Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I wonder if I might have a few minutes on another topic. Is the time divided?

Mr. DOLE. If I may be permitted to speak out of order on two other matters.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, news reports indicate that President Clinton is on the verge of making a decision about normalizing relations with Vietnam. I understand an announcement may come as soon as tomorrow. Secretary of State Warren Christopher has recommended normalization. Many Vietnam veterans support normalization--including a bipartisan group of veterans in the Senate, led by the senior Senator from Arizona, John McCain. Many oppose normalization as well. Just as the Vietnam war divided Americans in the 1960's and 1970's, the issue of how to finalize peace with Vietnam divides Americans today. At the outset, let me observe that there are men and women of good will on both sides of this issue. No one should question the motives of advocates or opponents of normalization. We share similar goals: Obtaining the fullest possible accounting for American prisoners of war and missing in action; continuing the healing process in the aftermath of our most divisive war; fostering respect for human rights and political liberty in Vietnam. I can recall in, I think, 1969 attending the first family gathering of POW's and MIA's. Only about 100 people showed up. I think I may have been the only Senator there. And I promised that group that within 3 months we would have a meeting at Constitution Hall, which seats 2,000 people, and we would fill it up. And we did. And I remember wearing the John McCain bracelet for a couple of years back in those days when John McCain was still a POW. So I have had a long and I think consistent interest in the fate of POW's and MIA's starting way back when nobody knew the difference, when bracelets were not ordinary, nobody knew what a POW/MIA was for certain. And so it is something that I have had an interest in for a long, long time. The debate over normalization is about our differences with the Government of Vietnam, not with the Vietnamese people. The people of Vietnam have suffered decades of war and brutal dictatorship. We hope for a better future for the people of Vietnam--a future of democracy and freedom, not repression and despair. The debate over normalization is not a debate over the ends of American policy; it is a debate over the means. The most fundamental question is whether normalizing relations with Vietnam will further the goals we share. In my view, now is not the time to normalize relations with Vietnam. The historical record shows that Vietnam cooperates on POW/MIA issues only when pressured by the United States; in the absence of sustained pressure, there is little progress on POW/MIA concerns, or on any other issue. The facts are clear. Vietnam is still a one party Marxist dictatorship. Preserving their rule is the No. 1 priority of Vietnam's Communist Government. Many credible sources suggest Vietnam is not providing all the information it can on POW/MIA issues. In some cases, increased access has only confirmed how much more Vietnam could be doing. This is not simply my view, it is a view shared by two Asia experts--Steve Solarz, former chairman of the House Subcommittee on Asia and Pacific Affairs, and Richard Childress, National Security Council Vietnam expert from 1981 to 1989. Earlier this year, they wrote: Vietnam could easily account for hundreds of Americans by a combination of unilateral repatriation of remains, opening its archives, and full cooperation on U.S. servicemen missing in Laos. Again, not my quote but a quote by the two gentlemen mentioned. They conclude that, Whatever the reasons or combination of reasons, Vietnam, in the current environment, has made a conscious decision to keep the POW/MIA issue alive by not resolving it. This is a view shared by the National League of POW/MIA families which has worked tirelessly to resolve the issue for many years. It is also a view shared by major veterans groups, including the American Legion, the largest veterans group. The media have reported that the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the second largest group is supportive of normalization. Let me quote from VFW's official position adopted at its 1994 convention: At some point in time but only after significant results have been achieved through Vietnam/U.S. cooperative efforts, we should . . . move towards normalizing diplomatic relations. A more recent VFW statement makes clear that normalization is not opposed by the VFW if it leads to a fuller accounting of POW/MIA cases. If President Clinton intends to normalize diplomatic relations with Vietnam, he should do so only after he can clearly state that Vietnam has done everything it reasonably can to provide the fullest possible accounting. That is the central issue. The United States has diplomatic relations with many countries which violate human rights, and repress their own people. But the United States should not establish relations with a country which withholds information about the fate of American servicemen. As President-elect Clinton said on Veterans Day, 1992, ``I have sent a clear message that there will be no normalization of relations with any nation that is at all suspected of withholding any information'' on POW/MIA cases. Let me repeat: ``suspected of withholding any information.'' Let me repeat, ``suspected of withholding any information'' on POW/MIA cases. I hope the standard proposed by President-elect Clinton is the same standard used by President Clinton. No doubt about it, the Vietnamese Government wants normalization very badly. Normalization is the strongest bargaining chip America has. As such, it should only be granted when we are convinced Vietnam has done all it can do. Vietnam has taken many steps--sites are being excavated, and some remains have been returned. But there are also signs that Vietnam may be willfully withholding information. Unless the President is absolutely convinced Vietnam has done all it can to resolve the POW/ MIA issue--and is willing to say so publicly and unequivocally--it would be a strategic, diplomatic and moral mistake to grant Vietnam the stamp of approval from the United States. I ask unanimous consent that the article from which I quoted earlier be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the senior Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] is necessarily absent from the Senate and is holding an important meeting on Superfund reform in his home State. He has asked me to announce that had he been present for the votes we are just about to take, he would have voted in favor of both the Abraham and the Nunn- Coverdell amendments. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, now that we have begun consideration of regulatory reform, the defenders of the status quo have settled on the weapon of last resort: fear. Thus, we have reporters and pundits pronouncing in strident tones ``the rollback of 25 years of environmental protection,'' the likelihood [[Page S 9598]] of increased outbreaks of E. coli food poisoning, and the horror of placing a pricetag on human life. The sky is falling is undoubtedly next. The only problem with all these arguments is that they are absolutely false, not just false in some small way, but false in every way. Apparently, the Chicken Littles who have engaged in these scare tactics did not even bother to read the legislation. Had they done so, they would realize that most of the bill merely codifies Executive orders issued by every President since the Ford administration. Had they done so, they would realize this is a bipartisan piece of legislation that balances commonsense reform with the need to protect health, safety, and the environment. So here are a few facts--although I am not certain from some of the reports I read, the Ralph Naders, and the Bob Herberts of the New York Times, and others, even care about facts--but just in case somebody might care about facts, let me state some facts, and I quote directly from the legislation conveniently ignored by these liberal distortions: Our regulatory reform legislation protects existing environmental health and safety laws. Our legislation makes explicit that regulatory reform measures supplement and [do] not supersede--supplement and do not supersede. We are not going to supersede any law, we are going to supplement existing environmental health and safety requirements. Congress chooses the goals, and all we ask is that among several options achieving those goals that the one imposing the least possible burden be selected. We do not see a problem, if you are going to have all these options, and one will accomplish the job with the least burden on the American taxpayer, the American consumer, the American businessman, generally small business men and women, why should we not choose that option? However, a cost-benefit analysis of proposed regulations is not required before issuing rules that address an ``emergency or health or safety threat that is likely to result in significant harm to the public or natural resources.'' If nonquantifiable benefits to ``health, safety, or the environment'' call for a more costly regulatory alternative, the agency is free to make that choice as well. And rules subject to a proposed congressional 60-day review period may be implemented without delay if ``necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency.'' So it seems to me we have made it rather clear. Some rollback. Our regulatory reform legislation protects food safety. Perhaps the most cowardly argument has been the one that suggests that our legislation would, in the words of one overly distraught commentator, mount ``an all-out assault on food safety regulations'' and block implementation of the Agriculture Department's proposed meat inspection regulations. Does any reasonable person really believe that any politician, Democrat or Republican, is trying to gut food safety laws? Of course not. But for those who have made a career on scare tactics, this argument will apparently do. If they make it, surely somebody in the media will repeat it and repeat it and repeat it. That has been done for the past several days. All of the protections in the bill noted above apply here, too, especially the one exempting a regulation from any delay if there is ``an emergency or health or safety threat.'' But there are several additional ironies. First, the Agriculture Department already conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the meat inspection rule, and it passed. Second, in the entire bill the only time health inspections are mentioned, it is to exempt them from risk assessment requirements under this bill. Our regulatory reform legislation does not place a price tag on human life. The argument that regulatory reform would place a price tag on human life usually carries with it the notion that some lives will be worth more than others. This is a cynical argument and is completely at odds with what the bill would actually accomplish. First, not only does the bill avoid putting a price tag on life, it explicitly recognizes that some values are not capable of quantification. Thus, both costs and benefits are defined in the legislation to include nonquantifiable costs and benefits. The legislation also provides that in performing a cost-benefit analysis, there is no requirement to do so ``primarily on a mathematical or numerical basis.'' And, second, agencies may choose higher cost regulations where warranted by ``nonquantifiable benefits to health, safety or the environment.'' Nothing could be more clear to this Senator, and we hope we have made it clear in the bill, which is sponsored by Republicans and Democrats. Mr. President, I have quoted from the bill wherever possible. It is interesting that opponents of the bill never do. They probably have never seen the bill and do not know the numbers, and they do not intend to read it. They have bought into this nonsense that some Members of Congress are for dirty meat, that we want dirty meat--that is what I have read--that we want people to die of food poisoning. I know they do not like to read these things because it is inconvenient, and they do not want the facts in many cases. But I challenge the opponents to stop distorting the truth and start seeking it. They can read the bill. To help them, I have prepared a summary of provisions that address the protections for health, safety, and the environment that I will include with this statement in the Record. Then opponents can start telling us why they are really upset by regulatory reform. I suspect it has less to do with threats to the environment and more to do with the threat to Federal power in Washington, DC. We have a lot of bureaucrats that might lose their jobs if we can ease some of the burdens on consumers, farmers, ranchers, small businessmen and women, the people who have to pay for all the regulations, and, in some cases, the costs exceed the benefits. In some cases, there are no benefits at all. The most costly regulations are usually the ones that impose a Government-knows-best requirement, and there is an entire culture devoted to telling the American people that the Government knows best; Washington, DC, knows best. Our legislation is a direct threat to a smug assertion. By golly, we ordinary Americans hope you agencies do not take it personally, but we would really like you to show us why a rule imposing hundreds of millions of dollars makes sense and was the only way to do it. So we think we are on to something here. It should not be a partisan issue, and it is not a partisan issue. A lot of my good colleagues on the other side of the issue are supporting this, and we hope to have more before the week is out. The opponents are right in one respect: This is one of the most important pieces of legislation this Congress will address. Americans pay more in regulatory costs than they do to Uncle Sam through income taxes. Overregulation costs the American family an estimated $6,000 a year. I believe we can ensure regulations that both promote important goals like food safety and also minimize costs wherever possible, and I believe it is our obligation to do so. In that respect, I am an optimist. I have never succumbed to the chirpings of the Chicken Littles and do not intend to start now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of this legislation, particularly as it relates to protection of human health, safety, and environment, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Thank you, Mr. President. We have morning business until 1 o'clock, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. At 1 o'clock, we resume consideration of S. 343, the regulatory reform bill. Under a previous order, Senator Abraham will be recognized to offer an amendment on small business. At 3 o'clock, the Abraham amendment will be set aside so that Senator Nunn may offer an amendment with Senator Coverdell regarding regulatory flexibility. At 5:15, we begin two back-to-back votes--a vote on or in relation to the Abraham amendment, to be immediately followed by a vote on or in relation to the Nunn-Coverdell amendment. So there will be at least two rollcall votes today, and there could be further rollcall votes into the evening. Let me indicate to my colleagues, this is Monday morning. This is a very important piece of legislation. It is controversial in some quarters. We hope to end up with a strong bipartisan bill. But I will alert my colleagues, we will have long days all this week, including Friday. So I do not want people expecting that on Friday there will be no votes or maybe be one vote at 11 o'clock in the morning. That can change if we complete action on this bill, but I doubt that will happen. In addition, we were not able to complete action on the rescissions package before we left a week ago Friday. That bill will come up when there is an agreement without amendment to go to final passage. I understand there may be some discussion of that later on today. It is a bill that saves about $9.2 billion. It was blocked by two of my colleagues before the recess. I hope that their concerns may be satisfied by the administration. I hope the administration can deal with our Democratic colleagues with reference to that bill. It has many important items in the bill, including disaster relief for Oklahoma City, earthquake relief for California, and a number of other--in fact, there are some 30 States for which this bill includes some disaster money. So it is an important bill. It is one we should pass. It also saves $9.2 billion overall. It is very important that we pass that bill at the earliest possible time. I commend the White House for at least notifying the agencies not to spend any money that is not authorized in that rescissions bill. So that is a step in the right direction. Now, if they can convince a couple of our colleagues to let us pass the bill, we could do that at any time today or tomorrow if an agreement is reached. But I again indicate it is going to be a full week. We are already eating into the August recess. We have some ``must'' legislation we hope to complete between now and sometime in August. We will have a final schedule to all of our colleagues by the end of the week. Mr. President, was leaders' time reserved?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as the Serbian advance on Srebrenica continues, the administration, the U.N. bureaucracy, and some of our allies are busy defending their failed approach in Bosnia. They argue that the Bosnians are better off if the U.N. forces stay in [[Page S 9625]] Bosnia, that lifting sanctions on Serbia is the key to peace, that the Serb air defenses do not pose a threat to NATO air crews--the news from Bosnia notwithstanding. In his response to a letter from Speaker Gingrich and me, the President stated that he believed that the United States must support the U.N. protection forces' continued presence in Bosnia. He said that UNPROFOR had played and was playing a ``critical role'' in diminishing the conflict and was assisting the U.N. high commission on refugees in providing aid to the Bosnian population. In order to believe that the United States and European approach in Bosnia is working, one simply has to play a game I call ``let's pretend.'' The rules are simple. It goes like this: Pretend that the U.N. forces are delivering humanitarian aid to those in need; Pretend that the U.N. forces control Sarajevo airport; Pretend that the U.N. forces are protecting safe havens such as Sarajevo and Srebrenica and that no Bosnians are dying from artillery assaults and shelling; Pretend that there is a credible threat of serious NATO air strikes; Pretend that the no-fly zone is being enforced; Pretend that Serbian President Milosevic is not supporting Bosnian Serb forces; Pretend that Bosnian Serb air defenses are not deployed against NATO aircraft and are not integrated into Serbia's air defense system. Pretend that the rapid reaction force will react forcefully and rapidly under the same U.N. rules of engagement which have made UNPROFOR impotent; Pretend that U.N. forces can stay in Bosnia forever and that we will never have to contemplate U.N. withdrawal. Mr. President, if you can pretend all of the above, you can easily accept the administration's defense. On the other hand, if you react to reality and do not engage in multilateral make-believe, then you will not be persuaded by the administration's case. Without taking the time to review the last year or two or three in Bosnia, let us just look at the reports from the last week or so: In Srebrenica, a so-called U.N. designated safe area, Serb forces overran U.N. observation posts and Serb tanks are within a mile of the town center--in fact, we have just had a report that they are even closer than that; In Sarajevo, the hospital was shelled and more children were slaughtered; Information surfaced that Bosnian Serb air defenses are tied into Belgrade's air defense system; The no-fly zone was violated and NATO did not respond; U.N. envoy Akashi assured the Bosnian Serbs that the United Nations would continue business as usual in the wake of the downing of U.S. pilot O'Grady and the taking of U.N. hostages. Mr. President, these are only a few examples of the reality in Bosnia. It is this reality that should drive U.S. policy. It is this reality that has moved the Bosnian Government to reassess the U.N. presence in Bosnia. It is this reality that should prompt us to do the same. The fact is that despite the presence of over 25,000 U.N. peacekeepers and despite the impending arrival of the rapid reaction force, the Bosnians are still being slaughtered, safe areas are under siege, and the United Nations continues to accommodate Serb demands and veto even limited military action designed to protect United States air crews. The fact is that the United Nations has become one of the means of securing Serb gains made through brutal aggression and genocide. As Jim Hoagland aptly pointed out yesterday in the Washington Post, and I quote, The war has now reached a point where the U.N.'s value free equation of Serbs who are willing to kill with Bosnians who are willing to die cannot be sustained and cannot be allowed to spread deeper into the Clinton administration which too docilely accepted Akashi's veto on retaliation. Americans will no long support humanitarianism based on self-serving bureaucratic cynicism and fear. Not my quote but a quote in the Washington Post from Jim Hoagland, who, I must say, has had a shift in his thinking recently. The time for make-believe is over. The United Nations mission in Bosnia is a failure. The Bosnians deserve and are entitled to defend themselves. The United Nations must begin to withdraw and the arms embargo must be lifted. Therefore, I intend to take up a modified version of the Dole-Lieberman arms embargo bill following disposition of the regulatory reform bill. Mr. President, I think every day it is worse and worse, if it can become worse, in Bosnia, particularly for the Bosnians. It seems to me it is high time to act. I ask unanimous consent that the entire column in the Washington Post by Jim Hoagland be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of speculation in recent days over the prospects for passage of a welfare reform bill. Before departing for the recess, I wanted the opportunity to set the record straight. Notwithstanding the efforts of some to drive us apart, Republicans are committed to truly ending welfare as we know it. We are not unmindful of the struggles faced by many in this country who need a hand up some time in their lives, or of children who through no fault of their own need the helping hand of the Government. But, Mr. President, we are also not convinced that the Federal Government holds all the answers to the very real problems these people face. In fact, the real story is that notwithstanding the billions of dollars that have been spent over the last decade, the welfare rolls have continued to grow and the number of children at risk has increased. We have all decried these problems and have responded by adding to the list of the things that the States must do. Well, the time has come to listen to the States for a change and give them a chance to devise some solutions that fit their needs. The issues that divide us are not insurmountable nor are they easily resolved. But the extraordinary thing is that the debate is not over whether we want block grants--it is how best to design them. Our differences are over how to distribute the funds and how much flexibility to give the States in the design of these programs. The funding issue is a real one and of critical importance to all States. There are States that will experience real population growth that are concerned they will be disadvantaged in this new block grant environment. There are also States that in the past have committed considerable State resources to the program that feel their past contributions should be acknowledged. No formula fight is ever easy, as every Senator knows. The House and Senate bills create loan funds--but this may not be the perfect answer. We will seek other options to balance the needs of all. The second group of issues is equally thorny. None of us is unconcerned about the dramatic increase in the numbers of teen pregnancies and the number of children born out-of-wedlock. These are serious issues--not easily addressed. Many of us believe the Governors of our States can and will deal with these problems, as many of them have tried to do. They want us out of the way--that is what they are asking us--not dictating solutions. Others believe that the issue can best be addressed here. I remain hopeful we can strike some middle ground and am working to that end. For at the end of the day, we cannot fail. We must not break faith with the American people who sent us a clear message last fall--end welfare as we know it once and for all, require real work, and make it a temporary helping hand, not a lifestyle.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in adjournment under the provisions of Senate Concurrent Resolution 20.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate reconvenes on Monday, July 10, that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; there then be a period for the transaction of morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 1 p.m, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each; further, at the hour of 1 p.m, the Senate resume consideration of S. 343, the regulatory reform bill.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, with respect to the rescissions package, I regret we were unable to pass that, were unable to complete action on the rescissions package because it was something that had broad support on both sides of the aisle, support by the President. The President very much wanted to have it done before this Fourth of July recess. As I indicated earlier, the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, and the Senator from Illinois, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, were within their rights to block action on the bill. But I must say, as I listened to their statements in which they wished they could have offered their amendments, they had about 3 hours to offer amendments and used all that time and just had a discussion of the amendments and what was wrong with the bill. And I am not certain when the rescissions package will be back for a vote. Unless there is an agreement on that side of the aisle I will not bring it back up on the Senate floor. As soon as the President can persuade my Democratic colleagues that this bill is necessary, it is important, and it ought to be passed, and I do not see any reason to take any further time of other Senators because we have a lot of important legislation. But keep in mind, again this bill which was blocked contains money for the Oklahoma City disaster, it contains money for California earthquakes, it contains money for 39, I think 39, States which suffered disasters, including the States of Illinois, and maybe Minnesota. I am not certain. So, while the Senators have every right to make their point about certain programs they do not agree with, this rescissions package had been the subject of long discussions, long debate, and even after it passed the Senate and the House, was vetoed by the President; more debate, more discussion by the White House and Democrats and Republicans on each side of the aisle. So I hope when we come back we will have an agreement that we can take it up immediately, and have an up-or-down vote on the bill itself without amendments. I would say again there was certainly every opportunity by either the Senator from Illinois or the Senator from Minnesota to offer all the amendments they wanted to offer today. They refused to offer amendments. So I proposed I would offer their amendments. I asked consent to offer their amendments. And they objected. So I do not want the record to reflect that somehow they were somehow disadvantaged and did not have an opportunity to offer their amendment. That was not the case. They had plenty of time and could have offered the amendments. We could have been finished with that bill by now, and a lot of people around the country would have felt a lot better about it. So I do not know how they explain it. But that will be their problem.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, at 1 p.m., Senator Abraham will be recognized to offer an amendment to be followed by an amendment to be offered by Senators Nunn and Coverdell. Votes on these two amendments will occur at 5:15 under a previous order. Senators should also be on notice that further votes can be expected under the pending regulatory reform bill.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered agreed to, the substitute as amended be agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Murkowski and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 67, H.R. 400.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent S. 267 be placed back on the calendar.

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent the substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill be deemed read a third time; further that the Commerce Committee be immediately discharged from further consideration of H.R. 716 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 267, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof, further that H.R. 716 be considered read a third time, passed as amended, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related to the bill appear at appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent the reported committee amendment be withdrawn and I send a substitute to the desk on behalf of Senators Stevens, Kerry, Snowe, and Breaux.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 32 S. 533.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. As in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the Exchange of Notes Relating to the Tax Convention of the Ukraine (Treaty Document No. 104-11), transmitted to the Senate by the President on June 28, 1995; and that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time; referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and ordered that the President's message be printed in the Record.