John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

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

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I see my dear friend from South Carolina waiting to illuminate all of us, so I will yield the floor at this time and pursue debate on this amendment at such time as Senator Leahy is available. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I will speak on my amendment and the time of the vote will be decided by the managers of the bill. I will speak on my amendment at this time and then probably will not need additional time, depending on the desires of the managers of the bill. The purpose of this amendment is to protect America's children from exposure to obscene material, child pornography, or other material deemed inappropriate for minors while accessing the Internet from a school or library receiving federal Universal Service assistance by requiring such schools and libraries to deploy blocking or filtering technology on computers used by minors, and to block general access to obscene material, and child pornography on all computers. The amendment further requires that schools and libraries block child pornography on all computers. The last few years have seen a dramatic expansion in Internet connections. The Internet connects more than 29 million host computers in more than 250 countries. Currently, the Internet is growing at a rate of approximately 40 percent to 50 percent annually. Some estimates of the number of U.S. Internet users are as high as 62 million. Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 added a new subsidy to the traditional Universal Service program, commonly referred to as the Schools and Libraries Discount, or e-rate. As implemented by the FCC, the e-rate is a $2.25 billion annual subsidy aimed at connecting schools and libraries to the Internet. This subsidy is funded through higher phone bills to customers. There are approximately 86,000 public schools in the United States. In the first program year of the e-rate, 68,220 public schools participated in the program. That is approximately 68 percent of all public schools. Participation increased by 15 percent in the second year, from July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000, with 78,722 public schools listed on funded applications. That is approximately 82 percent of all public schools. Simply put, the e-rate program helped connect one million classrooms to the Internet. Private school participation in the program has resulted in more than 80,000 additional American classrooms wired to the Internet. Statistics on libraries participating in the program mirror these dramatic numbers. I lay out these statistics because they represent both the tremendous promise and the exponential danger that wiring America's children to the Internet poses. Certainly, the Internet represents previously unimaginable education and information opportunities for our Nation's school children. However, there are also some very real risks. Pornography, including obscene material, child pornography, and indecent material is widely available on the Internet. This material may be accessed directly, or may turn up as the product of a general Internet search. Seemingly innocuous keyword searches like ``Barbie doll,'' ``playground,'' ``boy'' and ``girl'' can turn up some of the most offensive and shocking pornography imaginable. Though, due to the amorphous nature of the Internet, it is difficult to precisely establish the amount of pornography available on the Internet. According to US News & World Report, there are ``at least 40,000 sex- oriented sites on the Web.'' This number does not include Usenet newsgroups, and pornographic spam. Many who oppose efforts to protect children from exposure to pornography over the Internet dismiss such efforts as moralizing, as if it isn't enough to argue for the protection of innocence. Mr. President, I am content to make my stand on the vital importance of sheltering the purity of our children's moral innocence. However, the need to protect our children exceeds the basic moral argument. Natural sexual development occurs gradually, throughout childhood. Exposure of children to pornography distorts this natural development. As Dr. Mary Anne Layden, Director of Education at the University of Pennsylvania School of Cognitive Learning testified before the Commerce Committee, children's exposure to pornography accelerates and warps normal sexual development by shaping sexual perspective through exposure to sexual information and imagery. Dr. Layden stated: ``The result is a set of distorted beliefs about human sexuality. These shared distorted beliefs include: pathological behavior is normal, is common, hurts no one, and is socially acceptable, the female body is for male entertainment, sex is not about intimacy and sex is the basis of self-esteem.'' Alarmingly, the threat to children posed by unrestricted Internet access is not limited to exposure to simple pornography. As we have seen through an increasing flurry of shocking media reports, the Internet has become the tool of choice for pedophiles who utilize the Internet to lure and seduce children into illegal and abusive sexual activity. Pedophiles are using this technology to trade in child pornography, and to lure and seduce our children. In many cases, such activity is the product of individuals, taking advantage of the anonymity provided by the Internet to stalk children through chat- rooms, and by e-mail. However, an increasingly disturbing trend is that of highly organized, and technologically sophisticated groups of pedophiles who utilize advanced technology to trade in child pornography, and to sexually exploit and abuse children. In 1996, the country was shocked by a tragic story of the sexual exploitation of a young child in California. The San Francisco Chronicle reported an international ring of pedophiles operating through an on-line chat room known as the ``Orchid Club.'' Sadly, this case was an ominous precursor of underscoring both the technological sophistication of on-line predators, and the unique challenge of protecting children in an environment of a global communications medium. The Chronicle reported that: ``The case appears to be the first incident where pornography on the Internet has been linked to an incident of child molestation that was transmitted on-line . . . Prosecutors said members produced and traded child pornography involving victims as young as five years old, swapped stories of having sex with minors and in one instance chatted online while two suspects molested a 10-year-old girl.'' Sixteen men were indicted, including individuals from across the United States, Australia, Canada, and Finland. In 1998, the U.S Customs Service, in coordination with law enforcement officials from 13 other countries, conducted a raid on the ``Wonderland Club.'' The price of membership in the Wonderland Club was high. In order to ``join'' the Wonderland Club of low-lifes, prospective members had to provide 10,000 images of child pornography, which were then digitally cross-referenced against the club's data base of more than 500,000 images of children to ensure their originality. According to Time Magazine: The images depict everything from sexual abuse to actual rape of children--some as young as 18 months old. ``Some club members in the U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia . . . owned production facilities and transmitted live child-sex shows over the Web. Club members directed the sex acts by sending instruction to the producers via Wondernet chat rooms. ``They had standards,'' said a law enforcement official involved in the case. ``The only thing they banned was snuff pictures, the actual killing of somebody.'' As we wire America's children to the Internet, we are inviting these low lifes to prey upon our children in every classroom and library in America. If this isn't enough, the Internet has now become the tool of choice for disseminating information and propaganda promoting racism, anti- Semitism, extremism, and how-to manuals on everything from drugs to bombs. Rapid Internet growth has provided an opportunity for those promoting hate to reach a much wider and broader audience. Children are uniquely susceptible to these messages of hate, and make no mistake about it, they are the targets of these messages. Through Internet access, our schools and libraries, places where we intend our children to develop their social skills, tolerance, where they should be learning to appreciate the wonder and beauty of diversity, instead they can be exposed to extremely hateful and dangerous information, and material they may otherwise go through their entire lives without being exposed to. According to the New York Times: ``They (hate groups) peddle hatred to children, with brightly colored Web pages featuring a coloring book of white supremacist symbols and a crossword puzzle full of racist clues.'' Media propaganda has always been used as a means for spreading the toxic message of hate. Magazines, pamphlets, movies, music and other means have been their traditional tools for those seeking to feed the darker side of our human nature. However, the Internet has changed the rules and the nature of this sinister game. With the growth of the World Wide Web, these evil groups are able to deliver a multimedia hate message through every computer, and into the minds of every child, in every classroom, and library in America. Images of burning crosses, Neo-Nazi propaganda, every imaginable message of division and hatred are just one click away from our children. The Seattle Post- Intelligencer reported in an article entitled ``Nazism on the Internet'': Many sites operated by neo-nazis, skinhead, Ku Klux Klan members and followers of radical religious sects are growing more sophisticated, offering inviting Web environments that are designed to be attractive to children and young adults. The software filtering industry estimates that about 180 new hate or discrimination pages, 2,500 to 7,500 adult sites, 400 sites dedicated to violence, 1,250 dedicated to weapons, and 50 are murder-suicide sites are added to the Web every week. Manuals on bomb-making, weapons purchases, drug making and purchasing, are widespread on the Internet. Simple word searches using ``marijuana,'' enables kids to access Web sites instructing them on how to cultivate, buy, and consume drugs. During the Commerce Committee hearing on my bill, the Children's Internet Protection Act, a representative of the BATF stated: ``The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms recently ran a simple Internet query of pipe bomb, using several commonly used search engines. This query produced nearly three million ``hits'' of Web sites containing information on pipe bombs.'' Literature such as the ``Terrorist's Handbook'' is easily available on- line, and provides readers with instruction on everything from how to build guns and bombs, to lists of suppliers for the chemicals, and other ingredients necessary to construct such devices. Web sites such as (www.overthrow.comldrugznbombz.html) offers the ``School Stopper's Textbook,'' touted as ``A Guide to Disruptive Revolutionary Tactics for High-Schoolers.'' There are now approximately ninety different blocking, or filtering software solutions that parents and educators may choose from to address just about every different value or need relating to child safety on the Internet. Due to the sheer size of the Internet, and the place at which it changes, some have argued that it is impossible to keep blocking lists current and comprehensive. Others have argued filtering systems are too arbitrary, that filtering by keyword may result in blocking both harmful sites, as well as useful sites. There was a time when there was some legitimacy to these claims. However, that time has passed. According to Peter Nickerson, CEO of Net Nanny Software: A general perception exists that Internet filtering is seriously flawed and in many situations unusable. It is also perceived that schools and libraries don't want filtering. These notions are naive and based largely on problems associated with earlier versions of client-based software that are admittedly crude and ineffective. Though some poor filtering products still exist, filtering has gone through an extensive evolution and is not only good at protecting children but also well-received and in high demand. When a school or library accepts federal dollars through the Universal Service fund, they become a partner with the federal government in pursuing the compelling interest of protecting children. The Supreme Court has made it clear that schools have the authority to remove inappropriate books from school libraries. The Internet is simply another method for making information available in a school or library. It is no more than a technological extension of the book stack. As such, the same principles affirmed by the Court apply to restricting children's access to material, over the Internet, in a school. At its core, this amendment to a spending bill, amending 254(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 to require, as a contingency for receipt of a federal subsidy, certain measures to restrict children's access to child pornography, obscene material, and other harmful material via school and library computers, and that all users be restricted from accessing child pornography. Local officials are granted the authority to determine what technology is used to achieve this end, and policies for determining how such technology is used. There is ample precedent for conditioning receipt of federal assistance. Libraries place many restrictions on what patrons may do while on the premises. The simplest example of this are the strict rules implemented by libraries to maintain a quiet atmosphere for reading and study. Patrons are not permitted to give speeches, make public statements, sing, speak loudly, etc. Further, it is the exclusive authority of the library to make affirmative decisions regarding what books, magazines, or other material is placed on library shelves, or otherwise made available to patrons. According to Jay Sekulow, of the American Center for Law and Justice: Libraries impose many restrictions on the use of their systems which demonstrate that the library is not available to the general public. Additionally, an open forum by government designation becomes, `open' because it allows the general public into its facility for First Amendment activities. Like in the National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, decision, the government purchase of books (like buying art) does not create a public forum. Mr. President, currently, roughly 30 percent of U.S. households are wired to the Internet, with some smaller number of those households wired with children in the home. With full implementation of the E-rate program, there will be an explosion of children going on-line. This is an unprecedented egalitarian opportunity for access to educational and informational resources by America's children. Equally, this reality represents an unprecedented risk to the safety and innocence of our nation's most precious resources, the sanctity of childhood. The first line of defense is parents. Parents must be involved in their children's lives. They must make it a point to know what their kids are doing on-line, the games they are playing, the web sites and chat rooms they are visiting, whom they are talking to. But parents need help. Currently, for most children, their Internet activities will occur outside the home. Parents, taxpayers, deserve to have a realistic faith that, when they entrust their children to our nation's schools and libraries, that this trust will not betrayed. Mr. President, Dr. Carl Jung, in 1913, spoke of the importance of childhood in shaping values, and the implications for future generations. Jung said: ``The little world of childhood with its familiar surroundings is a model of the greater world. The more intensively the family has stamped its character upon the child, the more it will tend to feel and see its earlier miniature world again in the bigger world of adulthood.'' As I look upon the landscape of America today, of our children, growing up in a culture of darkness, of a mass media that floods their innocent minds with images of gratuitous sex and senseless violence, as I contemplate the likes of predators who stalk our children through this new technology, of pornographers and hate mongers who seek to invade the sanctity of the innocence of childhood to stamp their dark values on our children, I wonder what the future world of adulthood will look like if we do not act swiftly and decisively to build an inviolable wall around our precious children. This bill was passed last year by voice vote. I hope we can dispense with it, and I also hope Members of this body understand that what is happening in schools and libraries all over America, in many cases, is an unacceptable situation. We are not trying to impose any standards from the Federal Government or from this body. We are asking the schools and libraries to impose standards according to community standards, according to what the local library board and school board thinks is appropriate, just as those decisions are made about printed material in schools and libraries. I think this is an important issue. The testimony before the Commerce Committee was alarming and very disturbing. Obviously, we do not intend to invade the sanctity of the home nor tell parents what they should and should not do regarding their children. But I believe when taxpayer dollars are involved, the Federal Government then has a role to play. As a proud conservative, I hope we will pass this legislation quickly, and that it will be enacted into law. The sooner the better. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want the Record to be clear that the Catholic Conference is not in opposition to this legislation. Here is the problem contained in the report ``Filtering Facts,'' which is a very deep, detailed analysis of this problem that we are facing. On page 8 is a chapter entitled ``Adults Accessing Child Pornography: 20 Incidents'': There were 20 incidents of adults accessing child pornography in public libraries. Child pornography is different from other forms of pornography in that it is absolutely illegal and, like drugs, is treated as contraband by Federal law. Of particular concern is that many public libraries employ policies that would seem to encourage the illegal transmission of child pornography. Many public libraries not only have privacy screens, but also destroy patron sign-up sheets after use, and employ computer programs that delete any trace of user activity. These policies make it almost impossible for law enforcement to catch pedophiles using public library Internet stations to download child pornography. At the Multnomah County, OR, Public Library, and the Los Angeles, CA, Public Library, pedophiles have taken advantage of the anonymity to actually run child pornography businesses using library computers 34 and 35. The staff at Anderson, IN, Public Library observed a pedophile accessing child pornography on three separate occasions: ``A customer who is known to frequent Internet sites containing sexually explicit pictures of nude boys . . . This is the third time this customer has been observed engaging in this activity.'' Yet, the only appropriate action the library saw fit was to ``highly recommend that he be restricted from the building for a period of not less than 2 months.'' One of the two incidents where the library actually notified police occurred at the Lakewood, OH, Public Library. In an account from the Akron Beacon Journal, ``But it was the library more than the police and prosecutor that alarmed Chris Link, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio. Traditionally, librarians have protected their records of lending activity to the point of being subpoenaed or going to jail,'' she said. But now, she said, ``Librarians are scrutinizing what it is you look at and reporting you to the police.'' In the case of kiddie porn, Link said, such scrutiny ``would seem to make sense'' until it is viewed in light of the Government's history of searches for socialists and communists or members of certain student movements. The Callaway County, MO, Public Library even actively resisted police efforts to investigate a patron accessing child pornography. Library staff refused to cooperate, even when issued subpoenas. Mr. President, the list goes on and on. There is a need for this kind of legislation to make sure that child pornography and forms of obscenity, which are clearly delineated by the U.S. Supreme Court and are beyond any constitutional protection, are made unavailable to children. Mr. President, this Santorum amendment would remove that very important provision of this legislation. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2327, the Oceans Act of 2000. This bill would establish a Commission on Ocean Policy to assess the problems that face our nation's coastal regions. Over half of the U.S. population lives in these areas and they are the source of one third of our gross domestic product. Clearly, the current problems faced in our coastal areas cannot be left unattended. Senator Hollings, the ranking member on the Commerce Committee, has worked hard on this legislation. I am pleased that the Committee was able to report this bill in the most expeditious manner. The Commission will examine current programs and policies related to coastal and Great Lakes regions, and determine whether the problems in such areas are adequately addressed by current laws, regulations, and public policy. The 1966 Stratton Commission, also the result of the hard work of Senators Hollings, Stevens, and Inouye, led to the establishment of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the enactment of the Coastal Zone Management Act. While the Stratton Commission provided an invaluable service to our nation, over thirty years have passed since that landmark study. Now it is necessary to reexamine the programs, policies, and state of America's coastal areas. The Commission established by this bill will issue recommendations to the President and Congress to develop an effective and efficient national policy for our coastal regions. Mr. President, it is time for a comprehensive review of the policies that affect so many Americans. I thank Senator Hollings for his hard work and determination to address this issue. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to pass the Oceans Act of 2000.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is simply wrong that many of our nation's seniors who live on fixed incomes must choose between medicine and food. Our seniors should not be forced to drive over the border to Canada to purchase affordable prescription drugs. As I have said many times over, we must work together to develop an initiative for helping America's seniors obtain the prescription medication they so desperately need without forcing them to chose between groceries and vital medicines. Each of us must put aside partisan politics and work together to help our nation's seniors--many of whom are skipping or ignoring their medical needs because of the exorbitant prices they must pay for medication. But I can not support the proposal before the Senate this evening. I can not support using parliamentary procedures and political posturing to force a vote on a proposal that has not been available for extensive review, analysis and input--particularly from our constituents and the very seniors we are trying to help. That is simply wrong. Congress must take great pains to ensure that a Medicare prescription drug plan does not repeat the mistakes of Medicare Catastrophic legislation in the late 1980's. Medicare Catastrophic made broad, expensive reforms in the Medicare system which seniors saw as excessive, unnecessary and unviable. To truly help seniors obtain prescription drugs we need to take the time to engage in a thorough debate carefully scrutinizing and vetting the proposal. We must be conscious of what America's seniors want and need, and balance that with fiscal restraint and responsibility. We must find a method for helping our nation's seniors have access to prescription drugs that does not place an unfair and unexpected burden upon them or the taxpayers. Mr. President, I respectfully request that my remarks be included in the Record with the debate regarding this amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is from Houston Reuters, Thursday, June 15: A Georgia man has been arrested in Texas and charged with trying to buy two elementary school boys for sex after FBI agents monitoring the Internet identified him as a pedophile, the agency said on Thursday. Jonathan Christopher Wood was arrested on June 3 after traveling to Houston from Perry, Georgia, with the intention of buying the boys and taking them back to Georgia for illegal sex, the FBI said in a statement. Wood, 53, was arrested after arriving in an agreed-upon meeting place with $12,000 in cash for the purchase, the FBI said. Brian Loader, assistant special agent in charge of the FBI's Houston field office, told Reuters the arrest came as a result of FBI monitoring of Internet chatrooms. ``He was identified by our Crimes against Children task force as a person who was actively seeking to purchase children for sexual exploitation. He was using the Internet,'' Loader said. Loader declined to say whether an FBI agent had posed as a seller but he said that no other arrests had been made. A Federal criminal complaint filed against Wood alleges that he traveled across States lines with intent to engage in prohibited sexual relations with a minor. Woods had recently moved to Georgia from Alabama, where he had owned a company that provided Internet access. Also on Thursday, Texas Attorney General John Cornyn announced the arrest of five men charged with aggravated sexual assault for allegedly having sex with a 12-year-old girl they contacted through an Internet chatroom. Mr. President, I will have a longer statement when we pursue this amendment later on. I hope we can have an up-or-down vote. Anyone who uses the Internet knows of this problem. I am not advocating censorship. The fact is that when Federal dollars are used to wire schools and libraries in America, then it seems to me the schools and libraries have an obligation to provide Internet filters and use them according to community standards--only according to community standards, in the same fashion that a school or library filters printed material that comes into a school or library. Occasionally, a wrong book may be taken off the shelf in a library. But I know of no school board or library board that does not filter printed material. How in the world can we sit still and have all of this stuff coming into our schools and libraries without the kind of filtering that is done with printed materials? A few years ago, a 13-year-old boy in the Phoenix library was viewing pornography on the Internet, and he walked out and sexually molested another young boy. This is rampant throughout this country. Some argue that I can't stop everything over the Internet, nor do I wish to try that or to enter anybody's home; that is their private business. But schools and libraries in this country should exercise their responsibilities to screen this kind of material according to community standards. Why in the world the American Library Association opposes this legislation is one of the great curiosities of my political career. I hope we can overcome that opposition. The overwhelming number of parents in America want their children protected in schools and libraries as they view the Internet. Mr. President, I look forward to an overwhelming vote in favor of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to protect America's children from exposure to obscene material, child pornography, or other material deemed inappropriate for minors while accessing Internet from a school or library receiving Federal universal service assistance by requiring such schools and libraries to deploy blocking or filtering technology on computers used by minors and to block general access to obscene material and child pornography on all computers. The amendment further requires that schools and libraries block child pornography on all computers. The last few years have seen a dramatic expansion in Internet connection. The Internet connects more than 29 million host computers in more than 250 countries. Currently, the Internet is growing at a rate of approximately 40 percent to 50 percent annually. Some estimates have the number of U.S. Internet users as high as 62 million. There are approximately 86,000 public schools in the United States. The first program year of the e-rate, 68,220 public schools participated in the program. That is approximately 68 percent of all public schools. Participation increased by 15 percent in the second year, from July 1, 1999, to June 30, 2000, with 78,722 public schools listed on funded applications. Statistics on libraries participating in the program mirror these dramatic numbers. I lay out these statistics because they represent both the tremendous promise and the exponential danger that wiring America's children to the Internet poses. Certainly the Internet represents previously unimaginable education and information opportunities for our Nation's schoolchildren. However, there are also some very real risks. Pornography, including obscene material, child pornography, and indecent material is widely available on the Internet. This material may be accessed directly or may turn up as the product of a general Internet search. Seemingly innocuous key word searches such as Barbie doll, playground, boy, and girl can turn up some of the most offensive and shocking pornography imaginable. According to the National Journal, there are at least 30,000 pornographic web sites. This number does not include Usenet news groups and pornographic spam. As we have seen through an increasing flurry of shocking media reports, the Internet has become the tool of choice for pedophiles who utilize the Internet to lure and seduce children into illegal and abusive sexual activity. Pedophiles are using this technology to trade in child pornography and to lure and seduce our children. In many cases, such activity is the product of individuals taking advantage of the anonymity provided by the Internet to stalk children through chatrooms and by e-mail. However, an increasingly disturbing trend is that of highly organized and technologically sophisticated groups of pedophiles who utilize advanced technology to trade in child pornography and to sexually exploit and abuse children. As we wire America's children to the Internet, we are inviting these lowlifes to prey upon our children in every classroom and library in America. If this isn't enough, the Internet has now become a tool of choice for disseminating information and propaganda promoting racism, anti-Semitism, extremism, and how-to manuals on everything from drugs to bombs. Rapid Internet growth has provided an opportunity for those promoting hate to reach a much wider and broader audience. Children are uniquely susceptible to these messages of hate, and make no mistake about it, they are the targets of these messages. According to the New York Times: ``They, hate groups, peddle hatred to children, with brightly colored Web pages featuring a coloring book of white supremacist symbols and a crossword puzzle full of racist clues.'' Media propaganda has always been used as a means for spreading the toxic message of hate. Magazines, pamphlets, movies, music and other media have been their traditional tools for those seeking to feed the darker side of our human nature. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported in an article entitled ``Nazism on the Internet'': ``Many sites operated by neo-nazis, skinheads, Ku Klux Klan members and followers of radical religious sects are growing more sophisticated, offering inviting Web environments that are designed to be attractive to children and young adults.'' The software filtering industry estimates that about 180 new hate or discrimination pages, 2,500 to 7,500 adult sites, 400 sites dedicated to violence, 1,250 dedicated to weapons, and 50 are murder-suicide sites are added to the Web every week. Manuals on bomb-making, weapons purchases, drug making and purchasing, are widespread on the Internet. Simple word searches using ``marijuana,'' enables kids to access Web sites instructing them on how to cultivate, buy, and consume drugs. Literature such as the ``Terrorist's Handbook'' is easily available on-line, and provides readers with instruction on everything from how to build guns and bombs, to lists of suppliers for the chemicals, and other ingredients necessary to construct such devices. When a school or library accepts Federal dollars through the Universal Service fund, they become a partner with the federal government in pursuing the compelling interest of protecting children. Mr. President, Dr. Carl Jung, in 1913, spoke of the importance of childhood in shaping values, and the implications for future generations. Jung said: ``The little world of childhood with its familiar surroundings is a model of the greater world. The more intensively the family has stamped its character upon the child, the more it will tend to feel and see its earlier miniature world again in the bigger world of adulthood.'' As I look upon the landscape of America today, of our children, growing up in a culture of violence, of a mass media that floods their innocent minds with images of gratuitous sex and senseless violence, as I contemplate the likes of predators who stalk our children through this new technology, of pornographers and hate mongers who seek to invade the sanctity of the innocence of childhood to stamp their dark values on our children, I wonder what the future world of adulthood will look like if we do not act swiftly and decisively to build an inviolable wall around our precious children. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from a group of people, including the American Family Association, Family Research Council, Republican Jewish Coalition, Traditional Values Coalition, many others in support of this legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like once again to address the issue of unrequested and unnecessary earmarks in the annual foreign operations appropriations bill. It is a constant struggle, Mr. President, to maintain a reasonable-- if not always adequate--amount of funding for foreign operations when the public overwhelmingly opposes foreign aid programs. It is therefore incumbent upon those of us who believe that foreign aid programs are an important component of U.S. national security policy to spend that budget wisely. As usual, the foreign operations appropriations bill before us squanders vital financial resources for unnecessary, low- priority and unrequested programs. Once again, pressuring the Agency for International Development to fund research into the future welfare of the Waboom tree; providing millions of dollars for organizations like the Orangutan Foundation, the Peregrine Fund's Neotropical Raptor Center, the Missouri Botanical Garden, the Dian Fossey Gorrilla Fund, and the World Council of Hellenes--none of which was requested by the Agency for International Development or the Department of State--was deemed preferential to higher priority activities that unquestionably contribute to regional stability in less developed countries. Mr. President, the notion that funding from the foreign aid budget not requested by the Administration should only go to organizations and programs following an objective, rigorous and competitive process eludes the Appropriations Committee. I am not reflexively opposed to all of the programs for which funding was added in this bill. I do take strong exception to the process by which funding is earmarked for parochial reasons. The bill before us today is replete with such examples. A long list of earmarks for university programs, the vast majority of which coincide with membership on the Appropriations Committee, is more evidence than even the O.J. Simpson jury would need that reasonable doubt exists as to whether such objective criteria are employed. United States military forces are being deployed at record levels; conflicts in Africa and elsewhere are raging out of control, bringing with them untold misery, and we continue to pass spending bills of such dubious merit. I will support passage of the foreign operations appropriations bill, but only because it is imperative that funding for Israel, Egypt, refugee and migration assistance, and other vital programs receive the timely assistance they require. But to be forced to swallow such questionable earmarks as the $1 million for the Fort Valley State University agribusiness program in Georgia--and I should point out that the Republic of Georgia has no greater friend in the Senate than me--without the benefit of a competitive analytical process is more than a little painful. I suppose it is only appropriate that, once again, we are adding funding, this year to the tune of $4 million, for the International Fertilizer Development Center. There is something strangely appropriate that we spend tens of millions of dollars to fund the fertilizer center given the process by which this bill is put together every year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement appear in the Record, accompanied by the list of earmarks and directive language that I have assembled.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the situation in Colombia and the question of the U.S. role there. The situation in Colombia has been correctly described as grave. To the extent that ``grave'' can be considered an understatement, however, that is the case with respect to the ongoing conflict in that strife- torn country. The issue ostensibly before us involves the war on drugs. What is being contemplated, however, should under no conditions be considered a simple extension of that struggle. What is being considered is nothing less than an escalated U.S. role in what has increasingly become an all-out civil war. The relationship between the narcotics trafficking that we seek to curtail and the insurgency that we oppose but dare not engage has become dangerously blurred. To contemplate engaging one but not the other is to labor under an illusion of alarming dimensions. Mr. President, the conditions on the ground in Colombia are not in doubt. A large, highly motivated, well-armed and funded guerrilla army, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and the smaller but equally lethal National Liberation Front, have emerged over the last two years as a serious threat not just to Colombia, but to the entire Andean region. The FARC, in particular, has evolved into a large-scale threat to regional stability. Look carefully at the operations the FARC has carried out over the past two years. What you will see is impressive and alarming. Sophisticated battalion-size operations against Colombian military and police units, including coordinated multi-objective operations spread out across Colombia have become the norm. The March 1998 battle at El Billar, for example, demonstrated the FARC's ability to conduct battalion-size operations employing refined tactics like maneuver warfare against Colombia's best trained units. In a separate operation, a 1,200-strong guerrilla force successfully carried out simultaneous attacks on an anti-narcotics police installation and the army base at Miraflores, overwhelming both. This should give us pause. The Colombian government's position is precarious. Already, the fighting has touched Colombia's neighbors. Panama, which lacks a military as a result of the post-invasion structure the United States imposed on that country, is now threatened by cross-border incursions by guerrillas, whose main arms pipeline crosses its border with Colombia. Colombia's other neighbors in Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela are all feeling the heat from the war in Colombia, the latter in the form of refugees escaping the fighting. I point all of this out, Mr. President, because no one here should be under any doubt that the path down which we are heading is potentially fraught with peril. I don't know anyone who actually believes that Plan Colombia is the answer to that country's problems; we support it because we are at a loss for viable alternatives. But a guerrilla army as capable as the FARC will not be defeated by three specially-trained and equipped battalions. Much more is needed, including fundamental reform and restructuring of the Colombian armed forces to reverse the ratio of combat units to rear-area units--a key reason an army of 140,000 is stretched so thin against guerrilla armies numbering around 20,000. And the army and police must be thoroughly inculcated with the need to respect human rights. This not just a moral imperative, but a practical one as well. Human rights abuses by government forces increases sympathy for guerrilla armies that otherwise lack serious popular support. It is never easy, as we learned in Vietnam, to fight a guerrilla army that can melt into civilian surroundings and build an infrastructure of support, through force and intimidation if necessary, that government forces are hard-pressed to defeat without inflicting civilian casualties. But Colombia's army and police must not underestimate the importance of maintaining constant vigilance in respecting the rights of the people they purport to defend. The United States role in Plan Colombia is, to date, limited to training the aforementioned special battalions and equipping them with modern helicopters. Toward this end, we are sending special forces teams into the field in the midst of that civil war. The primary role of U.S. Army Special Forces is the provision of such training. But we must be assured that their role will not extend to that of active combatants. The bond that will surely develop between our soldiers and those they are training must not extend to a gradual expansion of their role in Colombia. And with respect to the issue of helicopters, Mr. President, I find it deplorable that the question of which helicopter should be provided to Colombia should be decided on the basis of any consideration other than operational requirements. Blackhawks were selected for the capabilities they provide, capabilities that are not inconsequential in terms of the Counter-Narcotics Battalions' ability to deploy to the field with the speed and in the number required to confront opposing forces. Their substitution by the Appropriations Committee with Super Hueys goes beyond the usual fiscally irresponsible approach to legislating that permeates Congress. It is, in fact, morally wrong. We are talking life and death decisions here: the ability of soldiers to fight a war. That decisions on their equipment should be decided on the basis of parochial considerations is reprehensible. Let me return, though, to the fundamental issue of a counter narcotics strategy that is imbued with an inherent flaw: the misguided notion that the war on drugs in Colombia can be separated from the guerrilla and paramilitary activity that is the threat to Colombia's existence. If, as has been suggested, the FARC is reconsidering its involvement in the drug trade, it is possible that surgical counterdrug operations can be conducted without expanding into counterinsurgency. That the guerrillas control the very territory where the coca fields are located, however, should continue to cause us concern. To quote one unnamed U.S. official in the Christian Science Monitor, ``If the guerrillas [so] choose, they don't have to continue to protect the narcos, [but] if they do. . .this [aid] will be used against them.'' This, Mr. President, is precisely the problem. Plan Colombia is perhaps a last desperate hope to save a nation. But it carries with it the seeds of greater U.S. involvement in a civil war of enormous proportions. Those of us who have been witness to our country being gradually mired in a conflict in another region, in another time, should not fail to bear witness to the choices we make today. Funding for this plan will go forward, but the Administration and the government in Bogota should not be surprised that many of us will be watching the situation there very carefully. To do less would be to acquiesce in the possible materialization of that most feared foreign policy scenario, another Vietnam.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last year, the Senate adopted an amendment to the FY 2000 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act that deleted language restricting the availability of funds for the Inter-American Foundation. I offered that amendment, which was included in the managers' amendment to the bill and accepted without objection, because the basis for restricting the Foundation's funding was inaccurate and misleading. Chairman Stevens and Chairman McConnell, when apprised of the facts of the situation, agreed to remove the language from the bill, and I appreciate their willingness to do so. This year, the report contains language that is similarly inaccurate and misleading, and that implies that a principal reason for terminating funding for the Foundation is an ongoing concern about the activities of a staff member of the Foundation. Based on the agreement of Chairman Stevens and Chairman McConnell to remove similar language from the bill last year, as well as the subsequent resolution of this matter, I was surprised to again see a reference to this matter in the Committee's report. First, let me say that I am not passing judgment on whatever other reasons the Committee may have for terminating the funding for the Inter-American Foundation. However, I object to the Committee's continued reference to an individual staff member of the Foundation as a reason for shutting down the Foundation. Let me take a moment to clearly state the facts of the matter. Last year, the General Accounting Office conducted an investigation of allegations of contract and hiring regulatory abuses at the Foundation that were reported anonymously to their fraud hotline. The GAO completed their investigation and forwarded a report to the Committee on May 20, 1999, and requested permission to brief the Board of Directors of the Foundation on their findings, as well as certain additional allegations received during the course of interviews at the Foundation. On June 30, 1999, when Chairman Stevens and Chairman McConnell agreed to remove language from the bill last year that withheld funding for the Foundation until GAO completed a further investigation, the GAO was free to brief the Foundation. At that time, the Chairmen advised me that, by referring the matter to the Foundation's Board, the Appropriations Committee would view this investigation as complete and no further action would be taken by the Committee regarding the subject of the GAO investigation. GAO briefed the Foundation Board on July 23, 1999. The minutes of that Board meeting indicate that GAO investigators stated that GAO had issued a final report on their review of the Foundation's contracting and personnel actions and that no further review would be undertaken. In addition, GAO investigators stated to the Board that the anonymous allegations received against a Foundation staff member were administrative in nature and would not be further investigated by GAO. Board members expressed concern and indignity at the allegations against the staff member, and concluded that no further action would be necessary. On August 5, 1999, the Board adopted a formal resolution to that effect. Mr. President, continued references to unfounded, disproven anonymous allegations against this staff member contribute nothing to the public's understanding of any legitimate reasons the Committee may have for terminating the funding for the Inter-American Foundation. I would like to ask Chairman Stevens if he agrees that long-resolved issues regarding a now-former staff member at the Foundation are not related to the Committee's action.

Mr. McCAIN. Thank you, Senator Stevens.

Mr. McCAIN. Thank you, Senator Stevens. Mr. President, I would also like to ask Chairman Stevens if he would agree to include in the conference statement of managers on the FY 2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill a clear statement disavowing this report language regarding a now-former employee of the Foundation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I rise in opposition to the Dodd amendment establishing a commission to evaluate U.S.-Cuban relations. Ordinarily, Mr. President, I find it difficult to rationalize opposing a study of a complex issue. I do not have such difficulties, however, with regards to the amendment before us today. Make no mistake, the commission proposed in the Dodd amendment is intended to presage a lifting of U.S. sanctions on Cuba, and to do so by presenting a false dichotomy involving United States policies in other regions of the world. For 40 years, Fidel Castro has run Cuba as a totalitarian bastion in the Western Hemisphere, his policies in Latin America and the Caribbean and on the African continent have been and continue to be implacably hostile to U.S. interests. He was driven in that direction, as some would have us believe, by U.S. opposition to the revolution that he continues to seek to foster beyond his shores. Rather, he rose to power dedicated to undermining U.S. influence abroad and has never--not once--deviated from that path. The fact that his ability to act abroad has been severely curtailed since the demise of the Soviet Union has not dampened his ardor for spreading the gospel of Marx and Lenin wherever he finds a receptive audience. Virtually every day, we are provided reminders of the anachronistic dictatorship near our shores. Most recently, the case of two Cuban doctors who defected in Zimbabwe--a country itself in the throes of turbulence stemming from its adherence to authoritarian policies-- illustrates yet again the desire of the Cuban people for the freedom that swept that country's former allies in Eastern Europe and across Latin America. A 1999 report by Human Rights Watch on Cuba described its development of ``a highly effective machinery of repression'' that it has used ``to restrict severely the exercise of fundamental human rights of expression, association, and assembly.'' The report continues, noting that, ``in recent years, Cuba has added new repressive laws and continued prosecuting nonviolent dissidents while shrugging off international appeals for reform and placating visiting dignitaries with occasional releases of political prisoners.'' Similarly, the State Department's annual report on human rights states that the . . . authorities routinely continued to harass, threaten, arbitrarily arrest, detain, imprison, and defame human rights advocates and members of independent professional associations, including journalists, economists, doctors, and lawyer, often with the goal of coercing them into leaving the country. Let me emphasize, Mr. President, that Cuba is not an authoritarian regime that holds promise of transitioning to a free-market economy with gradual democratization, such as has occurred in other countries. It remains a staunch Marxist dictatorship providing no freedom whatsoever. Rare instances where minor economic freedoms were permitted were rapidly retracted when it became obvious that capitalism provided a viable and desirable alternative to state socialism. On the security front, we should not be deceived by the straw man argument that the absence of a military threat to the United States from Cuba undermines the current U.S. policy towards that country. Few among us believe such a threat exists. What does exist, however, is a continued effort at undermining democracy in Latin America and in Africa, and in undermining the U.S. position in those regions. Cuba's continued hosting of the Russian military's main signals intelligence facility at Lourdes remains a threat to U.S. national and economic security. According to the liberal Federation of American Scientists, the strategic significance of the Lourdes facility ``has possibly grown since 07 February 1996 [pursuant to a] directive from Russian President Boris Yeltsin directing the Russian intelligence community to step up the acquisition of American and other Western economic and trade secrets.'' Additionally, the United States must remain wary of the future of the Soviet-designed nuclear reactors at Cienfuegos. Any accident at these facilities--understanding that they remain uncompleted--would directly and severely impact the eastern seaboard of the United States. The political and security situations vis-a-vis Cuba can be summarized by quoting directly from Secretary of Defense Cohen's May 1998 letter to then-Chairman of the Armed Services Committee Strom Thurmond: While the assessment notes that the direct conventional threat by the Cuban military has decreased, I remain concerned about the use of Cuba as a base for intelligence activities directed against the United States, the potential threat that Cuba may pose to neighboring islands, Castro's continued dictatorship that represses the Cuban people's desire for political and economic freedom, and the potential instability that could accompany the end of his regime depending on the circumstances under which Castro departs . . . Finally, I remain concerned about Cuba's potential to develop and produce biological agents, its biotechnology infrastructure, as well as the environmental health risks posed to the United States by potential accidents at the Juragua nuclear power facility. Mr. President, I supported the establishment of diplomatic and trade relations with Vietnam because that country met a set of carefully established criteria that brought it in our direction, and did not force the United States to move in its direction. I would fully support a similar approach to Cuba. We don't need a commission to study our relations with Cuba; what we need is to establish a road map that the Castro regime must follow in order to facilitate a lifting of the sanctions it purports to find so odious. As with Saddam Hussein and Kim Il Sung, Castro has within his power the ability to fundamentally transform his country for the better and to reintroduce it fully into the community of nations. The ball is in Castro's court. Whether he possesses the wisdom to do what is right, unfortunately, is sadly unlikely.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire. I rise in opposition to the Dodd-Warner amendment. Let's make no mistake about this amendment. It is intended to presage a lifting of United States sanctions on Cuba. I do not believe the United States should change its policy toward Cuba. I believe Cuba should change its policy toward the United States of America. I supported normalization of relations between the United States of America and Vietnam. That was based on a roadmap where, in return for certain specific actions taken by Vietnam, the United States would take actions in return. That took place. The Vietnamese troops left Cambodia. Reeducation camps were emptied. There was an increase in human rights and improvements made in a variety of ways which led to eventual normalization. I don't expect Cuba to become a functioning democracy. It was a totalitarian, repressive government 30 years ago; it is a repressive, totalitarian government today. The latest example is two doctors who have been detained in Zimbabwe who wanted freedom, who are still not free, who are being brought back to Cuba for, obviously, horrific treatment because of their desire to no longer be associated with Castro's regime. On July 23, 1999, Human Rights Watch issued a highly critical report on the human rights situation in Cuba. The report describes how Cuba has developed a highly effective machinery of repression and has used this to restrict severely the exercise of fundamental human rights, of expression, association, and assembly. According to the report: In recent years, Cuba has added new repressive laws and continued prosecuting nonviolent dissidents while shrugging off international appeals to reform and placating visiting dignitaries with occasional releases of political prisoners. I urge every Senator to read Human Rights' reports on Cuba before we take steps to improve relations. This is the same regime that sent its troops to Africa to further the cause of communism there. This is the same regime that continues to repress and oppress its people. Not too long ago, Mr. Castro decided to allow people to operate a restaurant within their own homes. Somehow that became a threat to the state, and Mr. Castro shut down even that rudimentary form of a free enterprise system. It is not an accident that the automobile of choice in Cuba today is a 1956 Chevrolet. It is deplorable that Mr. Castro and his government should encourage young women to engage in prostitution in order to gain hard currency for their regime. The latest manifestation is the detainment of two decent men who are doctors who wanted freedom. There is no freedom in Cuba. The day that Castro decides to allow progress in human rights, in the free enterprise system, in the exercise of the basic rights of men and women that we try to guarantee to all men and women throughout the world, is the day I take the floor and ask that we consider a roadmap or certain incentives for Mr. Castro to become anything but the international pariah that he and his regime deservedly are branded as today. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. Again, I am more than willing to lay out a roadmap for Mr. Castro to follow, but there has not been one single indication that Mr. Castro is prepared to even grant the most fundamental and basic rights to the citizens of his country, which is the reason they continue to attempt to flee his regime at every opportunity. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in assessing the situation in Zimbabwe today, permit me to quote a long-time supporter of that country's ruling party in reference to that party: ``If I give my name, they might hear and come for me at night.'' Such is the pervasive level of fear that has permeated Zimbabwe over the past several months and threatens that country with a degree of political instability not seen since white-minority rule gave way to the creation of the Republic of Zimbabwe. The increasingly autocratic regime of Robert Mugabe, threatened by the growth of a viable democratic opposition, is responding the way dictatorial regimes the world over generally do, with violence aimed at subverting the will of the people. Permit me to quote from the June 3 issue of The Economist for a sense of what is going on inside Zimbabwe today: Intimidation is rampant in the countryside. . .Peasants are told that their votes are not secret and that they will suffer if they do not give them to the ruling party. People suspected of supporting opposition parties have been threatened, beaten and in some cases killed. Rural clinics and hospitals have been ordered to refuse treatment to opposition supporters. Teachers in the countryside have been singled out for attack, dragged from their classrooms and beaten in front of their students. Some female teachers have been stripped naked. More than 260 rural schools have been closed by the violence. As chairman of the International Republican Institute, which has maintained a presence in Zimbabwe along with its counterpart National Democratic Institute, I am appalled at developments in that southern African country. Parliamentary elections, widely expected to result in a resounding victory for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change and thus threaten the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front's 20-year hold on power, are being systematically undermined by the kind of campaign violence and intimidation that has been all too common in other countries that resisted the path of democratization. That is unfortunate, for Zimbabwe, like other strife-torn countries of Africa, has the potential to provide its people a far better quality of life than can ever enjoy under one-party rule. Those parliamentary elections, Mr. President, as with the defeat of the constitutional referendum in February, would have provided ample evidence that the majority of Zimbaweans are tired of corruption, vast unemployment, 60 percent inflation, and the fuel and energy shortages that have become a part of life in a once wealthy nation. The recent decision by the International Republican Institute to withdraw its election observers, however, as well as the United Nation's withdrawal of its election coordinator, should be seen for what it is: a very clear warning sign that President Mugabe has no intention of permitting free and fair elections, and fully intends to continue his campaign of exacerbating ethnic divisions in Zimbabwe for his personal benefit. That President Mugabe refuses to even accredit U.S. Embassy personnel to act as observers is a stinging and unfortunate rebuke to the international community. The recent jailing of an opposition activist with whom I had the privilege of meeting in my office only two months ago not only augurs ill for the future of Zimbabwe, but hurts me deeply for the promise this fine woman showed in that meeting. The deterioration of the political situation in Zimbabwe is the direct result of the unwillingness of President Mugabe to countenance any level of political opposition that threatens his hold on power. And make no mistake, that some ruling party members have come under attack by the opposition does not place both sides on an equal moral footing. On the contrary, Amnesty International and other foreign observers have been very clear that the government and its supporters are responsible for the violence that has wracked a country that had enjoyed 20 years of peace, flawed though it was by the socialist policies of Mr. Mugabe. The 30 or so deaths and hundreds of injuries that have occurred may, I fear, be only a precursor to greater violence should the Movement for Democratic Change continue to attempt to mount a credible campaign against one-party rule. Mr. President, some may look at the seizure of white-owned farms by black squatters openly and vociferously encouraged by President Mugabe, and the murder of some of those farmers, through the prism of the former era of colonial and white-minority rule. That would be a tragic mistake. The deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe is directly tied to President Mugabe's autocratic rule and desperate attempt to hold back the tides of history, which appear to favor democracy. Mugabe's rejection of South African President Thabo Mbeki's efforts at brokering a quasi-reasonable resolution of the land-reform issue was further evidence of his growing penchant for petty tyranny as a substitute for enlightened government. It is imperative that the United States, the European Community and, most importantly, the Organization of African Unity act forcefully in pressuring Mugabe to reverse his current dictatorial policies and allow for the conduct of free and fair elections. His failure to do so should be widely condemned. What ails Zimbabwe is not racial tension, but the age-old problem of a dictator who fails to read the writing on the walls. As with others before him, he will find, I suspect, that his world will become more and more confined, more and more restrictive and his actions more and more desperate. At a time when Sub-Saharan Africa has become synonymous with civil strife and the international community debates the ongoing wars in Sierra Leone and Congo, while conflict continues in Angola and ethnic violence continues in and around Rwanda and Burundi, Zimbabwe should have been a beacon of political stability and economic development. Instead, it descends into the darkness of tyranny. It is hopefully not too late to reverse the situation there, but the signs are not encouraging.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Michigan, who is the original sponsor of the electronic signatures legislation, to discuss the consumer consent provisions in the conference report.

Mr. McCAIN. Is it the Senator's understanding that pursuant to subsection 101(c)(1)(C)(ii) of the conference report a consumer's affirmative consent to the receipt of electronic records needs to ``reasonably demonstrate'' that the consumer will be able to access the various forms of electronic records to which the consent applies?

Mr. McCAIN. Would the ``reasonable demonstration requirement'' be satisfied if it is shown that the consumer actually accesses records in the relevant electronic format?

Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator also agree with me that the ``reasonable demonstration'' requirement would be satisfied, for instance, if the consumer responds affirmatively to an electronic query asking if he or she can access the electronic information or if the affirmative consent language includes the consumer's acknowledgement that he or she can access the electronic information in the designated format?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's willingness to participate in this colloquy to clarify the clear intent of the conference with respect to this provision. legislative scope