MR. VICE PRESIDENT, MR. SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE
I hope that you will pardon me for the unusual posture
of sitting down during the presentation of what I want to say, but I
know that you will realize it makes it a lot easier for me in not having
to carry about ten pounds of steel around on the bottom of my legs and
also because of the fact that I have just completed a 14,000-mile trip.
First of all, I want to say that it is good to be
home. It has been a long journey and I hope you all will agree that
it has been, so far, a fruitful one.
Speaking in all frankness, the question of whether
it is entirely fruitful or not lies to a great extent in your hands.
For unless you here, in the halls of the American Congress-with the
support of the American people-concur in the general conclusions reached
in the place called Yalta, and give them your active support, the meeting
will not have produced lasting results.
And that is why I have come before you at the earliest
hour I could after my return. I want to make a personal report to you,
and at the same time to the people of the country. Many months of earnest
work are ahead of us all, and I should like to feel that when the last
stone is laid on the structure of international peace, it will be an
achievement for which all of us in America have worked steadfastly and
I am returning from this trip, which took me so far,
refreshed and inspired. I was well the entire time. I was not ill for
a second until I arrived back in Washington. There I heard all of the
rumors which occurred in my absence. Yes, I returned from the trip refreshed
and inspired-the Roosevelts are not, as you may suspect, averse to travel;
we seem to thrive on it.
And far away as I was, I was kept constantly informed
of affairs in the United States. The modern miracle of rapid communications
has made this world very small; we must always bear in mind that fact
when we speak or think of international relations. I received a steady
stream of messages from Washington, I might say not only from the executive
branch with all its departments, but also from the legislative branch-its
two departments. And, except where radio silence was necessary for security
purposes, I could continuously send messages any place in the world.
And, of course, in a grave emergency we could even have risked the breaking
of the security rule.
I come from the Crimean Conference with a firm belief
that we have made a good start on the road to a world of peace.
There were two main purposes in this Crimean Conference.
The first was to bring defeat to Germany with the greatest possible
speed and with the smallest possible loss of Allied men. That purpose
is now being carried out in great force. The German army, and the German
people, are feeling the ever increasing might of our fighting men and
of the Allied armies and every hour gives us added pride in the heroic
advance of our troops in Germany, on German soil, toward a meeting with
the gallant Red Army.
The second purpose was to continue to build the foundation
for an international accord which would bring order and security after
the chaos of the war and would give some assurance of lasting peace
among the nations of the world. In that goal, toward that goal, a tremendous
stride was made.
After Teheran, a little over a year ago, there were
long-range military plans laid by the chiefs of staff of the three most
powerful nations. Among the civilian leaders at Teheran, however, at
that time, there were only exchanges of views and expressions of opinion.
No political arrangements were made and none was attempted.
At the Crimean Conference, however, the time had come
for getting down to specific cases in the political field. There was
on all sides at this conference an enthusiastic effort to reach an agreement.
Since the time of Teheran, a year ago, there had developed among all
of us a-what shall I call it-a greater facility in negotiating with
each other, which augurs well for the peace of the world. We know each
I have never for an instant-wavered in my belief that
an agreement to insure world peace and security can be reached. There
are a number of things that we did at the conference that was definite.
For instance, the lapse of time between Teheran and Yalta without conferences
of civilian representatives of the three major powers have proved to
be too long-fourteen months. During this long period local problems
were permitted to become acute in places like Poland and Greece and
Italy and Yugoslavia.
Therefore we decided at Yalta that, even if circumstances
made it impossible for the heads of the three Governments to do it,
to meet more often in the future, and to make that sure by arranging
that there would be frequent personal contacts for the exchange of views
between the Secretaries of State, the Foreign Ministers of these three
We arranged for periodic meetings, at intervals of
three or four months. I feel very confident that under this arrangement
there will be no recurrence of the incidents which this winter disturbed
the friends of world-wide cooperation and collaboration.
When we met at Yalta, in addition to laying our strategic
and tactical plans for the complete, final military victory over Germany,
there were other problems of vital political consequence.
For instance, there were the problems of occupational
control of Germany after victory, the complete destruction of her military
power, and the assurance that neither the Nazis nor Prussian militarism
could again be revived to threaten the peace and civilization of the
Secondly, again for example, there was the settlement
of the few differences which remained among us with respect to the international
security organization after the Dumbarton Oaks Conference. As you remember
at that time, I said afterward we had agreed 90 per cent. A pretty good
percentage. I think the other 10 per cent was ironed out at Yalta.
Thirdly, there were the general political and economic
problems common to all of the areas that would be in the future, or
which had been, liberated from the Nazi yoke. There are special problems-we
over here find it difficult to understand the ramifications of many
of these problems in foreign lands. But we are trying to.
Fourth, there were the special problems created by
a few instances, such as Poland and Yugoslavia.
Days were spent in discussing these momentous matters.
We argued freely and frankly across the table. But at the end, on every
point, unanimous agreement was reached. And more important even than
the agreement of words, I may say we achieved a unity of thought and
a way of getting along together.
Of course we know that it was Hitler's hope-and German
war lords'-that we would not agree, that some slight crack might appear
in the solid wall of Allied unity, a crack that would give him and his
fellow-gangsters one last hope of escaping their just doom. That is
the objective for which his propaganda machine has been working for
But Hitler has failed.
Never before have the major Allies been more closely
united-not only in- their war aims but also in their peace aims. And
they are determined to continue to be united-to be united with each
other-and with all peace-loving nations-so that the ideal of lasting
peace will become a reality.
The Soviet, British and United States Chiefs of Staff
held daily meetings with each other, they conferred frequently with
Marshal Stalin, with Prime Minister Churchill and with me, on the problem
of coordinating the strategic and tactical efforts of the Allied powers.
They completed their plans for the final knockout blow to Germany.
At the time of the Teheran Conference the Russian
front, for instance, was removed so far from the American and British
fronts that, while certain long-range strategic cooperation was possible,
there could be no tactical, day-by-day coordination. They were too far
But Russian troops have now crossed Poland, they are
fighting on the eastern soil of Germany herself, British and American
troops are now on German soil close to the Rhine River in the west.
It is a different situation today from what it was fourteen months ago.
A closer tactical liaison has become possible-for the first time in
Europe-and, in the Crimean Conference, that was something else that
Provision was made for daily exchange of information
between the armies under command of General Eisenhower, on the western
front, and those armies under the command of the Soviet marshals on
that long eastern front, and also with our armies in Italy-without the
necessity of going through the Chiefs of Staff in Washington or London,
as in the past.
You have seen one result of this exchange of information
in the recent bombing by American and English aircraft of points which
are directly related to the Russian advance on Berlin.
From now on, American and British heavy bombers will
be used-in the day-by-day tactics of the war-and we have begun to realize,
I think, that there is all the difference in the world between tactics
on the one side and strategy on the other. Day by day tactical war,
in direct support of Soviet armies, as well as in the support of our
own in the Western Front.
They are now engaged in bombing and strafing in order
to hamper the movement of German reserves, German materials, to the
Eastern and Western Fronts from other parts of Germany or from Italy.
Arrangements have been made for the most effective
distribution of all available material and transportation to the places
where they can best be used in the combined war effort-American, British
Details of these plans and arrangements are military
secrets. But they are going to hasten the day of the final collapse
of Germany. The Nazis are learning about some of them already, to their
sorrow, and I think all three of us at the conference felt that they
will learn more about them tomorrow and the next day-and the day after
There will be no respite for these attacks. We will
not desist for one moment until unconditional surrender. You know I
have always felt that common sense prevails in the long run, quiet overnight
thinking. I think that's true in Germany, just as much as it is here.
The German people, as well as the German soldier, must realize the sooner
they give up and surrender, surrender by groups or by individuals, the
sooner their present agony will be over. They must realize that only
with complete surrender can they begin to re-establish themselves as
people whom the world might accept as decent neighbors.
We made it clear again at Yalta, and I now repeat-that
unconditional surrender does not mean the destruction or the enslavement
of the German people. The Nazi leaders have deliberately withheld that
part of the Yalta declaration from the German press and radio. They
seek to convince the people of Germany that the Yalta declaration does
mean slavery and destruction for them-they are working at it day and
night-for that is how the Nazis hope to save their own skins, how to
deceive their people into continued and useless resistance.
We did, however, make it clear at the Conference just
what unconditional surrender does mean to Germany.
It means the temporary control of Germany by Great
Britain, Russia, France and the United States. Each of these nations
will occupy and control a separate zone of Germany-and the administration
of the four zones will be coordinated-coordinated in Berlin by a control
council composed of representatives of the four nations.
Unconditional surrender means something else. It means
the end of nazism and of the Nazi party-and all of its barbaric laws
It means the termination of all militaristic influence
in public, private and cultural life of Germany.
It means for the Nazi war criminals a punishment that
is speedy and just-and severe.
It means the complete disarmament of Germany, the
destruction of its militarism, of its military equipment; the end of
its production of armament; the dispersal of all armed forces; the permanent
dismemberment of the German General Staff, which has so often shattered
the peace of the world.
It means that Germany will have to make reparations-reparations
in kind for the damage which has been done to the innocent victims of
By compelling reparations in kind-in plants, in machinery,
in rolling stock and raw materials-we shall avoid the mistake that we
and other people made after the last war, the demanding of reparations
in the form of money, which Germany could never pay.
We do not want the German people to starve, or to
become a burden on the rest of the world.
Our objective in handling Germany is simple-it is
to secure the peace of the rest of the world, now and in the future.
Too much experience has shown that that objective is impossible if Germany
is allowed to retain any ability to wage aggressive warfare.
Now these objectives will not hurt the German people.
On the contrary, it will protect them from a repetition of the fate
which the General Staff and Kaiserism imposed on them before and which
Hitlerism is now imposing upon them again a hundredfold. It will be
removing a cancer from the German body, which for generations has produced
only misery and only pain for the whole world.
During my stay in Yalta I saw the kind of reckless,
senseless fury, this terrible destruction, that comes out of German
militarism. Yalta, on the Black Sea, had no military significance of
any kind, and no defenses.
Before the last war it had been a resort, a resort
for people like czars, princes and aristocracy, and their hanger-one.
However, after the war, after the Red Revolution, until the attack on
the Soviet Union by Hitler a few years ago, the palaces, the villas
of Yalta had been used as a rest and recreation center by the Russian
The Nazi officers took these former palaces and villas,
took them over for their own use. They are the only reasons that the
so-called former palace of the Czar was still habitable when we got
there. It had been given, or had thought to have been given, to a German
general for his own property and his own use. And when Yalta was so
destroyed he kept soldiers there to protect what he thought would become
his own nice villa.
It was a useful rest and recreation center for hundreds
of thousands of Russian workers, farmers and their families, up to the
time it was taken again by the Germans.
The Nazi officers took these places for their own
use, and when the Red Army forced the Nazis out of the Crimea, just
almost a year ago-last April, I think it was-all the villas were looted
by the Nazis, and then nearly all of them were destroyed by bombs placed
on the inside. And even the humblest of homes of Yalta were not spared.
There was little left in Yalta except blank walls,
Sevastopol, that weather-fortified port, about forty
or fifty miles away-there again was a scene of utter destruction-a large
city with its great navy yards, its fortifications. I think less than
a dozen buildings were left intact in the entire city.
I had read about Warsaw and Lidice and Rotterdam and
Coventry-but I saw Sevastopol and Yalta. And I know that there is not
room enough on earth for both German militarism and Christian decency.
Of equal importance with the military arrangements
at the Crimean Conference were the agreements reached with respect to
a general international organization for lasting world peace.
The foundations were laid at Dumbarton Oaks. There
was one point, however, on which agreement was not reached. It involved
the procedure of voting, of voting in the Security Council. I want to
try to make it clear by making it simple. It took me hours and hours
to get the thing straight in my own mind. At the Crimea Conference the
Americans made a proposal on this subject which, after full discussion,
I am glad to say, was unanimously adopted by the other two nations.
It is not yet possible to announce the terms of it
publicly, but it will be in a short time.
With respect to voting, I made known, I think and
I hope, that you will find them a fair solution of this complicated
and difficult problem. You might almost say it's a legislative problem.
They are founded in justice, and will go far to assure international
cooperation in the maintenance of peace.
There is going to be held-and you know-after we have
straightened that voting matter out, there is going to be held in San
Francisco a meeting of all United Nations of the world, on the 25th
of April, next month. There, we all hope, and confidently expect, to
execute a definite charter of organization upon which the peace of the
world will be preserved and the forces of aggression permanently outlawed.
This time we are not making the mistake of waiting
until the end of the war to set up the machinery of peace. This time,
as we fight together to win the war finally, we work together to keep
it from happening again.
As you know, I have always been a believer in the
document called the Constitution of the United States. I spent a good
deal of time in educating two other nations of the world in the Constitution
of the United States.
The charter has to be, and should be, approved by
the Senate of the United; States under the Constitution. I think the
other nations all know it now-I am aware of that fact, and now all the
other nations are, and we hope that the Senate will approve of what
is set forth as Charter of the United Nations, when they all come together
in San Francisco, next month.
The Senate of the United States, through its appropriate
representatives; has been kept continuously advised of the program of
this Government in the creation of the International Security Organization.
The Senate and the House will both be represented
at the San Francisco Conference. The Congressional delegates will consist
of an equal number, and the Senatorial will consist of an equal number
of Republicans and Democratic members. The American delegation is-in
every sense of the word-bipartisan.
But I think that world peace is not exactly a party
question-I think that Republicans want peace just as much as Democrats.
It is not a party question any more than is military victory.
When our Republic was threatened, first by the Nazi
clutch for world conquest back in 1940, and then by the Japanese treachery
in 1941, partisanship and politics were laid aside by nearly every American;
and every resource was dedicated to our common safety. The same consecration
to the cause of peace will be expected, I think, by every patriotic
American, by every human soul overseas, too.
The structure of world peace cannot be the work of
one man, or one party, or one nation, it cannot be just an American
peace, or British peace, or a Russian, or a French or a Chinese peace.
It cannot be a peace of large nations-or of small nations. It must be
a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world.
It cannot be what some people think-a structure of
complete perfection at first. But it can be a peace, and it will be
a peace, based on the sound and just principles of the Atlantic Charter-on
the concept of the dignity of the human being-and on the guarantees
of tolerance and freedom of religious worship.
As the Allied Armies have marched to military victory,
they have liberated peoples whose liberties had been crushed by the
Nazis for four long years, whose economy had been reduced to ruins by
There have been instances of political confusion and
unrest in these liberated areas-that is not unexpected-as in Greece
or in Poland or in Yugoslavia, and maybe more. Worse than that, there
actually began to grow in some of these places queer ideas of "spheres
of influence" which were incompatible with the basic principles
of international collaboration. If allowed to go on unchecked these
developments might have had tragic results, in time.
It is fruitless to try to place the blame for this
situation on one particular nation or another. It is the kind of development
which is almost inevitable unless the major powers of the world continue
without interruption to work together and assume joint responsibility
for the solution of problems which may arise to endanger the peace of
We met in the Crimea determined to settle this matter
of liberated areas. Things that might happen that we can't see at this
moment might happen suddenly, unexpected, next week or next month. And
I am happy to confirm to the Congress that we did arrive at a settlement-and
incidentally, a unanimous settlement.
The three most powerful nations have agreed that the
political and economic problems of any area liberated from Nazi conquest,
or any former Axis satellite, are a joint responsibility of all three
Governments. They will join together during the temporary period of
instability after hostilities, to help the people of any liberated area,
or of any former satellite state, to solve their own problems through
firmly established democratic processes.
They will endeavor to see-to see to it that interim
governing, and the people who carry on the interim government between
occupation by Germany and true independence-that such an interim government
will be as representative as possible of all democratic elements in
the population, and that free elections are held as soon as possible
Responsibility for political conditions thousands
of miles away can no longer be avoided, I think, by this great nation.
Certainly, I don't want to live to see another war. As I have said,
the world is smaller-smaller every year. The United States now exerts
a tremendous influence in the cause of peace.
What we people over here are thinking and talking
about is in the interest of peace, because it's known all over the world.
The slightest remark in either house of the Congress is known all over
the world the following day. We will continue to exert that influence
only if we are willing to continue to share in the responsibility for
keeping the peace. It would be our own tragic loss if we were to shirk
Final decisions in these areas are going to be made
jointly, therefore, and therefore they will often be a result of give-and-take
The United States will not always have its way 100
per cent, nor will Russia, nor Great Britain. We shall not always have
ideal answers, solutions to complicated international problems, even
though we are determined continuously to strive toward that ideal. But
I am sure that under the agreements reached at Yalta there will be a
more stable political Europe than ever before.
Of course, once there has been a true expression out
of the people's will in any country, our immediate responsibility ends,
with the exception only of such action as may be agreed on by the international
security organization we will set up.
The United Nations must also begin to help these liberated
areas adequately to reconstruct their economy-I don't want them starving
to death-so that they are ready to resume their places in the world.
The Nazi war machine has stripped them of raw materials and machine
tools, and trucks and locomotives and things like that. They have left
the industry of these places stagnant, and much of the agricultural
areas are unproductive-the Nazis have left a complete ruin, or a partial
ruin, in their wake.
To start the wheels running again is not a mere matter
of relief. It is to the national interest that all of us see to it that
these liberated areas are again made self-supporting and productive,
so that they do not need continuous relief from us. I can say that as
an argument based on plain common sense.
One outstanding example of joint action by the three
major Allied powers was the solution reached on Poland. The whole Polish
question was a potential source of trouble in post-war Europe, as it
had been some time before, and we came to the conference determined
to find a common ground for its solution, and we did.
Our objective was to help create a strong, independent
and prosperous nation. That's the thing we must always remember, those
words, agreed to by Russia, by Britain and by me, the objective of making
Poland a strong, independent and prosperous nation, with a Government
ultimately to be selected by the Polish people themselves.
To achieve that objective it is necessary to provide
for the formation of a new government, much more representative than
had been possible while Poland was enslaved. Accordingly, steps were
taken at Yalta to reorganize the existing provisional government in
Poland on a broader democratic basis, so as to include democratic leaders
now in Poland and those abroad. This new reorganized government will
be recognized by all of us as the temporary government of Poland.
However, the new Polish provisional government of
national unity will be pledged to hold a free election as soon as possible
on the basis of universal suffrage and a secret ballot.
Throughout history Poland has been the corridor through
which attacks on Russia have been made. Twice in this generation Germany
has struck Russia through this corridor. To insure European security
and world peace a strong and independent Poland is necessary to prevent
that from happening again.
The decision with respect to the boundaries of Poland
was quite a compromise. I didn't agree with all of it by any means,
but we could go as far as Britain wanted in certain areas, go as far
as Russia wanted in certain areas and we could go as far as I wanted
in certain areas. It was a compromise. The decision was a compromise
under which the Poles will receive compensation in territory in the
north and west in exchange for what they lose by the Curzon Line in
The limits of the western border will be permanently
fixed in the final peace conference. We know roughly that it will include
in the new strong Poland quite a large slice of what is now called Germany.
And it was agreed also that the new Poland will have a large and long
coastline and many a new harbor. Also that East Prussia, most of it,
will go to Poland and the corner of it will go to Russia. Also (what
shall I call it) that the "amanuensis" of the Free State of
Danzig, I think Danzig would be a lot better if it were Polish.
It is well known that the people east of the Curzon
Line are predominantly White Russian and Ukrainian. They are not Polish,
to a very great majority. And the people west of the line are predominantly
Polish, except in that part of East Prussia and East Germany which will
go to new Poland. As far back as 1919 the representatives of the Allies
agreed that the Curzon Line represented a fair boundary between the
two peoples. You must also remember there was no Poland, there had not
been any Polish Government, before 1919, for a great many generations.
I am convinced that this agreement on Poland, under
the circumstances, is the most hopeful agreement possible for a free,
independent and prosperous Polish state.
Now the Crimean conference was a meeting of the three
major military powers on whose shoulders rest the chief responsibility
and burden of the war. Although, for this reason, another nation was
not included-France was not a participant in the conference-no one should
detract from the recognition that was accorded there to her role in
the future of Europe and the future of the world.
France has been invited to accept a zone of control
in Germany, and to participate as a fourth member of the Allied control
council of Germany.
She has been invited to join as a sponsor of the international
conference at San Francisco next month
She will be a permanent member of the International
Security Council together with the other four major powers.
And, finally, we have asked that France be associated
with us in our joint responsibility over the liberated areas of Europe.
Agreement was reached on Yugoslavia, as announced
in the communiqué and we hope that it is in process of fulfillment.
But it is not only that, but in some other places we have to remember
there are a great number of prima donnas in the world, all who wish
to be heard. Before anything will be done we may have a little delay
while we listen to more prima donnas
Quite naturally, this conference concerned itself
only with the European war and with the political problems of Europe,
and not with the Pacific war.
In Malta, however, our combined British and American
staffs made their plans to increase the attack against Japan.
The Japanese war lords know that they are not being
overlooked. They have felt the force of our B-29's, and our carrier
planes. They have felt the naval might of the United States, and do
not appear very anxious to come out and try it again.
The Japs know what it means to hear that "The
United States Marines have landed." And we can add, having Iwo
Jima in mind, "that the situation is well in hand."
They also know what is in store for the homeland of
Japan now that General MacArthur has completed his magnificent march
back to Manila, and that Admiral Nimitz is establishing his air bases
right in their own back yard.
But, lest somebody else lay off work in the United
States, I can repeat what I have said, even in my sleep, a short sentence,
"We haven't won the wars yet," with an "s" on wars.
It is a long tough road to Tokyo. It is longer to
go to Tokyo than it is to Berlin, in every sense of the word.
The defeat of Germany will not mean the end of the
war against Japan. On the contrary, we must be prepared for a long and
costly struggle in the Pacific. But the unconditional surrender of Japan
is as essential as the defeat of Germany. I say that advisedly, with
the thought in mind that that is especially true if our plans for world
peace are to succeed. For Japanese militarism must be wiped out as thoroughly
as German militarism.
On the way back from the Crimea I made arrangements
to meet personally King Farouk of Egypt, Haile Selassie, Emperor of
Ethiopia, and King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia. Our conversations had to
do with matters of common interest. They will be of great mutual advantage
because they gave us an opportunity of meeting and talking face to face,
and of exchanging views in personal conversation instead of formal correspondence.
Of the problems of Arabia, I learned more about that
whole problem, the Moslem problem, the Jewish problem, by talking with
Ibn Saud for five minutes than I could have learned in exchange of two
or three dozen letters.
On my voyage, I had the benefit of seeing our Army
and Navy and Air Force at work.
All Americans, I think would feel proud, as proud
of our armed forces as I am, if they could see and hear what I did.
Against the most efficient professional leaders, sailors
and airmen of an history, our men stood and fought and won.
I think that this is our chance to see to it that
the sons and grandsons of these gallant fighting men do not have to
do it all over again in a few years.
The conference in the Crimea was a turning point,
I hope, in our history, and therefore in the history of the world. It
will soon be presented to the Senate and the American people, a great
decision which will determine the fate of the United States, and I think
therefore of the world, for generations to come.
There can be no middle ground here. We shall have
to take the responsibility for world collaboration, or we shall have
to bear the responsibility for another world conflict.
I know that the word "planning" is not looked
upon with favor in some circles. In domestic affairs, tragic mistakes
have been made by reason of lack of planning, and, on the other hand,
many great improvements in living, and many benefits to the human race,
have been accomplished as a result of adequate, intelligent planning-reclamations
of desert areas, developments of whole river valleys, provision for
The same will be true in relations between nations.
For the second time in the lives of most of us, this generation is face
to face with the objective of preventing wars. To meet that objective,
the nations of the world will either have a plan or they will not. The
groundwork of a plan has now been furnished, and has been submitted
to humanity for discussion and decision. No plan is perfect. Whatever
is adopted at San Francisco will doubtless have to be amended time and
again over the years, just as our own Constitution has been.
No one can say exactly how long any plan will last.
Peace can endure only so long as humanity really insists upon it, and
is willing to work for and sacrifice for it.
Twenty-five years ago American fighting men looked
to the statesmen of the world to finish the work of peace for which
they fought and suffered. We failed them then. We cannot fail them again,
and expect the world to survive again.
I think the Crimean Conference was a successful effort
by the three leading nations to find a common ground of peace. It spells,
it ought to spell, the end of the system of unilateral action and exclusive
alliances and spheres of influence and balances of power and all the
other expedients that have been tried for centuries, and have always
We propose to substitute for all these a universal
organization in which all peace-loving nations will finally have a chance
And I am confident that the Congress and the American
people will accept the results of this conference as the beginning of
a permanent structure of peace upon which we can begin to build, under
God, that better world in which our children and grandchildren, yours
and mine, the children and grandchildren of the whole world, must live
and can live.
And that, my friends, is the only message I can give
you, for I feel very deeply, and I know that all of you are feeling
it today and are going to feel it in the future.