John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. At the appropriate parliamentary point, I will propound that request.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Connecticut be allowed to speak for 2 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as sponsor, I would like to make the final comments.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes of my 5 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to address an issue of importance with respect to the 527 disclosure debate, and that is the constitutionality of H.R. 4762. I assert that the 527 disclosure legislation is Constitutional. Among other things, the legislation requires 527 organizations claiming tax exempt status to disclose their members who make significant contributions to support the 527's political advocacy. Some opponents maintain that the legislation runs afoul of the Supreme Court ruling in NAACP v. Alabama, where as most of you know, the NAACP was protected from having to disclose its membership list to the Alabama government The 527 disclosure legislation complies with the Constitution's protection of freedom of association upheld in NAACP v. Alabama. It does not require the disclosure of membership rosters, per se, just the members who are making politically related donations. More important, it does not constitute a significant restraint on members' rights to associate freely. It is important to note that the circumstances are different here than those that surrounded the Alabama government's treatment of the NAACP during the 1950's and 1960's. The Supreme Court recognized that the members of the NAACP had every right to be concerned for their own and their families' safety if their identities were publicly disclosed. The prospect of public identification would have significantly discouraged people of color from joining the NAACP. While political contributors to 527 organizations may prefer to avoid public scrutiny, they have no need to fear for their lives as a result of that scrutiny. That said, public safety is by no means the principal standard by which the 527 disclosure legislation will be judged. In the NAACP v. Alabama decision, the Supreme Court acknowledges that a valid governmental purpose must be weighed against the tendency for the disclosure requirement to abridge an individual's freedom of association. The decision emphasized that the governmental purpose for disclosure--in this case to prevent corruption of the American political system--must be achieved in the most narrow manner possible. Like our Congressional leaders, I believe the more disclosure the better--as long as the associated requirements are constitutional. Focusing narrowly on 527 organizations is one thing that sets H.R. 4762 apart from the Smith-McConnell legislation, to ensure that the legislation survives a constitutional test. I would like to submit a copy of the Smith-McConnell legislation, the Tax-Exempt Political Disclosure Act, into the record. The Smith-McConnell legislation sweeps in business and labor organizations. As I said, disclosing their political activities is a laudable goal. I have advocated a similar approach, but one that would include bright line tests to determine precisely when contributions and expenditures would have to be disclosed. Those bright line tests, such as limiting the disclosure requirement to a time period close to an election, are lacking in the Smith-McConnell bill. Unlike business and labor organizations, which engage in activities completely unrelated to elections, 527's are clearly political organizations. 527 organizations by law must have the function of influencing or attempting to influence elections. The Supreme Court in the Buckley decision upheld federal disclosure laws for these types of organizations. When it comes to disclosure laws for business and labor organizations, concerns about vagueness and overbreadth come into play. 527 organizations proliferated during the primary campaign season. Many had obscure names that made it hard to guess even the types of members funding political advocacy on behalf of each 527, much less their identities. Contrary to the 527's, most labor and business organizations have established identities, and clear-cut positions and purposes that go beyond funding issue ads. Since we have no window into the world of 527's, a disclosure requirement is more valid when compared with a disclosure requirement affecting labor and business organizations. Unlike most, if not all, labor and business organizations, there is no way to determine how many members there are in a 527. In the example I often cite, there were only two contributors, each funneling what appears to be at least one million dollars into the accounts to be used for campaign advocacy. While we may have no idea how many contributors there are in a 527, or how much each contributed, you can bet their favored candidates know. In a press conference announcing introduction of his bill, Senator McConnell admits the ``dubious constitutionally'' of his proposal. In order to regain the American public's trust, it is important that we support a proposal we feel confident will withstand the Court's scrutiny. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, indeed, marks a seminal day in the battle to reform our electoral system and restore the faith of the American citizenry that ours is a government of and for the people. This is a vote for campaign finance reform. If the Senate approves this legislation, it will be the first campaign finance reform bill to become law in 21 long years. It will be action that is long overdue. Whether we want to admit the fact or not, perception has an unfortunate tendency to become reality. And the American people perceive the Congress as controlled by the monied special interests. If we are to ensure the public's faith in its Government, we must obliterate that perception. This bill, although admittedly a very small step, is a step towards ending that perception. This is a step we should be proud to take. This bill will not solve what is wrong with our campaign finance system. It will not do away with the millions of soft money dollars that are polluting our elections. We must yet undertake the task of doing away with soft money and make our Government more accountable to the people we represent. It will give the public information regarding one especially pernicious weapon that is being used in modern campaigns. It is an egregious and outrageous insult to the very principles of how democracies function. The bill is fair. It affects both parties. It affects interests on both sides of the aisle. It stifles no speech. It curbs no individual's rights, and it is clearly constitutional. If the Senate approves it today, it will become law, and the American people will be well served. Before I close, I again thank the many who were involved with this issue. Many in the House courageously fought to pass this legislation. I thank and note again Congressmen Chris Shays, Marty Meehan, Mike Castle, Lindsey Graham, and Amo Houghton who all worked tirelessly on this legislation. If it were not for their courage and tenacity, we would not have this legislation before the Senate today. In the Senate, a bipartisan coalition of those who believe in reform refused to relent on this matter: Senators Snowe and Levin played key roles in ensuring we move forward. Of course, I must pay special note of all the work done by Senators Lieberman and Feingold. I am proud not only to call them friends but partners in this crusade to return the Government to the people. I could be in no better company. As I noted last night to all those who believe in reform, today is only the first step, but it is a great first step and it is, indeed, a great day for democracy and a Government that is accountable to the governed. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I yield my remaining time to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that authorizes the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior and the Governor of Arizona to carry out a federal-state land exchange in order to protect environmentally significant lands in the state and enhance the state education trust fund to benefit Arizona's schoolchildren. I must first make mention that Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Governor Jane Hull of Arizona are currently involved in negotiating a comprehensive state-federal land exchange agreement. The Secretary and the Governor have been engaged in land exchange negotiations since January of this year, which so far have been very productive and positive. If their negotiations are successful and a land trade is agreed upon, legislation will be necessary to authorize that exchange. To express my strong support for a potential exchange, I am introducing this bill as a place holder for the necessary authorization to implement any agreement for a land exchange. This legislation is in no way intended to override or influence ongoing negotiations, nor do I intend to force either party to accept a proposal that is not in their best interests. The purpose of this legislation is two-fold. One, it is simply a framework for a future agreement. It is intended to facilitate discussion to define the necessary legislative authority to implement a state-federal land exchange in Arizona. If the details of a land exchange are agreed upon between the Secretary and the Governor, those specifics can be incorporated into this legislation. The second purpose is to define the necessary legislative language that will accommodate existing Arizona Constitutional and Arizona Enabling Act restrictions that require state trust lands to be managed for the benefit of education and other public purposes. In addition, the bill recognizes the important goal of resolving the federal government's land ``debt'' to Arizona as a result of not receiving the state's full allotment at statehood. This legislation proposes to use federal friendly-condemnation authority to effect other aspects of a comprehensive exchange to address the current Arizona constitutional restriction on land trades. In recent years, the people of Arizona have embraced the idea of promoting conservation as part of the state's land management objectives. Through public referenda and other proposals, the people of Arizona have strongly supported the concept of a state-wide effort to conserve unique natural areas. The federal-state land exchange currently under discussion could ensure that ecologically important state lands are placed under permanent conservation protection as part of an existing federal land management unit. In return, the state would receive parcels currently owned by the federal government that may be more suitable for revenue-generating activity in keeping with the requirements of state law. Such an exchange could accomplish both state conservation and education goals. The opportunity to explore and effect a means of serving these two important purposes should not be missed. In the past, some of my colleagues and I have evaluated different options to reduce the number of state inholdings on federal property and vice-versa--a situation that complicates resource management and does not serve the public interest. This legislation could be an important step forward in reducing state inholdings in federal land management areas which makes good environmental, economic and administrative sense. Mr. President, let me make very clear once again, this legislation is a starting point only. It does not represent by any means an endorsement of any particular lands for exchange that are currently under negotiation. Nor is it my intention to fast-track any proposal that does not abide by a fair and strict appraisal process. It is intended to encourage the Secretary and the Governor to forward a serious proposal to the Congress for consideration. Once a proposal is forwarded, I have every intention to consult with affected entities and engage in a thorough process of public input from local citizenry, governments and other interested parties. I also recognize that such land exchanges do take time and it is very possible that a land exchange proposal may not be finalized this year. My colleagues from Arizona recall as well as I do that it took three years to negotiate and enact the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 to preserve over two million acres as designated wilderness. We never would have accomplished that feat without the front-line leadership and vision of Mo Udall who initiated the process by offering a legislative framework. I believe that this opportunity is one that Mo would have supported. I hope that my colleagues and friends in Arizona will agree and that we can all work together on a comprehensive land exchange proposal that will accomplish educational and environmental objectives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include the full text of the bill in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that authorizes the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior and the Governor of Arizona to carry out a federal-state land exchange in order to protect environmentally significant lands in the state and enhance the state education trust fund to benefit Arizona's schoolchildren. I must first make mention that Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Governor Jane Hull of Arizona are currently involved in negotiating a comprehensive state-federal land exchange agreement. The Secretary and the Governor have been engaged in land exchange negotiations since January of this year, which so far have been very productive and positive. If their negotiations are successful and a land trade is agreed upon, legislation will be necessary to authorize that exchange. To express my strong support for a potential exchange, I am introducing this bill as a place holder for the necessary authorization to implement any agreement for a land exchange. This legislation is in no way intended to override or influence ongoing negotiations, nor do I intend to force either party to accept a proposal that is not in their best interests. The purpose of this legislation is two-fold. One, it is simply a framework for a future agreement. It is intended to facilitate discussion to define the necessary legislative authority to implement a state-federal land exchange in Arizona. If the details of a land exchange are agreed upon between the Secretary and the Governor, those specifics can be incorporated into this legislation. The second purpose is to define the necessary legislative language that will accommodate existing Arizona Constitutional and Arizona Enabling Act restrictions that require state trust lands to be managed for the benefit of education and other public purposes. In addition, the bill recognizes the important goal of resolving the federal government's land ``debt'' to Arizona as a result of not receiving the state's full allotment at statehood. This legislation proposes to use federal friendly-condemnation authority to effect other aspects of a comprehensive exchange to address the current Arizona constitutional restriction on land trades. In recent years, the people of Arizona have embraced the idea of promoting conservation as part of the state's land management objectives. Through public referenda and other proposals, the people of Arizona have strongly supported the concept of a state-wide effort to conserve unique natural areas. The federal-state land exchange currently under discussion could ensure that ecologically important state lands are placed under permanent conservation protection as part of an existing federal land management unit. In return, the state would receive parcels currently owned by the federal government that may be more suitable for revenue-generating activity in keeping with the requirements of state law. Such an exchange could accomplish both state conservation and education goals. The opportunity to explore and effect a means of serving these two important purposes should not be missed. In the past, some of my colleagues and I have evaluated different options to reduce the number of state inholdings on federal property and vice-versa--a situation that complicates resource management and does not serve the public interest. This legislation could be an important step forward in reducing state inholdings in federal land management areas which makes good environmental, economic and administrative sense. Mr. President, let me make very clear once again, this legislation is a starting point only. It does not represent by any means an endorsement of any particular lands for exchange that are currently under negotiation. Nor is it my intention to fast-track any proposal that does not abide by a fair and strict appraisal process. It is intended to encourage the Secretary and the Governor to forward a serious proposal to the Congress for consideration. Once a proposal is forwarded, I have every intention to consult with affected entities and engage in a thorough process of public input from local citizenry, governments and other interested parties. I also recognize that such land exchanges do take time and it is very possible that a land exchange proposal may not be finalized this year. My colleagues from Arizona recall as well as I do that it took three years to negotiate and enact the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 to preserve over two million acres as designated wilderness. We never would have accomplished that feat without the front-line leadership and vision of Mo Udall who initiated the process by offering a legislative framework. I believe that this opportunity is one that Mo would have supported. I hope that my colleagues and friends in Arizona will agree and that we can all work together on a comprehensive land exchange proposal that will accomplish educational and environmental objectives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include the full text of the bill in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today the Senate voted on yet another proposal for providing patient protections to Americans enrolled in HMOs. Unfortunately, this proposal did not provide the strong safeguards and protections that I believe each and every American deserves to have. This amendment failed on the three key areas for meaningful patient protections--fair legal accountability for denied care, the right of every American to choose their doctor, and basic patient rights for every American not just a limited few. Under this amendment only a limited number of Americans would be provided with basic patient protections including the right for a woman to go directly to an OB/GYN and a parent to take their child directly to receive care from a pediatrician. Every American should be protected from having their doctors being ``gagged'' by HMO and prevented from sharing all health care information with them. Another disturbing provision contained in this proposal was the lack of legal redress available to an individual if they did not complete the internal review process. Under this proposal if a patient died during the internal review process--which could take up to 14 days-- then their surviving family would have no legal recourse against the HMO that denied or caused harm to the deceased individual. This is simply wrong and indefensible. While I was disappointed in this proposal there were a few provisions that were applaudable and made an important step towards providing stronger protections to patients. I appreciated the efforts that were made to make the external review process more fair, unbiased and accessible. In addition I applaud the attempts made to provide patients with the right to sue including a cap on non-economic damages and no punitive damages. Both of these are items that I have consistently fought for inclusion in a HMO reform bill. People must be provided the right to sue for damages once all means have been exhausted but it must be done in a manner that does not cause excessive lawsuits and cause health care costs to exorbitantly rise. I am disappointed that this proposal did not go far enough but I am hopeful that a strong patient protection bill can still be passed prior to Congress adjourning in the fall. It is the least we can do for America's patients. Congress still has an excellent opportunity to show the American people that it can and will rise above partisan politics and find the consensus that serves the national interest and puts the health care needs of patients first. This is too important an issue to allow the influence of special interests to prevent us from doing what is right for all Americans and I am confident that the leaders in both the House and Senate will continue working with the conferees to ensure that an agreement is reached. Amendment No. 3693

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the regular order.

Mr. McCAIN. Immediately following the vote.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Wisconsin. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are about to pass and send to the President the first piece of campaign finance legislation in 21 long years. This bill is simple, just, and the right thing to do in order to ensure that our electoral system is not further debased. My friend from Wisconsin and my friend from Connecticut have described the details of the bill. I just want to point out again that making these requirements a contingency for certain tax credit status ensures that these requirements are clearly constitutional. The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and association, not an entitlement to tax-exempt status. Further, because of the simplicity of this approach, no vagueness problems will arise and compliance will be easy. What could be more American? What could be more democratic? Before I go further, I want to take a moment to thank my colleagues in arms who fought so hard to bring this issue forward. I thank Senator Snowe and Senator Levin for their hard work. I thank my colleagues from the House: Congressmen Chris Shays, Marty Meehan, Mike Castle, Lindsey Graham, Amo Houghton, and others. Without their courage to stand up and demand to do what is right, we would not be here tonight and on the verge of the vote tomorrow. I especially thank Senators Feingold and Lieberman. Senator Lieberman was the author of legislation mandating 527 disclosure. It was his bill that served as the basis for this debate. And, of course, I must again thank Senator Feingold for all the courage he has shown in fighting for reform at any cost. I sincerely appreciate his efforts. Just yesterday, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted in favor of this modest reform by a vote of 385-39. I hope the Senate vote will be equally overwhelming. Would I have liked to accomplish more? Absolutely. Will I continue the fight, along with my good friend from Wisconsin, to enact more sweeping reform? I absolutely promise to do so. Will we continue to do whatever is necessary to restore the public's confidence in an electoral system perceived by many, if not most, to be corrupt? You can be assured of it. But tomorrow--I say to all those across this great land who want reform--will be a great first step. It will, indeed, be a great day for democracy and a government accountable to the governed. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Two.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, a vote in favor of the Santorum amendment will basically negate the amendment we just adopted because it will allow schools and libraries the option of either blocking pornography or implementing an Internet use policy--an Internet use policy is what they have now--nor does it require the filtering of child pornography and obscenity. I have a letter signed by various organizations, including the American Families Association, Family Research Council, and many other organizations. The final paragraph says: We believe the author of the bill, Senator Santorum, has the best of intentions. His bill will not provide an effective solution to the problem of pornography in schools and public libraries. I agree with them. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy for this amendment. I think it is a very positive contribution. I think it is one that will again empower parents to be able to screen and filter information that their children may be receiving. It is something that I think will be very helpful to this bill, and I strongly support it. I know we have spent some time working out the details of this amendment. I think it is a very good one. I thank Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch for their involvement in this very important issue. I will urge, at the appropriate time, a voice vote and adoption of this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. amendments nos. 3635 and 3610

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania. It does provide for schools and libraries to deploy blocking or filtering technology. The amendment provides what is essentially a status quo loophole. The Senator's amendment would allow schools and libraries the option of implementing an acceptable use policy. Schools and libraries are free to do this today. Papers are full of reports of young children surfing foreign libraries in school and being innocently exposed to pornography downloaded by adults and left on a computer screen for children to see. It is interesting to note that the American Library Association, an outspoken advocate for the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania, is adamantly opposed to use of filters or any other type of protection for children. In 1997, the American Library Association passed a resolution against filtering Internet pornography out of public libraries. The ALA's interpretation of their resolution contained in their library bill of rights states that the rights of users who are minors shall in no way be abridged. According to Judith Krug, director of ALA's Office of Intellectual Freedom: Blocking material leads to censorship. That goes for pornography and bestiality, too. If you don't like it, don't look at it. Ms. Krug goes on to discuss the concerns of parents about their children viewing pornography on library computers: If you don't want your children to access information, you had better be with your children when they use a computer. That would be very interesting information to working mothers all over America as well as working fathers. I guess this is the ALA's concept of an acceptable use policy: Parents beware. The Santorum amendment does nothing about adult computer use in libraries. This amendment would require libraries to block or filter access to child pornography. I want to describe what my bill does as far as local control is concerned. It requires that schools and libraries must block or filter children's access to child pornography and obscene material. Further, libraries must block adult access to child pornography on all computers. Why? Because we know that neither category, child pornography nor obscene material, enjoys protection under the first amendment. The Supreme Court has decided that on several occasions. Though the bill is clear on what sort of material must be blocked, local authorities are given complete authority to select the type of software they deem to be appropriate. Further, local authorities are given unfettered authority to determine what material can constitute child pornography and obscenity. Under this legislation, the Federal Government is expressly prohibited from interfering in the process of local control. Schools and libraries are simply required to certify to the FCC they have a technology in place and are using such technology in coordination with the locally developed policy designed to achieve the goals of the Children's Internet Protection Act. Schools and libraries are required to make their blocking and filtering policies publicly available so that parents, patrons, and citizens can scrutinize the policies and work with local authorities to ensure they reflect contemporary community standards. Again, parents beware of the status quo loophole contained in the Santorum amendment. It is big enough for every pornographer, pedophile, and hate group in America to drive a truck through. The Senator from Pennsylvania has criticized my amendment with the claim that my amendment does nothing to address chatrooms. The Senator is mistaken. First, schools and libraries are granted the unfettered authority to block access to any material they determine to be inappropriate for minors. Clearly, this would provide them with the ability to restrict kids' access to chatrooms or any other realm of the Internet. Despite claims to the contrary, blocking and filtering software does restrict such access. The state-of-the-art technology clearly is capable of blocking such access. Filtering software would restrict any communication based off keyword restrictions. I could go on, but I will wrap things up with a letter signed by virtually every major pro-family group. I ask unanimous consent this letter, dated June 22, be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Reading from the letter: Senator McCain: We strongly oppose the Neighborhood Children's Internet Protection Act which we believe would be an ineffective tool to protect children from Internet pornography in schools and public libraries. The bill offers schools and libraries the option of either blocking pornography or implementing an Internet use policy. It is this option that troubles us. Schools and libraries have that option today and, sadly, most have chosen to allow children access even to illegal pornography, such as obscenity and child pornography. Under S. 1545, we presume these schools and libraries would maintain the status quo. It also must be noted that the Children's Internet Protection Act only addresses use of computers by children. A major problem, particularly in libraries, is the use of computers by adults to access illegal pornography. For example, pedophiles are accessing child pornography on library computers and some are even molesting children in these libraries. Yet, S. 1545 does not address this matter. While we believe that the author of this bill, Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), has the best of intentions, his bill will not provide an effective solution to the problem of pornography in schools and public libraries. That is signed by a large group of people, including the American Family Association, Family Research Council, National Law Center for Children and Families, Traditional Values Coalition, et cetera. On the other side, the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania is supported by the American Library Association. On that note, I will read very briefly from an editorial contained in the January 14, 2000, Wall Street Journal: Maybe blocking software is not the solution. We do know, however, that there are answers for those interested in finding them, answers that are technologically possible, constitutionally sound and eminently sane. After all, when it comes to print, librarians have no problem discriminating against Hustler in favor of House & Garden. Indeed, to dramatize the ALA's inconsistency regarding adult content in print and online, blocking software advocate David Burt three years ago announced ``The Hustler Challenge''--a standing offer to pay for a year's subscription to Hustler for any library that wanted one. Needless to say, there haven't been any takers. Our guess is that this is precisely what Leonard Kniffel, the editor of the ALA journal American Libraries, was getting at last fall when he asked in an editorial: ``What is preventing this Association . . . from coming out with a public statement denouncing children's access to pornography and offering 700+ ways to fight it?'' Good question. And we'll learn this weekend whether the ALA hierarchy believes it worthy of an answer. The ALA hierarchy met, and obviously they seemed to defend what I believe is an indefensible position. I hope we will defeat the Santorum amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Where is the McCain amendment in the order of succession?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment I have pending, following the disposition of the Smith amendment, requires that the schools and libraries that are taking advantage of universal service subsidies for Internet connection deploy blocking or filtering software to screen out obscene material and child pornography for children and child pornography on all computers. The decisions would be made by the local school boards and library boards. The Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, has asked to speak on this issue and requests that we begin that sometime around noon. So if it is agreeable to the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa, perhaps we could have an hour equally divided between myself and Senator Leahy. I think that would be--actually, we will ask Senator Leahy's staff if that is agreeable to him and then ask for a UC on that.

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

Mr. McCAIN. That is fine. So I will not ask for a unanimous consent agreement on time, but the way I understand it, we now have a Smith amendment to be disposed of first. I want to make it clear that I do not wish to impede the progress of this bill. I paid attention to the Senator from Pennsylvania, and I am very much in favor of a reasonable time agreement on this amendment.