[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 10 (Wednesday, February 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S617-S620]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator
seeking recognition, this may be a good time for me to report briefly
on the travels that I undertook from December 30 to January 13, when I
visited the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague and found that this agency
is moving forward with prosecutions on war crimes against humanity,
arising out of the activities in Bosnia.
It is my sense that after the first conviction, which has been
obtained,
[[Page S618]]
the tribunal is on its way to establishing a very, very important
international precedent. For the past decade-plus, many of us,
including Senator Dodd, Congressman Jim Leach, myself, and others, have
been working to try to bring an international criminal court into
existence. It is my sense that if the War Crimes Tribunal is
successful, we may have the most important institutional change in
international relations in this century, if we can bring the rule of
law into the international arena.
I think it is very important that the outstanding indictments be
served. In talking to the military leaders and NATO in Bosnia, I have
been informed that we have the capacity to do so if the instructions
are given. Up until the present time, the rule has been to serve them
with warrants of arrest if our military groups come into contact with
those under indictment, but they are not to make an effort to search
them out. It is a delicate matter and has to be handled with discretion
and with regard to not losing lives in the process of making the
arrests. But, I think that ultimately those warrants of arrest do have
to be served.
We stopped in Bosnia and saw the activities there. Mindful of the
President's recent request for an open-ended stay in Bosnia, we
discussed with the military leaders and with some of the soldiers their
sense as to what was going to happen there.
The Congress has legislated to bring an end to the funding as of June
30, 1998, with certain exceptions relating to a Presidential extension.
But, it seems to me that it is necessary to have some idea as to how
long we are going to be there. Those enmities and hatreds go back
hundreds of years, and it is necessary, in my judgment, for us to have
some idea as to how long we are going to stay there and how long it
will take to accomplish that mission if we are, in fact, to remain
there.
The U.S. contingents are still much larger than any others. We have
some 8,000 personnel--substantially larger than the French, British,
Russians, or others--and there ought to be more of a burden sharing
than is present now if the United States is to stay there.
We traveled on to the Mideast where we had an opportunity to meet
with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Syrian President Assad, Egyptian
President Mubarak, King Hussein of Jordan, and other leaders. And, it
is my sense that the Israeli-Syrian tract could be very close to
resolution.
Before going, on December 17, I met with President Clinton, told him
of my itinerary, and urged him to become personally involved in the
Syrian negotiations as he had been in the past. The parties were very
close to a resolution of the dispute between Israel and Syria before
the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin. The President was personally
involved in those negotiations. I believe that with an activist hand by
the President, there could be a successful resolution there. It can't
be said with certainty, but the parties were very close before Prime
Minister Rabin was assassinated.
I had an opportunity to talk to Prime Minister Netanyahu and
President Assad in August and November of 1996. At that time it seemed
to me that the parties were far apart, with Prime Minister Netanyahu
saying he wanted to negotiate for peace but would do so only if there
was a clean slate and he had a new mandate. President Assad of Syria,
on the other hand, said he, too, wanted to negotiate but would do so
only if they would begin where the negotiations left off with Prime
Minister Rabin.
While the words were very similar, when I had a chance to talk to
Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Assad last month, the music, it
seemed to me, was a little bit different. Syria had a new set of
problems with their economy, and Netanyahu faces a new set of problems.
I think activist intervention by the President could well bring the
Israeli-Syrian tract to a conclusion. It is certainly worth a try.
As to the Palestinian-Israeli tract, it is much more complicated.
But, here again I have urged the President to bring Mr. Netanyahu and
Mr. Arafat into the same room, at the same time, to hear their
complaints and to try to bring a resolution to those very serious
problems.
Part of the mission on this trip was to explore persecution against
Christians and other religious groups. Our travels took us to Egypt,
Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Saudi Arabia. The details are spelled out in a
written report, which I shall file as well. But, it seems to me that
the United States ought to take a stand on the legislation which has
been introduced by Congressman Frank Wolf in the House and by myself in
the Senate which would articulate the principles of religious freedom
and impose sanctions on foreign governments which tolerate or encourage
this kind of persecution.
In Saudi Arabia, in talking to Prince Turki, I heard again that the
Koran calls for the death penalty if someone changes from Islam to
Christianity. I heard the same in Egypt, and found, in fact, that those
who have converted from Islam to Christianity had been imprisoned. We
heard many complaints talking to people who had been victims of
persecution in Saudi Arabia and in Egypt. It is my hope that this issue
will come to the Senate floor. I know it is on the majority leader's
list to be considered by the Senate sometime between now and the
spring.
This is just a brief statement of some of the highlights.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the full text of the
report, which incorporates two op-ed pieces that have been published in
the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Harrisburg Patriot-News, be printed
in the Record as well.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Report on Foreign Travel
In accordance with my practice of reporting on foreign
travel, this floor statement summarizes a trip which I took
from December 30, l997 through January 13, l998 to fourteen
countries in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. My trip had
several purposes: to evaluate the work of the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in The
Hague in prosecuting indicted war criminals and in laying
down the precedent for the establishment of a permanent
international criminal court, to evaluate the President's
request for an open-ended extension of time for the U.S.
military participation in United Nations Stabilization Force
operations in Bosnia, to assess the progress of the Middle
East peace process, and to gather information in support of
my legislation to strengthen U.S. policy against countries
that persecute religious minorities.
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL
The first phase of my trip involved a review of the
progress of the International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in The Hague. This was my third
trip to that body in as many years, and its good work
reaffirmed my belief that the tribunal could well set the
stage for the creation of a permanent International Criminal
Court, which would do much to deter future crimes against
humanity.
In The Hague, I met with the Tribunal's Chief Prosecutor,
Louise Arbour, and several American members of her staff, to
discuss pending prosecutions arising from war crimes in the
former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The prosecutors were much more
optimistic than they had been on my two previous visits in
1996. One assistant prosecutor, Ms. Patricia Sellers,
declared there had been more progress in international law in
the last four years than in the intervening 520 years
following the first conviction of a war criminal in 1474.
The most tangible of the tribunal's successes was the
recent conviction, on eleven counts after a one-year trial,
of Dusko Tadic, charged with crimes against humanity under
the statutes of the International Tribunal and cruel
treatment of civilians as defined by the Geneva Convention of
1949.
While the Tadic case is a start, it is important to note
that only 19 of the 79 defendants under indictment are in
custody. Most of the remaining defendants are at large in
Serb-controlled portions of the former Yugoslavia.
On a later stop in Sarajevo, I saw that the multi-national
force in Bosnia faces a complicated task in taking some of
these major defendants, like Radovan Karadic and Ratko
Mladic, into custody. The current instruction is to arrest
indictees if observed, but not to hunt them down. Our
military commanders told me in Sarajevo that they have the
trained personnel to take them into custody if provided
sufficient intelligence information on their whereabouts.
Some of the Congressional opposition to staying in Bosnia
could be overcome with a strategy to hunt down war criminals
as part of the SFOR mission, but this would present its own
set of problems. Our experience in Somalia was bitter when we
sustained extensive casualties in our unsuccessful effort to
take Mohammad Aidid into custody. Consideration should be
given to an arrest strategy if it could be accomplished with
minimal difficulty.
A vastly preferable course to SFOR apprehension would be
for Serbia to honor its commitments under the Dayton
Agreement
[[Page S619]]
to cooperate in apprehending the Tribunal's indictees. After
discussing this matter with the Supreme Allied Commander,
Europe, General Wesley Clark in The Hague, I requested and
obtained a meeting with Slobodan Milosevic, President of the
Yugoslavian Federation, who had been labeled a war criminal
by Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger in December 1992.
Fifteen minutes out of Belgrade on a special flight, I was
told Milosevic had suddenly caught the flu.
In my testy substitute meeting in Belgrade with Yugoslavian
Foreign Minister Zivadin Jovanovich, I pressed Yugoslavia to
turn over several defendants in his country and to help
apprehend Karadic and Mladic. I was not surprised by his
refusal. While in Belgrade I heardthat many there are worried
about the Tribunal's recently adopted procedure to obtain
sealed indictments. Some ranking Serbian or Yugoslavian of
officials may travel to a jurisdiction where an arrest
warrant, based on a sealed indictment from the War Crimes
Tribunal, could be served with a one-way ticket to custody at
The Hague.
Later stops on my trip validated the importance of the
International Tribunal's example to maintaining international
stability. In Ethiopia, Yemen and Eritrea, I heard
considerable interest in the tribunal's work on Rwanda war
crimes. The U.S. Ambassador to Ethiopia expressed concern
about the slow progress of the tribunal on the Rwanda
indictments. Yemeni Foreign Minister Al-Iryani expressed
satisfaction that 23 individuals are in custody on charges of
war crimes in Rwanda.
Eritrean Foreign Minister Haile Weldensae told me that
successful prosecutions against Rwanda defendants would help
bring peace to that country which still suffers from
massacres. Yemeni President Salih cautioned against the
tribunal's handling of the Rwanda prosecutions without a
better understanding of African problems. But the his Foreign
Minister struck a positive chord, saying the Rwanda tribunal
``will absolutely deter'' future atrocities and that it would
set a ``very good precedent that no one should get away from
war crimes.''
From my review of the tribunal's progress, it is clear that
it faces many hurdles: the body has only one courtroom (with
a second under construction), and is frequently undercut by
France and Yugoslavia in carrying out its work. The
tribunal's budget has been increased, but still will have
grossly insufficient resources to carry out its vital
mandate. Only resources, perseverance and strong
international backing will enable the War Crimes Tribunal to
make a success of its unique opportunity to extend the rule
of law against international criminals.
BOSNIA
The second phase of my trip involved evaluating the
President's recent decision to stay to stay in Bosnia
indefinitely in the face of the Defense Appropriations Act
cutting off funding for our military operations there on June
30, l998. Clearly, Congress and the President may be on a
collision course on this matter. Evaluating our policy in
Bosnia took me to Sarajevo, Belgrade and Italy to meet in the
field with our troops and with military leaders from the U.S.
and NATO Commands.
In Sarajevo, I asked our troops to estimate how long we
would need to stay there to avoid the resumption of bloodshed
which would happen if they left on Congress's schedule. A
frequent answer was a generation, given the intensity and
longevity of the religious and ethnic hatreds between the
Muslims, Croats and Serbs. Command Sergeant Major Selmer
Hyde, a Pittsburgh native, pointed out that Muslims in
Sarajevo choose to walk up a high hill adjacent to the city
over a winding dirt trail rather than using a new macadam
road traveled by Serbs and Croats.
There was considerable Congressional opposition to
President Clinton's deployment of U.S. troops for one year in
early l996 as part of a multi-national force, and even more
skepticism when he extended their stay by 18 months shortly
after the 1996 Presidential election. In articulating the
three U.S. objectives for an indefinite stay in Bosnia, the
President twice refers to European security and once to the
rule of international law. While obviously important, those
reasons do not measure up to ``vital'' U.S. national
interests as defined by the historic Senate debate involving
Senators Nunn, Warner, Moynihan, myself and others on the
Congressional resolution to authorize the use of force in the
Gulf War in January 1991.
There is no doubt about the potential dire consequences if
the fighting resumes among the Muslims, Serbs and Croats. The
battle may spill into Macedonia. Germany and other European
countries would likely be flooded with refugees. The entire
region would be de-stabilized.
But there is significant question as to how far can U.S.
military resources be stretched on the current $268 billion
defense budget. In the mid-1980s, those appropriations
approximated $300 billion, which would exceed $400 billion in
1998 dollars. The top U.S. military brass in Bosnia and NATO
had no response to my questions on priorities in deciding how
to spend among Bosnia, Korea, Iran, Iraq and the world's
other hot spots.
The other nations insist on U.S. leadership. The U.S. has
about 8000 soldiers in the Bosnia force, compared to
approximately 2500 Germans, 5100 British, 3200 French, and
1400 Russians. Most of those nations are AWOL when it comes
to supporting the U.S. on tough sanctions against Iraq or on
our efforts to isolate Iran, and France has chosen not to let
its officers testify in front of the International Criminal
Tribunal in The Hague. This is particularly outrageous given
that General Shinseki's multi-national staff told me
that successful prosecution of tribunal inductees forms a
lynchpin of future Bosnian stability.
In the field, our Bosnian troops express mixed sentiments
on our continuing role there. While there is pride on
preserving the peace and noting some improvements, most say
we will have to be there for decades.
Doing our part does not mean doing more than other major
European nations. This is not the Cold War where the U.S.
squared off against the USSR and our dominant role in NATO
protected our vital national interests. Obviously, Bosnian
stability is of much greater concern to the European nations
than it is to the U.S.
If we are to stay, we should (1) get greater commitments
from the other major powers--Great Britain, France, Germany,
Italy, etc; (2) secure agreement from those nations to share
on stabilizing the other world hot spots; (3) obtain real
cooperation from the Serbs, Muslims and Croats on taking into
custody defendants under indictment by the War Crimes
Tribunal; and (4) set a time-table on benchmarks for progress
which would permit a reduction and, ultimately, a withdrawal
of U.S. personnel in Bosnia.
Congress is prepared to be cooperative, but there are
important issues and interests which must be addressed to our
satisfaction. The Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, on
which I serve, should not and will not issue a blank check on
Bosnia.
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
The third phase of my trip involved assessing Middle East
regional stability and the progress of the peace process.
Toward this end, l met in Israel with Prime Minister
Netanyahu and various members of the Knesset, in Syria with
President Assad and Foreign Minister Shara, in Jordan with
King Hussein and Crown Prince Hassan, on the West Bank with
Palestinian Authority Chairman Arafat and Minister of
Education Hanan Ashrawi, in Eritrea with Foreign Minister
Weldensae, in Yemen with President Salih and Foreign Minister
al-lryani, in Saudi Arabia with Saudi Intelligence Director
Prince Turki and U.S. Air Force Brigadier General Rayburn and
in Egypt with President Mubarak.
Before I left I had a talk with President Clinton and urged
him to become more involved in the Mideast peace process,
particularly on the Israeli-Syrian track. After meeting with
Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Assad, I am convinced
that if the President of the United States became personally
involved on that track, there could be some real movement.
In talking to President Assad and Prime Minister Netanyahu
on trips to the area in August and November, 1996, President
Assad's position was that he's not going to resume
negotiations unless Israel agrees to start off where Prime
Minister Rabin left off, and Prime Minister Netanyahu
contended that he had a different mandate from the Israeli
electorate. This time, I noticed the same words, but somewhat
of a difference in tone. I firmly believe that progress could
be made on this track with direct Presidential involvement.
On the question of the Golan, I raised with President Assad
the issue of submitting the return of the Golan to an Israeli
referendum as part of any agreement with Israel. While
initially President Assad considered this a matter purely for
Israeli domestic consumption, after we talked for a while, he
acknowledged that it could form a part of a future
arrangement. If the sticking point of the status of Golan
were decided directly by the Israeli electorate referendum,
this would allow Prime Minister Netanyahu to negotiate with
Syria, notwithstanding his ``mandate.''
As I did in the past, I also raised with President Assad
the issue of Israeli MIAs and I was told that the Syrians
have made continuing efforts. I had raised that in the past,
and they say they have not been able to find anything to this
point. I raised a number of other MIA issues; I've been asked
by the U.S. Embassy not to discuss those issues in detail,
but I did raise them all. I was assured that work is being
done on them.
By contrast with the Israeli-Syrian track, the Israeli-
Palestinian peace talks are much more difficult. There are a
lot of people in the region who contend that Prime Minister
Netanyahu has not kept his promises on the Israeli-
Palestinian process. Prime Minister Netanyahu insists that he
has kept his promises. I believe that bringing both sides
together in this atmosphere is going to take a lot of work. I
was glad to see the President bring both Prime Minister
Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat to meet with him in Washington
last week, but I wish that more could have been attained by
way of tangible progress during their visits. I feel that a
similar Oval Office dialogue between Prime Minister Netanyahu
and President Assad would prove more fruitful because the
Israeli-Syrian track appears not as intractable.
As ever, Islamic fundamentalist terrorism represents the
greatest threat to regional security in the Middle East, and,
in light of this, my visit to Saudi Arabia was especially
instructive. I visited thousands of U.S. airmen living in
tents at the remote Prince Sultan Air Base, to which our
forces were sent
[[Page S620]]
following the terrorist attack on Khobar Towers in Dhahran in
June 1996. Their living quarters made the Allenwood Federal
Prison in Pennsylvania look palatial.
I had met with FBI Director Louis Freeh before departing,
and discussed, among other issues, the level of Saudi
cooperation with our counter-terrorism effort. In Riyadh, I
met with Saudi Intelligence Director Prince Turki, and
strongly objected to the Saudis' refusal to honor their
commitment to allow the FBI to question suspects in the
Khobar Towers bombing. Prince Turki replied that Saudi
national sovereignty entitled his government to handle the
matter as it chose. This is particularly irksome, given the
sacrifices that our troops are making in the region to
provide the Saudi government protection from Iraq.
FOREIGN RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
The fourth phase of my trip involved gathering information
on foreign religious persecution. Worldwide persecution of
religious minorities, focused particularly on Christians in
Muslim countries China and Tibet, led last year to the
introduction of the Specter-Wolf bill which would create a
U.S. office to monitor such persecution and impose trade
sanctions on countries which systematically persecute any
religious group.
Toward the goal of fact-finding, I met with religious
leaders and governmental officials in Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
Ethiopia, and Eritrea and Yemen. I had wanted to visit Sudan
to investigate persecution of Christians by the
fundamentalist Islamic Sudanese government, but was told by
the State Department that Sudan was unsafe for American
delegations. I did meet with the Sudanese government-in-exile
in neighboring Eritrea, and discussed reports of Sudanese
persecution with His Holiness Abuna Paulos, the Patriarch of
the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and with the leadership of the
Ethiopian Supreme Islamic Council in Addis Ababa.
My fact-finding corroborated the widespread reports of
bias, mistreatment and even persecution of religious
minorities in the Middle East and Africa.
Egyptian President Mubarak and Saudi Arabian Intelligence
Director Prince Turki told me that public intolerance toward
non-Muslim religions springs from the Koran. Conversion from
Islam to Christianity or any other religion carries the death
penalty under Muslim laws that are based on teachings of the
Koran.
I heard conflicting statements in Saudi Arabia about
whether the death penalty is actually imposed on conversion.
One U.S. citizen living in Riyadh told me of a videotaped
beheading by Saudi authorities of a Filipino Christian, but
there was some question as to whether this individual was put
to death solely because of his faith. There appeared to be
more substance to a claim of religious motivation for the
execution of a Christian charged only with robbery, since
that punishment far exceeded the usual penalty for that
crime.
Aside from the issue of capital punishment, there is no
doubt that the religious police in Saudi Arabia are very
repressive against Christians. A Mormon U.S. citizen reported
a Saudi investigation seventeen years ago arising from prayer
meetings in a private home. A dossier, he said, has been
maintained by Saudi authorities on participants resulting in
a recent deportation of a Mormon found in possession of a
religious video.
Other U.S. citizens in Riyadh told of Christmas decorations
being torn down in hospitals, seizures of personal bibles by
Saudi customs officials and prohibition of displaying a
Christmas tree in the window of a private home if it could be
seen from outside. Another Christian from India told of a
Sunday School being ransacked by Saudi religious police with
the arrest and detention of a pastor, his wife and
three children.
American soldiers of Jewish faith feel particularly at risk
in Saudi Arabia. They change their ``dog tags'' to eliminate
any reference to their religion during their tours there.
When a rabbi from the Chaplain Corps recently visited U.S.
military posts in Saudi Arabia, many Jewish soldiers declined
to meet with him.
The Saudi answer on the religious questions was identical
to their rationale on refusing to allow the FBI to
interrogate the Khobar Towers suspects. The only difference
was that source of their obstinacy was the Koran instead of
national sovereignty. Nevertheless, l believe the Saudi
attitude on religious bias can be changed at least to some
extent in the face of sufficient U.S. and world persuasion
and pressure.
On September 12, 1997, Prince Sultan reportedly made a
commitment to the Pope that Christians would be permitted to
pray together in the solitude of their homes. Even that
remains to be seen. Prince Turki claimed that Saudi policy
did not preclude people from bringing bibles for their own
personal use through customs; but, he said, zealous customs
bureaucrats often act on their own in confiscating these
items.
From my discussions with foreign leaders and with religious
minorities, it was clear that just the introduction of the
Specter-Wolf bill has had an effect on foreign repressive
practices. My friend, the Special Advisor to President
Mubarak, Osama el-Baz, came to see me in my Senate office
before my trip to ask that Egypt not be included among
countries which persecuted Christians. Also, fifty-three
Egyptian Christians recently publicized a letter saying, in
effect, the U.S. should mind its own business even though
they acknowledged that ``there are certain annoyances that
[Christians] in Egypt suffer from.''
Egyptian evangelicals were not as restrained. They cited
cases of eight and nine months in jail for Muslims who sought
conversion to Christianity. One scholar produced statistics
showing 1624 people were killed by religious violence in
Egypt from l990 through 1992 including the deaths of 133
Christians. Evangelicals in both Egypt and Ethiopia also
complained about the long time it took to secure official
permission to build churches, a snag that, in effect, stymied
their religious activity.
Since the State Department advised against visiting Sudan,
we sought information on that country's practices in the
neighboring countries of Eritrea and Ethiopia. Eritrean
Christians confirmed claims of Sudanese children being sold
into slavery. They attributed it to profiteering by the
militia as part of the booty of war. One Eritrean Christian
commented on Sudanese governmental action in closing churches
in 1997.
Our Christian, Jewish and Moslem interlocutors in Saudi
Arabia, Egypt, Ethiopia and Eritrea were particularly pleased
that the U.S. Congress was considering the issue. An Egyptian
Muslim almost withdrew his objection to the Specter-Wolf bill
when he heard it applied to other nations and had no
sanctions against Egypt on U.S. foreign aid. Archbishop
Silvano Tomasi, Vatican Ambassador to Ethiopia, complimented
the proposed legislation for raising the level of dialogue,
adding that, if it were enacted with a ``little bite,'' then
so much the better.
By raising the profile of the religious persecution issue
in the current discourse of foreign policy, Congress has been
able to make some progress on advancing the cause of
religious freedom abroad. Still, many problems remain. For
this reason, Congressman Wolf and I will continue to pursue
our bill toward the goal of putting teeth in our country's
longstanding policy against foreign religious persecution.
MAGNETIC LEVITATION TRAIN TECHNOLOGY
On my way back to Washington, I stopped in Lathen, Germany,
to announce the completion of an agreement to bring German
high-speed magnetic levitation (``maglev'') train technology
to Pennsylvania. I took a demonstration ride on the maglev
train, which is capable of speeds as high as 310 miles per
hour.
This is something I have been working on in the area of
Transportation Appropriations for a long time. The maglev
train ride would improve the quality of life of all
Pennsylvanians who feel they spend too much time in traffic
or at congested airports. This technology would also bring
Pennsylvania's steel industry roaring into the 21st Century
because the maglev train uses steel guideways over hundreds
of miles.
The train went a little over 250 miles per hour and it was
exhilarating to be in a kind of mass transit which goes so
fast, a little like Buck Rogers. It would be tremendous for
Pennsylvania and a tremendous boon to the economy of every
stop along the line from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, such as
Lancaster, Harrisburg, Lewiston, State College, Altoona,
Johnstown, and Greensburg. People could go from Philadelphia
to Pittsburgh in one and a half hours non-stop,
revolutionizing our transportation system. I look forward to
continuing to support this economical, forward-looking
technology in the future.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak
as if in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, very much.
____________________