Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues in the United States Senate in congratulating the people of Northern Ireland for their tremendous courage and perseverence which allowed for the signing of the historic peace agreement. With continued political leadership and the inspiring dedication of the Northern Ireland people, I am optimistic that peace may be at hand. I traveled to Northern Ireland this past January. In fact, I arrived on the date that the latest initiative which led to the peace agreement arrived: January 12. During three days there, as the parties reviewed the details and held discussions with their constituencies, I developed a deep admiration for the political leaders who eventually accepted this agreement. The concurrent resolution which we are submitting today seeks to thank all of the people who contributed to this peace agreement; I wish to personally thank all of the people who spent time listening to and talking with me. Mr. President, I learned a great deal about politics and courage from the representatives of the political parties in Northern Ireland. I found that politicians in Northern Ireland share many of the challenges that politicians face in the United States Senate. Specifically, they often spend hours of each day in very difficult negotiations which may result in dramatic changes in the lives of those they represent. Following these meetings, they face their constituencies and justify their actions. The difference, however, between our jobs and theirs lies in the stakes. These people literally risked their lives by engaging in the peace process; they risked their lives to endorse this agreement; and they continue to bear this risk as the process continues. Mr. President, the American people recognize the incredible risks these leaders take, and we thank them. To these brave men and women, however, the reward diminishes the risk. If this agreement succeeds as planned, it may alter the course of history. Because of this brave sacrifice, the people of Northern Ireland have the promise of security, freedom, prosperity and an end to indiscriminate killings and terrorist acts. Mr. President, our concurrent resolution thanks a lot of people. But for me, the most inspiring people I met were outside of Belfast. The role of the community leaders cannot be overemphasized. While the negotiations proceeded in Belfast, at homes, neighborhoods and towns across the region, people were building local relationships which crossed borders and communities. These are the true heroes of the peace process. The people I met are making changes and making a differences where they live. They support the political process, but were not waiting around for anything coming from the capitals. Spending time among the people in the border regions, with the strongest faith in their abilities to make a difference in their own towns and neighborhoods, I became convinced that peace had a chance in Northern Ireland. I salute all of the people of Ireland and Norther Ireland today who have labored for peace. They are the driving force behind the peace process, and they will make it work.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, our amendment provides incentives for teacher testing and merit pay. We see that competition in the 21st century will be based on knowledge, and that if our children and our grandchildren are going to be able to compete in this next century, they must have an education second to none. Quality teachers produce quality students. We believe this amendment will increase the number of quality teachers in the school system today. With that, I yield to my colleague for his comments. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK

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

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I send to the desk.

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

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. President. Today, Senator D'Amato and I are offering an amendment that would provide incentives for States to establish teacher testing and merit pay programs. I have said many times in the discussion about education that our children deserve an education that is second to none. I have listened to educators from my home state of Florida who have talked with educators in other countries. The consensus is that competition among nations in the 21st century will not be based on natural resources or military power, but on knowledge. I believe that they are correct, and if our children and our grandchildren--and I am proud to state that I have three grandsons, 13, 11 and 4--if they are going to have an opportunity to compete in the 21st century, and if they are going to have an opportunity to experience the opportunities that we have had, then they have to have an education that is second to none. Good teachers are the backbone to a good education. All students deserve to be taught by well-educated, competent and qualified teachers. Teachers make all the difference in the learning process. America's classrooms are staffed with many dedicated, knowledgeable and hard-working teachers. But we need to reward teachers for their efforts. I have traveled all around my State and, for that matter, around our Nation trying to make myself more knowledgeable about the issues related to education. I have told the story many times about an experience I had out in Los Angeles where I went to visit a school called the Marcus Garvey School and met the Administrator/Principal, Anyim Palmer. Mr. Palmer assigned a teacher to take my wife and I around the school. I was excited, and in some ways almost overwhelmed with what I saw. These youngsters, some of whom were 2 years old, could recite the alphabet in three languages. I want to restate that --2 years old, not second grade; 2 years old. There were 3-year-old children who could do complicated addition problems and 4-year-old students who could read at the second and third grade level. A 5-year-old student stood up in front of me and was asked by the teacher to recite all the Presidents of the United States in their proper chronological order, and the little fellow did it. I must tell you, the only reason I was sure he was correct was because they gave me a piece of paper that I could follow along with to make sure that he was doing it correctly. But he was 5 years old. I would like to also point out that Anyim Palmer challenged one of the best private schools in the Los Angeles area's sixth grade students against his third grade students in math and English. And you know who won--Anyim Palmer's Marcus Garvey School students. Every single time I asked him how he accomplished this and what makes this possible, the answer was simple, ``It's the teacher.'' ``It's the teacher.'' ``It's the teacher that makes the difference.'' That is why, in this education reform proposal, we have placed so much emphasis on the abilities of teachers. Let me give you a couple of statistics: 20 percent of English classes were taught by teachers who did not have at least a minor in English, literature, communications, speech, journalism, English education or reading education. Another example: In our public schools today, 25 percent of mathematics classes were taught by teachers without at least a minor in mathematics or mathematics education; 39 percent of life science or biology classes were taught by teachers without at least a minor in biology or life sciences; 56 percent of physical science classes were taught by teachers without at least a minor in physics, chemistry, geology or Earth sciences. I could go on. One additional point I want to make is that students in schools with the highest minority enrollments have less than a 50-percent chance of getting a science or mathematics teacher who holds a license and a degree in the field he or she teaches. Our amendment, which is referred to as the MERIT Act, rewards States that test teachers on their subject matter knowledge and pays teachers based on merit. Here is how it works: We will make half of any additional funding over the fiscal year 1999 level for the Eisenhower Program available to States that periodically test elementary and secondary school teachers and reward teachers based on merit and proven performance. There will be no reduction in current funding to States under this program based on this amendment. All current money being spent on this program is unaffected by this amendment. Only additional money will be used as an incentive. Finally, this amendment also enables States to use Federal education money to establish and administer teacher testing and merit pay programs. Mr. President, I now yield to Senator D'Amato.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I understand there are 15 minutes now on each side for the amendment.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, there has been a good deal of concern over whether the budget resolution actually provides adequate funding to allow the Labor-HHS subcommittee to provide increased funding for the National Institutes of Health as assumed in the budget. After extensive conversations with the Chairman of the Budget Committee Chairman and his staff, I am confident that the recommendations contained in the budget resolution would in fact allow for increased funding of the National Institutes of Health. In fact, the Chairman of the Budget Committee has agreed to enter into a colloquy with me which explicitly states that the budget assumes a substantial increase over the Labor-HHS subcommittee's 1998 appropriated levels. The chairman has assured me that this funding level assumes increases to cover shortfall created by forward funding in last years Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Additionally, the budget assumes further increases to fund a number of Congressional priorities, including increased funding for the National Institutes of Health. The full content of the colloquy is contained in a written statement which I will now send to the desk and ask that it be entered into the Record in its entirety. Mr. President, as my colleagues will recall, during consideration of the 1998 Budget Resolution, I offered an amendment to express the sense of the Senate that funding for the National Institutes of Health should be increased by 100 percent over the next five years. It passed by a vote of 98-0. The amendment I am offering today will help to ensure that the Senate continues to move forward toward achieving this goal. The 1999 Senate Budget Resolution assumes an increase of $1.5 billion for the National Institutes of Health for FY 1999, an 11% increase over the FY 1998 funding level. I know the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, has worked very hard in a tight budget year to include this increase in the Budget Resolution. I want to express my sincere thanks to Chairman Domenici and commend him for his leadership on this initiative. He, too, has been a true friend to NIH and I know he shares our commitment to increased funding for biomedical research. I am aware of concerns raised by patient organizations and public health advocacy organizations with respect to future increases for NIH. Based upon discussions I have had with both Chairman Domenici and with Chairman Stevens today, I am convinced the budget resolution will, in fact, lead to the increases necessary to achieve the goal of doubling funding for NIH. I have submitted into the Record a colloquy with Senator Domenici which addresses these concerns, and I encourage all interested parties to review this colloquy. It is also important to remember that the Congress is at the beginning of the budget process. The House of Representatives has not acted on the Budget Resolution. There still must be a conference with the House. At this time, I am convinced the Budget Committee has done its' best to provide the framework to increase funding for NIH by at least $1.5 billion in FY 1999. And, I am hopeful that the Appropriations Committee will do its best to support these recommendations. For purposes of this Budget Resolution, I do believe it is important for the Senate to be on record with respect to our bipartisan commitment to NIH. To that end, the amendment I offer today will express the Sense of the Senate in three areas. First, it would reaffirm our commitment to double funding for NIH over the next five years. Second, it would express the Sense of the Senate that appropriations for NIH should be increased by $2 billion in FY 1999. Finally, it would express the Sense of the Senate that, at a minimum, appropriations for NIH should match the levels specified in the Budget Resolution. Funding for NIH has always enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the Senate. Today should be no exception. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Addition of Cosponsors--Amendment No. 2243

Mr. MACK. I thank the Senator for that clarification. federal expenditures to increase u.s. energy independence

Mr. MACK. I thank the Chairman of the Budget Committee. I believe he has been more than generous to the Labor, HHS Subcommittee and I hope that the Appropriations Committee will treat the subcommittee equally well. To help that process, I sent to the desk a Sense of the Senate amendment, which provides that the Senate should provide such funds to match the recommendations for increased NIH funding as set forth in the Budget Resolution. market access program

Mr. MACK. Senator Domenici, I understand that an assumption in this Budget Resolution considers that receipts from the sale of the surplus public lands could be used to fund recovery efforts on private land for endangered species. I would like to clarify that this would in no way alter the current arrangement with the Everglades Recovery Program which is also funded by land sales.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President one of my top priorities since coming to Congress has been support of programs to eradicate the effects of cancer and other diseases that affect the people of the United States. I know many here in the Senate share my concerns who have joined me in seeking to increase funding substantially for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Indeed, the goal of this group as stated last year is to double funding for NIH over 5 years. I am pleased that the Budget Resolution takes a substantial step toward meeting this goal and thank the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Domenici, for recommending a funding increase of $1.5 billion in FY1999 and $15.5 billion through 2003. However, I would mention to the Chair that there has been much concern expressed by many public health advocacy groups that the Budget Resolution levels for the Appropriations' Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education will not support this increase. Accordingly, I would ask the floor manager to alleviate these concerns by answering a few simple questions for me. Has the Budget Committee assumed sufficient funds in their budget recommendation to allow the Labor-HHS subcommittee to match its 302(b) allocation from last year?

Mr. MACK. Does this assumed funding level also provide additional increases for shortfalls created due to forward funding in last year's Labor-HHS bill?

Mr. MACK. Finally, does the assumed level also provide increases to match the Budget Committee's recommendation for increased NIH funding?

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today Senator Kerry and I introduce the Technical Workers Fairness Act of 1998. This bill would repeal Section 1706 of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, something that is long overdue and is now supported by a strong bipartisan consensus. Section 1706 added a new subsection (d) to Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978. For the class of businesses known as ``technical services firms'' who provide technical services to their customers, Section 1706 removed the Section 530 employment tax safe harbors that otherwise apply to all other types of businesses that use the services of independent contractors. These Section 530 safe harbors were enacted by Congress in 1978 to protect business taxpayers, especially small businesses, from arbitrary IRS decisions interpreting the common law employment test in employment tax audits. Yet Section 1706 leaves one group of taxpayers back in the pre- Section 530 days. As a result of Section 1706, if a technical services firm hires, as an independent contractor, a computer programmer, systems analyst, software engineer, or similarly-skilled worker who will perform services for that firm's customers, then the technical services firm--which is operating in a so-called ``three-party'' arrangement--must prove to the IRS that this worker is an independent contractor under the centuries-old common law employment test that Congress found so troublesome in 1978. Even if the firm can show that it has a reasonable basis for treating the worker as an independent contractor--for instance, if its past treatment of this worker as an independent contractor was approved by the IRS in prior IRS audits, or its treatment is consistent with industry practice or a relevant court ruling, all of which constitute a ``safe harbor'' under Section 530-- none of these factors is relevant because of the enactment of Section 1706. The harm caused to the technical services industry and its workers by Section 1706 is more than theoretical. Technical services firms which use independent contractors--even if they act in good faith--can be severely penalized by the IRS and forced to pay ``unpaid'' employment taxes even though the contractors have already paid these same taxes in full. In fact, some IRS auditors have used Section 1706 to claim that even incorporated independent contractors are not legitimate. Left with only the common law employment test to demonstrate a worker's status to the IRS, many technical services firms will not hire any independent contractors in order to avoid tempting an IRS audit. In 1991, the Treasury Department issued a 100-page study of Section 1706, as required by Congress. The Treasury Study found that tax compliance is actually better-than-average among technical services workers compared to other contractors in other industries. It also found the scope of Section 1706 was ``difficult to justify on equity or other policy considerations.'' Further, Section 1706 is the only occasion since the enactment of Section 530 that Congress has ever cut back on the safe harbor protections in Section 530. In fact, in response to concerns that IRS decisions in independent contractor audits were too often arbitrary and unpredictable, in the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 Congress expanded the Section 530 protections and even shifted the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the IRS. More recently, the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics found that many high-tech professionals are actually being forced to work as employees when their preference is to be independent contractors. It is time to repeal Section 1706 and end the discrimination against this one industry. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today Senator Kerry and I introduce the Technical Workers Fairness Act of 1998. This bill would repeal Section 1706 of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, something that is long overdue and is now supported by a strong bipartisan consensus. Section 1706 added a new subsection (d) to Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978. For the class of businesses known as ``technical services firms'' who provide technical services to their customers, Section 1706 removed the Section 530 employment tax safe harbors that otherwise apply to all other types of businesses that use the services of independent contractors. These Section 530 safe harbors were enacted by Congress in 1978 to protect business taxpayers, especially small businesses, from arbitrary IRS decisions interpreting the common law employment test in employment tax audits. Yet Section 1706 leaves one group of taxpayers back in the pre- Section 530 days. As a result of Section 1706, if a technical services firm hires, as an independent contractor, a computer programmer, systems analyst, software engineer, or similarly-skilled worker who will perform services for that firm's customers, then the technical services firm--which is operating in a so-called ``three-party'' arrangement--must prove to the IRS that this worker is an independent contractor under the centuries-old common law employment test that Congress found so troublesome in 1978. Even if the firm can show that it has a reasonable basis for treating the worker as an independent contractor--for instance, if its past treatment of this worker as an independent contractor was approved by the IRS in prior IRS audits, or its treatment is consistent with industry practice or a relevant court ruling, all of which constitute a ``safe harbor'' under Section 530-- none of these factors is relevant because of the enactment of Section 1706. The harm caused to the technical services industry and its workers by Section 1706 is more than theoretical. Technical services firms which use independent contractors--even if they act in good faith--can be severely penalized by the IRS and forced to pay ``unpaid'' employment taxes even though the contractors have already paid these same taxes in full. In fact, some IRS auditors have used Section 1706 to claim that even incorporated independent contractors are not legitimate. Left with only the common law employment test to demonstrate a worker's status to the IRS, many technical services firms will not hire any independent contractors in order to avoid tempting an IRS audit. In 1991, the Treasury Department issued a 100-page study of Section 1706, as required by Congress. The Treasury Study found that tax compliance is actually better-than-average among technical services workers compared to other contractors in other industries. It also found the scope of Section 1706 was ``difficult to justify on equity or other policy considerations.'' Further, Section 1706 is the only occasion since the enactment of Section 530 that Congress has ever cut back on the safe harbor protections in Section 530. In fact, in response to concerns that IRS decisions in independent contractor audits were too often arbitrary and unpredictable, in the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 Congress expanded the Section 530 protections and even shifted the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the IRS. More recently, the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics found that many high-tech professionals are actually being forced to work as employees when their preference is to be independent contractors. It is time to repeal Section 1706 and end the discrimination against this one industry. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Madam President. I want to begin my comments by also recognizing those individuals who have worked so hard on trying to come up with language that can be accepted by all of us. But, frankly, I am one of those individuals who believes that we have not gone far enough. With all due respect to my colleague from Maryland, I think this is exactly the time we should be requiring change in the IMF. We were told back during the Mexico crisis that once we got that problem solved, we would do what was necessary to address the problems in international financial institutions. We have not done that, and I make the case again. As my colleague said, he has been critical of the IMF in the past. My conclusion is the only time we can ever get action is, in fact, when there is a crisis at hand, and that is why I have felt so strongly that we needed to put conditions on that could be carried out and would be carried out. What we are being told now, in essence, is, ``We will make our best effort.'' The implication also is that the United States and those of us who want to put conditions on the IMF, that the United States is the only one that is interested in doing that. I disagree with that. I think there are other nations and members of the G-7 that want to see changes made. I think we ought to insist on this. I think the first $3.5 billion was sufficient to take care of the problems; the other $14.5 billion could be made available later after changes have been made. But I am convinced now that, frankly, we didn't have the votes to go as far as I would like to go. I understand that. I appreciate the efforts that have been made on both sides of this issue, but I feel compelled, Madam President, to cast a vote against this proposal. I thank you and yield the floor. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Capital Gains Simplification Act of 1998. This legislation will significantly improve the tax treatment of capital gains and would benefit all Americans. It would restore the one-year holding period (from the current 18 month requirement) to qualify for the lower capital gains tax rates the Republican Congress enacted last year. This simple change would dramatically reduce tax compliance costs, lessen the punitive lock-in effect on capital, and yield additional federal revenue in the first two years. Capital investment is the key to economic growth and our future standard of living. That's why we successfully fought to give the American people significant tax relief on their savings and investments last year. We reduced the top rate on capital gains from 28 percent to 20 percent. Typical taxpayers in the 15 percent tax bracket had their capital gains tax rate lowered even more--to 10 percent. Unfortunately, in order for taxpayers to qualify for lower capital gains tax rates, the Clinton Administration dictated an increase in the holding period from one year to 18 months when the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 was in conference. This arbitrary new holding period creates an awkward rate structure in which gains held between 12 and 18 months are taxed at higher rates. This dramatically and unnecessarily complicates tax calculations and compliance costs for taxpayers, investment firms, and the IRS. For most Americans, their tax accounting and investment changes are timed on a one year basis, thus making the new 18-month holding period out of sync with investment and tax filing standards. This longer holding period also reduces economic efficiency and the flow of capital by artificially locking-in investments for longer durations. Additionally, Americans who may need to sell an investment before holding it 18 months--for instance, to pay a tuition bill or medial expense--are punished with higher tax rates under current law. This makes little sense and must be corrected. My bill would restore a straightforward one-year holding period for capital gains. It would greatly simplify the tax compliance burden, reduce punitive taxation, and improve economic efficiency. Simply stated, it would make it easier and more rewarding for Americans to save and invest for their futures. New entrepreneurial activity that boosts economic growth takes money, and the demands for capital are the greatest they have been in decades. New technologies are opening the door to greater productivity gains and new products. We must ensure that the adequate savings and investment needed to fuel new technologies and productivity gains are available. Any tax on capital gains represents punitive double taxation, and often taxes illusory gains due simply to inflation. And capital gains are not just for the ``rich.'' According to IRS tax return data, 54 percent of taxpayers reporting capital gains have incomes below $50,000--meaning more than 8 million households earning less than $50,000 can benefit from the capital gains tax relief Congress provided last year. Many senior citizens depend on cashing in their capital gains as their major source of income during retirement. More than 80 percent of capital gains are reported by households with less than $100,000 in income. It's no secret that a large and growing number of ordinary middle- income Americans are directly or indirectly invested in the stock market. They invest directly by buying shares themselves or indirectly through savings in mutual funds, IRA accounts, or pension plans at work. The proportion of families who own stocks has increased dramatically. By simplifying the tax treatment of capital gains, this legislation would encourage families to save even more and would make it easier for them to buy a home, prepare for retirement, or pay for their children's education. Let's not forget that capital gains taxes are largely a voluntary tax, since investors decide when they sell their assets. Investors should be allowed to freely move their money into new investments without paying punitive tax rates due to arbitrary holding periods. Locking up capital with longer holding periods can only diminish our chances of achieving our greatest growth potential. By returning the capital gains holding period to one year, the Capital Gains Simplification Act would cut tax compliance costs, but more importantly, it would help unleash greater investment opportunities, create jobs, and boost growth to the benefit of all Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I ask unanimous consent the Senator be yielded 5 minutes, not off my time.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, many times in the past, as I have talked about foreign policy and national defense issues, I have gone back to what I believe is the fundamental principle that has served as the foundation of our Nation, and that is the discussion about freedom. I have said over and over again that I believe freedom is the core of all human progress, that the message of freedom is the message of hope. Again, thinking of individuals who would find themselves imprisoned in China today, I, too, have heard them say that the knowledge that there are people around the world--particularly people in the United States--who will say it's important enough to confront the leadership in China on the issue of human rights gives them hope that there are people in the world who care about them. So the message of freedom is a message of hope. I want to quote a comment that was made by Mr. Wei in November of last year when he came to the United States. This is what he had to say: Democracy and freedom are among the loftiest ideals of humanity, and they are the most sacred rights of mankind. Those who already enjoy democracy, liberty, and human rights in particular, should not allow their own personal happiness to numb them into forgetting the many others who are still struggling against tyranny, slavery, and poverty, and all of those who are suffering from unimaginable forms of oppression, exploitation, and massacre. What would it be like to be imprisoned? I have also read some of the writings, such as the book of Harry Wu, for example. I have heard the stories of the conditions in which other human beings have found themselves and I wonder myself, could I survive that? Would I have the human drive, the human will to survive? Probably, if I felt that I was alone, with no concern for me whatsoever, maybe the will would disappear. Maybe the will for Mr. Wu would have disappeared. Maybe the will for Mr. Wei would have disappeared. But there was a belief that there were those out there who cared for them. Now, the point has been raised several times: Why China? Why only China? I think the Senator from Minnesota will agree with me that there is a condition that exists now as a result of a decision made by President Clinton not long ago to delink the issue of trade and human rights. Now, there are rational points on both sides of that debate. But the point is, that decision was made. So then the question then comes, if we are not going to engage in a debate over human rights with the issue of trade, where are we going to do it? It seems to me it is a reasonable, rational position to take that the debate ought to take place in the United Nations about violations of human rights. So we are very simply saying to our colleagues in the U.S. Senate, and to the President of the United States, we believe now is the time to move forward to condemn China for its human rights violations and to make it a cause. I am not shy about saying that. I believe we should do it. I don't think that, in any way, we are going to make things tougher for the people of China as a result of it. In fact, everyone we have had the opportunity to talk with has indicated to us that their treatment improves when the United States raises these concerns. So, Mr. President, I hope we do have a strong vote for this resolution, and I believe we will. I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, does Senator Abraham wish to make a statement? I say to the Senator I have slightly over 6 minutes remaining. How much time does the Senator desire?

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I also inquire at this time as to how much time we each have.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time under the previous quorum call not be charged to either side.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.