[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 24, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9819-S9822]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPROVING THE RENEWAL OF IMPORT RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN THE BURMESE
FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2003
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask the clerk to report the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 44) approving the renewal of
import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and
Democracy Act of 2003, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this legislation continues the
sanctions already in place against Burma's illegitimate Peace and
Development Council. If enacted, these sanctions will continue to show
the SPDC that the United States stands squarely with the long-suffering
people of Burma and against its brutal regime.
Just last month, the International Committee of the Red Cross
condemned the actions of the Burmese regime--a rare vocal stance for an
organization that has historically worked to bring about change behind
the scenes. The ICRC's statement, according to international observers,
is the harshest it has issued since the Rwandan genocide more than 12
years ago.
Burma's sham reforms are not fooling the Red Cross and they should
not be fooling anyone else. The SPDC recently resumed its so-called
constitutional convention, a convention in which most delegates were
selected by the regime itself and in which delegates are not allowed to
offer draft changes without permission. Criticism of the draft
constitution is prohibited by law. One notable provision in the draft
forbids the spouse of a foreign national from sitting in Parliament, an
addition clearly aimed at National League for Democracy leader and
Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, whose British husband died
in 1999.
The SPDC calls the convention a ``roadmap'' to democracy. But on the
SPDC's map, the destination is not freedom, it is tyranny.
Until the NLD and Burma's ethnic minorities are fully included in the
governing process, until this process reflects true democratic
principles, this convention should be shunned--shunned--by the
international community. A sham constitutional process is a step
backwards, not forward.
With that said, there are some encouraging signs. International
pressure on the Burmese regime has begun to increase. Members of the
Association of Southeast Asia Nations have expressed concern about the
SPDC's behavior, and much like the ICRC's condemnation, recent
statements of ASEAN members represent a departure from traditional
practice. Clearly, there is growing international impatience with the
Burmese regime.
I am proud to say that the United States has long been at the
vanguard of the movement to democratize Burma. Others, such as ASEAN,
are following our lead. They are beginning to recognize the moral
imperative to help the people of this beleaguered nation.
I am also proud of the continued unified stance taken by the Senate
over the years with respect to Burma. On Monday, the Senate Finance
Committee voted out this bill unanimously. The legislation has 60
cosponsors and once again enjoys broad bipartisan support.
I am pleased to be joined again by my good friend and cosponsor, the
senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein. I also thank Rich
Harper of her staff for all the hard work he has put forward to make
this legislation possible. On the Republican side, my good friend
Senator McCain continues to use his respected voice to support the
Burmese people.
It is time for the Senate, once again, to go on record and show that
we stand with the people of Burma. As we do, we can be confident of
their gratitude.
In a recent book on the plight of the Burmese people by author Emma
Larkin, a Burmese man urges outside nations to keep the pressure on.
``Change has to come from outside,'' he says. ``The world must pinch
Burma harder. . . . Give any money to these generals and it is like
watching a poisonous plant grow.''
Let's show that we stand for freedom and against oppression, for real
democratic progress and against hollow promises of reform, against the
poisonous plant that is the SPDC.
I urge my Senate colleagues to support adoption of this joint
resolution.
Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays for when we ultimately
get back to the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I wish to address two issues this
afternoon. Before I do, I say to the Republican leader that I will
gladly support his
[[Page S9820]]
joint resolution. I spent time in Burma. I have observed the situation
on the ground. We do need to engage Burma and assist in its movement
toward better political conditions, but I believe sanctions are clearly
appropriate.
(The further remarks of Mr. Webb are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that any time
remaining in the quorum call be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Darfur
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I return to the floor to discuss the
ongoing genocide in Darfur. Most of the discussion on the floor of the
Senate and in Congress for the last several weeks has been about Iraq,
and appropriately so, yet the time spent dealing with the failed policy
in Iraq is a stark reminder of how it also distracts us from so many
other critical issues around the world. One issue in particular is the
4-year humanitarian tragedy in the Darfur region of Sudan.
Sadly, in front of the global community's eyes, we have witnessed
unspeakable horror--mass killings, rape, torture, the torching of homes
and entire villages. The estimates of death are wide ranging, from
200,000 to 400,000. Some 2\1/2\ million people have been displaced from
their homes, and there is a mounting refugee crisis in neighboring Chad
and the Central African Republic.
Despite a worldwide call for action, the tragedy continues. The
genocide in Sudan is becoming increasingly complicated and tragic. The
violence threatens to destabilize an entire region, and without change
there is little end in sight. Today, we have an important opportunity
to break the cycle of violence, an opportunity that we must seize.
After years of duplicity and stalling, Sudanese President Bashir
agreed last month to a significantly expanded joint United Nations-
African Union peacekeeping force. We have to seize that opportunity and
seize it quickly. Unfortunately, there are already disturbing signs
this window may be closing. Yesterday, the Washington Post covered a
visit by President Bashir to the Darfur section of his country.
President Bashir said that people there were ``living normal lives;''
that only 9,000 people had died and that ``most of Darfur is now secure
and enjoying real peace.'' He rejected foreign intervention in the
conflict.
This crisis has gone on long enough. Over 2 years ago, President Bush
declared a genocide in Darfur. Secretary of State Colin Powell joined
in that chorus. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also agreed. And
the President said: Not on my watch--remembering the horror of Rwanda,
where 800,000 people died in a genocide during the Clinton
administration. President Clinton did not respond at that time, has
regretted it ever since, and said so publicly. President Bush said the
same thing would not happen in his administration. I have reminded the
President now several times on the floor of the Senate and personally
that his administration is coming to an end. If he is going to do
anything about the crisis and genocide in Darfur, he needs to move and
move quickly.
The need is simple: rapid deployment of a full peacekeeping force. We
have seen this type of urgency with other peacekeeping forces,
including last year in Lebanon, and we must act with similar speed for
the people, the victims, suffering in Darfur.
Last week, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and I had a good
conversation. He returned my call on the telephone and we spoke for a
few minutes. We talked about the importance of rapidly deploying a new
peacekeeping force and of working toward a long-term political
settlement in this region. It is my hope that our United States
Ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, will work closely
with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to make these steps a reality.
The U.N. Security Council will be meeting soon to authorize this
force. The Security Council should be firm in its mandate and its
timeline.
The needs are clear. The force must have sufficient resources and
numbers. We can help. The United States has resources set aside for
peacekeeping efforts in the world. I can't think of many more pressing
than the genocide in Darfur. If we are not providing soldiers, we
certainly need to be providing resources.
It must have a strong chapter VII mandate for protecting civilians,
peacekeepers, and humanitarian workers. Some of these nongovernmental
organizations, these humanitarian workers, have been the victims of the
violence in Darfur. Men and women who are risking their lives to
provide the basic necessities of life have been the targets themselves,
for the jingaweit militia and all the violence taking place there. This
U.N. force must have a clear command-and-control structure and firm
timetable. It should be clear day-to-day operational instructions come
from the United Nations. The U.N. mandate must set benchmarks and hold
the Sudanese Government accountable for any failure to cooperate. In
particular, there should be no room for further stalling or
reinterpretation by the Sudanese Government. We have been blindsided
too many times by President Bashir of Sudan, who has said so many times
there is no problem in Darfur; you can bring in a force; no, I have
changed my mind.
As this man has weaved back and forth, more and more innocent people
have died and been displaced from their homes. We must match this
peacekeeping force with a renewed diplomatic effort to bring about a
long-term political settlement, including naming a Special
Representative of the Secretary General to monitor implementation of a
comprehensive peace agreement.
The force must be deployed immediately. The notion that we are going
to do this months from now is unacceptable.
Finally, we need a long-term political settlement to match the
peacekeeping effort. I call on the United States, the United Nations,
and the African Union to continue intensive negotiations with all
parties.
I also strongly urge all parties, including those representing
nonsignatory Darfur rebel movements, to participate fully in the U.N.-
African Union-led negotiations and to tirelessly cooperate in the
effort to bring about a political solution that will return peace and
stability to the people of Darfur.
Those who choose not to participate leave themselves open to further
international isolation and sanction. Each day we delay on peacekeeping
and political settlement efforts leads to more death, more rape, more
human suffering, more people displaced from their homes, more desperate
refugees. Each day we delay, the crisis becomes more complex, with
increased violence and numbers of refugees spilling over into
neighboring countries creating burdens and instabilities there. Each
day we delay gives President Bashir another opportunity to stall and
back away from his commitment. Each day we delay is a further
indictment of the global community's failure to act decisively in the
face of genocide.
We must not wait another day. Let us not forget the major export of
Sudan is oil. The major company in Sudan that is drilling the oil and
exporting it is PetroChina, a company controlled by the Chinese
Government. The Chinese need to be involved in this as well, first at
the United Nations and then beyond.
[[Page S9821]]
A few weeks ago, after an article appeared in the Wall Street Journal
written by Mia Farrow, the actress, the Chinese finally responded and
made some overtures toward the Bashir Government, saying they had to
act. We have not heard anything since.
It is time for the Chinese to step up. If they want to be part of
this global community, they should stand on the side of civilized
conduct. They should condemn the genocide in Darfur and do more.
In closing, I thank President Bush, Secretary General Ban, and U.N.
Ambassador Khalilzad. I want them to know there is strong support in
the Congress for swift action to field this peacekeeping force. Many of
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have spoken out for years on
the need to do more to halt the genocide in Darfur. We will and we must
continue to focus this concern on doing everything we can to halt this
genocide.
I hope we have an active voice and role in this debate in the Senate.
Yes, we can do many things--our legislative business--but not ignoring
the rest of the world. I hope, in the next 2 weeks, we can take action
on the floor to adopt resolutions and to make it clear, on a bipartisan
basis, we want the U.N. peacekeeping force to act and act quickly in
response.
We should also be working with the Ambassadors from countries that
are represented in the African Union, as well as those on the Security
Council, to reassure them that the United States wants swift action. We
need to make sure our appropriations bills reflect the need for
resources to make this a success. As the President said more than 2
years ago, ``Not on my watch.'' We in the Congress, we in the Senate,
should say the same, and we should follow that statement with action.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I compliment the distinguished
Senator from Illinois on his remarks. Not only were they heartfelt but
they were certainly cogent and certainly correct.
My warmest congratulations to the, Senator.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I come to speak to the passage of
the joint resolution renewing the import sanctions on Burma for another
year. This legislation has been introduced for several years now by
Senator McConnell and myself. I began working on this issue with
Senator Bill Cohen a long time ago when he was in this body.
Yesterday, the House passed the joint resolution by voice vote and
the Senate Finance Committee reported the McConnell-Feinstein bill to
the Senate floor on a unanimous bipartisan basis, so I urge my
colleagues to pass this resolution.
These sanctions are set to expire in 2 days, that is July 26, and any
delay will only serve to benefit the ruling military junta in Burma--
the State Peace and Development Council is its name--at the expense of
Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and leader of the National League for
Democracy Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition in Burma.
I remind my colleagues that the National League for Democracy, headed
by Aung San Suu Kyi, decisively won the last parliamentary elections in
1989. These sanctions will be renewed for 1 year, so we will have a
chance to discuss them in a year if the military junta should decide to
make some reforms. But, simply put, the junta to date has failed to
take any meaningful steps to release Suu Kyi and other political
prisoners. There are over a thousand political prisoners many of her
political party, elected to the Parliament, who remain in prison.
Last month, we celebrated the 62nd birthday of Aung San Suu Kyi. She
spent her day, as she has for most of her past 17 years, alone and
under house arrest--17 long years alone in a house in Burma, with no
communication with the outside world. In May, the State Peace and
Development Council renewed her sentence for yet another year.
I am heartened to know the Senate and the international community are
coming together to ensure the abuses and injustices of the military
junta in Burma do not go unnoticed.
Earlier this year, 45 Senators signed a letter to U.N. Secretary Ban
Ki-moon, urging him to get personally involved in pressing for Suu
Kyi's release. In a recent letter addressed to the State Peace and
Development Council, a distinguished group of 59 former heads of State,
including former Filipino President Corazon Aquino, former Czech
President Vaclav Havel, former British Prime Minister John Major, and
former Presidents Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush,
called for the regime to release Aung San Suu Kyi. They correctly noted
that:
Aung San Suu Kyi is not calling for revolution in Burma but
rather peaceful, nonviolent dialog between the military,
National League for Democracy, and Burma's ethnic groups.
What kind of threat can that be to a government? The calls for Suu
Kyi's release are also coming from Burma's neighbors. The Association
of Southwest Asian Nations, known as ASEAN, now recognizes that Burma's
actions are not an internal matter but a significant threat to peace
and stability in the region. At a meeting of senior diplomats last
month, ASEAN made a clear call for Aung San Suu Kyi's release. That
call is so welcome. I would like to encourage ASEAN to continue to
speak out.
Last month, the women of the Senate--and you were one, Madam
President--came together to form the Women's Caucus on Burma, to
express our solidarity with Suu Kyi, to call for her immediate release
and urge the United Nations to pass a binding resolution on Burma.
We did not do this in vain. The United Nations did pass a resolution
earlier this year, but unfortunately it was vetoed by China and Russia.
At our inaugural event, we were pleased to be joined by First Lady
Laura Bush, who added her own voice to those calling for peace and
democracy in Burma.
Our message is spreading and it is clear and we will not remain
silent. We will not stand still until Aung San Suu Kyi and all
political prisoners are released and democratic government is restored
in Burma. Let us not forget that this human rights situation compels us
to action. Consider this: There are still 1,300 political prisoners in
jail. According to the U.N. Special Rapporteur, over 3,000 villages
have been destroyed by the military junta; 70,000 child soldiers have
been forcibly recruited; and over half a million people are internally
displaced in Burma today; and over 1 million people have fled Burma in
the past two decades, destabilizing Burma's neighbors.
The practice of rape as a form of repression has been sanctioned by
the Burmese military. Use of forced labor is widespread. Human
trafficking is rampant. Burma is the world's second largest opium
producer, after Afghanistan, and increasingly a source of trafficking
of synthetic narcotics.
Sanctions are not a panacea for every problem, and in many cases they
don't work, but in this instance, we still hope they can be effective.
Suu Kyi herself has said this:
We would like the world to know that economic sanctions do
not hurt the common people of Burma. We would like the
European Community, the United States and the rest of the
world to be aware that sanctions do help the movement for
democracy in Burma.
Members of this body, this is an amazing woman, a Nobel Peace Prize
winner, under house arrest for the better part of 17 years because her
party was democratically elected to lead Burma. We should speak out.
This resolution is one way of doing that.
I urge its passage.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of
H.J. Res. 44, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. This legislation
will send a strong message to the military leaders of Burma, by
renewing sanctions on their repressive regime.
As cochairman of the Senate Women's Caucus on Burma, I have closely
monitored the political situation in that country, including the
inspiring leadership of a brave Burmese woman named Aung San Suu Kyi. A
former winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Aung San Suu Kyi has dedicated
her life for the cause of democracy in her country, including spending
most of the last 17 years in detention.
I have been proud to stand with the other women of the Senate on
behalf of
[[Page S9822]]
Aung San Suu Kyi. In May 2007, I joined with Senator Feinstein, Senator
Collins, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Stabenow, and First Lady Laura Bush
at a press event to show our concern for Aung San Suu Kyi, and the need
for the U.S. Government to stand in solidarity with the people of
Burma.
By passing the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, we are reengaging
on this vitally important issue, but we can do, and must do, more. The
U.S. should use its influence with the international community to put
more pressure on the Burmese to stop the murder, oppression and
imprisonment of its critics.
I know that Aung San Suu Kyi--and the people of Burma--will applaud
this landmark legislation. I am proud to cosponsor it, and I urge my
Senate colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to offer a few comments on H.J.
Res. 44, which will renew the import ban we first imposed on Burma in
2003.
The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act was our response to the
reprehensible attack on the National League for Democracy which
occurred on May 30, 2003, and the arrest of many NLD officials,
including their leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
I worked with my colleagues, Senator McConnell and Senator Baucus, to
develop and pass that legislation. We authorized a ban on imports from
Burma, subject to annual renewal by Congress.
As Senator Baucus and I noted after the Senate passed that
legislation, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act contains a guarantee
of ongoing congressional oversight. We felt it was important that the
Congress revisit the issue of trade sanctions on Burma each year. That
way, Congress can consider whether, in light of any changed
circumstances, it is appropriate to renew the ban on Burmese imports
for another year.
Unfortunately, the situation in Burma has not improved. The human
rights record in Burma remains extremely poor. There is a pattern of
government policies that suppress liberties. The abuses have been
extensive and the trend continues to worsen. There are reportedly over
1,000 political-prisoners in jail. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has spent 11
out the past 18 years under house arrest.
In December 2006, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a
resolution expressing its grave concern over human rights violations in
Burma. In addition, Burma poses serious risks to peace and security in
the region. This is not the time to reward the bad actions of the
illegitimate Burmese Government.
We should send a strong signal to the military junta that their
ongoing behavior is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor
of continuing the trade sanctions against Burma for another year.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, ``Do what you can, with what you have,
where you are.'' These essential principles for action, articulated by
President Theodore Roosevelt, aptly apply to America's sanctions policy
against the Burmese Government.
Four years ago, Congress enacted the Burmese Freedom and Democracy
Act of 2003 in response to the Burmese junta's brutal crackdown on
democracy advocate Aung San Suu Kyi and her followers. At the time,
there were few options available to the Congress to change events in
Burma. Congress did what it could with the tools available at that
time.
Tragically, 4 years later, conditions in Burma have worsened. Suu Kyi
remains under house arrest, which she has endured for most of the last
two decades. The junta continues to commit gross human rights
violations including extrajudicial killings, rape, and torture.
Security forces continue to compel citizens into forced labor, and beat
and abuse prisoners. And the junta's poor economic policies have made
Burma one of the most impoverished countries in Asia.
When Congress considered the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act in
2003, I expressed reservations about whether these new sanctions would
have the desired effect. Too often, unilateral sanctions only worsen
the plight of the oppressed people we seek to support. Too often, they
fail to weaken the tyrannical governments at which they are targeted.
That is why Senator Grassley and I worked together to ensure that the
import sanctions would not be open-ended. We agreed to revisit the ban
on an annual basis to ensure that they remain the proper policy to
address America's human rights concerns with Burma.
Over the last year, we have seen limited progress in our efforts to
enlist the cooperation of Burma's trading partners to isolate the
regime. The European Union has renewed its sanctions against Burma.
Some ASEAN-member countries, which previously declined to publicly
criticize the Burmese Government, are now calling for change. But none
of these measures yet amounts to a unified and forceful deterrent to
Burma's ruling military junta.
Democracy, national reconciliation, and respect for human rights in
Burma can only be achieved if we enlist more than just the moral
support of other countries. We must enlist Burma's trading partners,
particularly its neighbors, to take more concrete actions that put real
economic and political pressure on the military generals. I urge the
administration to intensify its efforts to garner international
cooperation to isolate the junta. I will support renewal of the import
ban on Burma, because I am hopeful that we will see greater progress in
the year ahead. In renewing the import ban on Burma, I believe we will
follow the right course of action: to do what we can, with the best
tools available, where we are.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will read
the joint resolution for the third time.
The joint resolution (H.J. Res 44) was ordered to a third reading and
was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton),
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Burr), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 276 Leg.]
YEAS--93
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Bunning
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--1
Enzi
NOT VOTING--6
Brownback
Burr
Clinton
Johnson
McCain
Obama
The resolution (H.J. Res. 44) was passed.
Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________