Transcript Highlights:

• So that we can move those things forward.
• Brion, uh, plotted forward.
• You know, I can only speak moving forward.
• We continue to move forward.
• How would you move forward? Mr. Chair, Mr.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for bringing this measure forward.
• I look forward to seeing it continue to move forward. And my recommendation is an aye vote.
• I'm glad that it has been brought forward.
• of this forward.
• But if it moves forward, then I hope.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for bringing this measure forward.
• I look forward to seeing it continue to move forward. And my recommendation is an aye vote.
• I'm glad that it has been brought forward.
• Any witnesses in opposition, please come forward.
• But if it moves forward, then I hope...

Summary: The committee heard SB 1067, which would require annual math screening for kindergarten through second grade students beginning in 2028-29 to identify early numeracy difficulties and connect students to evidence-based supports. Senator Weber and supporters, including EdVoice, UC Davis researcher Charles Wilkes, and several education and community advocates, argued that California’s math performance is too low and that early screening would help close gaps before they widen. Opponents, including the California Mathematics Council, county superintendents, and the CTA, said the bill could narrow instruction, overemphasize deficit-based measures, and should instead be paired with stronger investments in teacher training and implementation of the California Mathematics Framework. Committee members generally expressed support for the bill’s goals while discussing how the screener would work and what kinds of follow-up supports would be needed. The committee also heard SB 1110 on child care subsidy administration, which would restructure funding for alternative payment programs and core contracts as the state moves to enrollment-based funding. Supporters said the bill would stabilize child care providers, improve payment timelines, and better reflect the administrative work of enrolling families and managing services; there was no opposition testimony. SB 1374, supported by the CSU and UC systems, would allow public higher education institutions to seek temporary restraining orders when credible threats are directed at a campus rather than a specific person. Supporters described recent campus threats that created safety concerns but did not fit current restraining-order law; there was no opposition. Senator Nilo presented SB 1321, which would direct the State Auditor to review remedial course use and student preparedness at selected UC and CSU campuses after a UC San Diego report showed a sharp decline in incoming students’ math readiness. Supporters argued the audit would help identify gaps in college readiness and the effects of K-12 changes, while some members raised concerns about bypassing the usual legislative audit process; the bill was held on call. The committee then took up SB 1086 on microschools, which would define microschools and direct model ordinances for local land-use regulation. Supporters said it would create a clearer path for small, individualized learning communities, but several members questioned whether the concept was sufficiently defined and whether the state had enough information to draft model ordinances; the bill was also placed on call after a quorum was established. Finally, SB 1181 was presented as a limited pilot program in Central Valley counties to connect schools with regional threat assessment centers when credible safety concerns arise. The author and supporters, including the mother of a student killed in a shooting and several students, said it would improve early intervention and communication; committee members raised privacy and federal-sharing concerns but indicated support, and the bill was moved forward on a vote once quorum was present.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:04:23.600> Um, conversations can move forward. Um, conversations can move forward.
• We must right-size the use of HOAs moving forward.
• We must right-size the use of HOAs moving forward.
• We must right-size the use of HOAs moving forward.
• Thank you guys for bringing this forward.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House File 2614 was heard with a delete-everything amendment adopted at the outset. The bill, as explained by the authors, would prevent local governments from requiring amenities or common property that effectively force the creation of a homeowners association, while still allowing developers to create HOAs voluntarily when needed. The authors said the language was negotiated with stakeholders, including the League of Minnesota Cities, and was intended to be moved on to the Housing Committee for further discussion. Supportive testimony came from Housing First Minnesota and the Minnesota Homeownership Center. They argued that unnecessary HOA mandates can raise housing costs, reduce homebuyer choice, and shift public infrastructure costs onto homeowners through dues in addition to property taxes. Testifiers cited examples involving single-family developments, a Burnsville case involving a large roof assessment and disputed ACH withdrawal, and the Heritage Park development in Minneapolis, where an HOA was required but later became difficult to dissolve. They said the bill would preserve HOAs where they are genuinely needed, such as townhomes or shared-amenity developments. Members raised questions about the removal of county-specific language in the amendment, the meaning of the bill’s references to services and common property, and whether the bill would still allow neighborhood signs or other developer-requested features. A major point of concern was stormwater ponds and drainage infrastructure: one member argued that prohibiting cities from requiring HOA maintenance of such facilities could shift costs to taxpayers, while the authors responded that the bill was meant to stop cities from mandating discretionary amenities and that maintenance issues had been partly addressed in the amendment. The committee did not take a final vote in the portion provided, but the amendment was adopted and the bill was discussed for referral onward.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are still ticking off milestones on the program as we move forward.
• And you're going to hear more about that from our team as we move forward.
• and helping to move this program forward.
• forward and you'll...
• Francis for agreeing to go forward with us on this.

Summary: The Joint Oregon-Washington Legislative Action Committee met for a work session and public hearing on the Interstate 5 bridge replacement program. Program staff outlined major milestones, including the recent biological opinion, the Coast Guard’s opening of a public comment period on the Navigation Impact Report, expected decisions in early 2026 on navigational clearance and the final supplemental environmental impact statement, and a possible amended record of decision in 2026. They also discussed the Bridge Investment Program grant amendment deadline, the need for an initial finance plan, and ongoing community outreach and contractor engagement. Greg Johnson announced he was stepping down as program administrator, and Carly Francis introduced herself as interim administrator. A large portion of the meeting focused on design and cost questions. Staff said the program is studying fixed and movable spans, single- and double-deck configurations, and one versus two auxiliary lanes, with final recommendations to be made through the federal environmental process. They said the Coast Guard’s decision is central to what bridge configuration is permittable and to the timing of the updated cost estimate, which has not yet been released. Members pressed for more detail on cost drivers, potential impacts to businesses upriver, and whether the states would need to seek additional funding. Staff said they had reached agreements with four impacted river users, but the underlying evaluation materials are protected and not publicly releasable. The committee also reviewed transit-related questions. Staff explained that light rail remains part of the modified locally preferred alternative and that ridership and operations estimates are being updated using federal modeling methods. They said projected opening-day transit operations and maintenance costs have dropped from an earlier estimate of $21.8 million to about $10.3 million annually because the current model assumes lower frequency, with Oregon and Washington shares split by geography and fare recovery. Members raised concerns about TriMet’s financial stability and the need for a funding plan by fall 2027, ahead of a planned federal transit funding application in fall 2028. During public testimony, several speakers criticized the delay in releasing a new cost estimate and argued the project scope should be reduced if costs continue to rise. Testifiers from City Observatory and the Just Crossing Alliance said the project appears to be avoiding bad news, urged the committee to consider scope reductions, and questioned whether the active transportation and freeway components align with the project’s core purpose. The meeting ended with thanks to Johnson for his service and a transition to public hearing testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we're carrying forward the liability. We're not carrying forward the tax credit.
• Next witness in favor, please come forward.
• Next witness in favor, please come forward.
• Next witness, please come forward. Witness, please come forward.
• So next witness in favor, please come forward. Next witness in favor, please come forward.

Summary: The committee first met in executive session on House Bill 2998 and adopted a House committee substitute that narrowed the bill to a study of the Upper Mississippi River Basin and the Rural Development Office, with a new date of December 1, 2029. Members asked about the fiscal note and whether the proposal was simply a study rather than a broader project. The committee then voted the substitute do pass on a 21-0 roll call. The committee then held a public hearing on Senate Substitute for Senate Bill 913, which would extend several agricultural tax credits for five years and add/adjust provisions for short-line railroads, biodiesel, rolling stock, meat processing, specialty crops, and related programs. Senator Gregory and supporters said the bill would provide certainty for agricultural investment, rural development, ethanol and biodiesel production, meat processors, and short-line rail infrastructure, with several witnesses emphasizing return on investment, competitiveness, and the importance of keeping Missouri agriculture strong. Some members also discussed the rolling stock credit and local tax backfill, with supporters saying it simply makes local political subdivisions whole and does not create a double payment. Opponents, led by the State Public Advocate, argued Missouri’s tax credit system is too large, costly, and insufficiently audited, and said the state could not afford the projected fiscal impact. They criticized the credits as giveaways and questioned whether the programs would happen without incentives. Despite those objections, the hearing featured broad support from farm, rail, banking, agribusiness, chamber, and commodity groups, and no vote was taken on SB 913 before the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• ,<00:07:14.440> introduce If you want to come forward, introduce If you want to come forward
• Commissioner Cole, I look forward to working with you going forward, and if my staff can be of any assistance
• It's my understanding that there is a bill that we have put forward going forward to address these, but
• , blah, but as it moved forward, blah, but as it moved forward, in<00:25:24.600> our<00:25
• c><00:47:16.960> forward, staff-suggested amendments um forward, staff-suggested amendments um

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first reviewed several Fish and Wildlife regulations. Staff explained amendments to 301 KAR 2:176, 4:112, and 6:030, including updating wildlife control tag language, creating an impoundment agent program for seized wildlife, and clarifying boating safety rules. A member raised a concern about boat wakes near docks, and staff said the commission had recently voted on related changes that were not yet included because the regulation had been filed earlier; those changes would have to come back later. The committee approved the staff amendments without objection. The Board of Veterinary Examiners then presented 201 KAR 16:767, which would require veterinary managers to be physically present during business hours and limit them to five registered facilities. Board representatives said they had tried to meet with affected parties before the hearing but had not reached agreement. A representative for Kentucky Pet IQ argued the rule was written for full-service hospitals and would be impractical for short, limited-service clinics that only provide vaccinations, preventive care, and parasite testing. Members expressed concern about the rule’s impact on veterinary access in underserved areas, and the committee voted to defer the regulation until the next month so the parties could continue negotiating. The committee next considered Transportation Cabinet 601 KAR 9:120, the online insurance verification system, in both ordinary and emergency form. The chair said staff had identified conflicts with a bill passed the prior year and moved to find the regulations deficient. The motion passed on a roll call vote, with six ayes and two pass votes. The committee then found ordinary ABC regulations 804 KAR 12:020 and 12:030 deficient as well, again by six ayes and two pass votes, after noting that the emergency versions had already been found deficient the previous month. Finally, the committee reviewed Cabinet for Health and Family Services 902 KAR 55:110, which would require veterinarians to report dispensed controlled substances to KASPER while exempting administered medications. OIG staff said the rule was meant to align regulation with statute, which includes veterinarians as prescribers, and emphasized that the reporting duty applies to prescriptions, not administration to animals. Some members supported the change as a needed anti-diversion measure, while others worried about implementation burdens and timing. After discussion, the committee found the regulation deficient by a 6-2 vote. The meeting then moved into full review of 922 KAR 1:565, a Department for Community Based Services rule implementing kinship care provisions from Senate Bill 151; staff said it was needed for implementation once funding is available, but a member criticized the two-year delay and the inclusion of language conditioning implementation on funding. A public witness from the Kinship Families Coalition argued the rule should not shift the 120-day application window in a way that could affect federal funding eligibility and urged the committee to reject the regulation as written.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I would look forward to make it right. So I would look forward to working to get the funding.
• There's been a motion to move you forward for a full Senate confirmation.
• Chair, as we move forward.
• Chair, as we move forward.
• And Senator Campos, thank you for bringing forward Ms. Herrera.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I look forward to a collaborative and responsive relationship.
• I look forward to working with you on that.
• I look forward to working with you.
• I look forward to visiting your state as well. Good. Thank you.
• I look forward to having you come to New Hampshire.

Transcript Highlights:

• You had to move forward; you had to have positive legislation to move the clean heat standard forward
• back and the we didn't move forward. back and the we didn't move forward.
• So we standard [clears throat] forward.
• There there is a type of moving forward.
• I'm totally in support of move forward.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Please come forward.
• Please come forward. Any registered witnesses in opposition? Oh, I'm sorry, you could come forward.
• Any witnesses in opposition, please come forward.
• Come forward, please. Good morning.
• Yes, please go forward. I want to thank the author for bringing this forward.

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on public employment, retirement, and recognition of cultural and public service issues. AB 569 would allow local governments and unions to negotiate supplemental pension contributions for certain employees; AB 989 would make California Native American Day an official paid state holiday; AB 268 would recognize Diwali as an official state holiday; AJR 3 would urge protection of Social Security, Medicare, and Medi-Cal from federal cuts; AB 1067 would require misconduct investigations to continue even if an employee retires during the process; AB 1510 made technical and conforming changes to state employee pay and benefits laws and to Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority labor law; and AB 1233 would create a statewide database of classified school employee employment history and serious misconduct records. The committee also took up AB 1383, which would lower the retirement age for certain first responders and restore some bargaining rights over retirement benefits, drawing extensive testimony for and against. Supporters of the holiday bills emphasized long-overdue recognition of Native American and South Asian communities and the importance of honoring California’s diversity. Supporters of AJR 3 described the reliance of seniors, people with disabilities, and families on federal and state health and retirement programs, warning that cuts would cause serious harm. AB 1067 was presented as a way to prevent employees from retiring to avoid accountability, while AB 1233 was framed as a student-safety measure to help schools identify applicants with prior egregious misconduct. Opposition to AB 1233 focused on due process and the breadth of the misconduct records, and opposition to AB 1383 argued it would reverse PEPRA reforms, raise pension costs, and strain local budgets, while supporters said firefighters and other first responders face unique health and safety risks and deserve earlier retirement. Most bills were reported out of committee on unanimous or near-unanimous votes and placed on hold for add-ons or referral to Appropriations or another committee. AB 912 was taken up on the consent calendar and held; AB 569, AB 989, AB 268, AJR 3, AB 1067, and AB 1510 all advanced with do-pass recommendations and were placed on hold. AB 1233 was moved to the Committee on Education. AB 1383 drew the most extensive debate, with many witnesses in support and opposition, and committee members largely expressing support for first responders while also noting concerns about cost and pension policy.

Transcript Highlights:

• I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Mr. Duffy. Mr. Michael, welcome.
• Well, I look forward to that.
• Look forward to working together in that regards.
• I look forward to working with you, too. I yield back.
• I look forward to it, sir. Dr. Mink and... Dr.

Keywords: Air Force modernization, fighter aircraft, autonomous systems, air superiority, national security, recapitalization

Summary: The meeting primarily focused on military procurement and modernization, with significant discussions surrounding the Air Force's capabilities and strategic needs. Key topics included the urgent need for recapitalization of the Air Force's fighter squadrons, as well as the importance of integrating new technologies like autonomous systems to bolster military effectiveness. Several senators raised concerns about the current resources available to the Air National Guard and the potential loss of skilled service members if recapitalization plans are not swiftly developed. There were also discussions on the importance of maintaining air superiority in light of evolving threats, particularly from adversaries like China.

Transcript Highlights:

• As we go forward, we are clear that Greater Minnesota is having an operating deficit, and so what this
• we are clear that model as we go forward we are clear that Greater<00:01:56.079> Minnesota<00
• forward forward any<00:03:16.239> okay<00:03:16.400> so<00:03:16.599> we're<00:
• And so this is an intro today to the concept of what we want to do as we move forward.
• what we want to do as we move forward what we want to do as we move forward and<00:21:39.919>

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 337, a bill addressing long-term funding for rural and Greater Minnesota EMS and ambulance services. The author offered the A2 amendment, moved to divide it, and the committee adopted lines 1.2 to 1.19 of the amendment. The bill, as amended, was described as creating a policy framework for identifying ambulance services with operating deficits, requiring financial audits, and setting up a future grant program, with the author emphasizing that the proposal was still being developed and was intended to be a long-term solution rather than a short-term fix. Testimony was largely supportive. Eric Simonson of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities said the bill builds on last session’s one-time aid and would target grant dollars using state data, clarify eligible uses, allow audits, address uncompensated care and readiness costs, and require reporting back to the legislature. Mike Warner of the Red Wing Fire Department said his city’s ambulance service operates with a heavy government-funded payer mix and a persistent operating shortfall. Tim Meyer of Sanford Ambulance said low-volume rural services face widening revenue gaps, staffing pressures, and the loss of the volunteer model. Nathan Zacharias of the Association of Minnesota Counties and Kevin Lee of North Memorial Health also supported the bill, citing rising costs, staffing shortages, stagnant reimbursement, and the need for a sustainable statewide funding model. Members raised concerns about how the bill would work in practice, especially around communities that straddle metro and non-metro boundaries and around local control over grant dollars. Representative Pel asked how the eligibility language would apply to places like Northfield and New Prague; the author and a testifier said eligibility would depend on whether a service area is mostly outside the metro area, but acknowledged more review was needed. Representative Huitt argued the bill should give more local control and should address EMS as a statewide issue, not only a Greater Minnesota issue. Representative Ryer asked whether the bill would eventually include revenue recapture or another funding source, and the author said the proposal was still at an early stage and all options were being considered. The committee laid HF 337, as amended, over for possible inclusion in the omnibus bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Please step forward.
• So thank you for bringing this bill forward.
• forward to supporting today.
• I welcome and thank all of you who've come forward with your thoughts and look forward to this continuing
• I welcome and thank all of you who've come forward with your thoughts and look forward to this continuing

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is your time to come forward to the table.
• you taking this lead and bringing this bill forward.
• I just wanted to commend the author for bringing this bill forward.
• Come forward, state your name, your organization, and your position.
• So I appreciate you coming forward. Thank you for being here.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:04:27.759> by grants um that are brought forward by grants um that are brought forward
• This is a very important this forward.
• Uh, uh, step uh, forward for our state.
• in. uh looking forward work that's gone in. uh looking forward to<00:15:08.639> to<00:15:09.040
• to to more work as this moves forward. to to more work as this moves forward.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 3732, with the author moving both the bill and two separate amendments. The DE1 amendment would create a healthcare workforce grant program to let the Department of Employment and Economic Development identify and fund healthcare workforce shortage areas, while the A1 amendment would establish an Office of Community Investment to provide strategic grant management and help align grants with legislative priorities. Both amendments were adopted, and the bill was laid over for later consideration. The bill author explained that the healthcare workforce proposal is meant to address shortages that market forces alone have not solved, citing examples such as CNA training and rural oncologist recruitment. The Office of Community Investment was described as a way to improve grant oversight, set clearer goals, and strengthen collaboration between agencies and the legislature, drawing on the model of the Office of Justice Programs. Testimony from the Mong American Partnership strongly supported the healthcare workforce grant program, describing successful CNA and phlebotomy pathways, but also noting long waitlists and the need for flexible funding. Members discussed the importance of locating training opportunities in greater Minnesota and in communities with workforce gaps, so distance and travel barriers do not limit access. Several legislators said the proposal would help create good-paying jobs, strengthen healthcare access, and support overworked healthcare workers. The bill’s sponsors also emphasized that codifying grant programs can speed up future funding decisions and improve accountability, and they said the measures would return for further consideration in a few days.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think it’s incumbent upon us to look ...forward.
• to moving forward.
• That may be something, too, that we might need to address as we look forward.
• So the question is going forward. And I've always looked at it from this perspective.
• I look forward to it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other commissioners for the first time?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Emerging Firearm Technology met to review its work on intentional microstamping and personalized firearms and to discuss draft recommendations for a final report. The co-chairs summarized testimony received from manufacturers, advocates, law enforcement, and officials from New Jersey, New York, and California. For microstamping, the discussion focused on how the technology could help trace spent casings, its limits in forensic use, and concerns about wear, tampering, implementation costs, and whether it would burden lawful gun owners. For personalized firearms, members reviewed testimony about biometric smart guns, their current commercial availability, higher cost, and potential benefits for preventing accidental shootings and unauthorized use, especially involving children and suicide prevention. Commissioners expressed a range of views. Several supported microstamping as a crime-solving tool and endorsed a recommendation that the legislature direct a feasibility and viability study, set standards and training, fund implementation, and create penalties for tampering. Others opposed microstamping, arguing it has not worked in other states, may not reduce crime, and could impose costs on manufacturers and owners. On personalized firearms, most commissioners supported encouraging the technology, but there was disagreement over whether to create a temporary sales tax exemption; some favored an incentive to promote adoption, while others opposed any tax subsidy for firearms or questioned whether the data justified it. The co-chairs said they would draft a report reflecting the majority consensus and circulate it for review before a final vote at a later meeting, likely in July. The commission also discussed which executive branch agency should conduct the microstamping feasibility study, with the Attorney General’s office and EOPSS mentioned as possibilities. The meeting ended with agreement to reconvene for final votes on the report and recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• So looking forward to all of that.
• I look forward to his tutelage and helping to move this Budget Committee forward.
• I'm looking forward to working with Chair Soff.
• So we're looking forward to the committee. Thanks. Thank you, Mr.
• Looking forward to your leadership, Mr.

Summary: The Transportation and Economic Development Budget Subcommittee met to organize for the session, take roll, and hear introductory remarks from members and agency heads. Members briefly introduced themselves and their districts, with several noting transportation, economic development, emergency response, military, and hurricane recovery issues in their areas. Chair Shove then outlined the subcommittee’s jurisdiction and current-year budget, noting a total of about $20.3 billion, with most funding coming from trust funds and only a small share from general revenue. The committee also heard that upcoming meetings would include presentations from major agencies in the subcommittee’s purview. The first agency presentation was from the Department of Military Affairs and the Florida National Guard. Major General John Haas described the Guard’s three missions—supporting national security, responding to state emergencies, and adding value to the state—and highlighted deployments for hurricanes, border security support, and ongoing support to the Department of Corrections. He emphasized that the Guard is understrength relative to Florida’s size and demand, said recruiting is strong, and identified force structure growth as the main challenge. Members asked about aircraft, funding sources, and recruiting; Haas explained the Guard’s helicopter and fixed-wing fleet, said aircraft purchases are funded through legislative appropriations, and reported strong interest in the Florida State Guard’s recruiting pipeline. Executive Director Mark Thieme then described the Florida State Guard’s expansion into air, ground, and maritime capabilities, including Black Hawks, boats, drones, canine search-and-rescue teams, and ground support units. He said the agency supported immigration enforcement and hurricane response, and asked for continued legislative support to expand aviation, maritime, and medical capabilities. Members praised the Guard’s disaster response work and asked about aircraft, funding, and staffing. Secretary Cord Byrd of the Department of State followed, focusing on election administration, election security, the SunBiz and voter registration IT systems, arts and culture, corporations, libraries, and historical resources. He said Florida’s election system remains a national model, reported two prosecutions for non-citizen voting, and discussed modernization needs for legacy IT systems. The committee also asked about voter lookup tools, password privacy for SunBiz, and arts funding vetoes. Secretary Alex Kelly of the Department of Commerce described the agency’s broad portfolio, including workforce, economic, community, and international commerce functions, plus housing recovery, broadband, small business support, rural infrastructure, defense-community grants, and law enforcement recruitment bonuses. He said access to capital is the biggest barrier for small businesses and noted ongoing work with CareerSource, the Department of Corrections, and other partners on workforce and reentry. Secretary Jared Perdue of the Department of Transportation then outlined FDOT’s record budget and five-year work program, emphasizing emergency response, preservation and maintenance, safety, and major investments in roads, ports, airports, transit, and spaceport infrastructure. He said the department has removed millions of cubic yards of storm debris, is ahead of schedule on the Moving Florida Forward initiative, and faces a large unfunded project backlog. Members asked about supply chain issues, project priorities, and workforce needs, and Perdue said FDOT is open to collaboration on recruitment and retention.

Transcript Highlights:

• So as we move forward, what we'll do, our vice chair is not here yet, but we'll um go through introductions
• I'm looking forward to this meeting and getting started in the interims. Thank you. Thank you.
• As we move forward, uh, Senator Schino. Thank you, Madam Chair.
• to that, um, as we go forward.
• But as we go forward, um thank you members.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you and I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Mr. Lindberg. Mr.
• I look forward to working with them.
• I look forward to that as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator Welch.
• I look forward to doing exactly that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
• And I look forward to working with you and exactly solving this problem.