Speaker 1: And we are back with another edition of the Federalist
Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, Senior Elections correspondent at the
Federalist and your experienced Shirpa on today's quest for Knowledge.
As always, you can email the show at radio at
the Federalist dot com, follow us on x at FDR LST,
make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast, and
of course to the premium version of our website as well.
Our guest today is Representative Chip Roy, Republican from the
great State of Texas, representing the fighting twenty first Congressional
District on the heels of the annual March for Life
Movement march coming up on from It's been an exceptional
week for life and the life movement in America. Congressman
Roy's legislation has much to do with that. Chief among
the bills that he has put out there this week
is the Face Act Repeal Act of twenty twenty five.
And just as we begin our conversation, some wonderful news
to report on the Life movement as well. Congressman Roy,
thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 2: Make great to be on. Appreciate it.
Speaker 1: I appreciate your time and of course your mission. You
have been one of the great fighters in Congress for
some time now on right to life issues. This is
a big week for that movement. But let's begin with
the breaking news today. We have a pardon for political prisoners,
do we not in the life movement?
Speaker 2: Well, we do. Breaking news that I'm literally just learning.
I just came off the House floor where I had
been managing the bill, the Born Alive Protection Prevention Act,
and we were just successful in passing that off of
the House floor as Republicans obviously sent it over to
the Senate. We'll see what they do with it over there.
But very very good day for moving that important piece
of legislation this week. But then, in addition, obviously talking
about the Face Act appeal in our efforts mind jointly
with Mike Lee and the Senate, we've got the President
issuing pardons to pro lifers that were targeted by the
weaponized Department of Justice of the Biden administration. I don't
really have the full account. I think it's a one two, three, four, five,
six seven. It looks like maybe nine or ten people
that were pardoned. Number of individuals that I've gotten to
know personally, talk to them individually or their families, like
Lauren Handy, for example, who is a progressive activist, she
just is a pro life individual who was then sentenced
to jail for fifty seven months. Okay, that's only five years,
as well as several other people Paul Atte Harlowe, who
is a seventy five year old woman arrested in twenty twenty,
who was sentenced to jail in Texas despite being sick.
So great day, another great move by the president. Great
day for life today.
Speaker 1: Amazing to think about the stories that you've just told,
and there are so many out there who have been
victims of this. That's why your Repeal Act is so
very important. You reintroduced it, you have a good feeling
that it's going to move in the House. Where do
you think it stands? Ultimately? Will it arrive on the
President's desk?
Speaker 2: Well, I hope so. You know, I've been reasonably patient
with my colleagues. You know, we had an election year,
we had a lot of stuff going on last year.
We've we've been given the trifecta. We've got to lead.
The President is leading. There's no excuse. Now. The President
has set the standard that these political persecutions, political prosecutions
shouldn't stand it. So now Congress should remove the tool
that was weaponized against the American people by the Mind administration.
That was, in fact, the Face Act. It was passed
in the mid nineteen nineties. It has been used overwhelmingly
by those forces directed at pro life people only in
a handful of instances. Hasn't been used in the context
of other scenarios, and so we find it to be
something that would be permanently changed if we were to
pass the Face Act. And that's why to use the
legislation we might lead to use legislation, it's not enough
for it's just to reverse damage. We need to prevent
future abuse. And that's why the Face Act is so important.
Speaker 1: I want to point out something very important. We're going
to get to some other pieces of legislation that you
have introduced or reintroduced this week in this new session
as well. But you recall that there was a time
in the twenty twenty four election cycle where there was
folks who are very committed to the Life movement had
some starting to have some misgivings about then candidate Donald Trump.
What does his robust activity on the life movement. And
you know, let's face it, it's been a very ambitious
week already, very active week already. But do you think
those misgivings are disappearing now with what we're seeing from
this president.
Speaker 2: Well, I certainly think it is hard for anyone to
see someone who has been president of the United States
who has done more for life than what President Trump
has done. Obviously the Supreme Court and then what results
in the respect reversing rome. But you know, I think
being the first sitting president to go arect address the
March for life what four or five years ago, you know,
now seeing what's happening here with these pardons, and look,
I think the President has positioned himself in what I
would say is the right place. And I say that
as someone who is passionately and ardently pro life. I
believed life begins a conception. I believe that we should
go protect life. But the President is right politically that
if we want to go win and save lives, that's
the point, right of being pro life, then we need
to go move minds and hearts. And I think you
do that best by staying in the confines of what
we've been arguing for half a century right, allowing people
and their legislatures and states to determine and figure out
how they want to manage a lot of this, but
then pushing back on the abuses of the federal government,
other words, depoliticize that. I think there's something that's critically
important to what President Trump has done the Secret Sauce.
It's to try to actually depoliticize a lot of the
stuff and the weaponization of what's going on in Washington,
to really restore the ability of people to make these decisions.
And look, that flew in the face a little bit
of some of our ardent pro life supporters and friends
who wanted a quick reaction to what happened in reversing
Row by coming in and saying we need immediately a
you know, ten week or twelve week or fifteen week ban,
and the President I think was correct. And by the way,
I stood up and said that at the time, and
I got some arrows from the pro life flank who
have been big supporters of mine, and so to the president.
I think the President was correct. And you know, I
was happy to go move the Born a Live Act
today because we're talking about equal protection laws for those
children that are born and they're sitting there in a
hospital and the right of that child to get healthcare,
and I mean the philibus are here, but I think
that is that is the long and the short of it.
Speaker 1: With the president, now, I think you raised a lot
of good points there, you know, and this is a
president who, as you said, it's hard to point to
another president who has been more impactful positively speaking on
the pro life movement in America, and we are seeing
that in his first few days in office. Do you
think there will be will Congress try to go after
accountability for those that you just talked about in the
last administration who really really abused the law, the force
of government, the constitution quite frankly.
Speaker 2: So, look, I think there needs to be accountability, and
what that accountability looks like. We have to see, you know,
we're laws broken with some of this purposeful did their
actions foreseeably result in loss of life? There's obviously a
lot of protections in place for people who are in
public service for carrying out their duty and good faith. Right,
we deal with that issue all the time. We're talking
about qualified immunity and law enforcement and the debates they're
in their conservatives right, who think that maybe that qualified
immunity goes too far. I tend to want to preserve
and protect the ability cops to do their job, but
it is a balancing act. I think that same thing
holds true for all public servants. Right. When you have
action that you are taking and it is foreseeable that
your action will cause harm, then what is the consequence
to that when you let out a criminal? When you
are putting criminals on our street, you're either doing it
knowingly or you certainly should have known. In the case
of border security. In the context of this where you're
you know, literally you are applying a statue the Fase Act,
where ninety seven percent of the Face Act prosecutions between
ninety four and twenty four are initiated against pro life Americans.
That is not equal protection laws. Meanwhile, since the Dobbs decision,
there's been only find it here ninety one pregnancy resource
centers that have been intact. What have they been doing?
So that bias is very clear and obvious? You know,
is that what does that accountability look like? Well, minimum,
you got to expose it, and then you know, there
can be Sometimes there can be accountability that are things
like you're seeing with President Trump right now provoking security
clearances and making you know, certainly firing all these bureaucrats
and getting them out of their current roles in public service.
I support all of that. Whether there's any kind of
prosecutions that should occur, you know, that gets a little trickier.
But we need to look and see where people took
action where they were very specifically harming people's lives, because
their actions did that right, and I think we saw that,
and like right now with January six ers, you're seeing
some of that as well in terms of people who
are prosecuted, persecuted, and harassed. And we need to you know,
pursue truth wherever it may lead.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: Back to the Born a Live bill, this will be
an interesting test and I think interesting exposure once again
to the Democrats, who you.
Speaker 3: Know, often talk about how important.
Speaker 1: You know, the right to choose is. They never want
to set limitations on those choices. And what has been
said over and over again, what was said during the
last election cycle was beware Democrats believe you know, a
vast majority of Democrats in this Congress believe in abortion
on demand, anytime, anywhere, this will be the proof in
the putting, will it not in terms of where Democrats
fall in this legislation, because I believe it will come
to a vote discussion on the floor.
Speaker 2: Well, when you're talking about the Born Alive, we're talk
about the Bordelive Act, yees, sir. So we just had
that debate for an hour on the floor. I was
running the floor on that for Republicans. So I can
tell you precisely arguments of Democrats for making and that
was that they wanted to make it all about abortion.
I was focused, as were my colleagues on my side
of the aisle, focusing on the extent which you have
a American citizen, a fellow American, a fellow human being
in the form of a child that is born and
that is being denied. I had life saving treatments for
political purposes for my colleagues on the other side of
the island. You can't you literally can't frame it any
other way. And my college others Chile did not want
to talk about that at all. It's wanted to bring
it back to abortion and abortion rights. And the fact
is we just had the vote on the House floor.
We had I think the final vote was two hundred
and I think seventeen to two hundred and four and
one present. You only have one yes vote from Democrats,
one present vote for Democrats, two hundred and four no votes.
All Republicans voted yes except for two or not voting.
So on my point being on, there were nine non
voting for Democrats. So we've passed it. We will send
it over the Senate. Now that does not appear to
vote well on the Senate side. I think they had
their own vote over there, and I don't know how
the vote actually unfolded, but I think it was maybe
fifty two to forty seven or something like that, but
which means you had a majority of support, but that's
not enough to overcome the sixty vote threshold in the Senate.
Speaker 1: Yea very very unfortunate, but yeah, that's I mean, that's
the bottom line here is that you have seen the
left in this country talk about abortion rights in America
and what they really mean is an abortion on demand,
over and over again, and Americans just simply are not there.
Speaker 3: Yet.
Speaker 1: You have Democrats in this House and obviously in the
Senate who still want to maintain that position.
Speaker 2: There's no question, I mean, I saw some. I mean,
even the Infederman who occasionally, you know, displays some amount
of I won't say centers, but at least tendencies to
want to work with Republicans, you know, whether it's an
Israel or certain other issues. You know. Even he went
off on some sort of tirade about abortion, when in fact,
again I want to reiterate for your listeners, we are
talking about a human life that is there in a
hospital or clinic with doctors available, and we're simply saying
doctors should be required to administer life saving treatment to
this child who survived and whatever happened that led to
that moment. We have a child that is sitting there
deserving of the full equal protection rights of the United
States Constitution, and I think that should not be that
complex for people to understand. I understand the debates and
the difficulties. Again, I believe life against a conception, but
I very much take to heart the fourteenth Amendment was
passed at eighteen sixty eight. The ratifiers certainly weren't talking
about when life began. So that is a question that
we have to wrestle with the people that I think
is generally speaking best left to states. But you can't
ignore our founding principles and the Declaration and reflected in
the Constitution, and particularly in the fourteenth Amendment, and the
importance of protecting life. That we have the right to life,
the unalienable right to life, but that life should be
protected and you not be taken away from you without
due process of law. I think you know it's a
shame that Democrats will not vote to support it.
Speaker 4: Not only does Trump need an eraser, he needs a
lot of them. The Watch Dout on Wall Street podcast
with Chris Markowski. Every day Chris helps unpack the connection
between politics and the economy and how it affects your wallet.
From banning gas water heaters and banning areas for drilling oil,
Biden's claims for a smooth transition where nonsensical. Trump needs
to start from scratch. Whether it's happening in DC or
down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 2: Be informed.
Speaker 4: Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Speaking of the fourteenth Amendment, do you find it curious
that Democrats are all in and supporting the life of
babies born to illegal immigrants in this country. But they
can't get themselves to support even these basic pro life
bills that you have put forward.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, they certainly want to use the Constitution
as a tool to achieve whatever objective they want to
achieve politically. But what's new. So they've always done. They
did it with Rome right, the manufactured a quote unquote
right that not exists in the Constitution. The Supreme Court rightfully,
it took fifty years, rightfully reversed that. So now I
think it is important that we push the envelope and
press forward on this whole notion. I'll call it the
false notion of birthright citizenship for any individual that is
in our country, regardless of their allegiances, regardless of the
jurisdiction to which they are subject, which is importantly a
key phrase in the fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
That phrase is often forgotten by my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, and in the history of
that for what it's worth, those amendments for past in
eighteen sixty eight, with that amendment, I should say, a
mere four years later, the United States Supreme Court issued
your opinion in the Slaughterhouse cases, which that it varies
a quote that explicitly stated that it was not to
be applied to those that were born here of people
who were subject to you know, foreign nations. In other words,
they were here visiting our country. And the Supreme Court
was explicit in the Slaughterhouse cases. And then I think
it was maybe a decade later the Supreme Court effectively
reinforced at the name of the cases escaping me. And
then you had a decade after that, in the eighteen nineties,
the you know, Kim Wong arc or whatever it is, case,
where the court I think got it wrong. But even
in getting it wrong in applying birthright citizenship to a
foreign national here, they only focused it on a legal
permanent resident, somebody that was had permanence. And by the way,
I believe that was dicta and I can look at
I'm pretty sure it was dicta. So in any event,
my point remains, you got one Spreme Court opinion they're
grabbing hold of and they want to hold onto that.
But none of this had anything to do with what
they were trying to do to reverse thread Scott. That
was the whole point is you had human beings or
in our country, born here, subject zeris iss this country
and subject of the jurisdiction so much so that they
were enslaved right the laws were being applied to them
in that way. And these people were born here, and
this was coming in to say, you know what, you're
a citizen. You're not a citizen because somebody paid some
broker to fly you here from China, to then deliver
a baby and then make it a cottage industry to
get American citizenship and you fly back home.
Speaker 3: That is unconsortable, no doubt.
Speaker 1: And it's not surprising from the same group of leftists,
of course, that tried to kick Donald Trump off the
ballot using Fourteenth Amendment arguments that even the most leftist
Supreme Court justice said does not work certainly as a
constitutional principle. Our guest today on this edition of the
Federalist Radio Hour, we're very very glad to have with
US Representative Chip Roy, Republican from the great State of Texas.
We're talking mainly about life issues, and on that topic,
I wanted to talk about your your bill as well.
You've got several life issue bills coming up, and we
haven't gotten to your reintroduction of legislation to stop federal
funds from flowing into universities that push abortion pills to students.
Let's talk a little bit more about that, sure, I.
Speaker 2: Mean, that's another obviously important theas of legislation that I've
that I've championed for three years. Maybe I think something
like that, I lose truck, but when I introduced these
great bills. But you got to keep hammering the issues
even if you can't muster the most through the Senate.
And look, this is another one of those examples where,
you know, the the idea that we would have essentially
mail order abortions, where you've got our young women in
college who frankly, you know, they're often in there with
a lot of you know, different pressures, and we've got
the situation where they're effectively having an abortion alone by
themselves because they're taking a pill via mail order. And
we just don't believe that that is an appropriate thing
to occur, that it endangers them both physically and emotionally
and mentally, and that we should prahibit that, and we
certainly spreit that within universities and the uh uh, you know,
transfer these pills that way. And so we've got legislation
to do that. Hopefully we can move that as well,
and I hope we'll have a series of botes on
pro life measures this entire Congress.
Speaker 3: This along with born a Live bill.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's just a level of common sense that's
here that I think America. That's that's where America is.
Do you feel like, even if you can't have success
in the Senate, you will be able to motivate for
the midterm elections and ultimately hopefully get to a point
where you have representatives in Congress who are common sense
on the life issue at the very least.
Speaker 2: Yeah, certainly, I hope that's the case. You know, we
need to. I mean, the one thing we can do
fairly significantly even without having sixty votes in the state,
is constrain the bureaucracy and the extent to which you've
created a tyrannical government that is empowered to do these
things to our people and to advance these kinds of policy.
You've got massive the pentagon that we're all too happy
to promote abortion tourism, to promote promote DEI, promote transgenderism.
You've got any number of policy in our education departments
everything else that are propping up things like these what
we're talking about here in mail order abortions and so forth.
These are all things that look, you know, getting laws
enacted is necessarily and importantly difficult. I'm actually okay with that.
I don't like having lots of laws, frankly, even the
laws that I prefer and that I like. I'm glad
that it's difficult to pass laws. But what we need
to do, and what we can do with the majority
vote among Republicans in the House of the Senate, is
do a lot to cut spending and to reverse the
damage that has been done by allowing this bureaucracy to
grow without constraint and to hire people whose sole purpose
in life is to harass and target average, hardworking Americans.
So we'll keep fighting to get things like the born
Protection Bill passed, to try to move the mail order
abortion bill, bill, other bills that we think are important
for protecting life and other matters. But we can constrain
government with the majorities we've got in the House in
the Senate, and I think we must if we want
to live free and be able to have protections for
things like life.
Speaker 1: Speaking of living free, let's take a look at the
homeland and the security of the homeland thus far. How
do you feel about the president's executive orders as it
relates to not only securing a border, but let's be
honest about it, bringing a border back to the United States,
particularly to your backyard in Texas.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, the president has done everything he said he would do,
and frankly, he's succeeded in my opinion in terms of
what he's done with the executive orders, how fast he's
done them. Going to remind people, it is Thursday. The
man was sworn in on Monday, and that's just no
where I going. I look at about seventy six hour timeframe.
The president has totally reorganized the border. The number of
apprehensions is plumbing. The number of people that we're seeing
show up at the border at all is plumbing, both
at the between the boorts entry and at the ports entry.
We're seeing ice already removing some bad actors. In fact,
he had some bad actors that I'm not going to
go back home, you know, f Trump, Bob Iden forever.
Speaker 3: That guy was arrested up in the Haitian immigrant right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right somewhere up North. I don't remember where
it was, and you know, so you know, look the
executive orders on the building the wall, the executive order
on a retaining operation control the border, the executive orders
and reinstating that remain in Mexico policies, the title forty
two policies. Now applying those out of forty two policies
to say that any migrants that are traveling through countries
with communicable diseases, which frankly is pretty much all of
them in the western and southern hemisphere, that those people
can be stopped at the border. Empowering order, patrol, empowering eyes.
All of these things are great executive orders. I think
he's restoring order as he promised, fifteen hundred troops out
of the border. The Pentagon needs to deliver a few more.
But the last point I'll make is Congress needs to
provide those resources. And in order to provide those resources,
I support doing a very quick reconciliation package, a first
of two bill approach, so that we get delivered for
the president. I've been in favor of that for two months.
We've taken official baziz Is the House Freedom carcass in
favor of doing that. We agree to increase the debt ceiling.
We've agreed to increase border funding, defense funding, but along
with reversing some of Biden's wars policies like the student
owned fiasco's and bring in requiring medicaid and we believe
we should require work requirements for medicaid. If we did
all of that in a package real quick, we can
then sit down and figure out our tax policy and
spending cuts. And I think it's important to answer your
question to help the president deliver fully to make sure
they've got the resources to do it at board, patrol
and ice.
Speaker 1: That's important to having the resources there. But some of
the resources are there, and what we're hearing is, at
least the US military seems to be dragging its feet
on potentially on moving troops to the border to make
sure that's securing. The President has asked for what ten
thousand troops to be there, and we're hearing that that's
not being favorably looked upon by members the Pentagon. What
are you hearing about that?
Speaker 3: What do you say to that?
Speaker 2: Well, I saw the same report. I'm not advised fully,
because we've been running around today doing couple things like
this bill the borderline bill and other stuff. But what
I did see was that there was reports that the
President requested ten thousand drinks get down of the border,
that the Pentagon that had balked a bed saying, wow,
you're going to be moving them off of other duties
and that would be a problem. So they advised fifteen hundred.
They moved to fifteen hundred. I can't speak for the president,
and I don't want to insert myself into something of
which I'm not fully advised, but I'll just say this,
he's the commander in chief, and he says you need
ten thousand of the border, then the freaking Pentagon ought
to send ten thousand of the border and figure out
how to move their freaking nine hundred billion dollar bureaucracy
to go deal with the duties elsewhere. Because last time
I checked, there's a crap ton more than ten thousand
members of our armed forces. So if the President needs
those people, then then he ought to get them. But
I will refer to the President he's the commander achieved
as to what he does to pressure the Pentagon. Obviously,
we hope to get Pete. Except in place rapid.
Speaker 3: Fire, you've got a lot to do.
Speaker 1: You've already done a lot today and I don't want
to take up too much more every time, but I'd
be remiss if I didn't ask you about the key
piece of legislation that is near and dear to your heart,
and it's near and dear to my heart as the
senior elections correspondent.
Speaker 3: For the Federalists. That's the Save Act.
Speaker 1: And making sure that you know only citizens are voting.
That's principally what that Act is all about. You had
nothing but resistance from Democrats last time around. Where does
that bill stand? Where do you think it will ultimately
end up?
Speaker 2: Well, the Save Acts is an important bill. It was
it was that bill that was placed in and embedded
in our initial rules package. I hope that we will
be bringing that up and calling it up for a
vote reasonably soon. We obviously passed it out of the
House last July with a you know, hand it was
a bipartisan bill. We've got a hand bull of folks
who supported.
Speaker 3: I think we got.
Speaker 2: Five maybe who joined along with that bill to pass
it out, but five Democrats. But we are hopeful that
we can move it soon, get it over the Senate.
Chuck Schumer wouldn't move it. Obviously, this set it would
be more inclined to move it. I think if we've
got a vote on the floor, they'd have a tough
time not having at least seven Democrats joined to vote
for it. There are other matters we want to maybe
add to it or pass a different bill or Campanion legislation.
Remember that stay back was designed ers specifically last summer
to require documentary group of citizenship for voting, for registering
to vote. There are things we'd like to do with
respect to the senses and the data week like there's
legislation that we would like to do with respect to
same day voting, requiring people to you know, basically be
voting on election day or within some reasonable proximity to it.
You can't have these like two months build up early voting.
We'd like to tighten the ways in which we vote.
The President has mentioned paper ballots. We certainly want to
make sure that we have balance that we can trust.
So there are other things and provisions that we would
like to move along with the same BAC, including voter
ID requirement. But the save AC would require voter ID
for registration and proof citizenship, which we think would go
about eighty ninety percent of the way where we need
to go, and we can add those other measures to
finish the job.
Speaker 1: Final question for you, have you enjoyed as much as
I watching an energetic president. I think we all feel
like we've gotten a bit atrophied from the Biden years
and that pace. Now, there was a lot of damage
done through all kinds of different things over the last
four years.
Speaker 3: But how do you feel about just the.
Speaker 1: Different I think Donald Trump has had perhaps fifteen more
press conferences so far in the seventy six hours than
Joe Biden did in his four years in office. But
it is a different pace, is it?
Speaker 4: Not?
Speaker 2: No question? President Trump has hit the ground a man's
hard does even quite do it justice? To be honest
with you, he's notorious for not eating sleep. He's notorious for,
you know, being undeterred and accomplishing what he wants to accomplish.
It is great to see that energy. It's great to
see the press conferences, and you know, look, the world
needs that. It may be arguably the most important thing
that a president of the United States provides in a
in a government of separated powers, in a government in
which the Congress is supposed to be, frankly, the pre
eminent branch representing the people. It is critically important. The
most important role of our president is serving there as
the commander in chief, the chief executive, but importantly the
figure that represents a Republican form of government around the
world and the importance of stability and strength and security
that he alone really truly can projects as the president
commander achieved. So seeing an active president that is engaging
on that product, I think is really a it's a
breadth of fresh air. But we're gonna have to keep
working together. We've got to have permanent reforms. Conference is
going to have to make some good decisions here soon
about our spending restraint, and and you know I'm going
I'm gonna be standing up and telling the President and
telling my colleagues that we need to cut spending so
that we can get deficits to go down, because we
will not deliver on the president's call for inflation to
go down. We're not gonna be able to make life
more affordable to the average American. We're not gonna be
able to have bond markets that are strong and functioning
if we don't cut spending. So I'm going to continue
to have that fight up here.
Speaker 4: On the hill.
Speaker 1: Well, I'll tell you it's it's almost impossible to believe
that Inauguration Day was just Monday. That that's a great deal.
I want to thank you very much for taking the time.
I know you've got to get back to the floor.
I very much appreciate your time and your perspective, particularly
on this life week, life issues as we get ready
for the March for Life. Thanks to my guest today
once again, Representative Chip Roy, Republican from the great state
of Texas. You've been listening to another edition of the
Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, Senior Elections correspondent at
the Federalist. We'll be back soon with more. Until then,
stay lovers of freedom and anxious for the Fray.
Speaker 2: I heard the fame voice the Reason, and then it
faded away.