited the rich.

If Trump were to succeed in renewing the tax cuts — which are due to sunset next year — it would amount to a cost of roughly $10 trillion over the next decade. CNN reports that Harris' plan to tax unrealized capital gains on the roughly 10,660 Americans who have net worths of nine figures or more "could be used to pay for social spending programs, like helping families pay for child care or down-payment help for first-time homebuyers."

---

musk attack herit econ

AI Overview

The House Ways and Means Committee approved the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024 (H.R. 7024) by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 40-3 on January 19, 2024. The roughly $79 billion package was subsequently passed by the full House of Representatives. [1, 2, 3]

The bipartisan tax framework—spearheaded by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden—included several key provisions: [1, 2]

Child Tax Credit (CTC): Expanded the child tax credit to benefit families with lower incomes, modifying the phase-in to apply to each child individually and increasing the maximum refundable amount. [1]
Business Deductions: Allowed businesses to immediately deduct domestic research and experimentation (R&D) expenses rather than amortizing them over multiple years. [1, 2]
Depreciation & Expensing: Extended 100% bonus depreciation for businesses investing in machinery and equipment. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Housing and Disaster Relief: Increased the allocation for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and provided tax relief for victims of federally declared disasters. [1, 2]
Employee Retention Credit (ERC): Imposed stricter rules and higher penalties to end fraudulent Employee Retention Credit claims to help pay for the package. [1]

You can track the full legislative history, committee reports, and detailed bill text on Congress.gov. [1, 2, 3]

killed in senate? jason ut some corp bene in later bill

in January 2025, Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R‑MO 8th), the lead negotiator of the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024, implied that most corporate tax provisions in the bill would be included in the upcoming reconciliation package in the 119th Congress.^[15] BIG UGLY BILL?

Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act - Wikipedia

---

2016 Scorecard Vote

Attack on Environmental Court Access

House Roll Call Vote 459

Issue: Other

Representative Jason Smith (R-MO) offered an amendment to H.R. 5538, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, which would prohibit funds from being used to pay legal fees for settlements in Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, or Endangered Species Act cases.

Congress long ago recognized that the government needs citizens to be partners in enforcing America’s laws, including environmental protection laws, and this principle is enshrined in numerous federal laws that provide reasonable fee recovery for successful plaintiffs. This amendment would alter this principle by prohibiting payment of citizens’ legal fees when parties avoid costly litigation by agreeing to a settlement. Failing to pay citizens’ legal fees would make it harder for all but the wealthiest Americans and corporations to hold violators of America’s environmental laws accountable through legal channels. On July 13, the House approved the Smith amendment by a vote of 226-202. (House roll call vote 459). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The House passed H.R. 5538 on July 14, but the Senate took no action on this legislation.

---

an 1 24

in the wake of the insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, in which a mob of far-right rioters attempted to violently disrupt Congress' certification of the 2020 Electoral College count, numerous corporations vowed publicly to stop donating to Republicans who supported the rioters' cause.

However, a new report from nonpartisan campaign finance research group Open Secrets shows that corporations have been flooding the campaign war chests of Republican election deniers in Congress, with more than $108 million donated since the insurrection.

"Companies pledged to pull back, but we have not seen that play out," Open Secrets investigations manager Anna Massoglia recently told the New York Times.

To come to that amount, Open Secrets tracked donations to the campaigns of the 147 House and Senate Republicans (also known as the "Sedition Caucus") who voted to overturn the 2020 election the same day supporters of former President Donald Trump ransacked the US Capitol, killing five police officers and injuring hundreds more in the process. Researchers then zeroed in on donations that came from approximately 1,400 business political action committees and trade associations.

According to Open Secrets, PACs and trade groups donated roughly $91.4 million to the Sedition Caucus in the three years since the insurrection, and funded leadership PACs affiliated with Sedition Caucus members to the tune of $16.7 million more. Some of the biggest donors include the National Association of Realtors — a trade group for the real estate industry — the American Bankers Association and United Parcel Service. Other major corporate donors to election deniers include military contractors like Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and General Atomics.

Notably, many of these donations came from the very same companies that pledged to stop supporting the Sedition Caucus. As journalist Judd Legum reported in his newsletter Popular Information, household name brands like Airbnb, Amazon, AT&T, Boeing and Pfizer publicly vowed to cut off donations to election deniers in 2021. However, Open Secrets found that all of those companies quietly resumed donations, in addition to other companies that pledged to stop supporting 2020 election conspiracy theorists like Comcast, Deloitte, General Motors, Home Depot, Marathon Petroleum, Raytheon and SpaceX, among others.

"Support for these organizations does not represent an endorsement for all issues that the organization supports," General Motors said of a 2021 donation to the Republican State Leadership Committee, which signed a statement in support of election denialism.

Click here to read Open Secrets' full report.

corporate-pacs-and-industry-trade-groups-steered-over-108-million-to-election-objectors-since-jan-6

Corporate PACs and industry trade have given more than $108 million to election objectors in Congress who voted against certifying the 2020 election results, according to a new OpenSecrets analysis of campaign finance reports.

Many corporations that vowed to suspend or reevaluate PAC giving to election objectors resumed making PAC donations to the so-called Sedition Caucus” within weeks or months of the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to the new analysis, which was first reported by the New York Times.

Over 1,400 business PACs, which include corporate PACs and industry trade groups, poured more than $91.4 million of that into political contributions directly to the campaigns of election objectors. Corporate PACs and industry trade groups added about $16.7 million more to the coffers of leadership PACs affiliated with those same members of Congress.

IFrame Content graf

Major corporations that have since resumed corporate PAC giving to election objectors include: AT&T, Boeing, Comcast, Home Depot, Lockheed Martin, Marathon Petroleum, Pfizer, Raytheon, SpaceX, Union Pacific, UPS, Verizonand Walmart.

The American Bankers Association, which paused contributions after the Jan. 6 attack, was the top contributor to election objectors in the first three quarters of 2023, followed by the National Association of Realtors and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.

These PACs are not necessarily donating funds exclusively to election objectors. Instead, most of the corporate PACs spread money around with little discrimination. Many of the top corporate contributors to election objectors give to Democrats as well as Republicans. As companies often strive to appear politically impartial, several of the top contributors to election objectors have given about evenly to politicians on both sides of the aisle.

About 70% of contributions from the American Bankers Association’s PAC, which gave election objectors over $430,000 in the first three quarters of 2023, have benefited Republicans in recent cycles.

The National Auto Dealers Association, which gave over $203,000 to election objectors in the first three quarters of 2023, similarly gives around 70% of its PAC contributions to Republicans.

UPS, which gave about 60% of its PAC contributions to Republicans in recent years, gave $164,500 to election objectors in the same period.

The PAC of the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, which gave $194,000 to election objectors in the first three quarters of 2023, also leans slightly right with their PAC contributions but have histories of giving to Democrat and Republican politicians.

The National Association of Realtors, the second highest overall contributor to election objectors during the first three quarters of 2023, has given about evenly to Democrats and Republicans in recent election cycles — meaning the election objectors were just a few names on a long list of the trade association’s beneficiaries. In some prior cycles the real estate trade group’s PAC has given more to Democrats while in other cycles it has given more to Republicans.

Boeing’s corporate PAC steered over $345,000 to election objectors in the first three quarters of 2023, more than any other company. But the aerospace giant has supported both Democrats and Republicans in recent years. While its PAC has given more to Republicans most recent cycles, it has also given more to Democrats in some prior cycles.

Following a similar trend, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association — which ranked third in giving to election objectors during the same period with $272,000 in PAC contributions has given slightly more to Republicans in recent years but gave more to Democrats in some prior cycles. Lockheed Martin’s PAC also generally gives slightly more to Republicans but sometimes gives more to Democrats.

AT&T’s PAC has also given about evenly to Democrats and Republicans in recent election cycles but leans slightly Republican.

Comcast, which made $192,000 in PAC contributions to election objectors since Jan. 6, has given about evenly to politicians of both parties in recent cycles. SpaceX and Honeywell International have also given roughly the same amounts to politicians of both parties in recent cycles.

American Crystal Sugar’s PAC giving leaned slightly Democratic while the National Cattlemen's Beef Association has predominantly given to Republicans.

Marathon Petroleum’s PAC, which gave $133,500 to election objectors during that period, has also given more than 90% of its contributions to Republicans – similar to many other oil and gas companies.

Koch Industries is another major contributor to election objectors that has also predominantly given to Republicans, but the Koch brothers’ energy company has a more complicated relationship with former President Donald Trump. The Kochs saw some key policy wins under the Trump administration but also clashed with the former president on several issues during his time in the White House and announced in 2023 that stopping Trump would be a key goal of their 2024 political strategy.

But that tension did not stop Koch Industries from continuing to give to members of Congress who voted against certifying 2020 election results after the Jan. 6 attack, with the company contributing $166,000 to election objectors in the first three quarters of 2023 alone. AFP Action, a super PAC affiliated with Americans for Prosperity that is predominantly funded by the Koch’s political network and Koch Industries, spent millions more to support election objectors during the same period.

Election objectors continue to rake in corporate PAC cash in 2023

Members of Congress who opposed certification of 2020 presidential election results received over $35 million in campaign and leadership PAC contributions from PACs affiliated with corporations and industry trade groups representing business interests in the first three quarters of 2023.

Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) received more campaign and leadership PAC money from PACs affiliated with corporations and business trade groups than any other election denier’s campaign during the first three quarters of 2023.

IFrame Content

Business PACs collectively steered over $2 million to Smith during that period with about $1.5 million to his campaign and nearly $470,000 to his leadership PAC.

Smith served as the top Republican on the House Budget Committee in the 117th Congress and now chairs the House Ways and Means Committee.

Smith has already received $10,000 from more than a dozen companies during the 2024 election cycle. Corporate PAC contributors that have maxed out to Smith this cycle include American Crystal Sugar, Cigna, CVS Health, Deere & Co., Qualcomm and Toyota.

Trade associations whose PACs maxed out to Smith include the National Structured Settlements Trade Association, the National Council of Farmer Co-Ops, the National Association of Truck Stop Operators, the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trustsand the National Association of Enrolled Agents.

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who left Congress at the end of 2023, are also top recipients of corporate PAC funds.

Several other election objectors supported by the business PACs have also announced their retirement or were voted out of office in the 2022 midterms, but many are also running for reelection in 2024.

---

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/jason_smith/412596

ason Smith sits on the following committees:

House Committee on Ways and Means
- Member, Subcommittee on Human Resources
- Member, Subcommittee on Oversight

Bills Sponsored

Issue Areas

Smith sponsors bills primarily in these issue areas:

Public Lands and Natural Resources (50%) Government Operations and Politics (50%)

Recent Bills

Some of Smith’s most recently sponsored bills include...

View All » (including bills from previous years)

---

an 11 23

last week, Tim Miller, the gay Bulwark writer who was communications director for Jeb Bush’s campaign in 2016 but left the GOP, tweeted outthat Matt Gaetz appeared to be “outing” the GOP Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Missouri Congressman Jason Smith.

You can watch the clip from Gaetz’s podcast here. Gaetz is extremely peeved that Smith attacked him for triggering the removal of Kevin McCarthy as House speaker. Gaetz played a clip of Smith saying, “Let me just tell you, if Matt Gaetz’s lips are moving, it’s only lies that’s coming out of it,” and calling Gaetz a “foolish liar.”

The vengeful Gaetz respondeed by saying Smith is the one who is “living a lie” and that every Republican in Congress knows about it:

Jason Smith says if my lips are moving, I’m lying. Well, you know what? If Jason Smith is breathing, he is living a lie. There might not be another member of Congress who lives a lie every day more than Jason Smith. And Jason Smith knows exactly what I’m talking about. And by the way, so does almost every member of the House Republican caucus.

So, there’s a good deal of projection in Jason Smith calling me a liar when it’s Jason Smith who literally has to live a lie. And I honestly pity him for that because you know, it wouldn’t be something that– I wouldn’t live that way. I’ll just put it that way. So, Jason, I would check yourself before you come at me with any accusations of being dishonest about what I say, when you’re dishonest about how you live and what you do.

So what do we know about Smith?

He has voted anti-LGBTQ for years—in office since 2013—with a score of zero from the Human Rights Campaign. He condemned the Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision in 2015, saying he has “never wavered in my commitment to the biblical definition of marriage.”

Like most Republicans in the House, Smith voted against the Respect for Marriage last year, which protects same-sex marriage, and voted for the spending bills this year that added dozens of anti-LGBTQ provisions.

But unlike most Republicans in the House, Smith is 44 and single. And one of his closest friends in Congress for years—someone he traveled with on lavish trips—was none other than Illinois Congressman Aaron Schock, the closeted gay House member who resigned in 2015 amid a scandal that focused on his outrageous misuse of government funds, and eventually was indicted in 2016 for fraud and theft of government funds, among other charges.

Schock finally came out of the closet, announcing, “I am gay” in 2020.

Schock voted anti-gay throughout his time as a member of Congress—including against the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell"—even as rumors swirled about his sexual orientation. In earlier years, before becoming a House member, he flat-out denied he was gay, but during his time in Congress, he did everything to deflect from directly answering the question when asked.

When I approached him at the Republican National Convention in 2012 and asked if the rumors were true, he expressed outrage that I could even ask the question—but didn’t outright say no.

Asked on the floor of the RNC…to respond to those who’ve believed that Schock is gay and also view his vote against “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal was a vote against members of his own group, Schock responded, “Those questions are completely ridiculous and inappropriate.” He added, when asked if he is confirming that he is not gay, “I’ve said that before and I don’t think it’s worthy of further response. I think you can look it up.” Schock then walked off, abruptly ending the interview.

Of course, Schock was totally gay, as he would later confirm—and voting against LGBTQ people. And during that time, one of his closest friends in Congress was Jason Smith.

Share The Signorile Report

Attention was brought to their relationship when the spotlight focused on the luxurious trips Schock was taking, often spending taxpayer dollars. As reported by The Hill in 2018:

Rep. Jason Smith(R-Mo.) joined his close friend Aaron Schockon campaign and government trips and exotic vacations in 2014 that are being scrutinized by federal investigators looking into alleged spending abuses by the former congressman, who resigned in March.

Revelations that Smith, 35, accompanied Schock on the campaign trip come the same week The Hill reported that Smith has hired Schock’s former chief of staff, Mark Roman, who managed the congressman’s office at the time of his spending scandal.

There’s no indication that federal prosecutors have questioned or sought records from Smith, but his participation on trips now under criminal investigation could drag one of Schock’s closest friends in Congress into his legal mess and undermine Smith’s political image as a humble, salt-of-the-earth fiscal conservative. The news has also led to chatter on Capitol Hill, where Roman’s hiring by Smith surprised many.

That story also reported on a trip that Smith took with Schock to Brazil along with two other House members, most of which was paid for by the Brazilian government.

But after the official business, the Hill reports, Schock, Smith, and several of their male aides headed to the Brazilian beach town of Canoa Quebrada, a gay-friendly resort spot.

Smith and Shock also went to Argentina with their aides, and the Hill reported on how unusual it was for members to take their aides on lavish vacations:

Later that December, Schock posted Instagram photos of himself, Smith, Roman, and Schock’s photographer, Jonathon Link, hanging out at a vineyard in the famed Mendoza wine region of Argentina and whitewater rafting the Andes rivers of Potrerillos. Schock paid Link thousands of dollars in taxpayer and campaign money to snap dramatic photos of him around the country and around the world.

Many of those photos ended up on Schock’s Instagram account. Some GOP aides said it was odd for lawmakers to be taking their staffers on exotic vacations.

As noted, one of the aides on both the Brazil trip and the Argentina trip was Roman, who, as the Hill reports, many were surprised Smith hired as his chief of staff, since he was managing Schock’s during the time of the spending scandal. Roman has now moved up from being Smith’s chief of staff to being staff director of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, which Smith chairs.

All of this makes Gaetz’s podcast that much more interesting. Gaetz has been a MAGA supervillain doing what he can to take down the GOP establishment, causing complete chaos. And information is power, especially if it’s being used as a weapon.

I have no problem with the truth being reported about a public figure when it’s relevant—such as if that person is voting anti-LGBTQ. And Gaetz is actually outing the entire GOP here, noting that every Republican knows about Smith’s alleged closet—while most of them rail against LGBTQ people. I’d just rather see solid facts than innuendo used as a threat.

So please, Matt Gaetz, flesh out all the details, and let’s hear about all the other GOP hypocrites. We’re all here for it!

---

jason smith missouri

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1155

The Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome (SCRUB) Act (H.R. 1155 / S. 1683) would would establish a new “regulatory review” commission funded at taxpayer expense, charged with the identifying duplicative, redundant or so-called “obsolete” regulations to repeal. It would do nothing to identify the numerous gaps, shortfalls and outdated regulatory standards that leave the public vulnerable to the next public health tragedy.

This commission would only consider the costs to affected industries while ignoring the benefits of oversight. The commission’s goal to achieve a 15 percent reduction in the cumulative cost of regulations would result in the repeal of critical health, safety and environmental safeguards — even when the benefits of these rules are significant, appreciated by the public and far outweigh the costs.

In addition, the bill would create a “cut-go” system that requires any agency issuing a new regulation to remove an existing regulation of equal or greater cost. If the science finds that a substance widely used in commerce is harmful to infants, regulators would have to find some other protection to cut before protecting young children. The bill would make it impossible for agencies to bypass “cut-go” procedures, no matter how urgent the circumstances might be.