John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. I repeat my unanimous consent request.

Mr. McCAIN. Do you object or not object?

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 3 minutes to question the Senator from Utah. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, for his stewardship and his incredible efforts today on this issue. This package and this amendment that I intend to address briefly would not have been possible without his effort. I thank also Senator Craig and my colleagues, Senators Smith, Collins, Snowe, Abraham and many others who have taken an active role in this legislation today that would establish background checks in a manner which is fair and workable. To start with, I want to point out that this amendment closes a loophole, and it requires instant background checks at all events at which at least 10 exhibitors are selling firearms, or at least 20 percent of the exhibitors are selling guns. This prevents any sale of a gun or a weapon at one of these shows without an instant background check. That is the effect of this amendment. Specific language says a person not licensed under this section desiring to transfer a firearm at a gun show in his State of residence to another person who is a resident of the same State and not licensed under this section: Shall only make such a transfer through a licensee who can conduct an instant background check at the gun show or directly to the perspective transferee if an instant background check is first conducted by a special registrant at the gun show on a perspective transferee. These background checks must be completed within 24 hours. This is not an overly burdensome requirement in the face of the Columbine High School tragedy; rather, it is a responsible means of lessening the likelihood of unlawful gun purchases. I believe this is something every Member of the Senate should be able to support. It is my understanding this amendment has been cleared by every Member on this side of the aisle. I hope it will be cleared by Members on the other side. If they desire a rollcall vote on this, that would be fine. I think it should receive the unanimous support that it deserves. I repeat one more time: This now provides for instant background checks at gun shows, and it effectively closes a loophole that was created. I am very appreciative of the Senator from Idaho for his cooperation in closing this loophole. It is a very strongly held belief on his part. I think he showed great statesmanship today. I thank so many of my colleagues under the leadership of Senator Hatch, Senator Collins, Senator Snowe, and especially my friend from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith.

Mr. McCAIN. Regular order, Mr. President.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Then I object to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, following the disposition of those amendments, is it then your intention to move to a Hatch-Craig amendment?

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that we move to the Hatch-Craig amendment immediately following the disposition of those amendments.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Internet Regulatory Freedom Act of 1999. This legislation will help assure that the enormous benefits of advanced telecommunications services are accessible to all Americans, no matter where they live, what they do, or how much they earn. Advanced telecommunications is a critical component of our economic and social well-being. Information technology now accounts for over one-third of our economic growth. The estimates are that advanced, high-speed Internet services, once fully deployed, will grow to a $150 billion a year market. What this means is simple: Americans with access to high-speed Internet service will get the best of what the Internet has to offer in the way of on-line commerce, advanced interactive educational services, telemedicine, telecommuting, and video-on-demand. But what it also means is that Americans who don't have access to high-speed Internet service won't enjoy these same advantages. Mr. President, Congress cannot stand idly by and allow that to happen. Advanced high-speed data service finally gives us the means to assure that all Americans really are given a fair shake in terms of economic, social, and educational opportunities. Information Age telecommunications can serve as a great equalizer, eliminating the disadvantages of geographic isolation and socioeconomic status that have carried over from the Industrial Age. But unless these services are available to all Americans on fair and affordable terms, Industrial Age disadvantages will be perpetuated, not eliminated, in the Information Age. As things now stand, however, the availability of advanced high-speed data service on fair and affordable terms is seriously threatened. Currently, only 2 percent of all American homes are served by networks capable of providing high-speed data service. Of this tiny number, most get high-speed Internet access through cable modems. This is a comparatively costly service --about $500 per year --and most cable modem subscribers are unable to use their own Internet service provider unless they also buy the same service from the cable system's own Internet service provider. This arrangement puts high-speed Internet service beyond the reach of Americans not served by cable service, and limits the choices available to those who are. If this situation is allowed to continue, many Americans who live in remote areas or who don't make a lot of money won't get high-speed Internet service anywhere near as fast as others will. And, given how critical high-speed data service is becoming to virtually every segment of our everyday lives, creating advanced Internet ``haves'' and ``have nots'' will perpetuate the very social inequalities that our laws otherwise seek to eliminate. This need not happen. Our nation's local telephone company lines go to almost every home in America, and local telephone companies are ready and willing to upgrade them to provide advanced high-speed data service. They are ready and willing, Mr. President, but they are not able--at least, not as fully able as the cable companies are. That's because the local telephone companies operate under unique legal and regulatory restrictions. These restrictions are designed to limit their power in the local voice telephone market, but they are mistakenly being applied to the entirely different advanced data market. And as a result, their ability to build out these networks and offer these services is significantly circumscribed. Mr. President, it's very expensive for to build high-speed data networks. Unnecessary regulation increases this already-steep cost and thereby limits the deployment of services to people and places that might otherwise receive them--and many of them are people and places that won't otherwise be served. This legislation will get rid of this unnecessary regulation, thereby facilitating the buildout of the advanced data networks necessary to give more Americans access to high- speed Internet service at a cheaper price and with a greater array of service possibilities. That's called ``competition,'' Mr. President, and some people don't like it very much. AT&T, for example, owns cable TV giant TCI and its proprietary Internet service provider @Home. AT&T doesn't face the same regulatory restrictions as the telephone companies do, and AT&T will fight furiously to retain these restrictions so that it can continue to enjoy the ``first-move'' advantage it now has in the market for high- speed Internet service. So will other local telephone company competitors such as MCI/Worldcom, many of whom, like AT&T, prefer gaming the regulatory process to competing in the marketplace. They're right about one thing, Mr. President--competition sure isn't nice. It's tough. Some companies win, and some companies lose. But the important thing to me is this: with competition, consumers win. The 1996 Telecommunications Act effectively nationalized telephone industry competition. That's one of the many reasons I voted against it. As subsequent events have shown, the Act has been a complete and utter failure insofar as most Americans are concerned. All the average consumer has gotten are higher prices for many existing services, with little or no new competitive offerings. Most of the advantages have accrued to gigantic, constantly-merging telecommunications companies and the big business customers they serve. Mr. President, we must not let this misguided law produce the same misbegotten results when it comes to making high-speed data services available and affordable to all Americans. The service is too important, and the stakes are too high. Even the former Soviet Union managed to recognize that centralized planning was a flat failure, and abandoned it decades ago. It's time we started doing the same with centralized competition planning under the 1996 Act, and advanced data services are the best place to start. Unfettered competition, not federally-micromanaged regulation, is the best way of making sure that high-speed data services will be widely available and affordable. That's what I want, that's what consumers deserve, and that's what this legislation will do. The first is the fact that the high-speed cable modem service being rolled out by AT&T on many of the nation's cable television systems favors its own proprietary Internet service provider, which limits consumer choice. Although AT&T's cable customers can access AOL or other Internet service providers of their own choice, they must first pass through, and pay for, AT&T's own Internet service provider, @Home. The fact that it typically costs around $500 a year to subscribe to @Home is a big disincentive to paying even more to access another service provider. The second problem is every bit as troubling. Even though cable subscribers have only limited choice in accessing high-speed Internet service, 98 percent of Americans are even worse off, because they aren't served by any network that can carry high-speed Internet services. Obviously, Mr. President, telephone networks serve almost everybody, and the large telephone companies very much want to convert their networks and make these services available to subscribers who might not otherwise get them, especially in rural and low-income areas, and also provide competitive alternatives for AT&T's cable modem subscribers. But, although AT&T can roll out cable modem service in a virtually regulation-free environment, federal regulation significantly impedes the ability of telephone companies to do the same thing. Mr. President, this is blatantly unfair to the telephone companies-- but that's not the worst of it. The benefits of business development, employment, and economic growth will go where the advanced data networks go. If these benefits go to urbanized, high-income areas first, the resulting disparities may well be difficult, if not impossible, to equalize. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, 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 thank the Senator from Utah and also the Senator from Idaho for allowing me this time. I don't think I will use as much as 7 minutes. At that time, I will withdraw my amendment upon the completion of my statement. This amendment is designed to prevent juveniles from illegally accessing weapons and to punish those who would assist them in doing so. This amendment provides that whoever illegally purchases a weapon for another individual, knowing that the recipient intends to use the weapon to commit a violent crime, may be imprisoned for up to 15 years. Further, the amendment mandates that whoever illegally purchases a weapon for a juvenile, knowing that the juvenile intends to commit a violent felony with the weapon, will receive a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years and may be imprisoned for up to 20 years. Current law provides a maximum prison term of 10 years, regardless of the age of the shooter. Additionally, if a person transfers a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile knowing that the juvenile intends to commit a violent felony, that individual will receive a minimum 10-year sentence and may be imprisoned up to 20 years. Mr. President, as I just outlined, this amendment is very simple. The amendment targets the nexus of the youth gun violence issue. Despite the arguments of those who are pushing for more restrictive guns ownership laws, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of kids who are committing these violent acts are getting guns illegally. It is ludicrous to argue that gang members are going to gun shows or to Walmart to buy their weapons. For the most part, they are obtaining them illegally. Recent events have shaken the collective conscience of this nation. The murders at Columbine High School in Colorado have again brought home to every American the degree to which we are failing our children. The most basic and profound responsibility that our culture--any culture--has is raising its children. We are failing in that responsibility, and the extent of our failure is being measured in the deaths and injuries of kids in schoolyards and on neighborhood streets. Over the past 2 years, we have been jolted time and again with the horrifying news and images of school shootings. Every day, in towns and cities across this country, kids are killing kids, and kids are killing adults in a spiraling pattern of youth violence driven by the drug trade, gang activity, and other factors. Our children are killing each other, and they are killing themselves. We must act to change this. Primary responsibility lies with families. As a country, we are not parenting our children. We are not adequately involving ourselves in our children's lives, the friends they hang out with, what they do with their time, and the problems they are struggling with. This is our job, our paramount responsibility, and we are failing. We must get our priorities straight, and that means putting our kids first. However, parents need help. They need help because our homes, our families, and our children's minds are being flooded by a tide of violence. This dehumanizing violence pervades our society. Movies depict graphic violence, and children are taught to kill and maim by interactive video games. The Internet, which holds such tremendous potential, is used by some to communicate unimaginable hatred, images and descriptions of violence, and ``how-to'' manuals on everything from bomb construction to drugs. Our culture is dominated by media, and our children, more so than any other generation, are vulnerable to the images of violence and hate that are, sadly, the dominant themes in so much of what they see and hear. I recently joined with some of my colleagues to call upon the President to convene an emergency summit of the leaders of the entertainment and interactive media industry to develop an action plan for controlling children's access to media violence. I am pleased that the President heeded this call. However, I am very disappointed that the President's summit proved to be heavy on symbolism and light on substance. We can do more. I have also joined others to introduce legislation calling upon the Surgeon General to conduct a comprehensive study of media violence in all its forms, and to issue a report on its effects together with recommendations on how we can turn around the tragic tide of youth violence. Further, yesterday, I, along with Senator Lieberman and others, announced legislation that would establish a National Youth Violence Commission, consisting of religious leaders and experts in education, family psychology, law enforcement, and parenting, to produce a comprehensive study of the forces that are conspiring to turn our children into killers. Combined, these measures--along with this legislation--are important steps targeting various aspects of the complex problem of youth violence. However, if we are to turn this tide, we must press the fight on every front. One reality of the horrific schoolyard shootings, and the criminal gun violence that is so prevalent among our youth, is the illegal use of guns. The amendment I have offered is specifically targeted at the illegal means by which kids are acquiring guns. The extent of this problem is made acutely apparent by the events that unfolded in Littleton. From what we are told, 18 different gun laws were violated, including illegal straw purchases and transfers. This amendment states simply that, if you know a kid is going to commit a violent felony, and you give him or her the gun to commit that crime, you are going to go to jail for a long time. Mr. President, this amendment is not a panacea. As I have stated, the malady of youth violence that is eating at the soul of this Nation is a complex disease. It will require a multi-faceted cure. I believe we must push for a comprehensive approach. What we must have is the unqualified commitment of all Americans to raise our children, to put them first. This amendment is one step--one necessary step that will help us deal with the problem of kids killing kids. I hope the Senate will adopt this amendment. Mr. President, my understanding is that the distinguished manager of the bill has included this amendment in the package. I thank him for doing that. Therefore, it would be deemed unnecessary that this amendment be considered separately at this time. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for including this amendment in the package. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at this time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to Ms. Arlene Sidell, who will soon be retiring from a long and distinguished career in the U.S. Senate. Ms. Sidell is the Director of the Senate Commerce Committee Public Information Office. She first came to the Committee 36 years ago, in March of 1963. Ms. Sidell is an extraordinary public servant, who has consistently served all the Members and staff on the Committee with total dedication and commitment. The Commerce Committee, at a recent Executive Session, expressed its gratitude to Ms. Sidell for all she has done for the Committee and the Senate with extended applause. Mr. President, I ask that the text of my statement made on Ms. Sidell's behalf at the Commerce Committee Executive Session held on May 5, 1999, be printed in the Record. The statement follows: Acknowledgment of Arlene Sidell Before we begin to consider items on today's agenda for our Executive Session, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt thanks to Arlene Sidell. Arlene, sitting before us, is the Director of the Commerce Committee Public Information Office, and our official clerk for Committee Executive Sessions. This will be the last time we will see Arlene at one of our mark-ups, as she will soon be retiring from an exemplary career in public service. Arlene began her tenure with the Commerce Committee 36 years ago, in March of 1963. She has served the Senate and our Committee with distinction ever since, and will certainly be missed. Again, Arlene, please know how grateful I am for your dedication, commitment and tireless efforts on behalf of the Members, both past and present, of this Committee.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, all Americans were disturbed and very sorry about NATO's mistaken bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. The President has apologized to the Chinese people, and it was, of course, appropriate for him to do so. I think it is also right that those responsible for this tragic error are held accountable for their mistake. I know that neither apologies nor other responses will alleviate the suffering of those who lost loved ones in the bombing. But America does sincerely regret what happened, and as inadequate as that might be to a grieving parent or spouse or friend, it will have to be enough for the Government of China. It is outrageous that Beijing would claim, suggest or even hint to the Chinese people that the bombing was intentional. It was a mistake and the leaders of China know that. They do us and themselves a great disservice by pretending otherwise. States that aspire to be great powers should not indulge paranoid delusions as a means of motivating their people. The political consequences are seldom predictable or as easy to manage as they might have anticipated. America and China have a complex, important, and very consequential relationship that will, in large part, shape the history of the next century. That relationship should not be jeopardized as cavalierly as Beijing has allowed it to be jeopardized over these last few days. China must cease immediately fueling anti-Americanism and tolerating the attacks it engendered on our embassy and on Americans in China. China should cease immediately its calumnies against the United States. America is a just power, and the greatest force for good on Earth. A very regrettable accident does not change that historical fact, and Beijing knows it. Finally, China should cease immediately to threaten the other elements of our relationship, be they human rights discussions, anti-proliferation cooperation or trade agreements. A sound bilateral relationship is a vital interest for both of us, and, indeed, for the world. Both countries' leaders must conduct themselves with that priority in mind at all times. China should accept our apology confident that it is sincere, and begin to play a constructive role in helping to persuade Milosevic that he must accede to the just demands of humanity, and the, I hope, nonnegotiable demands of NATO. Terrible things happen in war. People often make bad mistakes in the fog of battle. That is why decent people try to avoid resolving their differences by force of arms. But that is not always possible. The enemy of peace and justice in the Balkans, Milosevic and his regime, are not decent people. They are the cause of this war, and, thus, are ultimately responsible for the tragedy that occurred last week, and the suffering of the people of Serbia. Furthermore, the calamity that Serbia is now experiencing, as awful as it is, in no way approximates the scale of the horror that has been visited on the Kosovars. Let us be clear about that, Mr. President. Should Mr. Milosevic observe the most basic standards of human decency no bombs would fall anywhere in the Balkans.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Gordon Smith as I submit a concurrent resolution to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Fifty years ago the United States joined 187 nations in establishing in international law the four articles of the modern Geneva Convention. These articles are the pillars of international law regarding the treatment of uniformed sick and wounded, prisoners of war, and civilians in times of armed conflict. Their existence serves to constantly remind us of our responsibility to treat all victims of war with the dignity each of us deserves. These Conventions recognize the International Committee of the Red Cross as an independent and neutral organization whose humanitarian mission is to protest and assist the victims of armed conflict. The International Red Cross is supported, in turn, by national societies such as the American Red Cross and the many other Red Cross and Red Crescent national agencies. Through the years, these organizations have worked tirelessly to bring relief to the suffering around the world whether due to natural disaster or human conflict. Their dedication and compassion have touched the lives of millions of people in all countries and are today at work in the Balkans, Africa, South America, and, tragically, in our own state of Oklahoma in response to the recent massive tornado. I ask your support for this resolution that commemorates mankind's first major step to codify into international law the respect and dignity that we must foster for each other. The four articles of the Geneva Convention and the formation of the organizations flying the Red Cross and Red Crescent stand as milestones in humanity's progress towards a more civilized world. With this resolution we recognize the historic and humanitarian significance of the Conventions and commend the Red Cross and Red Crescent agencies worldwide for their unflagging efforts to protect the principles of international humanitarian law.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Before we begin to consider items on today's agenda for our Executive Session, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt thanks to Arlene Sidell. Arlene, sitting before us, is the Director of the Commerce Committee Public Information Office, and our official clerk for committee executive sessions. This will be the last time we will see Arlene at one of our mark-ups, as she will soon be retiring from an exemplary career in public service. Arlene began her tenure with the Commerce Committee 36 years ago, in March of 1963. She has served the Senate and our Committee with distinction ever since, and will certainly be missed. Again, Arlene, please know how grateful I am for your dedication, commitment and tireless efforts on behalf of the Members, both past and present, of this Committee.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Youth Violence Prevention Act of 1999.'' This legislation will prevent juveniles from illegally accessing weapons and punish those who would assist them in doing so, prohibit juveniles who commit acts of gun violence from purchasing guns in the future, and punish juveniles who illegally carry or use handguns in schools. Before I get into the particulars of the legislation, I would like to take a moment to discuss the broader issues surrounding the question of youth violence. Recent events have shaken the collective conscience of our nation. The recent killings at Columbine High School in Colorado have brought home to every American the degree to which we are failing are children. The most basic and profound responsibility that our culture--any culture-- has is raising its children. We are failing in that responsibility, and the extent of our failure is being measured in deaths and injuries of kids in schoolyards and on the streets of our neighborhoods and communities. Over the past few years, we have been jolted time and again by the horrifying images of school shootings. Every day, in towns and cities across this country, kids are killing kids, and kids are killing adults, in a spiraling pattern of youth violence driven by the drug trade, gang activity, and other factors. Primary responsibility lies with families. As a country, we are not parenting our children. We are not adequately involving ourselves in our children's lives, the friends they hang out with, what they do with their time, the problems they are struggling with. This is our job, our paramount responsibility, and we are failing. We must get our priorities straight, and that means putting our kids first. Parents need help. They need help because our homes and our families, and our children's minds, are being flooded with a tide of violence that pervades our society. Movies depict graphic violence, and children are taught to kill and maim by interactive video games. The Internet, which holds such tremendous potential in so many ways, is tragically used by some to communicate unimaginable hatred, images and descriptions of violence, and ``how-to'' manuals on everything from bomb construction to drugs. Our culture is dominated by media, and our children, more so than any generation before them, are vulnerable to the images of violence and hate that, unfortunately, are dominant themes in so much of what they see and hear. I have recently joined with some of my colleagues to call upon the President to convene an emergency summit of the leaders of the entertainment and interactive media industry to develop an action plan for controlling children's access to media violence. I am pleased that the President has heeded this call and will convene such a summit next week. I have also joined others in introducing legislation calling upon the Surgeon General to conduct a comprehensive study of media violence, in all its forms, and to issue a report on its effects, with recommendations on how we can turn around this tragic tide of youth violence. These are important steps targeting various aspects of the complex problem of youth violence. However, we must press the fight on every front. One reality of the horrific gun violence that is so prevalent among our youth is the illegal use of guns. The legislation I am introducing today is specifically targeted at the illegal means by which kids are acquiring guns and is designed to ensure that violence youth offenders are punished, and that they will not acquire guns in the future. First, the bill extends the provisions of the Gun Control Act that prohibit certain purchases to include juveniles. Currently, under federal law, a juvenile may commit multiple violent felonies, using a gun, and when he or she turns 18 years old, that same individual may walk into a gun store and legally purchase a weapon. This is absurd. This legislation would prevent them from doing so. Where a juvenile has committed an offense that would constitute a violent felony if he or she were an adult, that juvenile will be sentenced as an adult and will be ineligible to be paroled simply because they turn 18. Second, this legislation provides that whoever illegally purchases a weapon for another individual, knowing that the recipient intends to commit a violent felony, may be imprisoned up to 15 years. Further, whoever illegally purchases or transfers a weapon to a juvenile, knowing that the recipient intends to commit a violent felony, may be imprisoned up to 20 years. Under this legislation, if a juvenile illegally possesses a handgun and violates the Gun Free School Zone law with the intent to carry, possess, discharge, or otherwise use the handgun or ammunition in the commission of a violent felony, they may be imprisoned for up to 20 years. Mr. President, let me make very clear that this legislation in no way infringes on the Second Amendment rights to bear arms. I do not believe we should further restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans to own a gun. Rather, we should focus on halting the spread of violent crime and punishing violent criminals who abuse their Second Amendment rights. I believe it is imperative to better safeguard children from the dangerous effects of violent crime in America, as well as educate them on the potential danger of weapons. Mr. President, this legislation is not a panacea. As I have stated, the malady of youth violence that is eating at the soul of this nation is a complex disease. It will require a multi-faceted cure. As I have outlined, I am pushing for a comprehensive approach. What we must have, if there is any hope, is the unqualified commitment of all Americans to raise our children, to put them first. I urge all Americans to get involved in their kids' lives. Ask questions, listen to their fears and concerns, their hopes and their dreams. Childhood is a time of innocence, a time to teach discipline and values. Our children are our most precious gifts, they are full of innocence and hope. We must work together to preserve the sanctity of childhood. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Youth Violence Prevention Act of 1999 be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records of March 8, 1999 and April 15, 1999, at the end of the Senate proceedings, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will vote for this resolution because I share in the happiness and relief that the families of Sergeant Ramirez, Sergeant Stone, and Specialist Gonzales, and all Americans feel now that these fine young men have been released from captivity. We are all thankful that they are home, safe from harm. I do not believe, however, that private diplomacy that is at odds with our country's objectives in this war and public relations stunts by Mr. Milosevic deserve our praise. I cannot commend the participation of any American in his propaganda.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to speak plainly in the few minutes remaining to me. What I say now may offend some people, even some of my friends who support this resolution. I am sorry for that, but I say it because I believe it is the truth, the important truth, and it should be said. The President of the United States is prepared to lose a war rather than do the hard work, the politically risky work, of fighting as the leader of the greatest nation on Earth should fight when our interests and our values are imperiled. We all know why in a few minutes this resolution is going to lose. It is going to lose because the President and members of his Cabinet have joined with the opponents to the war and lobbied hard for the resolution's defeat. Do not believe administration officials when they tell you that the resolution would have been defeated even without their active opposition. Had they worked half as hard in support of it as they did to defeat it, the result would have been different today. No, it is not that they could not win; it is because they did not want to win that we are facing defeat this morning. That is a shame, a real shame. I have said repeatedly that the President does not need this resolution to use all the force he deems necessary to achieve victory in Kosovo. I stand by that contention. And I have the good company of the Constitution behind me. I had wanted this resolution considered in the now forlorn hope that the President would take courage from it and find the resolve to do his duty, his duty by us, the American people, by the alliance he leads, and by the suffering people of Kosovo who now look to America and NATO for their very lives. I was wrong, and I must accept the blame for that. The President does not want the power he possesses by law because the risks inherent in its exercise have paralyzed him. Let me identify for my colleagues the price paid by Kosovars for the President's repeated and indefensible ruling out of ground troops. Mr. Milosevic was so certain of the limits to our commitment that he felt safe enough to widely disperse his forces. Instead of massing his forces to meet a possible ground attack, he has deployed them in small units to reach more towns and villages in less time than if the President had remained silent on the question of ground troops. In other words, he has been able to displace, rape, and murder more Kosovars more quickly than he could have if he feared he might face the mightiest army on Earth. That is a fact of this war that is undeniable. And shame on the President for creating it. Now what is left to us, as our war on the cheap fails to achieve the objectives for which we went to war? Well, bombing pauses seem to be an idea in vogue. They were popular once before in another war. And I personally witnessed how effective they were. No, Mr. President, I do not have much regard for the diplomatic or military efficacy of bombing pauses. As a matter of fact, it was only when bombing pauses were finally abandoned in favor of sustained strategic bombing that almost 600 of my comrades and I received our freedom. I daresay some of the years that we had lost were attributable to bombing pauses. I will not support a bombing pause until Milosevic surrenders and not a moment before. My father gave the order to send B-52s--planes that did not have the precision-guided munitions that so impress us all today--he gave the order to send them to bomb the city where his oldest son was held a prisoner of war. That is a pretty hard thing for a father to do, Mr. President, but he did it because it was his duty, and he would not shrink from it. He did it because he didn't believe America should lose a war, or settle for a draw or some lesser goal than it had sacrificed its young to achieve. He knew that leaders were expected to make hard choices in war. Would that the President had half that regard for the responsibilities of his office. Give peace a chance. Yes, peace is a wonderful condition. Sweeter than many here will ever fully appreciate. The Kosovars appreciate it. They are living in its absence, and it is a horrible experience. But the absence of freedom is worse. They know that too. They know it well. And if the price of peace is that we abandon them to the cruelty of their oppressors, then the price is too high. Some have suggested that we can drop our demand that NATO keep the peace in Kosovo. Let the U.N. command any future peacekeeping force instead. But a U.N. peacekeeping force led directly to the Srebrinica massacre in Bosnia. I think the Kosovars would rather they not have that kind of peace, Mr. President. And we should not impose it on them. Give peace a chance. If we cannot keep our word to prevail over this inferior power that threatens our interests and our most cherished ideals, then it is unlikely that we will long know a real peace. We may enjoy a false peace for a brief time, but that will pass. Whatever your views about whether we were right or wrong to get involved in this war, why would you think that losing will recover what we have risked in the Balkans. If we fail to win this war, our allies and our enemies will lose their respect for our resolve and our power. You may count on it, Mr. President. And we will soon face far greater threats than we face today. We will know a much more dangerous absence of peace than we are experiencing today. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues, in this late hour, to put aside our reservations, our past animosities, and encourage, implore, cajole, beg, shame this administration into doing its duty. Shame on the President if he persists in abdicating his responsibilities. But shame on us if we let him.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan be allowed to make a brief unanimous consent request.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senators Lott and Daschle for allowing the Senate more time for this debate than was their original intention. I think it has been a good debate. It was not as long as I would have liked but better than I had expected yesterday morning. Many Members on both sides, or should I say on all the multiple sides of the question, have had the opportunity to express themselves and most have done so with distinction. I also thank the cosponsors of the resolution for having the courage of their convictions, Senators Hagel, Biden, Lugar, Kerry, Dodd, Robb, and all the other cosponsors. You have made the case for the resolution far more persuasively than have I, and I commend you for fighting this good fight. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.