[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 60 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4984-S4987]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     FOREIGN AID AND FAMILY VALUES

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, after I announced I would not seek 
reelection to the Senate, President Clinton called me and suggested 
that periodically I should make comments about issues, on the 
assumption that someone who will not again be a candidate for public 
office could speak without having the onus of public gain associated 
with the remarks. This is the second in a series of observations in 
response to the President's suggestion.
  We have heard a great deal about family values during the recent 
political season. There are few Americans who do not recognize the 
virtues of family values and treasure them. However, in no other nation 
do political leaders talk as much about family values as in our 
country, and in no other Western industrialized nation is there 
anywhere close to the 23 percent of children living in poverty that we 
have.
  Political leaders talk more about family values than act upon them. 
Assuming that we are serious in our concerns about family values, we 
should ask ourselves what that implies in policy.
  There are some obvious answers. We will be concerned about one 
another in a family. Violence will not be part of that family life. 
Each person will try to live responsibly and help others in the family 
when there are needs, great or small.
  A slight bit of reflection will cause people to recognize, if we 
follow the finest ethical standards and if we show love and concern for 
everyone in our household, but ignore the problems of our neighbors, we 
will not be protecting our family. We will have failed in our attempt 
to project family values.
  If the neighborhood in which we live deteriorates, our family is in 
jeopardy because of problems of crime, or simply because of a loss of 
economic value to our home. If an unpleasant atmosphere where we live 
replaces a pleasant atmosphere, fear will be the unseen companion, as 
our family members walk the streets of such a neighborhood.
  Anyone who professes family values but ignores the neighborhood is 
betraying the very values he or she professes.
  What is true of homes immediately adjacent to that family is also 
true of homes 6 blocks away. While the threats of crime and economic 
deterioration are less pressing than to a home next door, the threats 
are, nevertheless, real. We recognize that family values are not a set 
of virtues to be practiced in isolation.
  On further reflection, we recognize that what is true of immediate 
neighbors and those who live 1 mile away is true for those at greater 
distances. Ultimately, people in the Chicago suburbs who wish to 
practice family values must understand that they have a stake in what 
happens on the west side of Chicago. People in New York sense that they 
have a responsibility to themselves to help victims of a flood in 
California.
  ``One Nation, under God, indivisible,'' is more than a phrase. To the 
extent that we create that as a reality, we protect our families. To 
the extent that we permit the artificial barriers of race or geography 
or sex or religion or ethnic background to diminish our concern for one 
another, we diminish the quality of life for our families--all of them.
  Concern for others cannot stop at the borders of our Nation if we are 
to protect our families; 650,000 American homes have experienced grief 
because of a loss of a family member in military contests with other 
nations. We have slowly learned that we cannot protect our families 
when we ignore the threats to nations beyond our borders.
  If I were speaking a decade ago, I would have said that the great 
external threat to the families of our Nation is nuclear annihilation; 
the United States and the Soviet Union have thousands of nuclear 
warheads pointed at each other. If that spark had been ignited in some 
way, civilization, as we know it, would have died.
  Today, the great threat to our security is instability in trouble 
spots around the world. As the only superpower left in the world, we 
will either provide leadership or there will be deterioration within 
nations and between nations.
  Few thoughtful people in this country or any other would deny that 
the United States should lead. But there are sizable numbers of 
observers of the international scene who believe this Nation is too 
often squandering its opportunity for significant leadership.
  Ultimately, the United States, along with the rest of the world, will 
suffer because of that. I say that with the knowledge that both 
political parties in this Nation must do better.
  President Clinton faced the huge task of moving from Governor of 
Arkansas to suddenly becoming the most influential person in the world 
in foreign policy. It is not an easy transition.
  In March of 1994, he did a better job than in March 1993. This year, 
he is doing a better job than last year. A year from now, he will do a 
better job than he is doing today. That is encouraging. He is a giant 
on the international scene by reason of his position.
  But he is hampered in his effectiveness by limited background and 
also by the reality that his two key players in international affairs, 
Secretary of State Warren Christopher and National Security Adviser 
Anthony Lake, are capable and knowledgeable but both are, by nature, 
cautious.
  The net result from the executive branch is leadership that is 
generally solid but sometimes not as bold as it might be.
  The greater deficiency is with the legislative branch. We too often 
micromanage. I have been guilty of this myself. A much worse offense is 
that we pander to public opinion and reduce this Nation's ability to 
lead more effectively.
  A public opinion poll suggests foreign aid is unpopular; we cut 
foreign aid, even when it hurts our long-term interests. If there is a 
surge of public opinion suggesting that we avoid sharing risk for peace 
with other nations, we follow the surge of public opinion rather than 
national and international need.
  When we discover that speeches calling for reductions in what we pay 
to the United Nations bring applause, we pander to the applause and 
become the world's No. 1 deadbeat.
  What should the United States be doing? Let me suggest three points: 
No. 1, as a people, we must broaden our understanding of other nations 
and other cultures.
  The provincialism of Congress mirrors our people.
  A family cannot be said to truly have family values if they do not 
understand one another.
  That is true within our Nation, where we have far to little 
understanding between urban and suburban and rural populations and far 
too little understanding across the barriers of race, religion, sex, 
and ethnic background.
  But it is true beyond the borders of our Nation. The family of 
humanity needs to understand the hopes and fears, the dreams and 
problems of those who live in other nations. As we learn, we will be 
willing to share more than our experiences. But basic knowledge is 
vital, whether within a single family, a community, a nation, or in the 
community of nations.
  Our knowledge is lacking. That is why the Peace Corps is more 
important than what our volunteers do for other nations; we gain a 
sensitivity to other cultures, a major asset to the nation. Colleges 
and universities can do much more to broaden the understanding of 
students. Can someone really be considered educated if, upon graduation 
as an engineer or physician or teacher or journalist or accountant or 
architect, he or she does not have the most minimal understanding of 
the rest of the world? We understandably lament the failure of too many 
graduates having even a cursory understanding of the religious heritage 
of the United States, but can people who do not have some appreciation 
of the beliefs of Moslems and Buddhists be expected to deal effectively 
with other nations?
  [[Page S4985]] A fine, small, liberal arts college that I attended 
for 2 years, Dana College in Nebraska, is seriously considering a 
program to offer its students assistance which would permit any 
student, regardless of family income, to study or travel abroad. The 
theory is that the students would not only enlarge their personal 
horizons, but when they return to this small campus, they could 
stimulate others. Dana College has only 600 students, but they come 
from 27 States and 14 nations. I hope the college can raise the money 
to do this, and lead other colleges and universities around the nation 
to do the same.
  Our language provincialism reflects our cultural provincialism. In 
almost every nation in the world--if not all of them--all elementary 
students study a foreign language. In the United States, only a tiny 
fraction do. We are the only nation in which you can go through grade 
school, high school, college, and get a Ph.D., and never have a year of 
a foreign language. We are also the only nation in which, if we study 
French or German or some other language for 2 years, we will say, ``I 
have studied German.'' Or, ``I have studied French.''
  It is uninformed provincialism that leads Members of Congress to call 
for laws prohibiting military leaders of any other nation from 
commanding our troops in a U.N. operation. Ever since George Washington 
had French leadership for some of our rebels, we have worked with other 
nationals. Would there be anything un-American about having a NATO 
commander who is Canadian or Italian or from some other NATO nation? 
Will we agree to take part in a U.N. operation only if we're promised a 
leadership role proportionately much greater than the resources we have 
committed? Responsible patriotic fervor can sometimes be converted into 
irresponsible nonsense cloaked in ``patriotism.''
  The media of our Nation should do more to inform us, but faced with 
budget problems, major newspapers, wire services and networks have 
reduced their overseas personnel.
  When critics rightfully note that the U.S. budget and policy do not 
reflect the tremendous changes that have occurred in the rest of the 
world, particularly our military budget, part of the reason is that 
even the people who do not get their news primarily from television 
bites receive too little information about other nations, unless there 
is a crisis. The lack of public understanding of the dramatic changes 
in the world makes it more difficult for leaders in the administration 
and Congress to alter foreign policy.
  That democracy is spreading in Africa and much of the rest of the 
world is known by only a tiny fraction of the American people who can 
tell us lurid details of the O.J. Simpson trial.
  Editors who rightfully criticize Members of Congress for pandering to 
public whims defend their obsession and excessive attention to the 
Simpson trial by telling us, ``We're giving the public what it wants.'' 
That is an irresponsible answer for politicians and an irresponsible 
answer for the media.
  Commenting on foreign aid, Michael Kinsley wrote recently in the New 
Yorker:

       Americans are scandalously ignorant * * *. All over the 
     country--at dinner tables in focus groups, on call-in radio 
     shows and * * * occasionally on the floor of Congress--
     citizens are expressing outrage about how much we spend on 
     foreign aid, without having the faintest idea of what the 
     amount is. This is not * * * a question of being misinformed. 
     No one--not even Rush Limbaugh--is out there spreading the 
     falsehood that we spend 15 percent of the Federal budget on 
     foreign aid. People are forming and expressing passionate 
     views about foreign aid on the basis of no information at 
     all.

  If we expect the legislative and executive branches of our Government 
to build a responsible course of leadership on a base of public 
ignorance, we ask for far more than we are likely to receive.
  My second point: We should be providing more foreign aid, not less.
  In probably two out of three of my town meetings people ask: ``Why 
don't we cut back on foreign aid, and spend the money on our own 
needs?''
  They, of course, have no idea that through our aid programs more than 
3 million lives are saved each year through immunization programs; that 
as we help the other countries survive economically, they frequently 
become our customers, then lift our standard of living; that much of 
what we call foreign aid is spent for food and equipment in the United 
States.
  We cannot reverse illiteracy or set up a program to educate people on
   family planning with a military budget; this takes foreign aid.

  When the political parties of democracies in Asia held a conference 
recently, they closed their meeting by singing, ``We Shall Overcome,'' 
an expression more of hope than confidence, because democracies in many 
parts of the world are frail. A little help from the United States as 
the world's leading democracy means much to them, both for the concrete 
help and in symbolic terms.
  When I ask people at town meetings--and I am sure my colleagues from 
New Hampshire and Michigan have this same experience--what percentage 
of our budget goes for foreign aid, usually the guess is somewhere 
between 15 percent and 25 percent. They are startled with I tell them 
it is less than 1 percent.
  A University of Maryland poll found the same answer. But, then, the 
University of Maryland asked how much would be ``appropriate'' and the 
answer: 5 percent. When asked how much would be ``too little,'' they 
answered 3 percent--more than three times what we actually spend.
  If military aid is subtracted from our foreign assistance, less than 
one-half of 1 percent of our budget goes for foreign aid, to economic 
assistance.
  Because of the huge and growing U.S. debt, this year our gross 
interest spending will be 22 times the amount we pay for foreign aid. 
Even more startling, because so many U.S. bonds are now held by the 
economically fortunate beyond our borders, we will spend more than 
twice as much on interest to them as we do on foreign aid that is 
designed in large measure for helping poor people.
  We appropriate less of our national income for foreign aid than any 
Western European country or Japan.
  At one point under the Marshall plan, we spent 2.9 percent of our 
national income helping the poor beyond our borders. And how properly 
proud we are of it. Today we spend less than one-sixth of 1 percent of 
our national income on foreign economic assistance. Yet most Americans 
believe we are the most generous of the wealthier nations. In the 
Marshall plan years our national income--in inflation-adjusted terms--
was approximately 40 percent of our present income. As our income has 
risen, our response to poor people has diminished.
  But something else is significant about the Marshall plan, which 
rescued Western Europe from communism. When General Marshall announced 
it at a Harvard commencement, and President Truman followed with more 
details, the first Gallup Poll showed only 14 percent of the American 
people supported it.
  We had a Democratic President who did not consult with pollsters 
before he called on the American people, and he had to deal with a 
Republican Congress. Senator Arthur Vandenberg, a Republican leader 
from Michigan, did not first ask what the Marshall plan might do to his 
party's political fortunes or how he might use it against the 
President. A Democratic President and a Republican Congress did the 
unpopular, what was right, and served this Nation and the world well. 
The lessons to be drawn are obvious.
  President Ronald Reagan suggested that we should devote 1 percent of 
the Nation's income to helping the poor beyond our borders, appreciably 
less than we did under the Marshall plan.
  We have not come close to the Reagan standard.
  Only Denmark and Norway meet this not-so-high standard. Among other 
nations that assist more than we do are Sweden, Netherlands, France, 
Finland, Canada, Belgium, Germany, Australia, Switzerland, Luxembourg, 
Great Britain, Austria, Portugal, Italy, Spain, Japan, New Zealand, and 
Ireland.
  Canada does three times better than we do.
  While we lag behind other nations on economic assistance, we spend 
almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Looking at 
our budget, you would hardly guess that the Berlin Wall fell. If we 
were to reduce our defense expenditures by one-half--which I do not 
advocate--we would still have, by far, the largest expenditure on 
[[Page S4986]] arms of any nation in the world. Unfortunately, we are 
compounding that problem by pushing many nations to buy arms from our 
weapons producers, arms that too often destabilize an area rather than 
stabilize it.
  The United States defense budget suggests that the great threat to 
the world is a Soviet-type attack. The reality is, the great threat is 
instability. While nations struggle to build democracy, we build more 
B-2 bombers instead of assisting democracy. Purchasing the B-2 bombers 
helps the manufacturer, but they are designed for yesterday's defense 
needs. They were useless in Desert Storm and Haiti. While we blunder 
ahead with billions on useless bombers, shaky democracies receive our 
cold shoulder. ``We can't afford to help,'' we tell them. While the 
swing to democracy around the world has been dramatic, it is not 
irreversible. Some democracies are likely to fail because of U.S. 
inattention and paltry financial backing.
  Our weak performance in assisting democracies has been compounded by 
our failure to pass the balanced budget amendment. Instead of lessening 
U.S. government borrowing and reducing interest rates around the world, 
we have chosen the high-interest-rate course. That causes higher debt 
service costs for desperately poor people. The executive director of 
the International Monetary Fund once told me that facing our U.S. 
fiscal problems is more important to the developing world than our 
foreign aid. Yes, we in the United States pay higher interest rates 
because of our fiscal folly, but so do many nations who can afford the 
high interest rates less than we can, and they have not caused our 
national debt. The developing nations now owe $1.4 trillion. If U.S. 
imprudence forces interest rates up 1 percent, that potentially costs 
these poor nations $14 billion. If we exercise fiscal prudence and 
international interest drops 1 percent, that potentially saves them $14 
billion, far more than our economic assistance.
  In a family in which one person becomes very wealthy, and others in 
the family are extremely poor, some suffering from malnutrition, they 
will not continue to be a cohesive family if the wealthy member of the 
family simply ignores the problems of the poorest. A family member who 
makes no attempt to understand the problems of the poorest in the 
family will be regarded by the other family members as arrogant and 
callous, and when that family member faces problems--which all family 
members eventually do--the other members of the family are not likely 
to come to his or her rescue.
  It takes no great imagination to see where the United States fits 
into that picture.
  We should play a stronger role in U.N. peacekeeping and peacemaking.
  I am impressed by the leadership of Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali. 
But he has an impossible job if the United States does not play a 
strong supporting role.
  That means paying our dues.
  That means contributing more than dollars to U.N. peacekeeping 
efforts. The latest U.N. report of March 6 of this year shows the 
following troop contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations:

                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Country    Strength
------------------------------------------------------------------------
France...........................................        5,093          
United Kingdom...................................        3,860          
Jordan...........................................        3,698          
Pakistan.........................................        3,102          
Canada...........................................        2,629          
Bangladesh.......................................        2,208          
Poland...........................................        2,181          
Netherlands......................................        1,823          
Norway...........................................        1,775          
Ghana............................................        1,730          
Malaysia.........................................        1,677          
Nepal............................................        1,607          
Turkey...........................................        1,488          
Russian Federation...............................        1,487          
Spain............................................        1,452          
Denmark..........................................        1,368          
Argentina........................................        1,360          
Sweden...........................................        1,316          
Ukraine..........................................        1,208          
U.S.A............................................        1,139          
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Nepal, with a population of less than one-tenth of ours, is 
contributing 41 percent more troops than the United States. Jordan, 
with a population of 3.2 million--less than 2 percent of our 
population--is contributing more than three times as many troops as the 
United States.
  There are 16 U.N. peacekeeping operations underway at this point, and 
we are contributing troops to 6.
  But it is more than the deficiency in the contributions of numbers.
  Somalia illustrates the problem. Contrary to the present public 
image, the Somalia action was one of George Bush's finest moments and 
something for which the United States should be proud. Our actions 
saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
  I was in Somalia with Senator Howard Metzenbaum early in November 
1992. I have never seen anything like it, and I hope never to see 
anything like it again. We returned to the United States on a Sunday 
night and, the next morning, called the U.N. Secretary General. 
Fourteen weeks earlier, the U.N. Security Council had authorized 3,500 
troops to go to Somalia to help in the desperate situation there. Weeks 
later, 500 Pakistani soldiers finally arrived and were forced to hole 
up at the airport at Mogadishu, the capital city. I told Boutrous-Ghali 
that he should get the additional 3,000 troops there immediately and 
that Somalia needed an additional 10,000 troops, a figure based only on 
instinct. He told us he would send the additional 3,000 troops by ship. 
When I responded vigorously that untold lives would be lost if the 
troops did not arrive by plane, he noted, ``Your government charges me 
very high rates to move troops by plane.'' I asked him if we could use 
the cost of flights to apply to our past-due bills at the United 
Nations, and he quickly said yes. I called Secretary of State Larry 
Eagleburger and gave him the background, asking him to call the 
Secretary General immediately. I also asked the Secretary of State to 
discuss the matter with the President, explaining that I would call the 
President directly, but he was in Connecticut that day for the funeral 
of his mother. The next day, President Bush asked the Secretary of 
State to fly to New York to discuss the matter with the Secretary 
General. Then, President Bush--to his great credit--moved quickly and, 
that Thursday, announced that the United States would lead U.N. efforts 
in Somalia. In a few days, troops, food, and medical supplies were in 
Somalia.
  How many lives could have been saved if the United Nations had been 
able to respond more quickly? Thousands. But no one will ever know the 
precise number.
  Another example: When serious trouble between the Hutus and Tutsis 
started in Rwanda, Senator James Jeffords and I got on the phone to the 
Canadian Gen. Romeo Dallaire in charge of a small contingent of U.N. 
troops in the capital city of Kigali. One of the amazing things about 
our technological age is that you can call from Washington, DC, to a 
ravaged city in Africa and reach someone by phone. That was on May 12,
 1993. He told us that if he received 5,000 to 8,000 troops 
immediately, he could stop the bloodshed in Rwanda. Senator Jeffords 
and I immediately dispatched a message to the White House, and to other 
officials, urging quick action. On October 5, 1993--almost 5 months 
later--the U.N. Security Council authorized action. With unbelievable 
brutality exploding in Rwanda, nothing happened to stop it for a 
seemingly endless period of time. To their credit, the French sent 
2,000 troops, and later, the United States and other nations sent 
smaller numbers to protect camps and airports on the periphery of 
Rwanda, primarily in Zaire.

  How many lives could have been saved if the United Nations had been 
able to respond more quickly? Thousands. But no one will ever know the 
precise number.
  Lesson No. 1 to be learned: The United States and other nations must 
equip the United Nations to respond quickly to this type of emergency.
  I introduced in the last Congress, and will reintroduce in this 
Congress, a proposal calling for 3,000 volunteers among U.S. service 
personnel who would be paid slightly more than other U.S. troops, who 
would be ready on 24-hour notice to go to any place in the world called 
for by the Security Council and approved by the President of the United 
States. We should call upon Germany, Great Britain, France, Japan, and 
other nations to do the same, and smaller nations to have a smaller 
contingent of troops available on similar, quick notice. Senator 
Jeffords will cosponsor the legislation.
  Today, after the Security Council acts, the Secretary General gets on 
the phone and begs nations for help. It is a time-consuming process 
when time 
[[Page S4987]] means lives. If the United Nations can move more 
quickly, we can prevent future disasters in places like Somalia, 
Rwanda, and Bosnia.
  There is a second lesson to be learned.
  If the United States is to play a responsible role of leadership in 
the community of nations, some risks must be taken, and when there are 
regrettable casualties within our Armed Forces, we must stay our 
course.
  Those who enlist for service in the Chicago Police Department know 
they will be performing a public service, but they also know they will 
be taking a risk. If some drug smugglers or gang leaders in a 
neighborhood kill two policemen, the mayor of Chicago will not announce 
that that area of the city will no longer have police protection 
because of the casualties.
  Somalia illustrates our problem.
  Mistakes were made, primarily by a U.S. military man put in charge of 
part of a U.N. mission for which he had little background. He looked 
for military answers to problems rather than the diplomatic answers 
that Ambassador Robert Oakley had adeptly been fashioning.
  But when a U.S. serviceman's body was dragged through the streets by 
teenage thugs, when that man went to Somalia on a humanitarian mission, 
the American people were appalled, and there were cries in Congress to 
pull out all our troops immediately.
  At that point, we had a new President inexperienced in international 
relations facing a volatile Congress. Some calming words of explanation 
to the American people would have been appropriate, explaining that if 
local terrorists can cause a few American casualties, and we flee the 
scene, the example will not go unnoticed by others around the world 
wherever American troops are stationed.
  The reality is that fewer American service personnel were killed in 
Somalia than cabdrivers were killed in New York City that year. That 
does not make any of the deaths less tragic. But those who enter the 
Armed Forces must understand that, like the Chicago Police enlistees, 
they are taking additional risks. And the American people must 
understand this.
  We are in the budget season, discussing whether or not to appropriate
   money for certain fancy weapons systems. What other nations question 
is not the technical proficiency of our weapons but our backbone. And 
the question is being asked, not about those who serve in the Armed 
Forces, but about the administration, Congress and the American people. 
Others look at the weakness of both the Bush and Clinton 
administrations in Bosnia and they wonder. A few terrorists frighten us 
out of Somalia, and they wonder about our professed resolve elsewhere.

  When several Members of Congress issued calls to get us out of 
Somalia, the administration first called a meeting of all Members of 
both Houses at which Secretary of State Warren Christopher and 
Secretary of Defense Les Aspin spoke. The meeting was a disaster. Such 
a large meeting on a volatile subject should never be called; the 
noisemakers take over.
  Then the White House called a smaller meeting with about 20 of us 
from Congress with all the key administration people present, including 
the President. The lengthy meeting, held on October 7, 1993, resulted 
in a compromise that all U.S. troops would be pulled out by March 31. I 
was not happy with this, but I agreed to the compromise because it was 
considerably better than an immediate pull-out.
  A few days after the White House meeting, President Mubarak of Egypt 
visited the United States, and I went to Blair House to pay a courtesy 
call on him. Just before I got there, an administration official asked 
me to urge President Mubarak to keep his Egyptian troops in Somalia 
after March 31. Without quoting President Mubarak directly, it is not 
violating any confidence to say that the request to have his nation, 
with its meager resources, stay in Somalia while the wealthy and 
powerful United States of America wanted to quietly back out, did not 
impress him.
  We must be careful in using our human and military resources, but 
when we make the decision to use them--preferably in concert with other 
nations--we should use those resources with firmness and a reliability 
that other nations, friendly or unfriendly, sense.
  Since U.N. efforts at peacekeeping are in our security interest, 
would it be asking too much for us to suggest that 1 percent of the 
defense budget be set aside for support of peace keeping? Far from 
harming our security needs, that would strengthen the ability of the 
United Nations to respond quickly to emergencies, and that 1 percent 
would not harm any defense needs that we have.
  It is easy for officeholders of either party to appeal to the fears 
and hatreds of people, to appeal to the worst in us, to ask us to turn 
inward rather than reach out.
  But if we are serious in our talk about family values, we should urge 
our citizens to reach beyond the artificial barriers that separate 
people; to be concerned about one another, then, all families will be 
more secure. Appeals to shortsighted selfishness do not help a family, 
and a political call for shortsighted selfishness does no favor to the 
nation. As leaders, we must appeal to the noble in our people, not the 
worst, and if we apply that to international relations, the United 
States will benefit, as will the rest of the world.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, notwithstanding the previous order, I ask 
unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as if in morning 
business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you Mr. President.

                          ____________________