J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Has the Senator ever considered the possibility of having these people proceed as they have with the identification of an endangered species, and then, before we added more species to that list, it be voted on by the Congress of the United States?

Mr. EXON. I am not a member of the committee so I am not fully informed on all of these issues. I appreciate very much the explanation that is being given by my friend from Nevada. Under the system that we have always had with regard to the identification of endangered species, as I understand it, it was that the agency of jurisdiction would do scientific research which they would manage and direct to determine whether something was really endangered or not, or to what degree it was endangered. But after the agency of jurisdiction makes that determination, then do they have, under the law, authority, as part of the bureaucracy, to say, All right, that plant or that animal or that fish is an endangered species, and we so designate it as an endangered species and that is it?

Mr. EXON. How do you propose to do that?

Mr. EXON. But the final decision still rests with the agency of jurisdiction?

Mr. EXON. I agree with my friend. I am not sure with how much I disagree, though. I generally have been supportive of all the agencies that have something to do with this matter. I think the environment is very, very important. I do, though, think maybe sometimes we, here in the Congress, give too much authority to the bureaucracy to make determinations. At one time --I do not know whether it is by the boards or not, now--but they talked about putting the rattlesnake on the endangered species list. Those of us who have been born and raised and been around rattlesnakes, we really do not believe they are endangered now, and I do not believe they are. But it seems to me at least maybe we should consider--not that we can take the time to go through each and every one of these things, but certainly, possibly, we should at least consider the possibility, when something is put on the endangered species list, whether it is one species or 100 species, at one time, maybe the bureaucracy should have to make a better case to the people's representatives here, to say yes or no, rather than, carte blanche, giving them the authority after the input that you say should be improved with regard to State and local governments. I am just saying that I have some concerns. I think this whole matter of endangered species has been overstated, and yet, I must say to my friend, I congratulate him for bringing this up, because when we have a situation today when we cannot add on anything, even though they are critically endangered, it is a concern to me.

Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield for a question before he yields the floor?

Mr. EXON. Let me see if I understand the amendment the Senator is offering. As I understand it, the situation we are now confronted with is that the continuing resolutions that have been offered, the series of them and potentially more, in each and every instance the funding mechanism has been tied to a caveat that no new Endangered Species Act may be placed in force. In other words, there is a prohibition from changing or adding to the endangered species list, period, as we face the situation right now. Is that correct?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. EXON. If the Senator will yield, I thank him very much for his comments. There is one thing that I want to correct, because no one knows it better than my friend and colleague from Montana. Certainly each and every cattle farmer is not doing well today. And no one knows that better than my friend from Montana because at one time he was a very prominent cattle person in Montana, and he knows better than anybody else the sad condition that our cattle industry is in today. I just wanted to correct the record. I know that he agrees with that. So everybody in Montana is not doing well. If there are any corn people up there, and the wheat people are probably doing pretty good and will the next 7 years, I do not know about the cattle business.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed as in morning business for a brief period of time on another matter.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, may I inquire of the chair if we are in morning business?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have just had one of the most remarkable and rewarding meetings of my career with a 10-year-old girl and her mother from the Washington, DC, area. I will only use her first name. She and her mother called and asked to see me today. Lea is a sweet girl, 10 years of age, who was preparing for a computer project to earn a Girl Scout merit badge this week. In preparation for that project, Lea and her mother signed on to the Prodigy computer service and logged on to a so-called chat room for children, where kids from around the country can play checkers and do other such things that kids do with each other. It was Lea's very first time on the Internet. Within minutes--I emphasize, Mr. President--within minutes, someone was attempting to engage young Lea, a 10-year-old, in conversations of a sexual nature. Needless to say, she was shocked and screamed. Lea and her mother were upset and very angry. If I can be allowed a personal comment, this really brought this problem that I and others have been trying to do something about home, because my wife and I have been blessed with two 10-year-old granddaughters of our own. When Lea came in to see me, it was life as it exists and life as I know it. At the time of this most unfortunate event, Prodigy did not provide the supposedly child-safe space with an alert button, which notifies the system operator that children's checkers room was being misused. A similar service was available for adults, in the adult chat room, but not for children, as strange as that might seem. Together, the mother and the daughter contacted Prodigy and the news media. Within hours, Prodigy agreed to make the alert button available and the alarm available to those on these children's areas. I heard this story on the news this morning, on the radio, and met with the mother and the daughter at their request this afternoon. I bring this story to the attention of the U.S. Senate because, since the passage of the Communications Decency Act as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, there has been a great deal of attention placed on this new law. With that attention, some have also continued their campaign of misinformation about the new law in the press and now in the courts. Mr. President, Lea's story demonstrates and illustrates better than anything else that I know of that there are, indeed, real dangers on the Internet, especially for children and especially with the interactive computer services that are available. But more important, the very quick response from Prodigy to this problem illustrates that the new law is starting to work. Opponents of the new law use harsh language like ``censorship'' to describe the Communications Decency Act that was jointly sponsored by myself and Senator Coats from Indiana and overwhelmingly passed in the U.S. Senate and in the House of Representatives and made part of the telecommunications bill. Those who cry censorship hide behind the first amendment to make defense of those who would give pornography to children and engage children in sexual conversations. What a travesty. I hope more adults, whether they have children or grandchildren or not, will come to realize and recognize and see that the law is operational. In respect to the first amendment, Mr. President, it is almost a sacred text with this Senator. That is why I worked so closely--even with the new law's opponents-- to assure that our legislation was constitutional. The final legislation was the produce of nearly 3 years of investigation, research, negotiation, and compromise. The Communications Decency Act makes it a crime to send indecent communications to children by means of a computer service or telecommunications device, to make indecent communications available to children on an open electronic bulletin board, to use a computer to make the equivalent of an obscene phone call to another computer user, and to use a computer or facility of interstate commerce to lure a child into illegal sexual activities. The law makes computer services responsible for what is on their system. To comply with the new law, a computer service must take reasonable, effective and appropriate measures to restrict child access to indecent communications. While it is fair to wonder why the alert button service has not been made available earlier, Prodigy is to be recognized for their quick response when this problem was brought to their attention. This is the type of response, that the Communications Decency Act sought to encourage and help prevent in the first place. What the ACLU and their fellow travelers and the computer service companies have difficulty dealing with is that it is wrong-- despearately wrong--for an adult to electronically molest or corrupt a child. And thinking people en masse want to do something about it. The Communications Decency Act is not a cure-all. But, at a minimum, children and families deserve to have a law on their side notwithstanding the protests from the profiteers of child pornography that are rampant on the Internet today. The heart and soul of the new law is its protections for children. It is not censorship. It is not prudishness. The new law does not prohibit consenting adults from engaging in constitutionally protected speech. Published reports indicate that Penthouse and Hustler have removed indecent material from their publicly available bulletinboards in response to the new law and their material are now only available only to adults through credit card access. That is another step in the right direction. I count this action as a success for the new law. In these two cases, free samples of pornography are no longer given to children. We are making progress. If the Internet and other computer services are to be a place of commerce, community, and communication, then it must be a place which is friendly to families. Indeed, the technology necessary to comply with the Communications Decency Act is the same technology which can tell a computer service whether a user is old enough to enter into a binding contract or not. Before the passage of the Communications Decency Act, the Internet had been described as the Wild West. At last, there is now some degree of law and order. In effect, the new law is a zoning measure. Adults are free to engage in otherwise legal indecent activities and communications, just not with, or in the knowing presence, of children. Mr. President, later this month, a three-judge panel will hear arguments on the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act. An initial review by a Federal judge in Philadelphia protected the heart and soul of the new law from a temporary restraining order as had been requested by the ACLU. Only a small portion of the act was enjoined pending further court review. Ultimately, as we all know, Mr. President, this matter will come before a majority of the Supreme Court. And I hope that they will find--and believe that they will--the Communications Decency Act fully constitutional. Although the U.S. Department of Justice has agreed not to file cases under the new law until the three-judge panel has an opportunity to review the statute, the action by Prodigy, and others indicates that the Communications Decency Act can and is working. I thank all of my colleagues in the Senate and all of my colleagues in the House who have been up front in the support of this measure. I now thank President Clinton and his Justice Department for entering into the fray on the side of the kids to begin to make further advances in correcting this terrible wrong. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend and colleague from Alaska, very much.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, unlike my colleague, I will be brief. I will be to the point as nearly as I can. I have been standing now for 1 hour and 20 minutes on the floor of the Senate to try to get a word in edgewise, and I recognize that when someone has the floor, they can literally keep it forever. I was prompted to come here by some remarks that I heard by my friend and colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, a couple of hours ago when I happened to hear him say that the only way to resolve the problem before us is for the majority leader and the minority leader to sit down in one office or the other and come up with some kind of an agreeable compromise. I thought, as usual, that was a very constructive suggestion from my friend and colleague from New Mexico, with whom I have worked on the Budget Committee each and every year, this being the 18th, since I have been here. It makes an awful lot more sense than the long, drag-out confrontation that we seem to be headed for and are involved in now with regard to what is right and what is wrong with the request made by the chairman of the Banking Committee for the continuation of the hearings as long as he wants to pursue them in whatever manner the chairman of the committee wishes to pursue them. I notice with great interest there were several references during the last hour and 20 minutes, when I was listening very carefully, that the name of Robert Byrd was used. We all respect Robert Byrd as one of the great Members of the U.S. Senate of today and certainly, in my opinion, of all time. It has been said on the floor that Senator Byrd felt that the Iran-Contra hearings should proceed because we have ``a constitutional responsibility.'' I do not think there is any quarrel with that. I suspect that Senator Byrd voted for the Whitewater investigation, as did this Senator, because I think it is our constitutional responsibility to investigate wrongdoing. In that regard, I might say that one of the side elements of this investigation and other investigations that we see more and more and more going on forever and forever and forever in the Senate of the United States, has caused a great deal of harm and a great deal of expense to many people whom most would agree are totally innocent. That has happened. The committee is chaired by my colleague from New York. It happened in previous committees. If you read the newspapers and talk to some of the people that have appeared before the Banking Committee, you will find that when they come there, they have to bring a lawyer to protect themselves. The amount of lawyers' fees that these people have, mostly without means, to defend themselves when they are called by a committee of the U.S. Senate, they have spent anywhere from $50,000 in the last few months, sometimes up to $500,000 in the last few months, out of their own pockets to defend themselves, when in most instances most would agree most of them, if not all --and I say most of them, and maybe all, with the understanding that there was always a reason to investigate Whitewater. The dialog that we have heard, the dog and pony show for the last hour and 20 minutes, was merely to fulfill the wishes of those who wish to continue. Senator Byrd said it is our constitutional responsibility. And it is. And we have investigated. Senator Domenici suggests that the two leaders should get together and work out some kind of a compromise, if you will. That is the only way we get things done down here, after we raise all kinds of havoc. I endorse the suggestion made by Senator Domenici. My colleague from Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Banking Committee, knows where this Senator has been coming from on this issue for a long, long time. I think that we have granted the Banking Committee--I voted to give the Banking Committee the time and the money to make an investigation. I am willing to give them some additional time, if that is what they need. But if anyone thinks that this Senator is going to give an open-ended license to the present chairman of the Banking Committee, or anyone else, to go on and on and on and on, on something that, in my view, should have been concluded weeks ago, they are badly mistaken. We do this to ourselves here, Democrats and Republicans, over and over again. We wonder why the polls show that the people despise--I think the word ``despise'' is not overstated--they despise, as a group, the Members of the House of Representatives and the Members of the U.S. Senate. Even used car salesmen, I believe, rate ahead of us in the polls. Why is that? Because we bring it on ourselves, Democrats and Republicans. It is not just one side of the aisle or the other. It is the conspiratorial nature of the business, unfortunately. Mr. President, I had been the Governor of my State for 8-years, longer than any other person in the history of that State, and this is my 18th year in the U.S. Senate. I have never been sued, either before I was in public service or since I have been in public service. I never have been accused of any wrongdoing. I have never had to pay out a dollar, let alone $50,000 or $500,000 or more, to defend myself. I have had the wonderful experience of serving 18 years in the U.S. Senate. I have been in hundreds of thousands of hours of committee hearings on the national security interests of the United States, the Armed Services Committee, in the Budget Committee, that is very much up front now. I happen to be the ranking member of the Budget Committee at the present time. I also serve, and have since I came here, also, in addition to those two committees, as a member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. I am proud to say that never, as long as I have served or called witnesses or been a part of questioning witnesses, have I ever cost even one of those witnesses any money out of their own pocket to come before me as the sacred one on the elevated platform directing questions down at them. It so happens that I have not, nor have I ever, sought to serve on the Ethics Committee of the U.S. Senate. I do not like judging other people. I have never sought to serve on that committee or any other investigative committee that is going after people, to get people. Some of that is necessary. I believe that Bob Byrd is right in saying we have a constitutional responsibility to do that. But in so doing--and it has been going on and on every day, almost of every week of every month, and certainly of every year since I have served in this body-- some people, a group of people, have set up themselves as judge and jury. They use the taxpayers' money of the United States of America to make accusations, to carry on investigations, some of them legitimate. But we wonder why the people of the United States distrust us. I saw a bumper sticker on a car in Nebraska the other day that said, ``I love my country, but I don't trust my Government.'' Well, is it any wonder what we do to ourselves? We have become the conspirators, whether we recognize or realize it or not. And the feeling of the people of the United States with regard to their elected public officials, most of whom I can certify are honest, God-fearing people trying to do the right thing, whether they have Democrat or Republican behind their names, we wonder why we are not more respected. Because of what you see on the floor of the U.S. Senate tonight. I am not conspiratorial by nature, and I do not like what is going on. In addition to the committee of jurisdiction that seems to be on the tube every time I turn on C--SPAN, and I see mean-looking lawyers peering down, as if they were judges, at these people behind them, kind of like the Christians in the lion's den in Rome--I see that, and I do not like that either because I think you can make inquiry of people as a U.S. Senator in a fashion that does not say, ``It is us against them.'' That is what is going on here. The costs of this, as I understand it, are over $1 million for the committee and up to $15 million or more for the special prosecutor. The special prosecutor has a job to do, and I voted the money to have the special prosecutor check into Whitewater. I guess what I am saying, Mr. President, is that somewhere sometime enough is enough. Some--not this Senator--some have said that the chairman of the Banking Committee is doing this primarily because he is the chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, which is designed to collect money and make a lot of hoopla to try and elect Republicans. Well, that is the job of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, and we have a Member on this side who does the same thing. But some have said--not this Senator--some have said one of the main reasons that the chairman of the Banking Committee, who is simultaneously chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, is doing this and wants more taxpayer money to continue the investigation forever and forever and forever, as near as I can tell, is he wants to continue it at least until after the November elections, because some have said--not this Senator--that the chairman of the Banking Committee wants to do this for political reasons. He thinks it will help elect Republicans. Now remember, I did not say that, but I guess other people have. Whether that is true or not, I voted for the money for the special prosecutor to investigate Whitewater. I voted in support of and provided a vote to provide the money to the Banking Committee to do their investigation. I had assumed that it would not take longer than it took to investigate other matters, such as Iran-Contra, but it has for whatever reason. Now the chairman of the Banking Committee wishes to go on and on and on. I simply say that I do not believe this committee going on and on and on, spending more of the taxpayers' money is going to amount to any more than it has already. The special prosecutor is continuing, the special prosecutor is the place to bring charges if anyone before the Banking Committee has committed perjury, as was indicated by the dog- and-pony show tonight. If they committed perjury, they should be prosecuted, and if they are found guilty, they should stand whatever the sentence in court should be. I simply say that I think it is far past time for this committee to have made its report, but in the good nature that I think has always embodied me, I suggested to the ranking Democrat, the Senator from Maryland, who is on the floor, what, 2 months ago, 3 months ago--I do not know what it was--when the chairman of the Banking Committee was beginning to talk about the necessity to extend this date beyond the expiration date of yesterday and wanted $200,000 or $300,000 more of taxpayers' money to get the job done, I said, ``I'm not for that at all. I think they should be called upon to wind up their inquiry and make their report to the U.S. Senate.'' But I said in the spirit of compromise, since the chairman of the Banking Committee says he wants more time and he needs more time, I would, against my better judgment say, ``All right, let's give them another 30 days, until the 28th of March, and $90,000,'' or whatever it takes to wind this up and then set a date for the report no later than 30 days after that, so that we can get on with this matter. I remember very well the ranking Democrat at that time thanking me for that suggestion. We have now come to the place, while I can assure the Senate that the vast majority of the Democrats in this body--and there are 47 of us-- the vast majority of them are against any extension period beyond the expiration date of the committee of yesterday. But it has been talked over and it was agreed, in an effort to come to some kind of a compromise, that we do not want to filibuster, we do not think a filibuster is necessary. Following up on what Senator Domenici suggested on the floor of the Senate, why do we not have the majority leader, Senator Dole, and the minority leader, Senator Daschle, get together tomorrow and make a decision, a reasonable decision, along the lines that Senator Dole suggested back under the Iran-Contra affair? At that time, the Democrats were the conspirators. They were the ones who wanted to continue this discussion. Senator Dole suggested that we should not go on with Iran-Contra forever. It was causing problems for the President of the United States who, at that time, was a Republican. Believe it or not, Mr. President, the Democratic majority at that time said, ``Senator Dole, you're right. You're making sense. You're trying to be reasonable, Senator Dole.'' What we are asking for at the present time, and taking up on the public expression and request by my friend and colleague from New Mexico, it is time for the two leaders to get together. It is time to end the dog-and-pony show. It is time to come to a definite timeframe-- 30 days, x amount of money, whatever is necessary--to wind up this investigation, and then anything further that is done beyond that, as it should be, would be accomplished by the special prosecutor. If we end the investigation by the Banking Committee tonight, the special prosecutor is still there with full subpoena powers and the authority of a prosecutor to bring charges for anything that he thinks needs to be raised in the courts. I simply say, Mr. President, that I hope we will take the wise counsel offered by the Senator from New Mexico, my friend, Senator Domenici, and resolve this matter tomorrow and get on with the business of the U.S. Senate. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Democratic alternative introduced by the Democratic leader. The farm bill situation has become so convoluted it is difficult to know where to begin. We face an unprecedented situation. Not since the 1950's has the Congress failed to enact a farm bill in a timely fashion. This predicament is a poor reflection on the 104th Congress. Is it any wonder that this year's farm bill debate has sunk so low? Not at all. The bill before us, the so-called freedom-to-farm bill, was never considered by the Senate Agriculture Committee. In the House of Representatives, Republican leadership bypassed the Agriculture Committee altogether after it failed there. Through a bit of parliamentary magic, the measure was routed through the House Rules Committee and then ramrodded into the budget bill with little opportunity for debate or amendment. Throughout history, farm programs have had two essential purposes: to smooth out devastating price fluctuations, and to provide a reasonable safety net for family farmers. These are still worthy goals and should be the subject of debate. Unfortunately, the freedom-to-farm bill on both counts fails and essentially turns farm programs into welfare programs. It destroys the essential and the traditional connection between the market price and farm payments. In short, freedom-to-farm promises fixed transition payments, based on historic production levels which decline over time. These payments will be made regardless of market prices, as the Senator from Arkansas has just indicated. In other words, they are entirely divorced. That approach is not market oriented. It is market ignorant. Some have been led to believe this might be a fair tradeoff; money up front in return for total elimination of farm programs as originally drafted. Now, in a clever but meaningless gesture, in my view, it has been agreed to delete the elimination of the 1949 act. That sounds great, but does anyone believe we would ever agree to $700 wheat and $500 corn? The National Center for Agricultural Law Research and Information has studied the fine print of the freedom to farm act and concludes that the payments ``* * * are not guaranteed for the life of the Freedom to Farm legislation.'' Other legal experts agree. Simply put, this so- called 7-year contract would be just as vulnerable as any other Federal program. Where would that leave farmers? They will get the short end of the stick. Future budget negotiators will be hard pressed to defend excessive freedom-to-farm transition payments when dramatic cuts are being made elsewhere. What we need is a farm bill that provides greater flexibility, one that preserves a basic safety net, one that protects family farmers, and one that taxpayers can support. I strongly urge acceptance of the alternative offered by the Senator from South Dakota. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, have we made any disposition whatsoever of the amendment that has just been talked about that no one seems to know anything about? Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I advise the Chair I have checked out the amendment that I knew nothing about, but I have no objection to the amendment. I hope that the Senate could proceed in its usual fashion.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for approximately 5 minutes on the matter of the agricultural bill.

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

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, those who have fought all efforts to bring some level of decency to the Internet have employed all sorts of rhetorical devices to defeat the Communications Decency Act. The latest attack comes from those who suggest that amendments originally in the House bill to title 18 section 1462 somehow revive obsolete provisions of the Comstock Act--(related in information on abortion)--which courts have essentially determined to be unconstitutional. The amendments to title 18 merely clarify that the current laws which prohibit the importation, transportation, or distribution of obscene materials apply to computers. The conference committee went to great lengths in section 507(c) to underline that the changes to the Criminal Code are clarifying and do not change the substantive coverage of the current law. The Congress last amended section 1463 in 1994 by increasing penalties for violations of this section. Nothing in this legislation prohibits constitutionally protected speech and this legislation does not revive other-wise dead provisions of that law any more than the 1994 amendment revived those very provisions. I thank the Chair and I thank again those who put this act together. I am pleased that it is about to pass the U. S. Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from South Carolina. My heartiest congratulations to Senator Pressler, the chairman of the committee, and my friend and colleague from South Carolina, the ranking member, for a job well done under some extreme circumstances. I congratulate you. I understand that the House has just agreed to the conference report by an overwhelming majority. I think the same thing will happen here. Mr. President, I am pleased to voice my enthusiastic support for this most significant piece of telecommunications legislation since the enactment of the Communications Act of 1934. As a Conference Committee member and author and backer of key provisions of the bill I believe that this legislation is good for American families, children and citizens in rural America. Too often progress and discussions of this legislation has been segregated to the business pages of many of America's newspapers. Too much attention has been paid to how this bill affects large corporations. This legislation is not only about large corporations. It is legislation which will touch every person's life. It will open unprecedented economic, educational and information opportunities for all Americans. Few pieces of legislation considered by this or any other Congress have so embraced the concerns and needs of America's children and families as has this legislation. I am very proud of the fact that this legislation includes the Communications Decency Act which I introduced earlier this Congress and in the last Congress to protect children from indecent, pornographic communications on the Internet and other computer services and to protect all Americans from computer obscenity and electronic stalking. With the passage of this bill, the Congress will help make the Information Superhighway safer for kids and families to travel. The current lawlessness on the Internet has opened a virtual Triple-X (XXX)-rated bookstore in the bedrooms of every child with a computer. This law alone will not clean up the Internet. Parental supervision, industry cooperation along with strict law enforcement, need to work together to make this exciting new technology the family friendly resource that it should be. I am especially pleased that the conference report also included legislation Senator Grassley and I put forward to crack down on those who use various means of communications to lure children into illegal sexual activity. Concurrent with our efforts to make the Internet and other computer services safe for families and children, this bill includes legislation which will help turn the information revolution to the benefit of all Americans but especially for America's children. The Snowe-Rockefeller- Exon-Kerrey amendment which is part of this bill creates a unique partnership with private industry. It will ensure discount telecommunications rates for schools, libraries and rural health care facilities. This landmark provision will, perhaps, give children in Harvard and Cambridge, NE, opportunities to use telecommunications technologies to learn from libraries and scholars at Harvard and Cambridge Universities. Another area of critical importance is in enacting legislation to require new televisions to contain the so-called V-chip which will give families an opportunity to block violent, vulgar or other objectionable entertainment programming from their TV set. If successfully implemented, this legislation will lead to the objective rating of programs and give to parents the power to bar from their homes those programs which assault their values. I was proud to co-sponsor the Senate V-chip amendment. Mr. President, this legislation also represents a major victory for rural America. The conference report gives approval to the so-called farm-team provisions. These provisions assure that rural citizens enjoy telephone technologies and prices which are comparable to those in urban areas. The provisions also allow rural phone companies to pool resources with each other and with cable companies to share new technologies and to give states the power to prevent unfair cherry- picking competition in rural markets. Under the farm-team provisions States can require new telephone competitors to offer service to an entire community rather than just a select few highly profitable rural phone users. The provisions also give the Federal and State regulators flexibility in dealing with small and mid-sized phone companies. Too often, one-size-fits-all regulation needlessly pushes up costs for Nebraska's home town phone companies. The farm team, by the way, is a group of rural Senators which pushed a package of rural-oriented reforms during last year's consideration of telecommunications legislation. As a charter member of the farm team along with Senators Bob Kerrey, Jay Rockefeller, Byron Dorgan, Ted Stevens, and the current chairman of the Commerce Committee Senator Larry Pressler, it is very gratifying that our ideas on universal service, rural markets, regulatory flexibility and preferential rates for schools, libraries and rural health care facilities are now central principles of America's future telecommunications policies. In a real sense this legislation is less about big corporation and more about changing the way Americans live, work and learn. No one will be untouched by this legislation. New options may confuse and frustrate some consumers at first, but will bring new services, new choices and more affordable prices to all Americans. The barriers to investment and innovation have been removed while protecting the essential elements of a free market. The telecommunications reform bill does not disrupt the Nation's antitrust laws and does not change the Justice Department's role in policing unfair competition and predatory pricing. Mr. President, most importantly this legislation illustrates that a Congress can make revolutionary change when it puts party labels aside and works together not as Democrats and Republicans but as Americans. I congratulate Senators Hollings and Pressler and all the members of both parties and both Houses who brought this complex piece of legislation together. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. EXON. I appreciate the Senator's raising the issue of this provision. I certainly agree with her that any discussion about abortion is protected by the first amendment guarantee of free speech. I certainly agree that nothing in this title should be interpreted to inhibit free speech about the topic of abortion. Further, she is quite right that our interest in adopting this provision was to curb the spread of obscenity--speech that is not protected by the first amendment--from the Internet in order to protect our children.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have listened to my distinguished colleague from the neighboring State of Iowa. I want to share with the Senate the fact that my frustrations run very deep, as deep as so eloquently expressed by my colleague from the State of Iowa, Senator Harkin. Here we are, Mr. President, 10 minutes after 7:00 on the 1st day of February, and there is rapid talk in this body about adjourning this evening until sometime around February 28. Now, obviously, adjourning here without taking any action whatever on a farm bill is not only wrong, it is not only bad policy, but it is ridiculous. How do we work ourselves out of the dilemma we find ourselves in right now? Mr. President, it would seem to me that it would be a time for cooler heads to prevail. I think we have two basic options: Either we stay here and work and not adjourn, as has been contemplated, and I suspect that would be the best possible course of action of all the options that we have; or the second option, it seems to me, would be if we are going to adjourn tonight, and if we adjourn I suspect we will have a rollcall vote on adjournment so that we will all know in this body and elsewhere as to who wanted to adjourn when we have important work that we should remain here doing. The other option of not staying here, if we are bound and determined to adjourn, which I will oppose, but if that happens, we are going to leave here without any resolution whatever on the farm bill, would be the worse of all possible worlds. If we are not going to continue to stay here and work and hammer out a compromise of some kind, then I think the next best option would be for a simple 1-year extension of the present farm bill. The only significant changes that I suggest that we should make in that regard is to accept and provide a simplification of the rules, regulations, and red tape, and truly allow the farmers of America, for the most part, to farm for the 1996 year without all of the complicated restraints that they have. I simply say the simplification of the rules and allowing the farmers more freedom is one part of the Freedom to Farm Act that I generally have supported. I hope that all would realize and recognize that we either have the option of trying to work out something tonight, which I think is going to be extremely difficult. If we cannot do that, I think we should schedule to be here tomorrow and Saturday, if necessary, and again next week, in an effort to try and come to some kind of a workable compromise that can get the required number of votes, and/or tonight stand to face reality and say it is going to be very difficult to come to some kind of an agreement. Probably the best thing for all sides to do would simply be to recognize and realize that the best thing to do under the circumstances in consideration to the farmers of America, who are anxiously awaiting what we are going to do here with regard to a farm bill, is to have a 1-year extension of the present farm bill with the caveats I have just expressed. Mr. President, it seems to me, therefore, we once again are up against time constraints--some of them real, some of them imaginary. By and large, I see no reason why we should be adjourning when we should be here working. If adjournment is the way we are going to go, I appeal for all sides to realize and recognize, in the interests of agriculture, while extending the present farm bill for 1 year is not the way I would like to go, it may be the only way for us to go and provide a measure of assurance to the food producers of America that we do, indeed, care and appreciate what they are going through. Here we are in February talking about a farm bill that should have been passed no later than the beginning of the new fiscal year last October 1. Here we are, Mr. President, as the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, starting to make plans for the budget discussions in 1996, and we have not even finished the budget from last year. We are sadly behind what we should be doing--doing it right or wrong. I think that, by and large, most of the minority, and I hope a large portion of the majority, in the Senate would realize it is time to fish or cut bait. If we cannot come to an agreement, I suggest it would make sense and be reasonable for all sides to agree to an extension of 1 year, with the caveats I have outlined.