S6438 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 19, 2012 

and encouraged to pursue their interests. 

I applaud not only the students, but 

also the administrators, teachers, staff, 

and parents of Hope Elementary 

School. Together, they are succeeding 

in their mission to generate confidence 

and momentum for learning. They are 

making a difference in the lives of 

their students, helping them reach 

their full potential as independent, responsible learners and as engaged citizens. 

I am pleased that the U.S. Department of Education has selected Hope 

Elementary School for this well-deserved honor, and I congratulate the 

entire community for this outstanding 

achievement. 

f 

U.S. ARMY’S SUICIDE STAND 

DOWN DAY 

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise 

today during Suicide Prevention 

Month to recognize the Army’s Suicide 

Stand Down Day, which will take place 

later this month on September 27, 2012. 

The stand down is an opportunity for 

the Army to take a hard look at current efforts to address the issue of suicide among soldiers and focus on ways 

to improve these efforts. It will emphasize eliminating the stigma surrounding mental health injuries, which 

too often prevents our service men and 

women from getting the help they 

need. 

This could not come at a more critical time. The incidence of suicide 

among our troops has skyrocketed to 

alarming levels due, in part, to over 10 

years of repeated and protracted deployments to combat zones around the 

world. In fact, the Army experienced a 

record-high 38 Active-Duty suicides in 

July and is on track to surpass last 

year’s total. This is absolutely tragic 

and requires urgent and sustained action. 

The central theme of the stand down 

is ‘‘Shoulder to Shoulder: We Stand up 

for Life.’’ This is such a critical message—our servicemembers should never 

have to suffer alone. Our military men 

and women make tremendous sacrifices each and every day in service to 

our Nation, and we have a sacred obligation to take care of them in return. 

This means ensuring they feel comfortable seeking the care that they 

need without fear or repercussion or 

being stigmatized. This also means improving access to mental health care 

and providing support for our military 

families. 

While there is no single solution to 

preventing military suicide, efforts 

like the Army’s Suicide Stand Down 

Day are important steps because they 

provide an opportunity to have a frank 

conversation across all levels of leadership about the profound stressors our 

troops are experiencing. 

I strongly encourage all branches of 

our military to continue to review and 

improve their suicide prevention programs because it is clear that more 

must be done and that it must be done 

now. 

Suicide reaches far beyond one individual—it devastates entire families 

and affects communities. Our military 

families are resilient and they display 

incredible courage in the face of so 

many unique challenges, but no one 

person or family can be strong all the 

time. 

That is why we must continue to do 

everything in our power to send the 

message to our servicemembers, veterans, and their families that it is OK 

to ask for help and that the care and 

support they need is waiting for them. 

I urge our citizens, our government, 

and our Nation to continue to stand 

shoulder to shoulder with our Armed 

Forces and recommit ourselves to 

stemming the tide of military suicide 

once and for all because we can all 

agree that one suicide is one too many. 

f 

REPORT ON THE NATIONAL 

ELECTION IN TAIWAN 

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in 

August I submitted a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that 

the U.S. Government should continue 

to support democracy and human 

rights in Taiwan following the January 

2012 Presidential and legislative elections. The International Election Observers Mission has prepared a Report 

on the National Election in Taiwan 

that includes some important details 

and findings. I ask unanimous consent 

that the summary of that report be 

printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

REPORT ON THE NATIONAL ELECTION IN

TAIWAN, JANUARY 14, 2012 

To: International Committee for Fair Elections in Taiwan 

From: The International Election Observers Mission (IEOM) 

By: Woodrow W. Clark II MA, PhD, Lead 

Author and Senator Frank Murkowski, 

Chair and all IEOM Members. 

OVERVIEW

Taiwan is an island nation of 23.2 million 

people (November 2011) in an area of 35,980 

sq. km. The nation has 18.1 million eligible 

voters, all citizens who are 20 or more years 

of age. The winner of the January 14, 2012 

Presidential Election, with 51.6 per cent of 

the vote, was Mr. Ma Ying-jeou, the incumbent and the nominee, Chinese Nationalist 

Party (Kuomintang or KMT). Ms. Tsai Ingwen of the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) followed with 45.6 per cent 

and the nominee of the small People First 

Party (PFP), Mr. James Soong received 

about 2.8 per cent of the vote (Taiwan Election Results, January 2012). 

At the same time, voters also elected the 

113 members of the national parliament, the 

Legislative Yuan. The KMT won 64 seats, 

while the DPP won 40 seats and the PFP, the 

Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) and non-partisan independent candidates each won three 

seats. Compared with the 2008 legislative 

election, the KMT won 17 fewer seats, the 

DPP gained 13 additional seats, the PFP won 

two additional seats and the TSU, with its 

three seats, returned to the legislature after 

a four-year absence. 

POLITICAL BACKGROUND

Taiwan experienced a long political struggle during the authoritarian era. Democracy 

in Taiwan only began after the death of 

President Chiang Ching-kuo in January 1988 

and the accession of Lee Teng-hui to the 

presidency. The political system is not divided between ‘‘left’’ and ‘‘right,’’ though the 

DPP does place somewhat more emphasis on 

‘‘social justice.’’ Instead, ‘‘the primary political cleavage between the political parties 

has been and remains the issue of national 

identity, often referred to as the ‘unification-independence’ issue’’ (Taiwan Elections 

Handbook, 2012: p.13), or between the ‘‘panblue’’ alliance (Kuomintang and associated 

parties) and the ‘‘pan-green’’ alliance (DPP 

and aligned parties). 

Mr. Ma’s percentage of the vote fell from 

the 58 per cent he gained four years earlier 

and, as indicated earlier, the new KMT majority in the legislature was much less than 

the huge victory, which it won in 2008 (Cole, 

March 9, 2012). 

THE INTERNATIONAL ELECTION OBSERVER

MISSION (IEOM)

Eighteen (18) observers from seven countries were invited by the International Committee for Fair Elections in Taiwan (ICFET) 

to form an International Election Observation Mission (IEOM) for the January 2012 

Presidential and Legislative elections in Taiwan. See the list of members of the IEOM 

below in Table 1. 

The group consisted of observers from Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Japan, 

Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United 

States, ranging in experiences from academia, elected representatives, religious 

groups, businesses, and civil society. As observers, the IEOM members tried to be 

strictly neutral in all their activities, data 

gathering, and conclusions. 

Most members of the IEOM were in Taiwan 

from January 10–15, 2012. Members visited locations in Taipei, Kaohsiung, Tainan, and 

Taichung. As a group, they met with campaign organizers, staff, and candidates from 

the three political parties running presidential tickets: the Democratic Progressive 

Party (DPP), the Chinese Nationalist Party 

(KMT), and the People First Party (PFP). 

Then, on the day before the election (January 13, 2012) and during Election Day (January 14, 2012), the IEOM split into smaller 

groups of 2–4 members who observed political 

rallies, street campaigns, and polling station 

as well as the Central Election Commission 

counting center on Election Day. 

This report consists of direct IEOM observations by its members as well as other 

sources, including the Taiwan and international press as well as post-election news 

sources in Chinese and English. Other observer groups were also present in Taiwan. 

One other neutral observation group, the 

Asian Network for Free Elections Foundation (ANFREL), headquartered in Bangkok, 

Thailand, deserves special mention. 

ANFREL produced an Observers Report (entitled ‘‘Credible Elections but a Tilted Playing Field’’) after the Election that corresponds with many IEOM observations as 

well as our Press Release and this Report. 

The ANFREL Report (2012) will be cited 

herein. 

FULL REPORT

The full report of the IEOM was published in Taiwan on June 11th 2012, and 

is available on the website of the International Committee for Fair Elections 

in Taiwan (ICFET) at: http:// 

www.taiwanelections.org/wp-content/ 

uploads/2012/08/Taiwan-2012–ElectionsIEOM-Final-Report.pdf 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6439 

KEY SECTIONS: NATION ELECTIONS AND SET OF

CONDITIONS

The National Election: democracy and identity 

politics 

Over the past twenty years, many surveys 

have been conducted on the identity of Taiwan’s citizens. Overall, the numbers who 

consider themselves solely Taiwanese have 

increased from 17.3 per cent in 1992 to 54.2 per 

cent in June 2011. At the same time, the 

numbers who consider themselves solely Chinese have declined from 25.5 per cent in 1992 

to only 4.1 per cent in June 2011. This development has continued since Ma become 

president in 2008. Furthermore, a recent survey shows that 74 per cent prefer independence, if given a free choice, and more than 

81.7 per cent refused to accept the ‘‘One 

country, Two systems’’ proposal from China 

(Danielsen, 2012, pp. 141–142). 

Taiwan has much more income equality 

than most countries today, and according to 

some commentators is one of the most 

‘‘equal societies’’ in East Asia. However, inequality has been rising in recent years, so 

that about 20 per cent of the Taiwan population earns over six times that of the bottom 20 per cent of the population. While the 

unemployment level remains low by international comparison, it too has been rising, 

affecting mainly lower and working-class 

people. 

The national elections on January 14, 2012 

were the fifth direct presidential and the seventh direct parliamentary election. Many 

have called Taiwan’s elections ‘‘a beacon of 

democratic practices in Asia’’ (Baum and 

van der Wees, 2012). Thus, many other nations in Asia and around the world were 

watching the Taiwan election process and its 

outcome very carefully. Taiwan has indeed 

become more ‘‘democratic’’ over the last 

twenty-four years, due to its allowing the existence and activities of opposition political 

parties and the rapid growth of human rights 

on the island. Nonetheless, these national 

elections were not perfect. This is why the 

IEOM, in its post-election Press Release, labeled them ‘‘mostly free but partly unfair’’ 

(Taiwan Elections, 2012). 

Taiwan is surely not alone among countries across the globe in which movements 

dealing with social and environmental concerns have been followed up by developments 

focusing on the establishing and functioning 

of a genuinely democratic system. ‘‘People 

power movements’’ have also occurred in 

Eastern Europe and Latin America, and 

most recently in the Middle East and Northern Africa. . . . 

Taiwan is also not alone among nations 

concerned with democracy today. Many 

western nations face similar problems. Thus, 

David Kilgour, a member of the IEOM, spoke 

about election issues in Ontario, Canada in 

2005 to the House of Commons Study Group. 

He noted then that Canada had some similar 

issues with vote-getting (that is, the process 

whereby candidates seek votes by offering 

various forms of financial gains). . . . . 

Hence the concern for free and open democratic elections is not restricted to nations, 

which have recently become democratic 

(Economist, 2012, pp. 47–48). They are also 

prominent in western developed democratic 

nations in the West, like the USA, Canada, 

France, Italy, Spain, and the UK. 

Conditions for Free Elections 

In the following section, we follow the universal conditions for democratic elections, 

as set forth by Wolf (1984), which can be applied to evaluate the national elections in 

Taiwan in January 2012. These conditions are 

based upon election observations in Nicaragua during which Wolf identified nine 

‘‘Conditions’’ that can be applied anywhere 

in the world (ibid., Preface). Wolf’s nine Conditions are: 

1) Honest watching of each polling station 

2) Total secrecy in casting the vote 

3) Voting: Dates, Residency, Inspection, 

and Counting 

4) Absence of a climate of coercion and fear 

5) Pre-election freedom of party organization and activity 

6) Institutional freedom of intermediate 

organizations 

7) Freedom of speech, campaigning, and assembly 

8) Freedom of access to the media 

9) Media financing of cable, TV, social and 

electronic, journals, newspapers, and others 

The IEOM proposes two additional Conditions both for Taiwan and for other nations: 

No. 10: Elections not determined or influenced by international pressure or informal 

relationships. 

No. 11: All Candidates should have equal 

access to funding for elections. 

Overall, the IEOM considers the 2012 Taiwan National Election to have been acceptable for Conditions 1, 2, 4, and 6. However, 

Conditions 3, 5, and 7 through 11 raise issues 

that should be addressed and corrected in future elections to improve the functioning of 

democracy in Taiwan. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The IEOM would like to thank the organizers of the visit, the ICFET, for their invitation and organizing of the delegation. The 

IEOM wants to encourage the ICFET to continue in its efforts and to support election 

observation activities in the future to 

strengthen Taiwan’s democracy, so that it 

can be shared with other countries in the region and around the world. As the IEOM conducted its observations, the members greatly 

appreciated the willingness of candidates, 

party representatives, and government representatives to meet with them. Every party 

organization and its representatives demonstrated hospitality, and suffered the 

IEOM’s questions with grace and dignity. 

Areas for Improvement 

The IEOM and ANFREL (January 2012) delegations made comments on the successes of 

the Taiwan national election, which are 

summarized below. Both groups saw ‘‘areas 

of concern’’. These comments are made to 

provide constructive feedback on the process 

in the spirit of improving it, so as to provide 

a vibrant democratic system worthy of Taiwan’s people. No matter what happens in the 

future, China will continue to have an impact and influence in Taiwan, just as its economic impact is being felt around the world. 

The peaceful interactions between nations 

will result in building relationships and producing changes for both nations. Ms. Tsai indicated the need for the DPP to work with 

China during the election campaign. 

Several key institutions need to be 

strengthened. For example, civil service and 

non-elected offices all need to be further depoliticized. Improvements in the legitimacy 

of the elections and reduction of the 

politicization of the police and courts would 

increase trust in them by the people and reduce criticism of them during campaigns. 

Attention should be put to ensuring the neutrality and impartiality, both real and perceived, of all related government agencies. 

The IEOM affirms that Taiwan is already a 

democratic nation. But as with other democracies, there are problems that need to be addressed. These range from public reporting 

and control of election expenditures to the 

use of media and neutrality of the administration. The issues of the neutrality of the 

administrative and judicial systems are serious and need to be addressed through public 

oversight, evaluation and control. Will the 

newly re-elected government appoint and 

oversee ‘‘objective’’ and ‘‘transparent’’ government officials and judicial officers and 

move towards much-needed judicial, administrative as well as legislative reforms? 

The world will continue to watch Taiwan 

as it ‘‘performs’’ and reveals in the next four 

years what those future steps will be. Taiwan is a sign of hope to many and has been 

a model of democratic transformation. It 

should continue to be the ‘‘showcase nation’’ 

for democracy. To do that requires ongoing 

review and oversight. 

The IEOM has a number of specific recommendations: 

A) Thoroughly and honestly resolve the 

longstanding problem of KMT party assets, 

including their source, use and investments 

that create a huge imbalance in financial resources available to each party. This imbalance distorts everything else in Taiwan’s 

elections, including that which is otherwise 

fair. These hidden assets also provide huge 

hidden funds to use for election media and 

other public relations activities. President 

Ma has stated he wants to resolve the status 

of these funds, but has not done so as yet. In 

his new term, the proof will be in his actions. 

B) Strengthen enforcement and public promotion of campaign spending laws, and close 

the many loopholes that candidates and parties can use. 

C) Make consequences real for candidates 

who buy votes, such as disqualification from 

running in future elections. For example, in 

2008 the PFP Plains Aboriginal candidate 

Lin Cheng-er was removed as a legislator 

after he was convicted of vote-buying, yet he 

ran again as a PFP candidate in 2012 and 

won. We believe he should have been disqualified from running. 

D) Use party discipline to combat votebuying. Parties can mobilize members to assist with the oversight of compliance with 

election laws and can establish committees 

to gather evidence concerning election improprieties. However, it is the individual 

candidates who will make the difference. In 

short, it is the candidates, not the parties, 

who buy votes. 

E) Change the household registration system to allow people to vote where they actually work or study in Taiwan and thus end 

the need to travel long distances in Taiwan 

to vote. This is already practiced in many 

countries. 

TABLE 1: MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL

ELECTION OBSERVERS MISSION (IEOM)

United States—Frank Murkowski, Former 

Senator and Former Governor of Alaska 

(USA); USA, Chair of IEOM Mission; Woodrow Clark II, PhD. Contributor to Nobel 

Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (2007), USA and 

Lead Author of Formal IEOM Report; Edward Friedman, Professor, Political Science, 

University of Wisconsin, Madison; John 

Tkacik, Senior Fellow and Director, Future 

Asia Project, International Assessment and 

Strategy Center. 

Canada—Bill Blaikie, Former M.P, Deputy 

Speaker of Canadian House of Commons; 

Susan Henders, Director, York Centre for 

Asian Research at York University; David 

Kilgour, Former Secretary of State, Asia Pacific, and former Member of Parliament; 

Peter Noteboom, Deputy Secretary of Canadian Council of Churches, Commission on 

Justice and Peace; Ted Siverns, Former 

Dean, Vancouver School of Theology; Michael Stainton, President, Taiwanese Human 

Rights Association of Canada; Research Associate at the York Centre for Asian Research at York University; Lois Wilson, 

Former Canadian Senator, leader on Committee on Human Rights in the Canadian 

Senate, President of World Council of 

Churches, first female Moderator of the 

United Church of Canada. 

Europe (one member from France could 

not participate in the Report)—Michael 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6440 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 19, 2012 

Danielsen, Chairman, Taiwan Corner (Denmark); Bruno Kaufmann, President, Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe and 

Chairman of the Election Commission in 

Falun (Sweden); Gerrit van der Wees, Editor, 

Taiwan Communique ́ (The Netherlands). 

Japan—Katsuhiko Eguchi, Member, House 

of Councilors, Diet; Yoshinori Ohno, Member, House of Representatives, Diet; Yoshiko 

Sakurai, President, Japan Institute for National Fundamentals. 

Australia—Bruce Jacobs, Professor of 

Asian Languages and Studies, Monash University. 

f 

BICENTENNIAL OF THE RHODE 

ISLAND MEDICAL SOCIETY 

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on February 25, 1812, by an act of the Rhode 

Island General Assembly, the Rhode Island Medical Society was chartered. In 

short order, physicians in the State 

adopted bylaws and elected officers, becoming the eighth State medical society in the Nation. Over the past 200 

years, the Rhode Island Medical Society has worked to fulfill its founding 

principle to consistently improve patient care. That principle is reflected 

in its many accomplishments in the 

field of public health. 

By 1852, just 40 years later, Rhode Island became the fourth State to collect, analyze, and publish birth, marriage, and death statistics on an annual basis. Soon after, it began distributing clinical papers of peers regarding 

public health trends and treatments. 

These early actions reflect a keen understanding of disease prevention and 

health promotion, as well as the collaborative nature of medicine. 

Since these early years, the Rhode Island Medical Society has advanced 

public health efforts that run the 

gamut from sanitation to vaccination. 

It was the second in the country to 

admit a female doctor. It also has 

played a role in the development of national health care policy, such as mental health parity, an effort to achieve 

fairness in the treatment of mental illness, which was fully realized in 2008 

when the Mental Health Parity and Addition Equity Act was signed into law. 

For all these reasons, and many 

more, I am pleased to add my voice to 

those commemorating the Bicentennial of the Rhode Island Medical Society and congratulate its members, 

Rhode Island physicians, physician assistants, and future physicians for 

their important work to improve the 

health and lives of Rhode Islanders. 

f 

FREEDOM FOR BOB LEVINSON 

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, over the recess we marked a sad 

anniversary: 2,000 days since retired 

FBI agent Bob Levinson went missing 

in Iran. That is 2,000 days Christine 

Levinson has been without her husband 

and 2,000 days their children have 

missed his laugh. There has been an 

empty seat at the family table for far 

too long. Last year we received proof 

that Bob was alive, most likely somewhere in Southwest Asia. It is time for 

him to come home. Mr. President, our 

Government must continue doing all it 

can to win his safe return, and I join 

Bob’s family in calling on those who 

are holding Bob to set him free. 

f 

OVARIAN CANCER AWARENESS 

MONTH 

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, 

we recognize September as Ovarian 

Cancer Awareness Month. 

This year, the American Cancer Society estimates that 22,000 women will 

develop ovarian cancer and more than 

15,550 women will lose their battle with 

this deadly cancer. 

In the last 40 years, the National 

Cancer Institute, NCI, academic medical centers, and researchers across the 

country have made remarkable strides 

in improving treatments and therapies 

for various cancers. 

Today, there are 12 million Americans who are cancer survivors. 

Despite this progress, effective treatments for some cancers—including 

ovarian cancer—remain elusive. 

This month, we support these women, 

their families, and the tireless efforts 

of health care providers and researchers across the country. 

That is why I joined more than a 

dozen Senate colleagues as an original 

cosponsor of the National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month Resolution. 

If detected earlier, an ovarian cancer 

patient has a 94 percent chance of surviving longer than 5 years. 

However, only 20 percent of ovarian 

cancer is detected in its early stage, 

and when diagnosed in the advanced 

stage there is only a 30 percent chance 

of survival. 

This makes ovarian cancer the deadliest of all gynecologic cancers. 

The National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Resolution designates September 

as Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month 

and encourages the efforts of cancer 

advocates to increase public awareness. 

It also supports the NCI and medical 

researchers work to develop a reliable 

early detection test. 

I have long been an advocate of cancer patients and research. 

During the health reform debate, I 

successfully worked to pass the Clinical Trials Amendment. 

Because of the amendment’s inclusion in the Affordable Care Act, ACA, 

health insurance companies can no 

longer use participation in a clinical 

trial as a reason to deny health insurance coverage for routine health care. 

This provision of the ACA is especially important for diseases like ovarian cancer that desperately need advancements in effective therapies. 

As we recognize the importance of 

advancing ovarian cancer research and 

commend the struggle ovarian cancer 

patients and survivors encounter, we 

must ensure that researchers get the 

necessary funding and patients receive 

access to comprehensive care and coverage. 

I will continue to support the goals 

of Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month— 

not just in September—throughout the 

year. 

f 

THE LEGEND OF LATROBE 

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, in honor 

of Arnold Palmer, and the presentation 

of his Gold Medal to him on September 

12, 2012, in the U.S. Capitol, for a lifetime of service to his Nation and contributions in the game of golf which 

has earned him the title of ‘‘The King’’. 

I ask that this poem penned in his 

honor on this occasion by Albert 

Caswell be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

THE LEGEND OF LATROBE

(By Albert Carey Caswell) 

The . . . 

The Legend of Latrobe . . . 

Upon the fairways of our lives . . . 

All on her greens what we have strived! 

So recorded all on these the score cards of 

our lives . . . 

That which all in the end so improved our 

lies . . . 

Can only but so be found all in how we’ve so 

led our lives . . . 

Teeing off, crushing it all in these our life’s 

drives! 

For when it is all so said and done, 

as a Champion, will we so hold the cup of life 

over our heads as won? 

Who have we so touched and inspired, 

finishing the rounds of our lives to reach 

even higher! 

Pin High, On The Green On One . . . 

All in what is really so important to be won! 

When, all in this the tournament we call life 

which we’ve begun! 

Out upon those fields of green which now so 

runs! 

Will we so settle for par, 

or shoot way below in the tournaments of 

lives my son? 

Standing out as a Champion All In The 

Game of Life, 

all in what we have so said and done! 

Will we so make the cut before our setting 

suns! 

Arnold Palmer’s life, 

is not no ordinary one! 

As the pride of Pennsylvania, 

who for so many generations has so led with 

such greatness to come! 

The Legend of Latrobe and some! 

As a champion, ‘‘The King’’ on all fronts! 

As Father, A Husband, A Grand Father, A 

Son, A Giver Not a Taker, 

A Patriot in The Coast Guard serving his 

country, 

beating that drum! 

Giving our children something to shoot for 

in their lives as won! 

And standing out as one of golfing’s greatest 

of all shining sons! 

A man who could raise his own Army this 

one! 

And declare war on all others who so dared 

to challenge America’s Son! 

As Arnie’s Army marched with him until 

each tournament was done! 

A Man For All Seasons, 

for so many reasons this title he has now so 

won! 

Yes, Arnold This Golden One! 

Who so led the pack, 

all because what was so in his heart which 

would not lack! 

Chipping into our hearts and souls, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE