John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I submit the amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Allen, Senator Voinovich, Senator Alexander, Senator Dorgan, Senator Carper, and Senator Wyden. It refines the language concerning the voice over Internet protocol. It is a product of an agreement of language between all of us. I ask for its consideration. Before I do that, I believe Senator Feinstein has an amendment she wants to propose. I hope we can get an agreement, say, 40 minutes equally divided, if that would be agreeable.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Tennessee be allowed 1 minute.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield my 1 minute to the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend. I point out again, there are a lot of reasons why we are falling behind, probably for the first time I know of in a major high- technology capability. Maybe during the 1970s there was a time we fell behind the Japanese in certain areas. But this should be of concern to all of us. We should remove any impediment or burden. I think the Senator from North Dakota and the Senators from Oregon and Virginia agree that we have to change the regulatory scheme which has clearly not conformed with these advances in technology. I point out again, when Dick Notebaert said it costs him $124,000 and X number of days to install a DSL line, and a cable company can do it in 24 hours, something is wrong. Either one is wrong or the other. But I argue that if I were a small businessperson and I saw looming ahead of me significant taxes on the way I was conducting my business, I would obviously give pause. Small businesspeople have small margins. We all know that. That is always a factor in the decisions that are made. I think we ought to remove that impediment or certainly that cloud of concern that small business in America is considering today. I thank my friend from Virginia for his patience. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Virginia has been patient. Briefly, I point out that in the hearing this morning, yes, one witness from Brookings said it would have very little, or not much, effect. The other five witnesses said it would have great effect. All six witnesses said they strongly supported an Internet tax moratorium, including DSL, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, including the one who said there was very little effect. The other witnesses strongly favored it and thought that a tax, particularly on DSL, would have a significant impact. I think we ought to reflect in the Record the view of all of the witnesses.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I appreciate the Senator correcting the Record. I do not mean his opposition to a moratorium but his opposition to the definition of Internet access.

Mr. McCAIN. I don't know if the Senator from Oregon had a chance to see the article by Senator Allen this morning in the Wall Street Journal. I commend it to all. It is funny because Senator Allen's piece in the Wall Street Journal dovetails with the information we received in the Commerce Committee in the last 2 years about revisiting the 1996 Telecommunications Act and what we need to do in the future. The issue that came up with all the witnesses this morning and came up yesterday morning was the United States is falling dangerously behind all other nations on DSL. We are now ranked 11th in the view of some, 20th in the view of others. If you would have told me 10 years ago we would rank behind South Korea on almost any technology, as intelligent and hard working and industrious as they are, I would have said: We have a problem. As the Senator from Virginia points out in his piece, they are trying to tax DSL. Some States are taxing DSL. I am not saying it is taxation of DSL that has caused the serious problem we have fallen behind at least 10--in the view of some, 19--other nations in broadband access. But I am saying, why in the world would we want to lay taxes on them at a time when we need to expand it dramatically rather than lay a tax on it. May I mention one other point here that is important. To all of these State Governors, the National Governors Association, who keep saying, ``We are losing all this revenue; why don't you stop spending so much,'' revenues have increased in literally every State in America in the last couple of years. Instead they are spending more. For them to tax DSL at a time when it, in the view of almost everyone, is critical to the United States maintaining its technological lead and the growth of business, communications, and politics, is outrageous. It is insulting. It is disgraceful these greedy Governors are so greedy they don't understand the impact of taxation of DSL, which is still only in 28 percent of our urban and suburban residences and 10 percent of rural America. Talk about tunnel vision. They and their acolytes come over here and start talking about how important it is that they be able to keep taxing and that many of them--as Senator Allen points out in his column, they say: We are not going to tax hamburgers, so they tax the meat and not the bun--have started to tax DSL. It is spreading. Even in our bill, we are going to allow them to continue to do so. We are going to allow them, even though they are not in violation of the letter of the law, but certainly the intent of the law by taxing DSL. Now they want to tax it more. Every witness before our committee--we had the Cato Institute and the Brookings Institute; we had representatives across the spectrum of thought in America--said: You have to increase DSL. You have to increase broadband access. You are falling behind every other nation in the world. So what do the Governors want to do? They want to tax them. We are going to have them come over here and talk about unfunded mandates and unfairness and fairness. The fact is, if we allow every State in America and every municipality in America to start taxing DSL, it is absolutely inevitable that we will see a slowing of the growth of broadband access. It is obvious if you lay another burden on it. There are a number of areas, including overregulation and other things. Mr. Notebaert of Qwest pointed out yesterday that in order for his corporation to provide DSL to a home, to have permission to do so required $130,000 in expenditure and X number of days. I think he said something like 24 days. But if a cable company wants to provide exactly that same service, they can provide it in less than 24 hours. Obviously there is something fundamentally and terribly wrong in the regulatory regime, and it needs to be fixed. I am not blaming our falling behind other nations on DSL and broadband access simply on taxation. But I am saying that increases in taxation--and it would be widespread if we opened the door--will have a substantial chilling effect in the reduction of what should be one of our Nation's highest priorities, as the President of the United States said in his speech the day before yesterday, to provide broadband access to all Americans no matter where they are. I again congratulate my colleague from Virginia for an excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal. I recommend it to my colleagues.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to leave that particular subject, but say that segues in a very rational way into what we are facing on the floor of the Senate in consideration of this bill. Yesterday, I was under the impression that we were moving forward with a vigorous and spirited and passionate debate on the issue of an Internet tax moratorium. Why is this issue of importance? Because the worst thing we can do to small and large businesses in America, around America, is to have an atmosphere of uncertainty. I think most of my colleagues would agree--this is probably the most partisan environment I have seen in the 18 years I have served in the Senate and the 4 years that I served in the House. What is happening--and I was a bit sarcastic yesterday, I must admit--is we come to the floor with legislation which is important. The Internet tax moratorium doesn't lend itself to partisanship. In fact, the two greatest opponents of this legislation--Senator Dorgan opposes it with two Members on this side of the aisle. It is not one of those that somehow is a Democrat philosophy versus a Republican philosophy. One of the greatest supporters of the Internet tax moratorium is the Senator from Oregon. Here we are with this issue which is really important to American businesses. Most businesses, obviously, support a tax moratorium. But what they fear most of all is uncertainty. They have to make plans for their businesses and their futures. What we are in danger of right now as we speak is getting hung up on extraneous issues, as we have on almost every piece of legislation that has come before this body, on extraneous amendments. I understand the frustration of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I served in the minority for the first number of years that I was here. Yet the majority sets the agenda. I have said to the Senator from North Dakota, I want my issue raised, I want a vote on it, and I am ready to go. I have never tried to tie up the Senate on an issue. I have come down here for years and forced votes on line-item vetoes. But I said that I am willing to have a time agreement and a debate on the issue of climate change. Senator Lieberman and I said: Look, we are not going to tie up the Senate. We are not going to impede everything from going forward. We had a vote. We got 43, I am happy to say. My point is, we shouldn't block the passage of legislation. I think there is a careful balance between proposing an amendment, getting a vote on it, and then allowing the legislation to move on rather than just overloading the legislation to the point where it has to be withdrawn. I hope we can get a vote on the Democratic leader's amendment on ethanol. I hope we can get a vote on many of these other issues, including minimum wage if necessary. But at some point you cross a line between trying to have your views and your issues and your agenda addressed to the point where we just end up in gridlock. I think most observers, both inside and outside of this institution, will agree we are basically gridlocked on almost every issue that comes before us. That is not what we are sent here to do. We are sent here to act as legislators and to address the issues that are important to the American people instead of partisan gridlock. I hope we can sit down on both sides of the aisle and at least make people aware of what the agenda is. I have a very long relationship with both the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from South Dakota who are friends of mine. I would like to know what the agenda is. I don't think it is a lot to ask what I can expect in managing this bill. At least in that way I can try to accommodate the concerns of the agenda of the other side of the aisle. But to come out here and just spring an amendment I don't think is quite fair, and I don't think I would do that if I were in that position. I hope we can return to some kind of comity and that way perhaps decide how we are going to dispose of this bill. I said only half sarcastically yesterday that if we are going to spend all of our time in gridlock around here, some of us would like to go home. It is much nicer in Arizona than in the Nation's Capital. Maybe we could leave a couple of Senators on either side to propose amendments, have quorum calls, and be in gridlock. Some people would be fooled that we are still working. But instead, it is now Wednesday. We are supposed to be out Thursday night, and we have addressed one amendment to this legislation. I don't think this is a fair way to legislate. I know my friend from North Dakota is here and wants to say a few words, and my friend from Oregon and my friend from Virginia. But I also urge those who have amendments which are germane to please come to the floor so we can debate them and vote on them since I think it is important to do so. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada who is a good and dear friend of many years, who I also know decries this. Let me repeat one more time that I believe that honorable service was performed by the President of the United States in the National Guard. Almost 40 percent of the forces that are in Iraq today are guardsmen and reservists. They are superb young men and women. Obviously, I know the Senator from Nevada shares my view that service in the National Guard is honorable service, as is service on Active Duty, as that performed by Senator Kerry, in my view. But it is time to declare a truce. I would also say to my friend from Nevada, there is nothing we can do about what talk show hosts do, or outside commentators. That is freedom of speech. I am sorry so much focus is on that, and I don't pretend to say I could do anything about that. But I hope Members of this body could declare a truce on this issue, if I may use that word, and then we could move forward in addressing the compelling issues of the day. I will be glad to hear the response of the Senator or, if he doesn't mind--I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. McCAIN. And the President of the United States.

Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield to my friend from Nevada.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I came to the floor to urge consideration of the Internet Tax Moratorium Act, the proposal, debate, and voting on germane amendments. As I came to the floor, I heard this attack on the President of the United States and the administration. It was pretty rough stuff, calling people chicken hawks and talking about service to the country or lack thereof. I am sure the statements just made by the Senator from New Jersey reflect the intense partisanship and recent discussions and charges and countercharges on talk shows and cable television and radio all over America. I think it might be an interesting and maybe sometimes entertaining exercise--the little drawing of the chicken hawk was kind of clever. I have to hand it to whoever the artist is. But isn't it a fact that we are now engaged in a war? Isn't it a fact right now that, as we speak, our marines are attacking Falluja and I am sure incurring casualties, these brave young Americans? I don't know if they get C-SPAN over in Iraq, but here they are with their lives literally on the line, trying to bring freedom or ensure the freedom of the Iraqi people. They get television--if not C-SPAN, I know they get Armed Forces Television in many of the bases in Iraq-- what do they see? They see us attacking each other about service or nonservice in a conflict that ended more than 30 years ago. All of us who stand here--I haven't known of an elected or nonelected politician who hasn't said: We are all behind the troops; we are behind the men and women in the military; we support them 100 percent no matter what. What are they supposed to think? Are we really supporting them and are we interested in bringing about a successful conclusion to the Iraqi conflict? Senator Kerry, the Democrat nominee, says we have to stay the course. He may have different views as to exactly how to do that than the President and the administration, but we are in agreement. Meanwhile, what are we doing on the floor of the Senate? We are attacking the President's credentials because of his service or lack of service in a war that ended 30 years ago, more than 30 years ago. I think that is wrong. I wish we would stop it. I wish we would just stop, at least until the fighting in Iraq is over. Second, maybe we could devote some of our time and effort and energy in coming up with a bipartisan approach to this conflict. Yes, there are enormous difficulties. No, things haven't worked out as well as they should have. Yes, I, myself, would have had different approaches to the challenge in Iraq. But we are there. We are in a very crucial moment. Why don't we all join together and sit down and work out, with the administration, both sides of the aisle, a common approach so we send a single message? Not that we are refighting the Vietnam war, but that we are committed to seeing this thing through in Iraq because we cannot afford to fail. We cannot afford to fail. There will be plenty of time after this conflict is over. We may even have a commission. We have commissions for everything else; why not have a commission after we have democracy in Iraq to find out where we failed in Iraq? That would be fine with me. I wouldn't particularly want to serve on it, but let's have a commission. But in the meantime, don't you think our focus and attention is misplaced? We are talking about chicken hawks. When the President of the United States is the one whose most solemn responsibility is to be Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, and to prosecute a conflict that was authorized by an overwhelming vote in this body, and we are calling him a chicken hawk--please. Is that the appropriate time and place for this kind of activity? I do know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't like this. I know my friend Senator Lieberman proposed that we all join together to try to come up with a common approach. I don't know if that is possible in this day and age, but it is certainly something worth consideration. But at least, could we declare that the Vietnam war is over and have a cease-fire and agree that both candidates, the President of the United States and Senator Kerry, served honorably--end of story. Now let's focus our attention on the conflict that is taking place in Iraq, that is taking American lives as I speak on this floor. I don't want to belabor the subject, but I do want to expand on it a little bit. It is a symptom of the extreme partisanship that exists in this body today on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Kyl in introducing the Arizona Trail Feasibility Study Act. This bill would authorize the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to conduct a joint study to determine the feasibility of designating the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic or National Historic Trail. A companion bill is being introduced in the House of Representatives today by Representative Kolbe and rest of the Arizona delegation. Since 1968, when the National Trails System Act was established, Congress has designated twenty national trails. This legislation is the first step in the process of national trail designation for the Arizona Trail. If the study concludes that designating the Arizona Trail as a part of the national trail system if feasible, subsequent legislation will be introduced to designate the Arizona Trail as either a National Scenic Trail or National Historic Trail. The Arizona Trail is a beautifully diverse stretch of public lands, mountains, canyons, deserts, forests, historic sites, and communities. The Trail begins at the Coronado National Memorial on the U.S.-Mexico border and ends in the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona Strip District on the Utah border. In between these two points, the Trail winds through some of the most rugged, spectacular scenery in the Western United States. For the past 10 years, over 16 Federal, state and local agencies, as well as community and business organizations, have worked to form a partnership to create, develop, and manage the Arizona Trail. Designating the Arizona Trail as a national trail would help streamline the management of the Trail to ensure that this pristine stretch of diverse land is preserved for future generations to enjoy. The corridor for the Arizona Trail encompasses the wide range of ecological diversity in the state, and incorporates a host of existing trails into one continuous trail. The Arizona Trail extends through seven ecological life zones including such legendary landmarks as the Sonoran Desert and the Grand Canyon. It connects the unique lowland desert flora and fauna in Saguaro National Park and the pine-covered San Francisco Peaks, Arizona's highest mountains at 12,633 feet in elevation. In fact, the Trail route is so topographically diverse that a person can hike from the Sonoran Desert to Alpine forests in one day. The Trail also takes travelers through ranching, mining, agricultural, and developed urban areas, as well as remote, pristine wildlands. With nearly 700 miles of the 800-mile trail already completed, the Arizona Trail is a boon to recreationists. The Arizona State Parks recently released data showing that two-thirds of Arizonans consider themselves trail users. Millions of visitors also use Arizona's trails each year. In one of the fastest-growing states in the U.S., the designation of the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic or National Historic Trail would ensure the preservation of a corridor of open space for hikers, mountain bicyclists, cross country skiers, snowshoers, eco-tourists, equestrians, and joggers. I commend the Arizona Trail Association for taking the lead in building a coalition of partners to bring the Arizona Trail from its inception to a nearly completed, multiple-use, non-motorized, long-distance trail. Trail enthusiasts look forward to the completion of the Arizona Trail. Its designation as a national trail would help to protect the natural, cultural, and historic resources it contains for the public to use and enjoy.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Kyl in introducing the Arizona Trail Feasibility Study Act. This bill would authorize the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to conduct a joint study to determine the feasibility of designating the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic or National Historic Trail. A companion bill is being introduced in the House of Representatives today by Representative Kolbe and rest of the Arizona delegation. Since 1968, when the National Trails System Act was established, Congress has designated twenty national trails. This legislation is the first step in the process of national trail designation for the Arizona Trail. If the study concludes that designating the Arizona Trail as a part of the national trail system if feasible, subsequent legislation will be introduced to designate the Arizona Trail as either a National Scenic Trail or National Historic Trail. The Arizona Trail is a beautifully diverse stretch of public lands, mountains, canyons, deserts, forests, historic sites, and communities. The Trail begins at the Coronado National Memorial on the U.S.-Mexico border and ends in the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona Strip District on the Utah border. In between these two points, the Trail winds through some of the most rugged, spectacular scenery in the Western United States. For the past 10 years, over 16 Federal, state and local agencies, as well as community and business organizations, have worked to form a partnership to create, develop, and manage the Arizona Trail. Designating the Arizona Trail as a national trail would help streamline the management of the Trail to ensure that this pristine stretch of diverse land is preserved for future generations to enjoy. The corridor for the Arizona Trail encompasses the wide range of ecological diversity in the state, and incorporates a host of existing trails into one continuous trail. The Arizona Trail extends through seven ecological life zones including such legendary landmarks as the Sonoran Desert and the Grand Canyon. It connects the unique lowland desert flora and fauna in Saguaro National Park and the pine-covered San Francisco Peaks, Arizona's highest mountains at 12,633 feet in elevation. In fact, the Trail route is so topographically diverse that a person can hike from the Sonoran Desert to Alpine forests in one day. The Trail also takes travelers through ranching, mining, agricultural, and developed urban areas, as well as remote, pristine wildlands. With nearly 700 miles of the 800-mile trail already completed, the Arizona Trail is a boon to recreationists. The Arizona State Parks recently released data showing that two-thirds of Arizonans consider themselves trail users. Millions of visitors also use Arizona's trails each year. In one of the fastest-growing states in the U.S., the designation of the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic or National Historic Trail would ensure the preservation of a corridor of open space for hikers, mountain bicyclists, cross country skiers, snowshoers, eco-tourists, equestrians, and joggers. I commend the Arizona Trail Association for taking the lead in building a coalition of partners to bring the Arizona Trail from its inception to a nearly completed, multiple-use, non-motorized, long-distance trail. Trail enthusiasts look forward to the completion of the Arizona Trail. Its designation as a national trail would help to protect the natural, cultural, and historic resources it contains for the public to use and enjoy.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I was in Arizona recently, and by chance I watched C-SPAN airing the Federal Election Commission hearing on the issue of 527s. Let me assure my colleagues, it was both eye opening and appalling. Once in a while, we have a public debate in Washington that serves as a perfect metaphor for the cynical way in which business is sometimes done here. The argument over whether and when the Federal Election Commission should regulate new soft money fundraising groups provides us with one of those moments. In it, we can see how badly our election watchdog has served the public and the urgent need to fix it. The Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, Bradley Smith, claims apparently some moral superiority on the issue of 527s because as a Republican he stands in opposition to the Republican Party's effort to ensure 527 groups comply with the law. While some may look upon his views as principles, I can only conclude that they again illustrate the same unfitness to serve on the Federal Election Commission he has shown since he was appointed 5 years ago. Despite claims that his contempt for the Federal elections laws was merely that of an academic commentator and that he would uphold the laws as passed by Congress if confirmed, Mr. Smith has made no secret since arriving at the FEC of his disdain for the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, as well as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. He has done so once again in the pending rulemaking. Even after the Supreme Court decision in McConnell v. FEC, Mr. Smith has gone out of his way to criticize the Court's decision and the law he is supposed to enforce. In one public speech he said: Now and then the Supreme Court issues a decision that cries out to the public, ``We do not know what we are doing.'' McConnell is such a decision. Further evidence of Mr. Smith's predilection can be found in an article in the May 3 edition of National Review in which he writes: Campaign reform passed Congress and was upheld by the Supreme Court because groups hostile to freedom spent hundreds of millions of dollars to create an intellectual climate in which free political participation was viewed as a threat to democracy. This is perhaps the most inflammatory and inappropriate comment I have ever seen by an individual who is supposed to be enforcing existing law, affirmed in its constitutionality by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. To assert that proreform groups had somehow brainwashed Congress and the Supreme Court is simply pathetic and solidifies my belief that Mr. Smith cannot administer our campaign finance laws in good faith because he is incapable of putting his sworn duties above his personal opinion. By the way, his treatment of Mr. Nobel, a witness before the FEC, was as bullying and as cowardly as I have ever seen anyone conduct themselves in our Nation's Capital and clearly was an abuse of his authority as Chairman of the Commission. Mr. Smith's views on the constitutionality of the Nation's campaign finance laws have been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court. Mr. Smith was dead wrong in his views that the Federal Election Campaign Act and its restrictions on contributions were unconstitutional, and Mr. Smith was dead wrong in his views that BCRA was unconstitutional. Mr. Smith seems to be incapable of accepting the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States, not Mr. Smith, is the last word on the constitutionality of campaign laws and that it is his job as an FEC Commissioner to carry out, not thwart, the Supreme Court's mandate. I do not deny that Mr. Smith is entitled to his personal views on the issue of regulating 527s. I am saying, however, that he is failing to fulfill his duties as the chairman of a Federal agency and one who is sworn to uphold and enforce the law. Just as we would not tolerate the appointment of a pacifist to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the Director of the FBI who believes the whole Penal Code should be null and void, so we should not accept a Chairman of the FEC who opposes campaign laws upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Knowing of his opposition to the laws he was sworn to uphold, I cannot fathom why Mr. Smith would have even accepted his current position in the first place, certainly now that the Supreme Court has proven him wrong and upheld the constitutionality of a law that he stated was ``clearly unconstitutional.'' It makes no sense. It makes no sense for him to be charged with enforcing a law he so publicly opposes on policy and legal grounds. I know if I were in Mr. Smith's shoes, I would do the honorable thing and resign if I was so determined to carry on a crusade against Federal regulation of campaign finance. I would leave the FEC position to be filled by someone who believed in the job. If any of my colleagues think I am exaggerating about these FEC hearings, by the way, they should get a tape from C-SPAN and look at it themselves. It was shocking. One very troubling aspect of the hearings was the way in which some Commissioners and antireform witnesses joined in a chorus of complaint that ``no one knew what Congress intended to do'' when it passed FECA in 1974 and BCRA in 2002. One witness testified that it took Congress 7 years to figure out what to do about soft money. I am somewhat amazed by such a statement because anyone who was in Washington during those 7 years knows that the main component of our bill--from the very beginning--was a ban on soft money. You can't get much more definitive than a ban. What did take 7 years was convincing our opponents to allow a vote on the measure, and when we finally got our vote, we had clear majorities in both Houses. Some of the lawyers who testified that no one knows what Congress intended to do in these bills were the very same lawyers who spent years urging Members to vote against BCRA, and argued its unconstitutionality before the Supreme Court. Give me a break. As witnesses to Congressional intent, they have zero credibility. Let me be clear on this: Senator Feingold and I repeatedly told the FEC exactly what we intended to accomplish with our legislation, and the legislative history of FECA from 1974 is equally as clear. The only confusion in this area has been with the FEC itself and those Commissioners who just simply didn't like the actions taken by Congress. The Commission's hearings centered on the issue of regulation of so- called ``527 groups'' that are raising and spending millions of dollars in soft money in the current presidential election. These groups readily admit that their intended purpose is to influence the outcome of Federal elections. FECA has long required these groups to register as Federal political committees and comply with Federal campaign finance limits. Unfortunately, because the FEC has misinterpreted and undermined the law, we find ourselves in this unenforced regulatory limbo today. The 1974 law requires that any group with a ``major purpose'' of influencing a Federal election, and which spends more than $1,000 doing so, must use the same limited hard money contributions as the political parties and the candidates themselves. In recent years though, the FEC slouched into the feckless and unjustified position of not enforcing the law in the case of groups which avoided the ``magic words'' of ``express advocacy'' but were set up and operated to influence Federal elections. Then, in McConnell, the Supreme Court itself made clear what many of us already knew--that the Constitution did not require an ``express advocacy'' standard, and that such a standard is ``functionally meaningless.'' That's the words of The United States Supreme Court. But here we are, with these groups openly flouting the law and openly spending soft money for the express purpose of influencing the presidential election while the FEC sits on its hands once again. Like the emperor with no clothes, those Commissioners just do not know what to do now that the Supreme Court has removed their ``express advocacy is required by the Constitution'' rationale for failing to regulate political activity by the 527 political organizations. As a result, these organizations remain busy soliciting and spending millions for the avowed purpose of influencing Federal elections. That the FEC's lack of action undermines the law isn't just my opinion. The Supreme Court confirmed this in its recent decision upholding the soft money ban. In McConnell v. FEC, the Supreme Court stated, in no uncertain terms, how we ended up in the soft money crisis to begin with. The Justices placed the blame squarely at the doors of the FEC, concluding that the agency had eroded the prohibitions on union and corporate spending, and the limits on individual contributions through years of bad rulings and rulemakings, including its formulas for allocation of party expenses between Federal and non-Federal accounts. Regarding the allocation regulations for parties, the Supreme Court stated in McConnell that the FEC had ``subverted'' the law, issued regulations that ``permitted more than Congress . . . had ever intended'', and ``invited widespread circumvention of FECA's limits on contributions.'' That is a damning indictment of the behavior and performance of the Federal Elections Commission. Based on the recent hearings, it seems entirely possible that the FEC will once again abdicate its statutory responsibilities and refuse to end this new soft money scheme--or at least put off any action until the Presidential election is over. In fact, FFC Vice-chair Ellen Weintraub recently opposed a rulemaking on 527 activity saying that: At this stage in the election cycle, it is unprecedented for the FEC to contemplate changes to the very definitions of terms as fundamental as ``expenditure'' and ``political committee'' . . . sowing uncertainty during an election year. Ms. Weintraub further stated: I will not be rushed to make hasty decisions, with far- reaching implications, at the behest of those who see in our hurried action their short-term political gain. Ms. Weintraub has no business looking at the election calendar. That is none of her business. What is her business is to enforce existing law according to the law in the U.S. Supreme Court upholding its constitutionality. It should not matter to Ms. Weintraub whether we are in an even numbered year, an odd numbered year, fall, spring, winter, or summer. This is an incredible statement as to how politics affects a Federal commission that is supposed to rule on laws, not on political campaigns. Of course, it is not that complicated. All the FEC needs to do now is simply enforce existing Federal law as written by Congress in 1974 and interpreted by the Supreme Court in a number of cases, including the McConnell case. It defies the whole purpose of the FEC, to say it should not properly enforce the law in the middle of an election year because such enforcement might affect that election. We want the law enforced. I have never heard of a regulatory agency that has any reference whatsoever to political campaigns. The fact the FEC has neglected to properly enforce the law correctly in the past is not a reason or justification for the Commission to continue failing to properly enforce the law, now that the Supreme Court has made clear the FEC was wrong. If the FEC fails to act now, the FEC will simply be treading the same destructive path it has followed for a generation. We know systemic campaign finance abuses have usually begun when one political party decides to push the envelope and the FEC declines to act, leading the other party to adopt the same illegal tactics. In 1988, one party invented the use of soft money to promote their Presidential campaign, evading campaign finance rules. The Commission let them get away with this. This is well documented. The other party followed. In 1996, the soft money scheme was raised to an art form and the Commission did nothing. You have to ask whether the Commission has learned anything about the consequences of its failure to properly enforce the law. History proves it is imperative that the Commission act now. If it does not, we can rest assured both parties will soon be trying to out-raise each other in this venue, and a whole new soft money scheme will have blossomed. By the way, the reality is if these soft money 527s are allowed to stand--they are now, we know, largely funded by Democrats. Who in the world doesn't understand if you allow this to stand, then the Republicans will do the same thing, and understandably so? Just as in 1988 one party was allowed to do it, so the other party was able to as well. Much of the controversy at the Commission has been ginned up by an artfully crafted misinformation campaign designed to persuade the nonprofit community--the 501(c)s--that any FEC action to rein in 527s would have the unintended consequence of limiting their own advocacy efforts. It is true certain campaign finance rules for spending by nonprofits are different than they are for political groups like 527s. There is no immediate campaign finance regulatory problem with the 501(c) groups. I repeat, there is no immediate campaign finance regulatory problem with the 501(c) groups as there is with the 527 groups, and no need--no need to address 501(c) groups in this rulemaking. Some have suggested the agency do what Congress did when it passed BCRA: Issue a ruling but make the change effective after the election. What these critics fail to recognize, however, is that Congress was creating an entirely new set of election rules in BCRA. All that is required here is for the FEC to properly enforce law that has been on the books for 30 years, and to abandon its wrong interpretations of the law as made clear in the McConnell decision. To issue new regulations now and make them effective after the 2004 election would be for the FEC to say that ``we know the law has been wrongly interpreted for years but we are going to allow that to continue for the rest of this year, and then next year, we will start interpreting that law correctly.'' This is simply not rational and it is an abdication of their responsibilities. Finally, it is essential that the FEC act quickly to fix its absurd allocation rules, which govern the mix of soft and hard money a political committee can spend when it is supporting both State and Federal candidates. It is clear that a number of the current crop of 527s exist only to defeat President Bush. But through the absurd FEC allocation formulas, if these same entities also claim to be working in state elections, they could use soft money for 98 percent of their expenditures--a complete end-run around the soft money ban in Federal races. Despite all the evidence, I am still hopeful the Commissioners will summon the political will to do the right thing now. There are some commissioners who want to do the right thing. I want them to step forward and do it. But even if they do, the agency's structural problems will be the same as they ever were. By unfortunate custom, three Republicans and three Democrats are chosen by their party leadership, usually with the express purpose of protecting their party's interests, rather than enforcing the law. It takes four votes for the Commission to take action--a requirement that has been a recipe for deadlock and bipartisan collusion and gave birth to the soft money problem we're trying to put behind us. Last month I testified before the Senate Rules Committee on the issue of 527s. During my testimony I stated that one of the problems the FEC faces today is that some Commissioners, and in particular Chairman Smith, refuse to accept the Supreme Court's conclusions in the area of campaign financing. A decision by the FEC to abdicate its responsibility at this politically inconvenient moment will only provide further evidence that it is time to start over. If the Commission has become too hopelessly politicized to do its job, then we must replace it with an agency that will. The FEC's current difficulty in dealing with an issue as straightforward as these 527 organizations spending soft money to influence the 2004 Federal elections, and the 3-3 ties at the Commission when it recently considered an advisory opinion on this issue, are only the most recent examples of the need for fundamental FEC reform. With my fellow BCRA sponsors, I have introduced legislation that would scrap the FEC and start over, using a new organizational structure and administrative law judges to avoid deadlocks and take some of the politics out of the process. Whether we adopt this or some other basic reform, it is time for a watchdog with some bite. I thank the President for his patience as I ran over the previously agreed-to time. This is a very serious issue. We are not going to give up on it. We didn't work for 7 years to get campaign finance reform done and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court to have a group of six people down there who are so politicized that they refuse to enforce a law which was passed by this Congress in overwhelming numbers, finally, and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. I want to tell them and all of those other people I watched on C-SPAN who are trying to undermine this law that we will not let you get away with it. American politics and the political process is too sacred for me to allow these stooges of special interests around this town to prevail and prevent us from restoring faith and confidence in the American people and their electoral system. Again, I appreciate the patience of the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to finish my statement, which I hope will be done by 2:55. If not, I ask unanimous consent to finish my complete statement.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I look forward to discussions with the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Delaware. As they know, we have a meeting with Secretary Rumsfeld in 407 in about 20 minutes, and we are going to go back on the bill at 4. I would be glad to have discussions. Meanwhile, I hope there would be some amendments proposed by the opponents of the legislation, and we could dispose of them as we did yesterday with the Senator from Texas, who came forward with an amendment and we debated it. Unfortunately, neither the Senator from Tennessee, nor the Senator from Delaware, nor the Senator from Ohio have chosen to do so. Usually, I like to do business by amendments, debates, and votes. That is the way we usually like to move forward legislatively. I look forward to that opportunity and also engaging in any discussions which the Senator would like. I want to assure him I am very confident in the sincerity of his views on this issue and his commitment to the issue. I understand his background as a very successful Governor of the great State of Tennessee which gives him a perspective for which I am greatly appreciative. We are still in morning business?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent at this time the Senate proceed as if in morning business until 2:55, and the Senate will recess for approximately 1 hour because Secretary Rumsfeld will be briefing Members in room 407. I amend my unanimous consent request that the Senate reconvene at 4 p.m. today.

Mr. McCAIN. Return to consideration of the McCain substitute.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. President, I have here in my hand a document prepared by the National Governors Association that expresses support for extending the Federal ban on State and local taxation of Internet access, so long as the moratorium respects three principles. One: Do no harm to State and local revenues. Two: Be clear about what services are covered by the moratorium to ensure that voice services and other services that use the Internet are excluded from the scope of the moratorium. Three: Stay flexible by extending the moratorium temporarily. These are the same principles that Senator Alexander and others have stated they want to respect. I agree with these principles, which is why I will offer today a compromise amendment to S. 150, the Internet Tax Non-discrimination Act. The amendment would ensure that a significant portion--in fact, an overwhelming portion--of State and local telecommunications services tax revenues would remain protected. This means that almost $20 billion of revenue would not be impacted by the proposal that I support. I would contrast this with the $18 billion that the NGA claims the version of S. 150 that passed in the House last year would cost State and local governments, and the almost $12 billion that the association claims S. 150 would take away from States and localities. I respectfully submit that the relatively small impact that the compromise amendment would have on States and local revenues would stem primarily from our wish to treat all States equally under this moratorium. Still, to accommodate the States that were taxing the Internet in 1998 when the moratorium was first enacted, the amendment would propose to give those States 3 more years of Internet access tax revenues. The compromise amendment would even permit those States that were not originally grandfathered but that nevertheless have begun taxing Internet access 2 years of additional revenue. The NGA has also asked for clarity in the definition of Internet access. I agree that there should be clarity in this matter. To that end, the compromise amendment provides as plainly as possible that it would not prohibit States and localities from taxing traditional telephone services, voice services that use the Internet, and other services that use the Internet. The amendment also makes clear that e- mail could not be taxed by the compromise amendment. Once again, I have respected another core principle of the NGA in the matter. And finally, the NGA seeks a temporary, rather than a permanent extension of the moratorium under the premise that, as the association and Senator Alexander say ``A temporary solution is better than permanent confusion.'' The compromise amendment would extend the moratorium for a period of 4 years from November 1, 2003. Simply put, anything shorter would put us back on this floor debating this measure right after it is signed by the President. So I remind my colleagues: What I will offer today does very clearly address the concerns raised by the NGA and other State and local groups. I hope, therefore, that my colleagues will support me in passing this reasonable compromise. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send a new substitute amendment to the desk.