[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 118 (Friday, August 19, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN:
  S. 2408. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for the nonrecognition of gain on long-term real property which is 
involuntarily converted as the result of the exercise of eminent 
domain, without regard to whether the replacement property is similar 
or of like kind; to the Committee on Finance.


                       eminent domain legislation

 Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, eminent domain is the 
inherent and necessary right of every nation to take private property 
to promote the general welfare. This attribute of governmental 
sovereignty is important because it allows the U.S. Federal Government 
to build roads, highways, and bridges which benefit all Americans.
  Nonetheless, under the current Tax Code, the involuntary conversion 
of property through eminent domain forces landowners to make a 
difficult choice: they must either pay the tax on their capital gain 
that year, or defer the tax for up to 3 years by investing the gain in 
like-kind property.
  In effect, the Tax Code forces individuals to search for similar land 
in which to invest their gain, although many of them would prefer to 
reinvest their gain in a home, a stock portfolio, or a retirement 
investment fund.
  I firmly believe that it is unfair and unreasonable to force 
landowners, who were unwilling sellers in the first place, to search 
for identical property, or suffer severe tax consequences.
  The legislation I am introducing today would address this problem by 
allowing landowners who own real property for 10 years or more, and 
whose property is taken by eminent domain, to reinvest that gain in any 
investment and defer the capital gains tax for up to 3 years.
  This legislation will restore some fairness to our Tax Code for these 
unwilling sellers. More specifically, it will give the residents of St. 
Clair County, whose property has been acquired for the development of 
the joint-use airport at Scott Air Force Base, more flexibility as they 
make their decisions on what to do after their property is sold to the 
county.
  I urge my colleagues to help me create a fairer Tax Code for our 
Nation's taxpayers by supporting this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2408

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. NONRECOGNITION TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY 
                   INVOLUNTARILY CONVERTED AS RESULT OF EXERCISE 
                   OF EMINENT DOMAIN.

       (a) In General.--Section 1033 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to involuntary conversions) is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (j), and by 
     inserting after subsection (h) the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Condemnation of Real Property Held for at Least 10 
     Years.--For purposes of subsection (a), if real property held 
     by the taxpayer for at least 10 years is (as the result of 
     its seizure, requisition, or condemnation, or threat or 
     imminence thereof) compulsorily or involuntarily converted, 
     any other property shall (at the election of the taxpayer) be 
     treated as property similar or related in service or use to 
     the property so converted.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to dispositions of converted property occurring 
     on or after October 1, 1991.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DURENBERGER:
  S. 2409. A bill for the relief of D. W. Jacobson, Ronal Karkala, and 
Paul Bjorgen of Grand Rapids, MN; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                       PRIVATE RELIEF LEGISLATION

 Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I am introducing today a 
private relief bill S. 2409, in behalf of partners of Norwood 
Manufacturing, Inc., of Grand Rapids, MN, a company which has been 
dissolved. A companion resolution, Senate Resolution 250 has been 
submitted which will request the U.S. Court of Claims to review a 
dispute between the partners of the dissolved company and the U.S. 
Postal Service.
  On May 26, 1987, Norwood Manufacturing was awarded a contract by the 
U.S. Postal Service to manufacture wooden nestable pallets. This 
contract award itself occurred only after Norwood was forced to 
threaten legal action to compel the award of the contract to Norwood, 
the low bidder, and not to the second lowest bidder, a company which 
had a prior relationship with the Postal Service.
  To make a long and complicated story very short, 8 months after 
awarding Norwood the contract, on February 9, 1988, the U.S. Postal 
Service informed Norwood that it was terminating the contract for 
default. Even though Norwood had met the delivery schedule, the Postal 
Service initially decided to terminate the contract for failure to make 
timely deliveries. When it appeared that this was not a legitimate 
claim, the Postal Service indicated that Norwood's pallets did not meet 
specification. The Postal Service asserted this failure to meet 
specification even though Norwood's norwood pallets passed all of the 
tests required under the contract. The result of this decision forced 
the company to dissolve, leaving the small businessmen who owned and 
operated Norwood in debt.
  Norwood disputes the Postal Service's claim that their nestable 
pallets did not meet the specifications and can present evidence from 
the Postal Services' own inspectors that supports this contention.
  The company contested the Postal Service's decision in the U.S. Court 
of Claims. On August 10, 1990, the Court of Claims ruled against 
Norwood in a summary judgement; the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 
affirmed the Court of Claims without any explanation or opinion. I am 
told that the Court of Claims ruling came as a surprise to both the 
Postal Service and their lawyers in the Department of Justice. In fact, 
I am told that the Justice Department lawyers had already indicated to 
Norwood a desire to discuss a settlement of the matter as soon as the 
Court of Claims denied the Postal Service's motion for summary 
judgement. Naturally, when the judge ruled in favor of the Postal 
Service the Justice Department saw no need to further negotiate a 
settlement.
  Thus, Mr. President, I do not believe that Norwood had an adequate 
review of what I admit is a very complex dispute. This is why I believe 
it is imperative that the Court of Claims review this matter pursuant 
to a congressional reference case. It is very important that equity be 
achieved by a review of the evidence. The Court of Claims would do this 
upon passage of Senate Resolution 250 and report back to the Congress 
to enable us to then consider the private relief bill for Norwood 
partners.
  I urge my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to consider and pass 
Senate Resolution 250 before the October adjournment date to enable the 
review to begin and thank them for any cooperation they can give me on 
this important matter.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2409

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
       Section 1. The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of 
     any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum 
     of $3,391,404.50 jointly to D.W. Jacobson, Ronal Karkala, and 
     Paul Bjorgen of Norwood Manufacturing, Inc. (now dissolved) 
     of Grand Rapids, Minnesota, for damages incurred relating to 
     the termination of a contract with the United States Postal 
     Service for the manufacture of wooden pallets.
       Sec. 2. (a) The payment made pursuant to the first section 
     of this Act shall constitute full settlement of all legal and 
     equitable claims by D.W. Jacobson, Ronal Karkala, and Paul 
     Bjorgen of Norwood Manufacturing, Inc. (now dissolved) of 
     Grand Rapids, Minnesota, against the United States.
       (b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as an inference 
     of liability on the part of the United States.
       Sec. 3. No part of the amount appropriated in this Act in 
     excess of 10 percent thereof shall be paid or delivered to or 
     received by any agent or attorney on account of services 
     rendered in connection with this Act, and the same shall be 
     unlawful, any contract to the contrary notwithstanding. 
     Violation of the provisions of this section is a misdemeanor 
     punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GRAMM (for himself, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Craig, Mr. Burns, and 
        Mr. Kempthorne):
  S. 2410. A bill to provide appropriate protection for the 
constitutional guarantee of private property rights, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


              the private property rights restoration act

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we see no reason why the takings clause of 
the fifth amendment, as much a part of the Bill of Rights as the first 
amendment or fourth amendment, should be relegated to the status of a 
poor relation. With these words in the recent landmark Supreme Court 
decision Dolan versus City of Tigard, Chief Justice Rehnquist correctly 
points out the near evisceration of one of the most fundamental rights 
upon which our Nation was founded. Sadly, with all the talk we hear 
about rights in America today the fundamental freedom to acquire, use, 
and dispose of private property has become a poor relation. In fact, it 
has very nearly been drummed out of the family because of the Federal 
Government's relentless assault on private property.
  The Founding Fathers were keenly aware of the critical importance of 
private property, so much so that they provided in the Bill of Rights 
that ``private property--shall not--be taken for public use without 
just compensation.'' Indeed, the courts have been very clear that if 
the Government builds a highway across your property, it must provide 
you just compensation. However, one form of taking which has become 
more common than condemnation is the regulatory taking. This occurs 
when the Government imposes such stringent controls on the use of 
private property that its value is eroded or destroyed.
  Two examples of regulatory takings are Government regulation of 
wetlands and endangered species. All over the country under wetlands 
provisions, entire counties or significant portions of coastal land in 
States such as Texas and Maryland have found that the ability of people 
to use their property was dramatically restricted because a Government 
bureaucrat redefined what would qualify as a wetland. In the words of 
east Texas, if a red-cockaded woodpecker landed in your trees, you 
could suddenly be threatened with a Government taking that barred you 
from cutting your own trees. Similarly in the Pacific Northwest 
property owners have found that because an owl was nesting in their 
woods, they can no longer harvest their trees. The impact of these 
regulatory actions on jobs, the economy, family well-being, and 
individual freedom has been enormous.
  To help revive this important freedom, I have introduced the Private 
Property Rights Restoration Act, which will restore the constitutional 
mandate that just compensation be paid when Government action reduces 
private property value. This bill will safeguard the rights of 
individuals whose land is taken by Government regulations or policies 
that reduce the value of the property or rob it of all value. The 
legislation would protect against Government action which significantly 
reduces a property's value and requires compensation when such action 
reduces property value by at least 25 percent or $10,000. However, such 
protections will not be extended to uses of property which are judged 
to be a public nuisance or which will harm the public. The payment of 
compensation and legal fees for property owners who successfully plead 
their case in court must be paid with funds from the budget of the 
agency issuing the regulation.
  Mr. President, I will work toward passage of this legislation to help 
every American whose property rights are being ignored or threatened by 
the Federal Government. I hope we can work together to restore private 
property rights and to bring the fifth amendment back into the family 
of the Bill of Rights on behalf of the people who own property, who 
till the soil, who produce the goods and services in our country, and 
who do the work, pay the taxes, and pull the wagon.

  I ask unanimous consent that a one page description of the 
legislation and the bill itself be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2410

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Private Property Rights 
     Restoration Act''.

     SEC. 2. PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS RESTORATION.

       (a) Cause of Action.--(1) The owner of any real property 
     shall have a cause of action against the United States if--
       (A) the application of a statute, regulation, rule, 
     guideline, or policy of the United States restricts, limits, 
     or otherwise infringes a right to real property that would 
     otherwise exist in the absence of such application; and
       (B) such application described under subparagraph (A) would 
     result in a discrete and non-negligible reduction in the fair 
     market value of the affected portion of real property.
       (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(B), a prima facie case 
     against the United States shall be established if the 
     Government action described under paragraph (1)(A) results in 
     a temporary or permanent diminution of fair market value of 
     the affected portion of real property of the lesser of--
       (A) 25 percent or more; or
       (B) $10,000 or more.
       (b) Jurisdiction.--An action under this Act shall be filed 
     in the United States Court of Federal Claims which shall have 
     exclusive jurisdiction.
       (c) Recovery.--In any action filed under this Act, the 
     owner may elect to recover--
       (1) a sum equal to the diminution in the fair market value 
     of the portion of the property affected by the application of 
     a statute, regulation, rule, guideline, or policy described 
     under subsection (a)(1)(A) and retain title; or
       (2) the fair market value of the affected portion of the 
     regulated property prior to the government action and 
     relinquish title to the portion of property regulated.
       (d) Public Nuisance Exception.--(1) No compensation shall 
     be required by virtue of this Act if the owner's use or 
     proposed use of property amounts to a public nuisance as 
     commonly understood and defined by background principles of 
     nuisance and property law, as understood under the law of the 
     State within which the property is situated.
       (2) To bar an award of damages under this Act, the United 
     States shall have the burden of proof to establish that the 
     use or proposed use of the property is a public nuisance as 
     defined under paragraph (1) of this subsection.

     SEC. 3. APPLICATION; STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

       (a) Application.--This Act shall apply to the application 
     of any statute, regulation, guideline, or policy to real 
     property, if such application occurred or occurs on or after 
     January 1, 1994.
       (b) Statute of Limitations.--The statute of limitations for 
     actions brought under this Act shall be 6 years from the 
     application of any statute, regulation, rule, guideline, or 
     policy of the United States to any affected parcel of 
     property under this Act.

     SEC. 4. AWARD OF COSTS; LITIGATION COSTS.

       (a) In General.--The court, is issuing any final order in 
     any action brought under this Act, shall award costs of 
     litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness) 
     to any prevailing plaintiff.
       (b) Payment.--All awards or judgments for plaintiff, 
     including recovery for damages and costs of litigation, shall 
     be paid out of funds of the agency or agencies responsible 
     for issuing the statute, regulation, rule, guideline or 
     policy affecting the reduction in the fair market value of 
     the affected portion of property. Payments shall not be made 
     from a judgment fund.

     SEC. 5. CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY RIGHTS NOT RESTRICTED.

       Nothing in this Act shall restrict any remedy or any right 
     which any person (or class of persons) may have under any 
     provision of the United States Constitution or any other law.

                Private Property Rights Restoration Act

       Section 1. SHORT TITLE: ``PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS 
     RESTORATION ACT''
       Section 2. PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS RESTORATION:
       (a) CAUSE OF ACTION.--
       (1) The owner of any real property (land) may sue the U.S. 
     Government if (A) any governmental action identified in the 
     Act infringes a persons right to their property; and, (B) 
     that infringement significantly reduces the fair market value 
     of the affected portion of property.
       (2) A property owner may sue the U.S. government if the 
     government action causes a temporary or permanent diminution 
     of fair market value of the affected portion of real property 
     of at least 25 percent or $10,000.
       (b) JURISDICTION.--The U.S. Court of Federal Claims is 
     established as the court of jurisdiction for claims brought 
     forth under this Act.
       (c) RECOVERY.--Property owners may choose among two options 
     to seek reimbursement for government actions which result in 
     takings:
       (1) The amount of diminution in value of the portion of 
     property affected by the government action and retain title, 
     or:
       (2) Fair market value of the affected portion of the 
     regulated property prior to government action and relinquish 
     title to such regulated property.
       (d) PUBLIC NUISANCE EXCEPTION.--Ensures that no 
     compensation is awarded if the use to which the property 
     owner puts the property is judged to be a public nuisance.
       Section 3. APPLICATION; STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS:
       (a) APPLICATION.--The bill applies to real property 
     affected by governmental actions which occur on or after 
     January 1, 1994.
       (b) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.--The statute of limitations for 
     actions brought forth under this legislation is limited to 6 
     years after application of the regulatory action to the 
     affected property.
       Section 4. AWARD OF COSTS; LITIGATION COSTS:
       (a) Includes litigation costs in court award.
       (b) Requires payment for court awards from agency budgets 
     of the agency responsible for the government action, rather 
     than a judgement fund.
       Section 5. CONSTITUTIONALITY OR STATUTORY RIGHTS NOT 
     RESTRICTED:
       Ensures that the bill does not preclude any other remedy 
     property owners may seek.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the value of your property is directly 
dependent on your ability to use that land. This is of great concern to 
many folks in Montana. And I am pleased to join Senator Gramm of Texas 
in introducing the Private Property Rights Restoration Act.
  Private property rights are protected by the fifth amendment of the 
Constitution which states ``nor shall private property be taken for 
public use, without just compensation.'' Yet, many laws and government 
regulations have been encroaching further and further on this right 
because people in Washington do not respect or understand the 
importance of maintaining this right.
  The bill we are introducing today deals with private property and 
government regulations. This bill protects property owners when 
government regulations or policies reduce the value of that property. 
The bill also establishes a U.S. Court of Federal Claims as a court of 
jurisdiction for claims brought forth under the act, and it requires 
payment for court awards from the budget of the agency responsible for 
court awards from the budget of the agency responsible for the taking. 
With government regulations encroaching more and more on private 
property, I believe this bill is important.
  In recent years, the courts have made important decisions regarding 
private property rights. In 1991, I submitted to the U.S. Supreme 
Court, a friend of the court brief. While this particular case dealt 
with the taking of property in South Carolina, the issue was important 
to Montana. In this case, the Court sided on with the property owner 
reaffirming every American's right. This year, another U.S. Supreme 
Court case dealing with a private property in Tigard, OR, also 
reaffirmed this constitutional right.
  Montanans believe that protecting private property is of utmost 
importance. I firmly believe Congress needs to reinforce the 
government's responsibility to protect property rights to protect the 
value of individuals' land.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Simpson, Mr. 
        Lieberman, and Mr. Wofford):
  S. 2411. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to establish 
procedures for determining that status of certain missing members of 
the Armed Forces and certain civilians, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.


               the missing service personnel act of 1994

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, today I rise, with my colleague, Senator 
Lautenberg, to introduce the Missing Service Personnel Act of 1994. The 
legislation we introduce today, which builds on the recent amendments 
introduced by Senator Smith to the Defense Authorization Act, would 
reform the Department of Defense's procedures for determining whether 
members of the Armed Forces should be listed as missing or presumed 
dead. Legislation pertaining to those missing in action has not changed 
in the past 50 years. Since the Vietnam War, the Department of Defense 
and the U.S. Government have been criticized for their handling of the 
POW/MIA issue. Some of that criticism is legitimate. Some of it has 
been brought upon the Government by its own actions or inactions. This 
bill attempts to correct some of those problems and establish a fair 
and equitable procedure for determining the exact status of such 
personnel. At the same time, Senator Lautenberg and I hope to restore 
some the Department's credibility on this issue and rebuild faith and 
trust between the public and our Federal Government.
  This bill attempts to ensure that missing members of the Armed 
Services or civilian employees accompanying them are fully accounted 
for by the Government and that they are not declared dead solely 
because of the passage of time. The legislation would establish new 
procedures for determining the whereabouts and status of missing 
persons. Additionally, the bill provides for the appointment of counsel 
for the missing, ensuring that the Government does not disregard their 
interests and affording the missing due process of law. By ensuring 
access to Government information and making all information available 
to hearing officers, while providing for protection of classified 
information, the proposal also attempts to remove the curtains of 
secrecy which often seem to surround these cases. Additionally, the 
missing person's complete personnel file is made available for review 
by the family members. Moreover, the legislation attempts to protect 
the interests of the missing person's immediate family, dependents, and 
next of kin, allowing them to be represented by counsel and to 
participate with the boards of inquiry. It is our hope that by allowing 
more participation by the family, requiring legal representation of the 
missing, and permitting Federal court review of all determinations, we 
will establish fundamental fairness for all concerned.

  Now let me be clear, we make no pretense that this is a perfect bill 
or that this bill resolves all of the concerns of all the parties with 
an interest in this issue. But, in an effort to build consensus, 
Senator Lautenberg and I have introduced this legislation as a starting 
point. Let me add that if veterans' support for this proposal is any 
indicator, then we're off to a good start. The American Legion, 
National Vietnam Veterans Coalition, Vietnow, and the National Alliance 
of Families all support this legislation. Madam President I ask 
unanimous consent that letters from each of these organizations be 
printed in the Record following my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DOLE. We recognize that the Department of Defense and the 
military services have concerns. At the same time, we also realize that 
there families of missing personnel raise legitimate issues. Most 
importantly, we need to look at this issue from the perspective of 
those brave men and women currently serving in our Armed Forces. As 
this bill moves through the legislative process, it is our hope that 
all of these issues and concerns will be addressed.
  We need to assure the men and women in uniform and their accompanying 
civilian counterparts, that this great Nation will do everything 
possible to return them safely home in the event they become missing 
while serving in armed conflict. At the same time, we must assure them 
that a more open and fair procedures will be established to determine 
their exact status. I am pleased to sponsor this important legislation 
with the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, and urge my colleagues 
to support it.

                               Exhibit 1

                                              The American Legion,


                                            Washington Office,

                                  Washington, DC, August 16, 1994.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: For many years The American Legion 
     has consistently supported all positive efforts to obtain the 
     fullest possible accounting of American prisoners of war and 
     those missing in action from past wartime conflicts and the 
     Cold War. The American Legion is especially appreciative of 
     your personal efforts and concern for the plight of American 
     POW/MIAs. Your introduction of the Dole-Lautenberg bill, The 
     Missing Service Personnel Act of 1994, is both timely and 
     welcome since it directly and substantially supports other 
     on-going Legion, Congressional and Administration efforts to 
     facilitate acquiring the maximum achievable information on 
     missing Americans.
       Your sponsorship of this bill is especially significant 
     since it comes at a time when American contacts with foreign 
     governments are less interested in information on missing 
     Americans, than on making lucrative business arrangements. 
     With the lifting of the embargo against Vietnam earlier this 
     year the U.S. lost its last major bargaining lever. Your bill 
     supported by the Senate in the 103d Congress and, if 
     necessary, reintroduced and passed in the 104th Congress will 
     serve to keep America's POWs and MIAs from being forgotten.
           Sincerely,
                                              John F. Sommer, Jr.,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                  National Vietnam


                                           Veterans Coalition,

                                  Washington, DC, August 16, 1994.
     Re Missing Persons Act reform.

     Hon. Robert Dole,
     Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Dole and Lautenberg: The National Vietnam 
     Veterans Coalition, a federation of seventy-eight (78) 
     Vietnam veterans organizations and veterans issue groups, is 
     pleased to support your efforts for long overdue reform of 
     the Missing Persons Act.
       The history of the law, as previously administered, has 
     been one of arbitrary decisions, based on incomplete 
     information. The administration of the law has produced 
     untold grief among the family members of the missing in 
     action and has angered the Vietnam veteran community. The 
     rote presumptive findings of death have contributed 
     substantially to the ongoing failure of the POW-MIA 
     bureaucracy to meaningfully resolve the issue.
       The bill you are introducing provides considerable 
     procedural protections to future MIAs. The provisions for 
     appointment of counsel for the MIA's interests, the counsel's 
     access to classified information, procedures for dealing with 
     classified information, centralization of case information in 
     the MIA's personnel file, the ability to reopen hearings for 
     a period of time and effective reversal of the current de 
     facto presumption of death reflexively applied in hearings 
     mark tremendous progress. The encouragement to combine 
     hearings in group disappearance cases would force hearing 
     panels to weigh the evidence in a broader context.
       The opening up of the process to include the right of 
     participation of secondary next of kin is a welcome 
     recognition of the fact that there is more than one person in 
     each family who cares about the fate of a missing relative.
       Lastly, the limited right to re-open cases from earlier 
     wars will afford considerable justice to those families who 
     were previously victimized by the kangaroo courts of the 
     past.
       We are proud to endorse this much needed piece of 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                             J. Thomas Burch, Jr.,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____

                                                          VietNow,


                                        National Headquarters,

                                    Rockford, IL, August 14, 1994.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: After reviewing the proposed ``Missing 
     Service Personnel Act of 1994'' bill, it is apparent that 
     this bill is years and probably decades over due. The 
     original Act of 1942 may have served a noble purpose at the 
     onset. However, it seems that in the years that have followed 
     this original bill has been prostituted. The 1942 bill has 
     been used for the purpose of conveniently declaring the 
     presumption of death.
       We have always been of the opinion that the declaration of 
     death at the stroke of a pen is totally unacceptable. The 
     presentation of hard factual evidence is often overshadowed 
     by the simple passage of time. The matter of death by 
     association is another method of accounting that has been 
     used in the past that we find deplorable.
       The inclusion of wording which required ``conclusive proof 
     of death'' in the 1994 bill makes this bill a very important 
     piece of legislation. Prescribing a set time frame for review 
     and re-review is another key element of this legislation. 
     However, the most important part of this bill is the 
     inclusion of family members in the review process and 
     allowing the families access to information that is 
     accumulated in the investigative process.
       An interesting part of this bill is the section which deals 
     with ``knowingly and willfully'' withholding of information 
     from the personnel file of a missing person. this section 
     details action to be taken against anyone who is involved in 
     such behavior.
       Senator Dole, we strongly support the Missing Service 
     Personnel Act of 1994 and we commend your efforts in its 
     passage.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Rich Sanders,
                                                        President.
                                  ____



                                National Alliance of Families,

                                    Bellevue, WA, August 15, 1994.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: The membership of the National Alliance 
     of Families would like to thank you and Senator Frank 
     Lautenberg (D-NJ) for introducing the ``Missing Service 
     Personnel Act of 1994''.
       Families of American Prisoners of War and Missing in Action 
     have waited much too long to see that justice will be 
     afforded our future patriotic military personnel, who well 
     may be our own sons, daughters and grandchildren. This bill 
     will clearify the arbitration practices and procedures 
     allowing all immediate family to participate in the appeal 
     process which has been denied our past MIA military 
     personnel.
       The evidence is clear that some men from WWII, the Korean 
     War, the Cold War and the Vietnam War were declared dead when 
     they were not dead but alive. The U.S. Government has denied 
     these patriotic men and women under the ``International Law 
     of War'' and the ``Geneva Convention'' their civil rights, 
     their freedom.
       The ``Missing Service Personnel Act of 1994'' will afford 
     justice as to assure that our Military personnel will not be 
     so readily written off as has been done in the past.
           Sincerely,
                                           Dolores Apodaca Alfond,
                                             National Chairperson.
                                  ____

                                              The American Legion,


                                            Washington Office,

                                  Washington, DC, August 16, 1994.
     Hon. Robert J. Dole,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: For many years The American Legion has 
     consistently supported all positive efforts to obtain the 
     fullest possible accounting of American prisoners of war and 
     those missing in action from past wartime conflicts and the 
     Cold War. The American Legion is especially appreciative of 
     your personal efforts and concern for the plight of American 
     POW/MIAs. Your introduction of the Dole-Lautenberg bill, The 
     Missing Service Personnel Act of 1994, is both timely and 
     welcome since it directly and substantially supports other 
     on-going Legion, Congressional and Administration efforts to 
     facilitate acquiring the maximum achieveable information on 
     missing Americans.
       Your sponsorship of this bill is especially significant 
     since it comes at a time when American contacts with foreign 
     governments are less interested in information on missing 
     Americans, than on making lucrative business arrangements. 
     With the lifting of the embargo against Vietnam earlier this 
     year the U.S. lost its last major bargaining lever. Your bill 
     supported by the Senate in the 103d Congress and, if 
     necessary, reintroduced and passed in the 104th Congress will 
     serve to keep America's POWs and MIAs from being forgotten.
           Sincerely,
                                              John F. Sommer, Jr.,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I am pleased to join Senator Dole in 
introducing the Missing Service Personnel Act of 1994. It is perhaps 
fitting that two veterans of World War II join together to sponsor this 
legislation. Senator Dole and I collaborated in writing this bill in a 
spirit of bipartisanship. We believe there is no room for politics when 
it comes to how the Government treats its missing personnel.
  Madam President, the Missing Service Personnel Act of 1994 updates 
existing law, last written by Congress in 1942. Its focuses on how the 
U.S. Government deals with military personnel and Federal employees who 
are classified as ``missing in action.'' Our bill also makes some 
improvements in the way the Federal Government deals with the families 
of missing persons. They suffer when a loved one is missing and they 
deserve to have their interests protected and their needs met by their 
Government.
  Congressional interest in the issue is extensive, Madam President. 
When the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs--ably led by 
Senator Kerry and Senator Smith--reported its findings to this body, it 
concluded there has been serious U.S. Government neglect and 
mismanagement in dealing with missing servicemembers. That's why we're 
here today--we want to rid the Government of neglect and mismanagement 
in its treatment of Americans who are missing in action.
  Having served in World War II, both Senator Dole and I know first-
hand the tremendous sacrifice service men and women make when they face 
combat. We know the terror soldiers face when they consider the 
prospect of being captured. We also know the anguish our loved ones 
suffer when a soldier goes into harm's way.
  Over the past 25 years, the credibility of the Department of Defense 
on MIA/POW issues has been seriously questioned. Without substantial 
reform of its procedures, the American people will continue to question 
the credibility of DOD in future military operations. Americans expect 
Pentagon officials to care for our soldiers and their families. They 
expect DOD officials to do the right thing when a servicemember is 
reported missing. There should be no curtain of secrecy. There should 
be no perception of incompetence. There should be no unfair treatment 
of families.
  Our uniformed men and women serve proudly in the Armed Forces on 
behalf of all Americans. In return for their sacrifice, American 
servicemembers should be able to expect fairness, honesty, and support 
from the Department of Defense.
  Unfortunately, Madam President, when we look at recent history 
concerning the treatment of families of those missing in action, we see 
a troubling picture. No one in Congress should be content with what has 
happened in the past. We have seen families become outraged by the 
treatment they receive from their Government. We have witnessed their 
disgust toward elected officials. And, we have heard their calls for 
more information, more interest, and more action to recover their loved 
ones.
  Today, we have an opportunity to respond, to provide better 
treatment. I believe the time is right to correct the Pentagon's flawed 
management practices. The cold war is over. The United States is not 
engaged in a major war, although we still have American men and women 
serving faithfully around the globe. They are ready for conflict if 
necessary. And, I suggest to my colleagues that the Pentagon must be 
ready as well.
  Let's take a look at the problems we face now.
  Madam President, existing United States law concerning how the 
Government deals with missing persons is over 50 years old. That law is 
inadequate--it deals primarily with financial aspects of missing 
personnel and their dependents. That law is outdated--it doesn't 
address new issues that have emerged over the past 25 years. And that 
law is incomplete--it doesn't protect missing service members from 
bureaucratic inaction.
  Perhaps most troubling is the fact that existing law does not protect 
the rights of missing persons. Right now, missing persons do not have 
counsel in Government hearings. No one represents their interests. In 
addition, missing persons lose due process after one year. They just go 
into administrative limbo. They stay there until someone says they're 
dead. No wonder so many families think Government decisions are 
arbitrary and capricious.
  Another problem deals with access to information. Right now, hearing 
officers can be denied information about missing persons. In addition, 
hearing officers can be excluded from reviewing classified information. 
And further, Government officials can willfully withhold relevant 
information without penalty. I believe these practices are the root 
cause for the ``curtain of secrecy'' that surrounds Government 
decisions.
  The lack of specified rights for families is another problem with 
existing law. The Americans with the greatest stake in Government 
action have the least involvement in those decisions. Moreover, 
families have no right to appeal. No wonder many families make charges 
of ``cover-up'' and ``smokescreen.'' I believe we should have 
procedures that guarantee families of missing servicemembers honest, 
fair, and just treatment.
  Finally, Madam President, the old law doesn't create the opportunity 
for good just decisions. Right now, officials assigned to conduct 
hearings may not be qualified. Further, they may have no guidance about 
making determinations of death. So today, what we have are poor 
decisions: missing persons are pronounced dead merely with the passage 
of time. I believe such determinations constitute disloyalty to our 
service men and women.
  Madam President, when you look at the problems with existing law in 
the aggregate, you can see why we've had so many problems over the 
years. Families are mad. Service men and women are wary. Government 
officials are frustrated. Senator Dole and I wrote this bill to 
correct, once and for all, all these problems.
  Unfortunately, Madam President, when the Pentagon looks at these 
problems they see a rosy picture. Over the last 5 years, Pentagon 
officials have reported to Congress that everything is just fine. They 
have dragged their feet in upgrading Government procedures. And despite 
our efforts to reform existing law, the Pentagon has not come forward 
with a reform proposal. Mr. President, there seems to be a general lack 
of will within the Pentagon to update its management procedures 
regarding missing persons.
  In Congress today, there are several POW/MIA legislative initiatives 
that address problems of past wars and conflicts. These initiatives 
attempt to resolve problems for World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. These 
are all worthy and should be pursued by both the Congress and the 
administration.
  However, Madam President, we have only one initiative that looks to 
the future--to the wars and conflicts not yet fought by Americans. Just 
last month, in passing the fiscal year 1995 National Defense 
Authorization Act, the Senate took the first step in establishing new 
procedures for the future. In that legislation, we required the 
Department of Defense to review its procedures and recommend changes to 
Congress.
  I remain skeptical about the Pentagon's response. I haven't seen any 
enthusiasm to update their procedures. Those in Congress who have dealt 
with these problems have seen little Pentagon interest in reform. 
Indeed, just 7 months ago, an Assistant Secretary of Defense wrote to 
us with regard to the Pentagon's procedures and I quote:

       I believe that the existing legislation provides adequate 
     protections and venues for participation of all parties with 
     legitimate interest.

  Now Madam President, I ask my colleagues: What should we expect from 
a Pentagon review of existing legislation? Does anyone in this body 
believe the Pentagon will come forward with reform legislation? I will 
tell you I am very skeptical.
  This is why, despite the Senate's recent action, I am introducing 
this bill today. I want to lay on the table a proposal with real 
reform. I want the Pentagon to know that this Senator does not believe 
existing procedures are adequate. And I suggest the Senate needs to 
take the lead on this critical issue.
  Madam President, when we wrote this legislation, Senator Dole and I 
took a new approach. We asked a simple question: How would a missing 
soldier want the U.S. Government to respond to his or her situation? 
What would a missing person want from his Government? We wrote this 
bill from the point of view of American service men and women. When we 
finished, we had created wholly new procedures--procedures that, for 
the first time, are designed to serve those who are missing in action.
  This legislation accomplishes four goals. First, it corrects 
management deficiencies for dealing with missing servicemembers. 
Second, the bill safeguards the rights of missing personnel. Third, our 
legislation re-establishes a sense of trust between the U.S. Government 
and the families of missing personnel by raising what many people 
consider to be a curtain of secrecy surrounding Government decisions. 
And finally, Madam President, our bill assures fundamental fairness to 
missing servicemembers by requiring timely Government action and 
specifying the rights of families and the Government's obligations to 
them. We hope that families of missing persons are treated fairly in 
all proceedings.
  Let me discuss some of the provisions we are proposing in more 
detail.
  First, the act will establish new procedures for determining the 
whereabouts and status of missing persons. These procedures accelerate 
official action in order to recover the missing. They may even lead to 
the recovery of some servicemembers.
  Moreover, the new procedures will afford missing persons due process 
well after the first year of their disappearance. Our service men and 
women should never believe that our Government will abandon them if 
captured. This legislation guarantees that the Government won't write 
them off merely with the passage of time.
  The second important provision of the act is that qualified counsel 
will be appointed for missing persons. This is new. Never before have 
missing persons been represented by counsel. Our service personnel 
should not have to worry about their rights, even if they are missing 
in action. This legislation assures that the Government does not ignore 
issues and evidence. It assures that the Government affords the missing 
in action due process of the law.
  Third, the act will assure access to Government information. It 
removes the curtain of secrecy. It makes all information available to 
hearing officers. Also, the bill carefully provides access to 
classified information. And, it makes complete personnel files 
available for review. These measures guarantee that the Government 
doesn't make ill-formed decisions about the status of missing 
personnel.
  The act also specifies the rights of the missing person's immediate 
family, dependents, and next of kin. It ensures that our field 
commanders will give families updated, accurate information concerning 
the incident in which their loved one disappeared. The bill assures 
family participation in Government hearings. They will have access to 
the personnel file of the missing. They can be represented by private 
counsel. They can object in writing to a board's recommendations. And 
last, but not least, they can appeal a Government ruling. These are the 
basic rights of families--and no one can argue with putting them into 
law.
  The last major provision of the act states criteria for making just 
decisions about the status of missing servicemembers. It gives guidance 
to officials about the factors they must consider before making a 
determination of death. The bill specifically prohibits declaring 
someone to be dead merely by virtue of the passage of time. I believe 
these provisions are important as an expression of Government loyalty 
to all persons who serve in the Armed Forces.
  Madam President, let me close by saying that there is a strong 
bipartisan consensus across America in support of this bill. It has 
been building over the last 3 years. It started partly as a grassroots 
initiative from New Jersey and elsewhere.
  Today, in the House, a similar bill now has about 170 cosponsors from 
both parties. It's clear this legislation has had a positive impact on 
our colleagues in the other body.
  And perhaps most important, this legislation is supported by several 
major veterans' organizations across the United States. We have 
received positive endorsements from many groups to include the American 
Legion and the National Vietnam Veterans Coalition.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters from John 
F. Sommer, Jr., executive director of the American Legion, and J. 
Thomas Burch, chairman of the National Vietnam Veterans Coalition, be 
included in the Record.
  Madam President, the good intention of many Americans, who truly care 
about the welfare of the men and women in the armed services, has been 
combined into this initiative. They believe it is the right thing to 
do.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senator Dole and me in supporting this 
reform legislation when it is voted upon in the Senate.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. KASSEBAUM (for herself and Mr. Dole):
  S. 2412. A bill to provide for the establishment of the Tallgrass 
Prairie National Preserve in Kansas, and for the other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Reserves.


                TALLGRASS PRAIRIE NATIONAL PRESERVE ACT

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation 
to create a tallgrass prairie preserve in the Flint Hills of Kansas. 
This legislation is the product of months of discussions and 
negotiations between the Department of the Interior, the National Park 
Trust, and representatives of Kansas agriculture and conservation 
groups. It is legislation which I believe will be seen as a model for 
partnership between the Federal Government and private conservation 
groups for protecting important natural resources.
  There is no finer example of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem than the 
10,894-acre Spring Hill Ranch, located in the heart of the Flint Hills 
in Chase County, KS. I often find it hard to describe the beauty of the 
area to those have have not visited Kansas. William Least Heat-Moon may 
have best described it in his recent book, ``Prairyerth,'' when he 
wrote about growing to appreciate the splendor of the tallgrass 
prairie.
  He wrote:

       I learned a prairie secret: take the numbing distance in 
     small doses and gorge on the little details that beckon. The 
     prairie doesn't give up anything easily, unless it's horizon 
     and sky. Search out its variation, its color, its subtleties.

  He says if you look at the prairie this way, you will soon discover 
that, like the geodes so abundant in this country, a splendid world 
lies within a plain cover.
  Mr. President, it is ironic that the very conditions that promoted 
the development of this special ecosystem--good soil and adequate 
moisture--have also led to its demise. Much of the tallgrass prairie 
that stretched from southern Minnesota to Oklahoma has succumbed in the 
last hundred years to the steel plow. Today, the Spring Hill Ranch is 
one of but a few untouched stretches that remain.
  For the last five decades, Kansas have been struggling with the 
question of how best to preserve a portion of the tallgrass prairie and 
open it to the public. In a State where any Federal involvement is 
viewed with great suspicion, it has been difficult to find common 
ground between the conservation and agriculture communities on how to 
do this.
  For the past 3 years, I have been working with both groups in an 
effort to preserve the ranch. Frankly, I believe both groups have much 
to gain in working to preserve the property. For conservationists, it 
is an opportunity to preserve an American ecosystem, its plants, and 
its wildlife that nowhere else is protected by the National Park 
Service. For ranchers, it is an opportunity to teach the public the 
important role ranching played in the development of the West and how 
the lush native grass that drew buffalo to the region by the thousands 
also brought a strong ranching heritage to the State.
  The legislation I am introducing is the product of discussions with 
both of those groups. It comes as the result of the tremendous 
commitment one conservation group, the National Park Trust, has made to 
protecting this ranch. Earlier this year, when private preservation 
efforts has reached a stalemate, the National Park Trust, using their 
own savings, purchased the ranch. Their private ownership, and their 
willingness to enter into a cooperative management agreement with the 
National Park Service, has made this legislation possible.
  The Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve Act will allow the National 
Park Service to purchase up to 180 acres or less than 2 percent of the 
ranch. In meetings I have had with Secretary of the Interior Bruce 
Babbitt, he has stated that he would like to see the National Park 
Service purchase, maintain, and operate this core area, which includes 
a ranch house, a barn, and several other buildings listed on the 
National Register of Historic Places.
  The rest of the ranch will continue in private ownership, but the 
Secretary of the Interior is given the authority in this bill to enter 
into a cooperative agreement with the National Park Trust to provide 
interpretative and resource management assistance, as well as police 
and emergency services.
  Great care has been made to take into account the legitimate concerns 
of area ranchers. That is why the National Park Service ownership is 
limited to 180 acres, and no further expansion is permitted. Language 
was incorporated into the bill to address concerns about fence 
maintenance and to require compliance with state noxious weed, 
pesticide, animal health, and water laws. The bill also establishes an 
advisory committee consisting of conservationists, local landowners, 
and educators to give their input on how the ranch should be managed.
  Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing is the product of 
consultations and discussions that have occurred over a period of 
several years. I am excited about the private/public partnership that 
is envisioned in this bill. We hear frequently that the budget of the 
National Park Service is being stretched beyond its ability to deal 
with the demands we place on it. This bill is mindful of that.
  The National Park Trust's $5 million investment to acquire the ranch 
and operate it in conjunction with the National Park Service allows us 
to protect this property and open it to the public at a tremendous 
savings to the American taxpayer. I believe as Federal dollars become 
increasingly tighter, the National Park Service and private 
conservation groups must look for innovative ways like ones this bill 
embraces to protect natural resources.
  We have a wonderful opportunity to protect for future generations a 
portion of the tallgrass prairie. Passage of this bill will give the 
American public an opportunity to enjoy and explore this beautiful area 
and an appreciation for this ecosystem and the history and importance 
of ranching.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter written to me 
from Paul Pritchard, chairman of the National Park Trust appears in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


                                          National Park Trust,

                                  Washington, DC, August 19, 1994.
     Hon. Nancy Kassebaum,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kassebaum: On behalf of the Trustees of the 
     National Park Trust, it is a privilege for us to endorse 
     legislation to preserve the Tallgrass Prairie of Kansas. We 
     particularly commend you and the delegation from Kansas for 
     the leadership you have provided in assisting the National 
     Park Service to carryout its important mandate to recognize 
     America's tallgrass heritage--a heritage that once stretched 
     more than 140 million acres across America's heartland, but 
     today only survives in remnant swatches.
       The Springhill/Z Bar Ranch encompasses a magnificent 
     unspoiled swath of the Flint Hills. Its rolling, nearly 
     treeless landscape with grasses, sometimes reaching ten feet 
     in height, sustains the biological riches of a vanishing 
     American landscape. Nearly 200 kinds of birds, 29 species of 
     reptiles and amphibians, and 31 species of mammals can be 
     found on the property. Its distinctive century-old limestone 
     buildings, looming large amid ocean-like waves of prairie, 
     give enduring voice to local traditions and can serve as an 
     appropriate setting to tell the story of the Native American 
     and pioneers and our nation's westward expansion. Because of 
     its outstanding natural and cultural resources, the National 
     Park Service's 1991 study concluded that the property met the 
     standards as a unit of the National Park System.
       The National Park Trust acquired the Springhill/Z Bar Ranch 
     in June as a first important step toward ensuring that this 
     country's tallgrass heritage is preserved and interpreted for 
     all Americans. The Trust is a 501(c)(3) non-profit 
     educational and charitable corporation which is celebrating 
     over ten years of service as the land conservancy of the 
     national parks. Its mission is to assist the National Park 
     Service in the acquisition of in holdings from willing 
     sellers, and to acquire and protect properties, such as the 
     Springhill/Z Bar Ranch, merit protection as units of the 
     National Park System.
       The National Park Trust has served over this decade as a 
     partner with the National Park Service and with private 
     individuals in the preservation of important properties from 
     Alaska to Florida, and from Massachusetts to California. In 
     addition, the Trust provides funds for other non-profit 
     organizations to carry out important park projects. For 
     example, the Trust underwrote the first acquisition by the 
     Civil War Trust at Harpers Ferry National Historical Park.
       We welcome this opportunity to support this legislation and 
     look forward to its completion so that this deserving 
     resource can be part of the National Park System.
           Sincerely,
                                                Paul C. Pritchard,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, for the past several years, a debate has 
raged in Kansas regarding the preservation of an 11,000 acre ranch 
known as the Spring Hill Ranch. Unfortunately, this controversy has 
pitted neighbor against neighbor and divided communities. My colleague 
from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, has worked diligently to resolve this 
matter. In January 1992, she stepped in and organized the Spring Hill/
Z-Bar Ranch Foundation as a private effort to raise money for the 
purchase of the ranch. The foundation was crafted to address many of 
the concerns raised by both sides of this controversy.
  Unfortunately, the efforts of this private/public foundation failed 
when the bank and the foundation could not reach an agreement on the 
price and conditions for sale.
  Today, I am joining Senator Kassebaum as a cosponsor of legislation 
which would authorize the National Park Service to purchase a core area 
of the ranch. The legislation allows the National Park Service to 
purchase 180 acres, which includes the buildings and enough acres to 
build an interpretive center.
  I think most of us agree on the need to preserve a piece of the tall 
grass prairie. Anyone who has driven through the flinthills of Kansas 
appreciates the beauty of this prairie.
  In cosponsoring this legislation, I do have reservations. I have 
worked closely with both sides in trying to resolve this matter. And 
while this legislation goes a long way toward addressing some of the 
concerns on both sides, I want to emphasize that, in my view, this 
solution is not perfect.
  One of the primary stumbling blocks to this agreement has been 
Federal ownership of the land. The reputation of the Federal Government 
as a landowner and neighbor is tarnished at best. This bill authorizes 
the Federal Government to purchase 180 acres--no more, no less. The 
legislation is clear on this point. The Government is not allowed to 
purchase any additional land. I do not envision this as the Government 
camel getting its nose under the tent and then purchasing additional 
acres at a later date. I would also point out that this legislation 
authorizes the Federal Government to purchase the land at no more than 
fair market value. Let me repeat that. The Government may purchase the 
property at no more than fair market value. Too often we hear horror 
stories of the Government paying exorbitant amounts of money for 
property. As a matter of fact, I commend the local residents for taking 
such an active role in opposing the use of Federal dollars for this 
project.
  And as we ask the people of Chase County to accept the Federal 
Government as a neighbor, I also believe the Government should accept 
the same liability as any other landowner. The Federal Government 
should not be a bad neighbor.
  Mr. President, I would point out that one of the attractive 
provisions of this bill is that it establishes an advisory committee. 
The Secretary of the Interior must consult with this committee when 
preparing the general management plan for the land. This should help 
ensure that local concerns are taken into account when decisions 
affecting them are made.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, while this legislation is not perfect, 
it does address many of the concerns of local and State interests. I am 
hopeful that we can work through this difficult situation and in the 
end, come up with a compromise that is acceptable to everyone.

                          ____________________