[Pages S7334-S7338]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NEXT GENERATION INTERNET RESEARCH ACT OF 1998

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 334, S. 1609.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1609) to amend the High-Performance Computing
Act of 1991 to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1999
and 2000 for the Next Generation Internet program, to require
the Advisory Committee on High-Performance Computing and
Communications, Information Technology, and the Next
Generation Internet to monitor and give advice concerning the
development and implementation of the Next Generation
Internet program and report to the President and the Congress
on its activities, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate
consideration of the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

Amendment No. 3054

(Purpose: To change the authorization levels for the Department of
Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and to
provide that the FY 1999 DOD authorization is under the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999)

Mr. LOTT. Senators Frist and Rockefeller have an amendment at the
desk and I ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], for Mr. Frist, for
himself, and Mr. Rockefeller, proposes an amendment numbered
3054.

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 9, in the matter appearing after line 18--
(1) strike ``$42,500,000'' in the column headed FY 1999 and
insert ``$40,000,000'';
(2) strike ``$45,000,000'' in the column headed FY 2000 and
insert ``$42,500,000'';
(3) strike ``$5,000,000'' in the column headed FY 1999 the
second place it appears and insert ``$10,000,000'';
(4) strike ``$5,000,000'' in the column headed FY 2000 and
insert ``$10,000,000'';
(5) strike the closing quotation marks at the end of the
table; and
(6) after the table insert the following:

The amount authorized for the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 1999 under this section shall be the amount
authorized pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1999.''.

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read
and agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3054) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3055

(Purpose: To authorize the comprehensive independent study of the
effects on trademark and intellectual property rights holders of adding
new generic top-level domains and related dispute resolution
procedures.)

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of an amendment offered by Senators Leahy and Ashcroft,
which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], for Mr. Leahy, for
himself, and Mr. Ashcroft, proposes an amendment numbered
3055.

The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new section:

SEC. __. STUDY OF EFFECTS ON TRADEMARKS AND INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS OF ADDING GENERIC TOP-LEVEL
DOMAINS.

(a) Study by National Research Council.--Not later than 60
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of Commerce shall request the National Research Council of
the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive
study, taking into account the diverse needs of domestic and
international Internet users, of the short-term and long-term
effects on trademark and intellectual property rights holders
of adding new generic top-level domains and related dispute
resolution procedures.
(b) Matters To Be Assessed In Study.--The study shall
assess and, as appropriate, make recommendations for policy,
practice, or legislative changes relating to--
(1) the short-term and long-term effects on the protection
of trademark and intellectual property rights and consumer
interests of increasing or decreasing the number of generic
top-level domains;
(2) trademark and intellectual property rights clearance
processes for domain names, including--
(A) whether domain name databases should be readily
searchable through a common interface to facilitate the
clearing of trademarks and intellectual property rights and
proposed domain names across a range of generic top-level
domains;
(B) the identification of what information from domain name
databases should be accessible for the clearing of trademarks
and intellectual property rights; and
(C) whether generic top-level domain registrants should be
required to provide certain information;
(3) domain name trademark and intellectual property rights
dispute resolution mechanisms, including how to--
(A) reduce trademark and intellectual property rights
conflicts associated with the addition of any new generic
top-level domains; and
(B) reduce trademark and intellectual property rights
conflicts through new technical approaches to Internet
addressing;
(4) choice of law or jurisdiction for resolution of
trademark and intellectual property

[[Page S7335]]

rights disputes relating to domain names, including which
jurisdictions should be available for trademark and
intellectual property rights owners to file suit to protect
such trademarks and intellectual property rights;
(5) trademark and intellectual property rights infringement
liability for registrars, registries, or technical management
bodies; and
(6) short-term and long-term technical and policy options
for Internet addressing schemes and the impact of such
options on current trademark and intellectual property rights
issues.
(c) Cooperation With Study.--
(1) Interagency cooperation.--The Secretary of Commerce
shall--
(A) direct the Patent and Trademark Office, the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, and other
Department of Commerce entities to cooperate fully with the
National Research Council in its activities in carrying out
the study under this section; and
(B) request all other appropriate Federal departments,
Federal agencies, Government contractors, and similar
entities to provide similar cooperation to the National
Research Council.
(2) Private corporation cooperation.--The Secretary of
Commerce shall request that any private, not-for-profit
corporation established to manage the Internet root server
system and the top-level domain names provide similar
cooperation to the National Research Council.
(d) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the National Research Council shall
complete the study under this section and submit a report on
the study to the Secretary of Commerce. The report shall set
forth the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Council concerning the effects of adding new generic top-
level domains and related dispute resolution procedures on
trademark and intellectual property rights holders.
(2) Submission to congressional committees.--Not later than
30 days after the date on which the report is submitted to
the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary shall submit the
report to the Committees on Commerce and the Committees on
the Judiciary of the Senate and House of Representatives.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $800,000 for the study conducted under
this Act.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, from its origins as a U.S.-based research
vehicle, the Internet has matured into a democratic, international
medium for communication, commerce and education. As the Internet
evolves, the traditional means of organizing its technical functions
such as the Domain Name System (DNS) need to evolve as well.
It is for this reason, in part, that I viewed S.1609, legislation to
authorize the Next Generation Internet (NGI) program, as the
appropriate vehicle for my domain name amendment. This amendment is
based on S.1727, legislation I introduced on March 6 to authorize the
National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences to
conduct a comprehensive study of the effects on trademark and
intellectual property rights holders of adding new generic top level
domain names (gTLDs), and related dispute resolution procedures.
At the outset, I would like to thank Senator Ashcroft, who is a
cosponsor of this domain name amendment to S. 1609 as well as a
cosponsor of my original domain name bill, S.1727. I would also like to
thank Senators Rockefeller, Frist, Hollings and McCain who enabled this
domain name amendment to be considered along with S.1609.
On today's Internet, the domain name system (DNS) works through a
hierarchy of names. At the top of this hierarchy are a set of Top Level
Domains that can be classified into two categories: generic Top Level
Domains (gTLD), such as ``.gov,'' ``.net,'' ``.com,'' ``.edu,''
``.org,'' ``.int,'' and ``.mil,'' and the country code Top Level Domain
names, such as ``.us'' and ``.uk''. Before each TLD suffix, is a Second
Level Domain name.
Since the Internet is an outgrowth of U.S. government investments
carried out under agreements with U.S. agencies, major components of
the DNS are still performed by or subject to agreements with U.S.
agencies. Examples include assignments of numerical addresses to
Internet users, management of the system of registering names for
Internet users, operation of the root server system, and protocol
assignment.
For the past five years, a company based in Herndon, Virginia, named
Network Solutions, Inc., has served under a cooperative agreement with
the National Science Foundation as the exclusive registry of all second
level domain names in several of the gTLDs (e.g., .com, .net, .org, and
.edu). This contract ended in March 1998, but the Federal Government
has exercised an optional ramp-down period that is scheduled to expire
in September 1998. With this date quickly approaching, many of us have
been concerned about what would happen at the end of that company's
exclusive contract. Simply put, how will we avoid chaos on the Internet
and the potential risk of multiple registrations of the same domain
name for different computers?
On January 30, 1998, the Commerce Department released a ``Green
Paper'', or discussion draft, entitled A Proposal to Improve Technical
Management of Internet Names and Addresses, proposing privatization of
the management of the DNS through the creation of a new, not-for-profit
corporation. The Green Paper suggested that during the period of
transition to this new, not-for-profit corporation, the U.S.
Government, in cooperation with IANA, would undertake a process to add
up to five new gTLDs to the DNS.
Although adding new gTLDs, as the Green Paper proposed, would allow
more competition and more individuals and businesses to obtain
addresses that more closely reflect their names and functions, I was
concerned as were many businesses, that the increase in gTLDs would
make the job of protecting their trademarks from infringement or
dilution more difficult. In addition, increasing the number of gTLDs
without an efficient dispute resolution mechanism had the potential of
fueling litigation and the threat of litigation, with an overall
chilling effect on the choice and use of domain names.
The Green Paper properly raised the important questions of how to
protect consumers' interests in locating the brand or vendor of their
choice on the Internet without being deceived or confused, how to
protect companies from having their brand equity diluted in an
electronic environment, and how to resolve disputes efficiently and
inexpensively. It did not, however, answer these complex and important
questions. Dictating the introduction of new gTLDs without analyzing
the impact that these new gTLDs would have on trademark and
intellectual property rights holders and related dispute resolution
procedures seemed like putting the cart before the horse.
The bill that I introduced, S. 1727, was intended to get the horse
back in front of the cart. It directs the Secretary of Commerce to
request the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of
Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of the effects on trademark
and intellectual property rights holders of adding new gTLDs and
related dispute resolution procedures. The study shall assess and, as
appropriate, make recommendations for policy, practice, or legislative
changes regarding:
(1) the short-term and long-term effects on the protection of
trademark and intellectual property rights and consumer interests of
increasing or decreasing the number of gTLDs;
(2) trademark and intellectual property rights clearance processes
for domain names, including whether domain name databases should be
readily searchable through a common interface to facilitate the
``clearing'' of trademarks and intellectual property rights and
proposed domain names across a range of gTLDs; identifying what
information from domain name databases should be accessible for the
``clearing'' of trademarks and intellectual property rights; and
whether gTLDs registrants should be required to provide certain
information;
(3) domain name trademark and intellectual property rights dispute
resolution mechanisms, including how to reduce trademark and
intellectual property rights conflicts associated with the addition of
any new gTLDs and how to reduce trademark and intellectual property
rights conflicts through new technical approaches to Internet
addressing;

(4) choice of law or jurisdiction for resolution of trademark and
intellectual property rights disputes relating to domain names,
including which jurisdictions should be available for trademark and
intellectual property rights owners to file suit to protect their
trademarks and intellectual property rights;
(5) trademark and intellectual property rights infringement liability
for

[[Page S7336]]

registrars, registries, or technical management bodies; and
(6) short-term and long-term technical and policy options for
Internet addressing schemes and their impact on current trademark and
intellectual property issues.
We should understand the effects on trademark and intellectual
property rights holders of adding new gTLDs and related dispute
resolution procedures before we move to quickly to add significant
numbers of new gTLDs. Since its introduction in March, groups such as
ATT, Bell Atlantic, Time Warner, the International Trademark
Association, and the American Intellectual Property Law Association,
have endorsed this legislation reflected in the Leahy-Ashcroft
amendment.
The Administration's White Paper, released on June 5, acknowledges
the concerns to be addressed in the study called for in this
legislation. The White Paper backed off the Green Paper's earlier
suggestion to add five new gTLDs. Instead, the White Paper proposes
that the new corporation would be the most appropriate body to make
decisions as to how many, if any, new gTLDs should be added once it has
global input, including from the study called for in the Leahy-Ashcroft
domain name amendment. Specifically, the White Paper calls upon the
World Intellectual Property Organization, inter alia, to ``evaluate the
effects, based on studies conducted by independent organizations, such
as the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences,
of adding new gTLDs and related dispute resolution procedures on
trademark and intellectual property holders.''
I commend the Administration for the deliberate approach it has taken
to facilitate the withdrawal of the U.S. government from the governance
of the Internet and to privatize the management of Internet names and
addresses. We should have a Hippocratic Oath for the Internet--that
before we adopt any new regimen that affects the Internet, we should
make sure we are doing no harm to this dynamic medium.
We, in Congress, have not always lived up to the standard of this
oath. Passage by an overwhelming vote of the unconstitutional
Communications Decency Act to regulate constitutionally-protected
online speech on the Internet is an example of wrong-headed legislation
that Congress still has not lived down. Internet users generally remain
skeptical about the heavy-headed regulatory actions Congress may take
based on bumper-sticker politics.
The experience of the Communications Decency Act demonstrates that we
should exercise caution in passing new laws for the Internet. This is a
global phenomenon and its freedom from regulation has been primarily
responsible for its explosive growth. This principle is important as we
see increasingly intense disputes over whether or how to regulate this
medium. Encouraging free markets and private sector self-regulatory
approaches is a particularly American approach.
The best way to ``export'' our core American values, to preserve the
free flow of commerce and individual expression and community self-
governance on the Internet, is not to declare the Internet a U.S.
territory. Rather, we should be seeking to support the growth of the
Internet's own self-ordering properties, and fostering mechanisms by
which policy will be set by groups accountable to all Internet
participants on a global basis. If we succeed in creating a
decentralized and truly global policy-making apparatus for the
Internet, the core values we care most about will in fact propagate
across the world.
On a number of issues pertaining to the Internet, from privacy to
pornography to online gambling, governments are more and more faced
with the question of when to defer to effective private action, rather
than regulating in detail in the first instance. The Internet community
is rapidly developing new technologies and practices that may well
solve many of these new ``public policy'' problems before we can even
begin effectively to debate them. For example, new labels for web sites
will let users know which sites have privacy policies or content they
can accept. New software standards will even allow the automated
negotiation of privacy or content preferences. Other technologies will
allow end users to control what information their web browsers
surrender to the sites they visit. And many new types of filters and
private sector practices are being deployed to bring the vice of
unsolicited commercial E-mail (spam) under control.
I fully appreciate that we have some way to go before governments can
declare the private sector self-governance mechanisms of the Internet
adequate to solve the complex and multi-faceted problems of online
privacy or protecting children from inappropriate material. But
progress is being made every day, at a rapid pace, thanks to the
ingenuity of engineers and concerted actions of public interest
advocates and system operators.
We should be trying to persuade other countries to see the virtues of
free enterprise and community self-governance. We can demonstrate by
means of the sheer success of electronic commerce, unconstrained by
heavy-handed top down regulation, that those who allow the market to
work will be richly rewarded. We can develop new technological means
and online trade practices to solve the new public policy problems of
the Internet--demonstrating in the process that it is best to let those
with the greatest stake in solving those problems and in building
online commerce and community to attempt to do so in the first
instance. We can show that diversity works best to fit individual needs
to community rules--by allowing a diverse Internet to flourish and
using filters and education and navigational aids to help everyone make
sure they only go where they want to go and only deal with those they
are prepared to trust.
We can, in short, spread the American faith in liberty and the
pursuit of happiness by avoiding the futile, top-down lawmaking other
countries are so fond of--and by demonstrating that an unconstrained
Internet will form its own new kind of order and become the best kind
of online place for those who participate there. That kind of American
leadership cannot be justly accused of being a new form of imperialism.
We'll make converts to our values one at a time, throughout the world,
by showing the path to greater wealth, and the virtues of greater
freedom, by example. And we'll be better able to resist
counterproductive local regulation by other countries if we can show
that we are not attempting to impose rules of our own on others without
their consent.
As we debate new bills that directly or indirectly regulate the
Internet and impose U.S. laws on a global medium, we should remember
our core values, and try to export those values--free speech, freedom
to associate, freedom of the press--to the rest of the world via the
Internet. But the most effective way to do so is by the leadership of
our example. By inviting Internet stakeholders to work together and
form a new, private, not-for-profit corporation to manage the domain
name and addressing system so critical to the governance of the
Internet, the Administration has set an excellent example, and I
commend them for it.
Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3055) was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read the third time and passed, as amended, the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table, and any statements related to the bill be printed
in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 1609), as amended, was read the third time and passed,
as follows:

S. 1609

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Next Generation Internet
Research Act of 1998''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

(a) Terms Used in This Act.--For purposes of this Act--
(1) Internet.--The term ``Internet'' has the meaning given
such term by section 230(e)(1) of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(e)(1)).
(2) Geographic penalty.--The term ``geographic penalty''
means the imposition of costs on users of the Internet in
rural or other locations attributable to the distance of the
user from network facilities, the low

[[Page S7337]]

population density of the area in which the user is located,
or other factors, that are disproportionately greater than
the costs imposed on users in locations closer to such
facilities or on users in locations with significantly
greater population density.
(b) Definition of Network in High-Performance Computing Act
of 1991.--Paragraph (4) of section 4 of the High-Performance
Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5503) is amended by striking
``network referred to as the National Research and Education
Network established under section 102; and'' and inserting
``network, including advanced computer networks of Federal
agencies and departments; and''.

SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

(a) In General.--The Congress finds that--
(1) United States leadership in science and technology has
been vital to the Nation's prosperity, national and economic
security, and international competitiveness, and there is
every reason to believe that maintaining this tradition will
lead to long-term continuation of United States strategic
advantages in information technology;
(2) the United States' investment in science and technology
has yielded a scientific and engineering enterprise without
peer, and that Federal investment in research is critical to
the maintenance of United States leadership;
(3) previous Federal investment in computer networking
technology and related fields has resulted in the creation of
new industries and new jobs in the United States;
(4) the Internet is playing an increasingly important role
in keeping citizens informed of the actions of their
government; and
(5) continued inter-agency cooperation is necessary to
avoid wasteful duplication in Federal networking research and
development programs.
(b) Additional Findings for the 1991 Act.--Section 2 of the
High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5501) is
amended by--
(1) striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) A high-capacity, flexible, high-speed national
research and education computer network is needed to provide
researchers and educators with access to computational and
information resources, act as a test bed for further research
and development for high-capacity and high-speed computer
networks, and provide researchers the necessary vehicle for
continued network technology improvement through research.'';
and
(2) adding at the end thereof the following:
``(7) Additional research must be undertaken to lay the
foundation for the development of new applications that can
result in economic growth, improved health care, and improved
educational opportunities.
``(8) Research in new networking technologies holds the
promise of easing the economic burdens of information access
disproportionately borne by rural users of the Internet.
``(9) Information security is an important part of
computing, information, and communications systems and
applications, and research into security architectures is a
critical aspect of computing, information, and communications
research programs.''.

SEC. 4. PURPOSES.

(a) In General.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to serve as the first authorization in a series of
computing, information, and communication technology
initiatives outlines in the High-Performance Computing Act of
1991 (15 U.S.C. 5501 et seq.) that will include research
programs related to--
(A) high-end computing and computation;
(B) human-centered systems;
(C) high confidence systems; and
(D) education, training, and human resources; and
(2) to provide for the development and coordination of a
comprehensive and integrated United States research program
which will--
(A) focus on the research and development of a coordinated
set of technologies that seeks to create a network
infrastructure that can support greater speed, robustness,
and flexibility than is currently available and promote
connectivity and interoperability among advanced computer
networks of Federal agencies and departments;
(B) focus on research in technology that may result in
high-speed data access for users that is both economically
viable and does not impose a geographic penalty; and
(C) encourage researchers to pursue approaches to
networking technology that lead to maximally flexible and
extensible solutions wherever feasible.
(b) Modification of Purposes of the 1991 Act.--Section 3 of
the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5502)
is amended by--
(1) striking the section caption and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 3. PURPOSES.'';

(2) striking ``purpose of this Act is'' and inserting
``purposes of this Act are'';
(3) striking ``universities; and'' in paragraph (1)(I) and
inserting ``universities;'';
(4) striking ``efforts.'' in paragraph (2) and inserting
``network research and development programs;''; and
(5) adding at the end thereof the following:
``(3) promoting the further development of an information
infrastructure of information stores, services, access
mechanisms, and research facilities available for use through
the Internet;
``(4) promoting the more rapid development and wider
distribution of networking management and development tools;
and
``(5) promoting the rapid adoption of open network
standards.''.

SEC. 5. DUTIES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Title I of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15
U.S.C 5511 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end thereof
the following:

``SEC. 103. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

``(a) In General.--In addition to its functions under
Executive Order 13035 (62 F.R. 7231), the Advisory Committee
on High-Performance Computing and Communications, Information
Technology, and the Next Generation Internet, established by
Executive Order No. 13035 of February 11, 1997 (62 F.R. 7231)
shall--
``(1) assess the extent to which the Next Generation
Internet program--
``(A) carries out the purposes of this Act;
``(B) addresses concerns relating to, among other matters--
``(i) geographic penalties (as defined in section 2(2) of
the Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998); and
``(ii) technology transfer to and from the private sector;
and
``(2) assess the extent to which--
``(A) the role of each Federal agency and department
involved in implementing the Next Generation Internet program
is clear, complementary to and non-duplicative of the roles
of other participating agencies and departments; and
``(B) each such agency and department concurs with the rule
of each other participating agency or department.
``(b) Reports.--The Advisory Committee shall assess
implementation of the Next Generation Internet initiative and
report, not less frequently than annually, to the President,
the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, and the United States House of
Representatives Committee on Science on its findings for the
preceding fiscal year. The first such report shall be
submitted 6 months after the date of enactment of the Next
Generation Internet Research Act of 1998 the last report
shall be submitted by September 30, 2000.''.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Title I of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15
U.S.C 5511 et seq.), as amended by section 5 of this Act, is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

``SEC. 104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated for the purpose
of carrying out the Next Generation Internet program the
following amounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Agency FY 1999 FY 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Department of Defense.................... $40,000,000 $42,500,000
``Department of Energy..................... $20,000,000 $25,000,000
``National Science Foundation.............. $25,000,000 $25,000,000
``National Institutes of Health............ $5,000,000 $7,500,000
``National Aeronautics and Space $10,000,000 $10,000,000
Administration............................
``National Institute of Standards and $5,000,000 $7,500,000.
Technology................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The amount authorized for the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 1999 under this section shall be the amount
authorized pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1999.''.

SEC. 7. STUDY OF EFFECTS ON TRADEMARKS AND INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS OF ADDING GENERIC TOP-LEVEL
DOMAINS.

[[Page S7338]]

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will go to the closing script now, unless
there are any other issues pending. When I get to the close of this, we
will have a final speaker today, Senator Gorton, and I appreciate his
patience.

____________________