[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 12 (Wednesday, February 9, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 VALUES WHICH HOLD COMMUNITIES TOGETHER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett] is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. SWETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes 
of my time to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Cantwell].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Hampshire?
  There was no objection.


                          tribute to microsoft

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. Speaker, during the weeks that the House was out of 
session, our Nation received a substantial amount of economic good 
news. The economy is growing. Unemployment is declining. The budget 
deficit picture is improving.
  These trends are encouraging. But macro numbers don't tell the whole 
story. The new dynamism of our economy is best seen in the 
accomplishments of its individual companies and people.
  My colleagues from Washington State want to take a few minutes today 
in this special order to talk about the recent accomplishments of one 
company in our State that is one of the Nation's leading exporters, 
will play an integral role in the creation of the information 
superhighway and creating unique cultural and educational tools for our 
families.
  The House certainly is familiar with Microsoft. It is our Nation's 
leading software company; a jobs machine and small business generator; 
and a leader in helping the U.S. balance of payments.
  Now that's new news about Microsoft that demonstrates how vital it 
and the software industry are in reestablishing our world 
competitiveness and leading the U.S. economy into the next century.
  Here is what has happened just since we went home in November: 
Microsoft unveiled its new Microsoft Home (R) software, an innovative 
package of programs aimed at better educating our children; Fortune 
magazine's December 13 issue named Microsoft the Nation's most 
innovative company, based on a poll of senior corporate executives; the 
Information Technology Association of America awarded 
Microsoft its 1993 Quality Award for outstanding customer 
support; Microsoft is the only U.S. software company to win this 
prestigious award, which is modeled after the Department of Commerce's 
Malcolm Baldrige Quality Awards; a Business Week poll selected 
Microsoft CEO Bill Gates as the corporate executive for whom 
respondents would most like to work; Fortune magazine, after surveying 
more than 10,000 business and financial leaders, in its February 7 
issue named Microsoft as the Nation's third-most admired corporation, 
and as the corporation rated highest for ability to attract, develop 
and keep talented people; and Nathan Myhrvold, Microsoft's senior vice 
president for advanced technology and business development, was 
appointed by Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown to the National 
Information Infrastructure Advisory Council.
  These are just the latest entries on a record in which Microsoft, 
Washington State and our Nation can take great pride. Certainly the 
people of my First District, the home of Microsoft, both take pride and 
reap benefits from this record.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to place into the Record 
several statements by my Washington State colleagues.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. CANTWELL. I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington, my other 
colleague from the State who is a member of the Committee on Science, 
Space and Technology, to further comment on the accomplishments and 
successes of this industry.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I 
would like to do a bit of bragging too about our leadership in high 
technology under the name of Microsoft in Washington State.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason that Microsoft and the software 
industry has grown so rapidly and continues to grow is because they are 
truly innovative.
  In some fields, probably most, new developments and new products 
enable us to do a task easier or enjoy something a little more. With 
the latest stereo system, for example, we can hear the symphony a 
little better and perhaps change the recording with less effort.
  But in software, new advances are enabling us to do things we 
previously couldn't do at all. The quantum leaps of software during the 
past two decades define innovation in the finest sense of the term.
  As a member of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, I see 
many examples of the latest devices in one high-technology area or 
another. But as a former IBM programmer I can tell you that it is the 
software on the inside, not the shiny finish on the outside, that makes 
these products innovative. Without the software, most of them aren't 
anything more than a modern sculpture.
  Until the 1970's, software generally was developed for specific 
computers by the computer manufacturer. As a result, the distinction 
between hardware and software was not actively perceived.
  In the 1970's, however, the computer software industry came to be 
recognized as a separate industry from the hardware section. That is 
because software came to be developed by companies separate from the 
hardware manufacturers. A substantial amount of the software also 
became usable on various models of computers.
  Microsoft led that structural change by making its operating software 
open in two ways: First, it could be used on more than one brand of 
computer, thereby establishing itself as a leading industry presence; 
and second, applications software from developers other than Microsoft 
could be used in harmony with the Microsoft operating software.
  That open approach made it possible for thousands of other 
companies--most of them entrepreneurial startups--to compete 
in the dynamic software market. Microsoft, in fact, has spent millions 
of dollars over the years educating and urging other software companies 
to develop applications programs to run on Microsoft's MS-DOS and 
Windows operating software. In this fiscal year alone, Microsoft will 
spend $14 million in support of independent software vendors. Microsoft 
also brings these independent software vendors into the very early 
stages of its development of new operating systems. Feedback from the 
independents frequently has resulted in changes to products.
  This broadening of the intellectual resources for software 
development has been a major element creating the rapid pace of diverse 
innovation.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington's Fourth 
District [Mr. Inslee] another member of the Committee on Science, Space 
and Technology.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as we are talking about innovation today, it is 
appropriate to talk about Microsoft. And I would like to just comment 
about why I think their case is demonstrative of why we have such 
bright spots in our national economy. There is a lot of talk about 
gloom, but I think there are still bright spots, and Microsoft is an 
example of that. And I would like to comment on some reasons for 
success in their industry and their particular participation.

                              {time}  1740

  I think those reasons are external and internal, and if I could just 
address three external reasons why the industry and Microsoft in 
particular has been successful.
  One is technical, if you will, and that is the expansion of microchip 
capacity, and that capacity has allowed expansion to meet the capacity 
of software. That has been an external reason Microsoft has been able 
to be successful in the industry.
  Second, ease of competition and ease of entry into the market: This 
particular industry has really shown the wisdom of having ease of entry 
and great competition, because no party has been able to stay on the 
pedestal long without reinventing their company.
  I would like to talk about their efforts in that regard in a minute. 
It has been constantly an evolving industry.
  Third, the industry has had market-driven standards. They have not 
had government-set standards. It has largely been driven by the market, 
and that shows the success for the industry.
  Let me comment on the internal, if I may. The internal reasons for a 
company like Microsoft's success, and I heard the CEO who gave some 
comments about the next decade of Microsoft. The thing that really 
struck me is their comment that Microsoft has to change every day. They 
reinvent their corporation every day, and they urge their employees to 
do that. That is something perhaps we need to follow in Government.
  That has been very successful. Microsoft has been rated by a survey 
by Fortune magazine of senior executives as the most innovative 
corporation. Another survey of 10,000 senior executives said it has 
been looked at as the most admired corporation for attracting and 
keeping talented personnel. That is because they have learned to 
reinvent their corporation every day. They have been successful, and it 
is a real bright spot that I hope the Government can come to emulate.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the gentleman from Washington for his comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for sharing their 
thoughts.
  I am proud that my district plays such a central role in this 
industry as the home of its leading company, Microsoft.
  But I believe it is clear that every one of us and every one of our 
constituents benefits in many ways from the products of this industry. 
Let us do nothing to stifle any of the dynamism and innovation that 
mean so much for all of us.


                             general leave

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the subject of my special order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hinchey). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman 
from New Hampshire in yielding to us.
  Mr. SWETT. I thank the gentlewoman very much. It is my pleasure to 
listen to such a cogent and balanced discussion about high technology 
and the needs that this country has for that technology for not only 
today but the years ahead, and I appreciate the discourse and gladly 
yield any time that she would like to so discuss it again in the 
future.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight is the beginning of a conversation, a dialog, 
that I would like to have with my colleagues. I sense the need for a 
national dialog about the values which hold communities together and 
underlie and support the legislative efforts of those of us who are 
honored to be public servants in our Nation's Capitol. I hope that, 
through this discussion, we might begin to change the tenor of public 
debate from the adversarial and disrespectful discourse that is 
sometimes observed, to a more cooperative and respectful interaction 
that focuses on solutions instead of dwelling on the points where we 
disagree.
  Many of the values and principals needed for a strong community and 
society are familiar to us all. Some of them may even seem trite. 
However, after 3 short years in Congress it has become clear to me that 
they have not been focused on nearly enough. We especially have not 
heard enough of what Mainstreet America believes and wants for our 
country. It is for this reason that I and a number of my colleagues 
have committed ourselves to spending some time every Wednesday night 
talking about the issues and challenges facing this country in the hope 
that we can begin to rebuild bridges of trust between the public and 
government, and between different groups around the country.
  Too much of the public discourse these days is divisive, destructive, 
and negative. It is time to develop a new language that begins to 
reconnect a society that today appears to be more divided than it was 
during the Civil War. If we are unable to successfully reconstruct a 
sense of community in America, we may yet realize the tragic prophecy 
of one of our greatest leaders, Abraham Lincoln, who in 1838, a full 
score before the Civil War, uttered these words:

       All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with 
     all the treasure of the earth--our own excepted--in their 
     military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not 
     by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the 
     Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years . . . If 
     destruction be our lot we must overselves be its author and 
     finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all 
     time, or die by suicide.

  He was, of course, speaking of the impending evil of Civil War, but 
what was spoken over 150 years ago could very easily apply to today; 
only today it is a subtler, more insidious virus that pits group 
against group, special interest against special interest, ideology 
against ideology. The streets of Los Angeles during the riots, the 
daily drug killings in our towns, and throwaway kid syndrome exhibited 
by too many parents, demonstrates that societal suicide is alive and 
well in America. It seems as if, here in Congress, opposition is 
tantamount to cooperation. Little attention is given to the greater 
good of the whole as special interests fight for their programs and 
policy. Our national interests are pitted against the selfish interests 
of individuals and groups. It is a win-lose situation where all too 
often it the Nation as a whole and the majority of its citizens who are 
on the losing side. Surely there must be a new way. A way in which we 
all win something, where compromise and agreement can be found so that 
the basic values of our society can be maintained and strengthened. And 
this will only be possible if we stop fighting about our differences 
and start building upon our shared values and similarities.
  In a successful community the unspoken need is to build coalitions 
and consensus, not factions and dysfunctional debate. These communities 
are not successful because there are no differences, it is just that 
the members of the community work hard to solve their problems.
  Yet, the most prominent product of congressional floor debate seems 
to be dysfunctional gridlock. What if the tone, the demeanor, the very 
language of debate in Washington were changed? I am not advocating the 
elimination of disagreement or debate. Rather I am calling for the 
elevation of more fundamental qualities--that can not be legislated--
that would encourage, rather than discourage, resolution of differences 
encountered in the legislative process. Is it a crime to seek win-win 
solutions?
  In architecture, buildings are designed not only as esthetic 
sculptures, but as functional structures that serve their inhabitants. 
The key is to combine the two in such a way as to provide for both the 
pragmatic and inspirational needs of the occupiers. The debate and 
discussion in this process reflect mutual respect and most importantly 
a desire by all the parties to find agreement. This is really the 
approach that is built upon a win-win scenario.
  Take the design of a simple house. The client is not one person, but 
the entire family. Each person has preferences that are different from 
the others. The different preferences, by human nature, inflate or 
deflate certain aspects of the house in the eye of the individual. 
Those who like to cook want large kitchens, party people want big 
living rooms, and so on. The architect's role is to bring balance to 
the process and accord each living area its proper due while keeping 
the entire project under budget, on schedule, and up to the esthetic 
standards set by the architect and client together.
  Public buildings go through the same process although in a somewhat 
less personal and individualistic way. Public space is a place where 
the sense of community is heightened and relationships are promoted 
between members of the public. Neutral corners are offered where 
specific tasks are carried out or thoughts are gathered. The balance 
between the two should make the role each space plays all the more 
effective.
  As an architect, I like to look not only at the surface and shape of 
buildings, but at underlying structures, too. Every building consists 
of beams, headers, and multiple other components that are concealed, 
yet play the more important role of supporting the structure. As a 
legislator I cannot help but see the same process of design underlying 
structures in society, except that they are intangible concepts, or 
values that connect individuals to their community. Values like 
neighbor helping neighbor. That all of us are entitled to equal 
opportunity and freedoms. That each of must take responsibility for our 
actions and for keeping our Nation strong. That structure is weakening. 
What can be done to strengthen the structure?
  The lack of a productive dialog, of win-win situations, has allowed 
legislation to focus unduly on the problems rather than on finding 
meaningful solutions. Too often we are caught up in the debate for the 
sake of debate, not for the good it produces. Meanwhile, our society is 
struggling and crumbling around the edges.
  We cannot allow our communities to disintegrate, where one group is 
separated from another, where neighbors no longer know their neighbor, 
when families are ripped apart. We are turning our public spaces--the 
markets, town greens, and gathering places from places where 
relationships are created and nurtured between members of the community 
to sites of butchery where lives are mercilessly slaughtered.
  So too, are the relationships between these people obliterated and 
annihilated. Beyond this destruction is the destruction of all 
relationships that touched the lost lives. Their ability to love is 
impaired; their ability to hope is hobbled. In short, the underlying 
structure of any good and tolerant society is shaken and weakened.
  In order to encourage my colleagues and the public at large to 
participate in this new democratic community--with a small d--I think 
it is only appropriate to first lay what I call the foundations of 
agreement. These are the basic values that I think Mainstreet America 
would say are necessary to establish a constructive discussion. We have 
obviously lost our understanding of the foundation, otherwise why would 
our society have splintered into multiple and divided groups?
  There are some basic principles that need to be agreed upon. Just as 
when I hold town meetings on health care reform, where the first 
question I ask is ``who thinks health care needs reforming?'' and 
invariably 70 percent of the people attending raise their hands, so too 
do we need to ask ``what are the basic principles that need to be 
agreed upon in order to start a constructive, society strengthening 
dialog in the political arena?'' If we can get a 70 percent agreement 
in this area like I can get on the need for health care reform, then we 
have come a long way toward starting the dialogue on a positive 
footing. Let me offer some ideas I have regarding foundational 
principles.
  First, our society is based on a profound respect for the individual 
and the sacredness of the human being.
  Second, that good government serves the greater good by balancing the 
needs of the few with the needs of the many through pragmatic, 
reasonable decisionmaking and consensus.
  Third, in a free society, as individual freedoms increase, so do 
individual responsibilities.
  Fourth, the Government's role is to provide the policy tools to 
increase individual freedom, prosperity and common values--such as the 
need for strong families--and that elected officials are the public 
servant who fulfills the will of the public for the public good.
  I do not think either the extreme left or the extreme right can truly 
claim these principles. A whole new paradigm, or way of thinking needs 
to be encouraged in Government so that solutions become the norm 
instead of rhetoric. It is important for elected officials to talk, but 
not for the sake of talking. The electorate must take more 
responsibility by demanding that rhetoric becomes reality. The record 
of accomplishment should be easily correlated and matched with the 
original plans laid out by the elected official. Promises made should 
be promises kept. Actions should speak louder than words.

  What role does Government have in the connecting of principles to the 
issues? Here is an example: Government is neither the ultimate provider 
of entitlement nor the blind, standby agent of benign neglect. Another 
example might be: Government is poised, in principle, at the center 
point of the dynamic polar forces, one which wishes Government to do 
everything and the other which wishes Government to do nothing. Both of 
these forces are simplistic; both provide false choices; both are 
ultimately harmful to society. Locked together as they are today, both 
forces are responsible for gridlock and misery.
  I hear too often from people about how they wish Government would 
stop looking for partisan positions and start implementing solutions. 
Government should not define its purpose by reacting to the polarized, 
simplistic ideological forces, but rather by ignoring them and 
returning to the basic principles upon which, hopefully, we have all 
agreed:
  First, what is the real situation and problem?
  Second, what pragmatic, effective tools can be created to deal with 
the situation and/or equip people to solve these problems?
  What can we look for in a leader to give us confidence that he or she 
is thinking in this fashion? There has to be balance. Partnerships 
between the public and private sector at the national and local level 
ought to be a common goal. A balanced program creates a win-win 
situation for America; an unbalanced program creates winners and 
losers, which is what we have too much of today in America.
  Effective and productive activity denotes the new leader. Americans 
seek results, not rhetoric, and those results are being sought in 
health care reform, crime prevention, welfare reform, job creation, and 
so on. We must elect and follow people who are clearly identifying 
goals and achieving them. Vice President Gore's reinventing Government 
is a good example of goal setting and, we hope, accomplishment. Those 
not supporting this approach are willing to waste national resources to 
maintain ineffective or nonproductive means because they have severed 
the relationship between ends and means.
  Look for leaders who are interested in results produced by 
individuals who are freely empowered to solve problems with useful 
tools, not necessarily tied to one party or another. If every problem 
is seen as a nail then every solution begins to look like a hammer. 
That kind of rigid thinking stifles creativity and narrows options for 
not only finding solutions but for articulating the results to 
different groups as well. Too many politicians are more interested in 
the idea, the ideals, and the end goals, and maintaining a commitment 
to them, than they are in producing pragmatic tools for solving 
problems. They damage their own stated cause by being rigid and 
ideological.
  This country is a country of optimists. Our problems are temporal and 
specific. Americans embody the values which, with useful tools, can be 
used freely by them to solve their problems if only Government and its 
leaders will put enough faith in the public to do so. It is an illusion 
to claim that Government actually manages the economy. What is more 
accurate would be to understand that Government creates tools or 
obstacles which when freely used by individuals produces constructive, 
progressive results or economic disaster.
  Finally, I believe the independence of the American people should not 
be underestimated. If they have the tools to solve their problems, they 
will do so independently and without the need of interference. ``If it 
ain't broke, don't fix it,'' the saying goes. A logical corollary would 
be, ``if it is broken, make the tools available for someone to fix it, 
and they will.''
  I think these values are held by a broader cross-section of the 
American public than any other approach. Recognizing these values and 
allowing them to be developed and realized is the first step toward 
building the bridge of trust. Building bridges of trust are the first 
structures necessary for the reconstructing of the sense of community 
in this Nation.
  The dialog in the country is moving in this direction. Just witness 
the number of articles and books being written about the need to build 
community.
  First, Dan Kemmis--Community and the Politics of Place;
  Second, Amatai Etzioni--The Spirit of Community;
  Third, John W. Gardner--On Leadership, and
  Fourth, Michael Rowan--On the Deterioration of Political Dialogue in 
the United States, to name a few.
  In Congress there is evidence of this new spirit of cooperation. Look 
at the example of the Penny-Kasich amendment. This was an amendment to 
cut spending in Government by an additional $90 billion above and 
beyond the cuts proposed by President Clinton. This amendment was 
crafted by a unique bipartisan group of 15 Democrats--I was one of 
them--and 15 Republicans. Could it be that we had a win-win situation 
with such bipartisan support? Unfortunately, this reasonable and fair 
proposal lost in the waning hours of the session by the close vote of 
219 to 213. Although the measure failed, it played an important role in 
solidifying an emerging coalition on the Democratic side of the aisle 
that has become known as the New Democrats--a group that is determined 
to get results, to build individual responsibility into Government 
policy, and who are working to see that Americans have the tools they 
need to keep this country great. Many people who supported the Penny-
Kasich legislation reflect the mood of a national electorate that is 
increasingly skeptical of Washington and hungry for change. It is a 
safe bet that this budget coalition will resurface in the future, and 
may even hold the balance of power in the House in the coming years.
  These were not Members of Congress who wanted to cut every category 
of spending simply for the sake of reducing the deficit. However, they 
do understand that long-term economic growth requires less Government 
borrowing and more private investment. This was the first precursor to 
the ideas presented by Robert Shapiro in his article on cutting and 
investing which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on January 17, 
1994.
  It is time to seriously re-examine the progovernment or 
antigovernment extreme ideologies which an increasingly skeptical 
middle class does not seem to be buying. It is time for Members of 
Congress to start addressing the real problems that have all but 
destroyed the public's faith in Government. Homelessness, broken 
families, drugs, and irresponsible citizens belong to neither party or 
a particular ideology. They are problems all of us share and must 
resolve.
  Another bipartisan effort to rebuild the bridge of trust between the 
public and the Government is a piece of legislation coauthored by 
Congressman Chris Shays, a Republican from Connecticut, and myself, a 
Democrat from New Hampshire. It is called the Congressional 
Accountability Act. It sounds simple enough: Congress should live by 
the same laws it sets for the rest of the country.
  But, as amazing as it may seem, Congress is partially or wholly 
exempt from a host of laws the executive branch and private sector must 
comply with, including health and safety standards, information 
disclosure, equal employment opportunity and civil rights protections, 
labor laws, ethics standards, and even part of Social Security 
regulations. This is an outrage and is wrong. More practically 
speaking, Congress would write more effective and responsible 
legislation if it lived under the same laws it imposes on the executive 
branch and private sector.
  By exempting themselves from some laws, Members of Congress lose the 
opportunity to experience firsthand the effects of the legislation they 
adopt. And, in turn, they remove themselves one step further from the 
average American, insulating themselves from the frustrations 
constituents face every day.
  It is no wonder so many feel Congress is out of touch.
  Being in touch is what representative government should be all about. 
Being in touch is certainly what good community is all about. People in 
touch with themselves. People in touch with each other. All of us 
working together on common agreements to improve our society through 
debate on the details. That is what will keep us from committing 
suicide. That is only possible by broadening the language of political 
debate to include the rhetoric of responsibility and values.
  President Clinton understands this language. A growing number of my 
colleagues also understand this language. As President Clinton said in 
his State of the Union address,

       . . .let us be honest. We all know something else too. Our 
     problems go way beyond the reach of government. They are 
     rooted in the loss of values, in the disappearance of work, 
     and the breakdown of our families and communities. My fellow 
     Americans, we can cut the deficit, create jobs, promote 
     democracy around the world, pass the toughest crime bill in 
     history, and still leave too many of our people behind. The 
     American people have to want to change from within if we are 
     going to bring back work and family and community.
       We cannot renew our country when within a decade more than 
     half of our children will be born into families where there 
     has been no marriage. We cannot renew this country when 13-
     year-old boys get semiautomatic weapons to shoot 9-year-olds 
     for kicks. We cannot renew our country when children are 
     having children and the fathers walk away as if the kids do 
     not amount to anything.
       We cannot renew our country unless. . . all of us are 
     willing to join the churches and other good citizens. . . who 
     are saving kids, adopting schools, making streets safer. All 
     of us can do that. We cannot renew our country until we 
     realize that governments do not raise children, parents do, 
     parents who know their children's teachers, and turn off the 
     television and help with the homework, and teach their kids 
     right from wrong. Those kinds of parents can make all of the 
     difference.

  These are powerful words. The problem at the moment is that they are 
only words. Rhetoric. In the coming weeks I hope that I, my colleagues 
who choose to participate, and Americans from Mainstreet America can 
explore more deeply the values that will surely shore up the sagging 
foundations of our society.

                              {time}  1800

  Health care reform, welfare reform, crime legislation, and next week 
we will be talking about congressional reform; these are all the issues 
that need to be focused on, I think, that need to be passed this year 
so that we can begin to improve the relationship between Government and 
the people. We need to offer examples where the rhetoric has truly been 
replaced by reality.

                              {time}  1810

  We need to lay out the modest plan by which we humbly hope to build a 
new democratic community, one in which there is shared responsibility, 
shared accountability, shared pain and sorrow, shared love, and shared 
joy.
  I look forward to continuing this dialogue in the weeks ahead. I 
thank the Speaker for the opportunity for allowing me to begin it this 
Wednesday evening.

                          ____________________