Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, shared appreciation agreements have the potential to cause hundreds of farm foreclosures across the nation, and especially in my home state of Montana. Ten years ago, a large number of farmers signed these agreements. At that time they were under the impression that they would be required to pay these back at the end of ten years, at a reasonable rate of redemption. However, that has not proved to be the case. The appraisals being conducted by the Farm Service Agency are showing increased values of ridiculous proportions. By all standards, one would expect the value to have decreased. Farm prices are the lowest they have been in years, and there does not seem to be a quick recovery forthcoming. Farmers cannot possibly be expected to pay back a value twice the amount they originally wrote down. Especially in light of the current market situation, I believe something must be done about the way these appraisals are conducted. USDA is attempting to fix the problem with proposed rules and regulations but farmers need help with these agreements now. The USDA has published several regulations addressing the issue but the comment period will further drag out the process. I am fearful that in the meantime more farmers will be forced into foreclosure. My bill mandates by legislation these important regulations. It will exclude capital investments from the increase in appreciation and allow farmers to take out a loan at the ``Homestead Rate,'' which is the government's cost of borrowing. Farmers should not be penalized for attempting to better their operations. Nor can they be expected to delay capital improvements so that they will not be penalized. It will be necessary for most of these agricultural producers to take out an additional loan during these hard times. It is important that the interest rate on that loan will accommodate their needs. The governments current cost of borrowing equals about 6.25 percent, far less than the original 9 percent farmers and ranches were paying. I look forward to working with members in other states to alleviate the financial burdens imposed by shared appreciation agreements. I hope that we may move this through the legislative process quickly to provide help as soon as possible to our farmers.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. As the sponsor of the low power television provisions contained in the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify one of the provisions. Specifically, I want to ensure that a qualified low power television (LPTV) station in New York City serving the Korean-American community on Channel 17 (WEBR(LP), formerly W17BM) is not prohibited from obtaining Class A licensing as a result of Sec. 5008(f)(7)(C)(ii) of the Act. As drafted, Section 5008(7)(C)(ii) requires a qualified LPTV station to demonstrate the it will not interfere with land mobile radio services operating on Channel 16 in New York City in order to obtain the Class A license. However, in 1995, the Commission authorized public safety agencies to use Channel 16 in New York City on a conditional basis pursuant to a waiver of the Commission's rules. The Order granting that waiver specifically stated that the low power television station on Channel 17 would not have any responsibility to protect land mobile televisions on adjacent Channel 16. Do you agree with my understanding of Section 5008(f)(C)(ii), namely that this section is not intended to prevent that low power station's qualification for the Class A license?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, this is a compromise to facilitate the passage of this omnibus bill. We have worked a long time on this. We are working up to a deadline where we could see some blue screens after December 31. But one cannot ignore the fact that even our satellite viewers should be able to receive local broadcasts or network stations in their local areas. The only way we will ever provide any competition for the cables under the rules they live by, under must carry, and still have a viable satellite service that will compete with cables is through this method. I appreciate the commitment of the Senator from Texas, the chairman of the Banking Committee. I thank my friend from Montana. He has worked hard on this. I thank the majority leader. Without their commitments, we would be talking a different tune now. I also commend the leadership in the House of Representatives for making the same commitment that this legislation be passed early next year. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President. I am pleased to be joined by Mr. Baucus, in sponsoring a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which addresses the backlog of Montana civil rights complaints at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Last year, a finding was made that the USDA had, for decades, been guilty of violating many of America's producer's civil rights. When these producers tried to take advantage of the programs offered by the USDA they were treated differently than their friends and neighbors. We enacted Legislation last fall, that was intended to right this wrong. Even with passage of this provision, it remains a difficult challenge to ensure that those who have been harmed by USDA will receive a prompt and balanced resolution of their complaints. It appears that a number of those previously investigated complaints have fallen into some sort of ``black hole''. Despite numerous phone calls and concerted pressure, no progress has been made in resolving these cases. We have been contacted by a number of Montanans who have shared horror stories about the treatment their cases have received from the USDA's Office of Civil Rights. These complaints are simply being ignored. The inadequacy of this process is adding insult to injury, keeping these producers in limbo and allowing their complaints to rest, unresolved. These constituents cannot get on with their lives until the USDA takes action. For those who have justified complaints, this delay is another slap in the face. This resolution expreses the sense of the Senate that USDA's delays must stop. These cases must be resolved soon. It is our intent that they be resolved by March 1, 2000. These producers has suffered too much already. They cannot afford to wait any longer. We look forward to working with members of other states affected by this abuse of the civil rights program to resolve these complaints as quickly a possible.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, shared appreciation agreements have the potential to cause hundreds of farm foreclosures across the nation, and especially in my home state of Montana. Ten years ago, a large number of farmers signed these agreements. At that time they were under the impression that they would be required to pay these back at the end of ten years, at a reasonable rate of redemption. However, that has not proved to be the case. The appraisals being conducted by the Farm Service Agency are showing increased values of ridiculous proportions. By all standards, one would expect the value to have decreased. Farm prices are the lowest they have been in years, and there does not seem to be a quick recovery forthcoming. Farmers cannot possibly be expected to pay back a value twice the amount they originally wrote down. Especially in light of the current market situation, I believe something must be done about the way these appraisals are conducted. USDA has proposed rules and regulations but farmers need help with these agreements now. This legislation mandates these important regulations. It will exclude capital investments from the increase in appreciation and allow farmers to take out a loan at the ``Homestead Rate'', which is the government's cost of borrowing. Farmers should not be penalized for attempting to better their operations. Nor can they be expected to delay capital improvements so that they will not be penalized. It will be necessary for most of these agricultural producers to take out an additional loan during these hard times. It is important that the interest rate on that loan will accommodate their needs. The governments current cost of borrowing equals about 6.25 percent, far less than the original 9 percent farmers and ranchers were paying. I look forward to working with members in other states to alleviate the financial burdens imposed by shared appreciation agreements. I hope that we may move this through the legislative process quickly to provide help as soon as possible to our farmers.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of Linda Morgan. During her tenure as the chairwoman of the Surface Transportation Board, Ms. Morgan has failed to achieve a primary goal of this independent agency--protecting the rights of shippers using rail transportation. Earlier this year, I along with a number of other colleagues, introduced a bill, S. 621, that would help to create competition among rail carriers where that competition does not currently exist due to regional monopolization. This bill would resolve the economic inequities found around our nation. In my State of Montana, our farmers pay dramatically more for transportation costs than farmers anyplace else in the State. In fact, on a proportionate comparison, Montana's farmers pay more than most other shippers in the world. Why? I'll tell you why--because nearly the entire State of Montana is captive to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad. In the case of Montana farmers, Montana is captive to BNSF. I cannot blame Ms. Morgan for this. The board's decision are based on misinterpreted statute that was legislated in the early 80's. However, I cam blame Ms. Morgan for not recognizing this as the case before the shippers asked me and several of my colleagues for assistance. It is inexcusable to treat the Nation's shippers so pitifully. It is arrogant on behalf of the railroads to think that they can take advantage of small shippers using strongarm tactics to determine shipping costs. It should not cost more to ship from Montana to the Pacific Northwest than it costs to ship from the Midwest to the Pacific Northwest--over the same tracks. This is an absurd manner in which to allow a railroad to operate. Back to Ms. Morgan. It is about time for Congress to recognize the inequities in the rail industry. Competition is based on choice. Without multiple competitors to choose from, we are left with a monopoly. BNSF has a monopoly in Montana and the four behemoths that have evolved since the early 80s when we had over 40 large railroads have monopolies all across this Nation. Let me quote Ms. Morgan from hearings held earlier this year: Ms. Morgan has stated, ``If Congress feels the statute doesn't work, it's up to Congress to provide a revision to the statute.'' Mr. President, Ms. Morgan is the chairwoman of the STB and a very intelligent woman. Ms. Morgan has recommended to this body that Congress would need to change the law in order to create an equitable environment. If the STB is saying this, if hundreds of shippers are saying this, if economists are saying this, why won't Congress react? I'll tell you why. Railroad interests in this city have a stronghold on legislation that would take away their ability to charge unchallenged rates. Ms. Morgan has also stated the following: ``The role of the STB is to allow competition where it exists and protect those where it does not exist.'' Let me give you an example of where competition does not exist. Competition does not exist in the entire state of Montana. Competition does not exist in the entire state of North Dakota. With four major railroads in the country, regional rail monopolies are very common. Montana was one of the first--we've been captive since 1980. Another statement from Ms. Morgan. ``The board is there to make sure that no rate is unreasonable. The equalization of rates is not inherent in the statute.'' A goal of the STB is to make sure that no rate is ``unreasonable''. The STB could define as unreasonable the rate paid by Montana's farmers. These rates are unreasonable! Lastly, Ms. Morgan has indicated that, ``The statute does not make competition a priority.'' I agree with her and that is why I am sympathetic, Her's is a thankless job and until Congress gives the STB the proper tools to decide cases in an equitable manner, it will continue to be a thankless job. Mr. President, we have an opportunity to do what is right for America. I will not support Ms. Morgan but I will support reform of the STB. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, when a hurricane engulfs the Eastern seaboard or an earthquake shatters the lives of Californians, we reach out with compassion to those people who are affected. America's hearts and minds always turn to those who are adversely impacted by these events. I bring to your attention a devastating natural disaster that recently struck the Eastern portion of my home State, Montana. On Halloween night, it seems as if Mother Nature played a frightening trick on many rural Montanans. A storm below out of the Rocky Mountains and onto the plains of the short grass prairie with winds in excess of 70 miles per hour. These violent winds stoked several prairie fires. The wild fires immediately became uncontrolled infernos as they are driven along by the gusts, in some cases the wall of flames spanning many miles. The tiny town of Outlook, MT, was evacuated in the face of this unmanageable fire. Unfortunately, the town itself was laid to waste in the wake of the flames. Thankfully, due to the early evacuation and quick response of the authorities, no lives were lost. Two hundred and fifty miles south of Outlook another town was facing the same fate. The rural community of Ekalaka was also under evacuation orders. A different fire of the same magnitude was moving toward town as it was swept ahead of the horrific winds. This fire spared the community but still left ruin in its wake. It is estimated that ten to twenty sections of good winter grazing land has been destroyed along with miles of fences and corrals. That is between 6,400 and 12,800 acres that producers will not be able to use for winter feed. The increased costs of buying hay to feed livestock will put a great burden on ranchers already experiencing financial hardship within their industry. Not only were these two communities impacted, there were several other communities in Eastern Montana that sustained damage due to fires. I offer my sincere gratitude to all of those who worked so diligently to fight these fires and save property and lives. We now have Montanans facing the onset of winter, homeless, without the security of their places of business, and agricultural producers, without feed for their livestock. Just as we unite together for those who are struck by other natural disasters, I hope that you will join with me in support of these Montanans, who lost not only their homes but their livelihoods. Entire communities have been adversely affected by this unforeseen emergency and I will be watching closely to see that these folks receive the aid needed to rebuild their lives. Montanans have suffered great losses no less devastating than the hurricanes on the East Coast and they too deserve a helping hand in their time of need. My thoughts and prayers go out to each and every individual whose lives are in disarray due to this sudden tragedy.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the Martel family of Bozeman, Montana. In 1951, Emil Martel and his family fled communist Russia and eventually settled in Bozeman. In 1960, Emil and his son, Bill, formed Martel Construction and constituted its entire workforce. In the past forty years, however, Martel Construction has grown to employ 200 people and now contracts in six states. Today, Martel Construction maintains its familiar character and is still run as a family business. Martel Construction was recently awarded the United States Small Business Administration's 1999 Entrepreneurial Success Award as well as the 1999 Montana Family Business of the Year award by the College of Business at Montana State University-Bozeman. Martel Construction and the Martel family represent a modern American success story. I applaud them not only for what they have accomplished for themselves but also for what they have given back to their community. Their hard work serves as inspiration for other small businesses in my state of Montana; their success is proof that the American Dream lives on.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on this resolution at this time.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I understand that there is a joint resolution at the desk due its second reading.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume consideration of the bankruptcy reform legislation under the previous agreement. As a reminder, all first-degree amendments must be relevant with the exception of those specified in the agreement and must be filed by 5 p.m. today. The leader has announced that votes are possible during today's session on amendments to the bill or on finalizing the appropriations process. The leader also announced that there will be votes on Monday at 5:30 p.m. as well as on Tuesday morning at 10:30 a.m. The Tuesday morning votes will be on or in relation to the issues of minimum wage and business costs. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which will dramatically expand rural America's access to modern health care. The Health Care Access Improvement Act creates a significant tax incentive, which encourages doctors, dentists, physician assistants, licensed mental health providers, and nurse practitioners to establish practices in under-served areas. Until now, rural areas have not been able to compete with the financial draw of urban settings and therefore have had trouble attracting medical professionals to their communities. The $1,000 per month tax credit will allow health care workers to enjoy the advantages of rural life without drastic financial sacrifices. But the real winners in this bill are the thousands of Americans whose access to health care is almost impossible due to a lack of doctors and dentists in small town America. There are nine counties in the great state of Montana which do not have even one doctor. In these rural settings, agriculture is often the only employer. Farming and ranching is hard, dangerous work. Serious injuries can happen in an instant. And while Montanans have always been known as a heartier breed of people, we get sick too. It is unreasonable to expect the farmer who has had a run-in with an auger or the elderly rancher's widow to drive two hours or more to get stitched up or to have a crown on a tooth replaced. As doctors, dentists, physicians assistants, mental health providers, and nurse practitioners are attracted to under-served areas, Montanans and others in isolated communities will finally enjoy the medical treatment they deserve. Mr. President, everyone wins with this legislation. Rural Montana, rural America, and providers all benefit from increased access, service and a better quality of life. I look forward to this legislation's quick passage.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to urge passage of S. 438, The Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 1999, introduced by myself and Senator Baucus of Montana. S. 438 is the ratification of an agreement among the United States, the State of Montana and the Chippewa Cree Tribe settling the water rights of the Tribe in Montana. This represents a fair and equitable settlement that will enhance the ability of the Tribe to develop a sustainable economy while protecting existing investments in water use by off-Reservation ranchers who rely on water for their livelihoods. The Settlement was negotiated with extensive involvement by the Tribe and its members, the State of Montana, the Administration, and the water users who own private land on streams shared with the Reservation. It has the support of all those affected and received the overwhelming support of the Montana Legislature when presented for ratification in 1997. It is a tribute to the Governor of Montana, Marc Racicot, represented by the Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission; the chairman of the Tribe, Bert Corcoran and the Tribe Negotiating Team; David Hayes, Acting Deputy Secretary of the Interior, the Federal negotiating team; and the water users on Big Sandy and Beaver Creeks in the Milk River valley of Montana, that this Compact represents a truly local solution that takes into account the needs and sovereign rights of each party. In addition to ratifying the Settlement, the bill provides the necessary authorization for funding to develop the water resources on the Reservation and to assure a safe drinking water supply for the Tribe. For several years we have worked closely with the Senate Indian Affairs and Energy Committees to fashion a bill that is consistent with federal policy toward Indian tribes. Thanks to the substantial efforts of the Committees, I believe we have accomplished that goal. This is the first Indian water right settlement to come before Congress in many years. in approving the Chippewa Cree Settlement Act, we have the opportunity to send the message to western States that we endorse negotiation as the preferred method of Indian water right quantification, and that we will defer to States and Tribes to fashion their own approach to the allocation of water. In closing, I believe that the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act is an historic agreement. This is truly a local solution that takes into account the needs and sovereign rights of each party. Just as the mentioned parties have worked closely together to get us to the submission of this bill today, I want to thank all members of Congress with whom I worked closely to ensure passage of this important bill.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern over the lack of adequate privacy protections in the financial modernization bill under consideration. While I feel that the current laws governing our financial services industry are out-of-date and in need of modernization, I do have strong concerns over the inadequate and weak privacy provisions included in this bill. Paramount to our freedom is the right to privacy; to be left alone and to be secure in the belief that our business is just that, ours and no one else's. When we do share our personal business information with others it is with the real and reasonable expectation that it remains our property. When dealing with our doctor or lawyer we know that the communication is privileged. Traditionally, when providing information to our banker or insurance agent or our stockbroker, we similarly believed that the information provided was specific to that transaction. We choose to compromise our privacy to the extent necessary to conduct business and with the belief that the information is ours and does not become the property of the person with whom we are dealing. No one has the right and no one should have the right to market our personal information without our prior approval. To do so violates our privacy and compromises the trust relationship that is vital to commerce. Regrettably, we now know that those we trusted with one of our most prized possessions, our privacy, have violated that trust in the interests of profit. In the course of deliberations of this bill, we have heard that the sharing of information is essential to efficiency in the market place and to better provide customer benefits and services. However, the fact remains that these benefits come at the expense of personal privacy and that creates an atmosphere of distrust and invites abuse by the very people we must trust to conduct our business. Technology must be tempered with caution. Efficiency cannot be at the expense of personal privacy. Institutions should not have the license to exploit our information unless they allow us to opt out. Individuals should have the right to allow institutions to share their information by opting in. Customers should be given sufficient notice and choice to deny financial institutions from sharing or selling their nonpublic, personally identifiable, sensitive financial information. Americans must have the ability to say ``no.'' This bill remembers the big financial institutions in this country, however, seems to forget the most important variable in the equation-- the individual. This bill protects banks' rights, but fails to consider an individual's rights to privacy. We need to establish rules to protect the privacy of a customer's confidential information. No longer should we rely upon or expect the financial institutions themselves to do this, as they are the very ones profiting from the sale of customer information. We must find a balanced system that protects consumers. I assure my colleagues that we will very soon be revisiting this issue and that these deliberations will be prompted by constituents abused as a result of the loopholes contained in this bill. Bottom line, financial institutions should not be allowed to share and sell confidential, personal customer information without consent. Americans need provisions which truly protect their privacy. Americans deserve this right, no less.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this has not been a good week--losing a friend and colleague; Payne Stewart, and, yes, another friend here in this town who had a government relations job. We often hear the word ``lobbyist'' put in a negative tone, but this was a man who built a reputation of integrity and honesty in government relations. This week, cancer claimed R. Duffy Wall. He died at his home on the Eastern Shore. He was friend and mentor. You know what we would be without the folks who work in different areas of American life who represent that way of life to the Congress of the United States. We are not all wise. We do not know everything about everything. We need help. Duffy Wall was such a person--honest, straight shooter, a friend, dead at age 57, far too young. We will not get to use his services and wisdom anymore either. I could talk longer about these friends. This has been a bad week, especially losing our Senator and losing a person very close to us. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the notes on Mr. Wall and his obituary be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, tomorrow, most of us will make our way toward Rhode Island. We will attend the memorial services for John Chafee, our colleague and friend who we have all known and grown to respect in our work in the Senate. As I look across this Chamber and I notice the black pall and the flowers that grace the desk of Senator Chafee, my memory is triggered to the first time I ever met him. When I first ran for the Senate back in 1988, he called me up. I was going through this agonizing process of making the decision whether to stand for election to the Senate. I received a call from Senator Chafee inviting me to a gathering of prospective candidates at Williamsburg, VA. I accepted that invitation. I met for the first time this giant of a man from Rhode Island. I do not use the term ``giant'' loosely. He has not diminished. This was the impression he made on me at our first meeting, and over the years that has been the lasting impression. In our daily work here in the Senate, did we agree on everything? No. Did I have a true understanding of his constituency in his State? No. Nor did he of mine. So we did not agree on everything, nor should we. Men of substance do not need to agree but be men of honesty, of civility, and of integrity. When we refer to the legions of great Americans who have answered above and beyond the normal call, John Chafee rightfully takes his place among the most distinguished: A marine in the South Pacific, Guadalcanal, all during World War II; and, if that wasn't enough for his country, he came home, graduated from law school, got his law degree, and he answered his country's call again, serving in Korea. I, a former marine, understand that. But that was not enough for this man yet who took public service very seriously--a Governor, Cabinet Secretary, Secretary of the Navy, and Senator. At every station, he distinguished himself, his State, his Nation, and his family. Though the voice has been silenced, his words of wisdom and leadership will echo through these Halls for generations. He was one who quietly went about his way in making America a better place. What a legacy we would all like to leave. He was a leader of a generation. Tom Brokow got it right. It was a generation that quietly built a nation no matter their station in life. So we say thank you, John Chafee. May we be men and women who protect and respect what you have done. You were a giant among men.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Griz ACES (Athletes Committed to Excellence in School, Sport, Services, and Social responsibility) Program at The University of Montana-Missoula. This Veterans Day, November 11, 1999, over 200 student athletes will forgo a holiday to serve the Missoula community by participating in ``Smart Choice Day.'' Grizzly athletes will visit local schools and promote the concept of service above self. They will speak to students about the virtues of being a positive role model. Griz ACES is a comprehensive year-round program of personnel development that is based on our Nation's founding principle, which is service to country. I commend these student athletes and the service men and women who have provided the guiding light for this excellent program.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair. The amendment that was crafted by Senator Bennett and myself is a very important amendment regarding this business of freedom of speech and how it is connected to the issue of campaign finance reform. What the amendment actually says is that citizens who use the Internet to express themselves politically are not subject to ``Big Brother'' policing imposed by the Federal election bureaucrats. The amendment simply prevents the FEC from defining political communications by individuals over the Internet as campaign contributions. I thank my friend from Utah for his input when we crafted this amendment. I should emphasize to my colleagues that this amendment is very narrow in scope and covers only individuals who don't receive compensation for their Internet communications. I think that is very important--individuals who do not receive compensation for their Internet communications. Further, these individuals cannot solicit political contributions using the Internet. If an American citizen feels strongly enough about a candidate or an issue to create a web site to express his views, he should not be subject to oversight by the Federal Election Commission. Free expression is the founding principle of this country. Currently--and not a surprise to those of us who have seen the explosion of the Internet--there are 90 million Americans who use the World Wide Web to access information, e-mail, and other services every day. Undoubtedly, many of these communications are political in nature. Are we to expect the FEC to somehow monitor and regulate all of this political dialog? To me, that is a very chilling scenario. I myself use the unique capabilities of the Internet for a host of things--to communicate with my constituents, for services. We have a web page that allows my constituents access to my office electronically. Every week, I do a ``cybercast'' from my web site, where I answer questions posed to me by my constituents from Montana and across the country. By the way, once you go on the web, you are everywhere. Just yesterday, in my cybercast, I commented on the tremendous, productive debate that has resulted from the increased use of this great thing we call the Internet. It allows any individual to become a publisher and have the same access in the marketplace of ideas as the largest political party, or corporation, for that matter. We have seen the leveling of marketing because one person with an idea for a service or goods can now go on the web and take on the largest corporations and be successful. That is what makes it a very powerful tool. We have seen spectacular growth result from the upward spiral of the Internet. A recent Commerce Department study has indicated that over a third of the U.S. increase in gross domestic product since 1995 is directly traceable to information technologies and, in particular, the Internet. Small businesses and individuals have used those capabilities of this new tool to tap into global markets and compete directly with large corporations. Even more important than the raw economic numbers, however, is the flowering of the discussion of ideas that has been fostered by the Internet. Whether on web sites, chat rooms, or e-mail, the revolution in information technology has resulted in the ongoing, vigorous, sustained debates on the critical issues that now face our country. A year ago, I was in China and there, too, as the capability grows, the Internet grows--not as fast as we have experienced here in this country, because of infrastructure more than anything else, but it is growing. And with it is a growing fear in that country where the Government controls every aspect of information; the fear of the freedom of flow on the Internet is very real. The Internet uniquely provides the ability for any individual to express his political beliefs, and we think that should not be infringed upon. To limit free speech of individuals in the very country that created the Internet is as dangerous as it is misguided. As chairman of the Senate Communications Subcommittee, and cochairman of the Internet Caucus, I have been convinced time and time again of the folly of trying to regulate the Internet. Government should not impose burdensome regulations on political speech on the Internet, or any other medium. Instead, the Government should act to keep the Internet and those medium outlets a free speech zone. I urge my colleagues, if this amendment sees the light of day and comes to this floor, to adopt this amendment as part of the ongoing reform. I thank the Chair. I thank my good friend from Kentucky. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Will we move off this issue and go to another issue?

Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Utah.

Mr. BURNS. I have a very short statement on that. I will yield to the advice of the Senator from Kentucky and also yield to my good friend from Utah as to what he would like to do.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I assume we will have a vote on the Democratic amendment; is that correct?

Mr. BURNS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BURNS. Once the cloture vote has been taken and cloture is not agreed to, then what happens?