John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Coats amendment be 20 minutes in length, 10 minutes on either side.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first, before my friend from Montana leaves the floor, I want to tell him how much I appreciate his work as chairman of the telecommunications subcommittee on the Commerce Committee. My friend from Montana and I have had spirited discussions and debates on this overall issue. I understand his deeply held views, and I appreciate them. There is great attraction to his argument. There is a fine line in America between the prevention of material which is offensive being forced on our young people and censorship. So I understand the arguments that the Senator from Montana has made. But let me say that it is a huge problem, and the Senator from Montana knows it as well as I do. It is a huge problem. Anyone who operates the Internet today sees this proliferation of incredible trash that occurs, which is terribly, terribly disturbing to all of us--all of us on both sides of the aisle--because of the influence that it has on young Americans, not to mention older Americans. We had a hearing in the Commerce Committee. There was testimony that there is a direct relation between pedophilia and the Internet. There are documented cases where pedophiles have corresponded with young people on the Internet and enticed them into meeting. These stories are so terrible and graphic that I am reluctant to discuss them on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It is a problem in American society when you look at the growth of the Internet in America. All of us, especially those of us who serve on the Commerce Committee, are aware of the incredible potential of the Internet, the unbelievable effects it is going to have on the Nation and the world. With the wiring of schools and libraries in America, for the first time, every child in America, no matter whether they come from the Navajo Reservation and Chinlee High School or whether they attend Beverly Hills High School, are going to have access to knowledge and information like never before. When you dial in the word ``teen'' on the Internet, or when you dial in the word ``nurse'' and the search engine comes up with a proliferation of pornography and advertisements for it, we have to try to address this problem. The Senator from North Dakota has discussed this issue in committee hearings, the Senator from Oregon--all of us who are familiar with it. I will tell you right now, Mr. President, one of the problems is that a lot of us don't use the Internet like the now tens of millions of Americans do, so we are not aware of this problem. And, no, none of us would support censorship. No one is in favor of censorship. I will tell you that when we have actual testimony before our committee by detectives who say that they go out and they find people who entice young children through the Internet to meet with them and then terrible things ensue, then obviously we have a problem. Recently in Phoenix, AZ, a young boy who was on the Internet viewing pornography walked out and molested a 4-year-old child. It is a fact. It is a documented fact. Or parents in the library see pornography as they walk by and their children are in the library and see this. I am not sure I know the answers. I don't know the answers, but I firmly believe that we at least ought to make an effort to provide parents with the tools and institutions with the tools at least to filter out some of this garbage, which brings me to the Senator from Indiana. I know of no one who is more involved in the issues of families and morals and decency in America than is Senator Coats. I miss many of my colleagues when they leave; some of them I don't miss. But the fact is, the majority of them I do. I will miss Senator Coats because I view him as a moral compass around here. When Senator Coats speaks on these issues, we all listen because he is a living example of what we want families in America to be about. Senator Coats has been involved in this particular effort on this piece of legislation for a long, long time. I believe there may be some question about the bill's constitutionality. Fine, we will let the courts decide that. I have some questions myself. But it is a sad, but inescapable fact that material harmful to children is pervasive on the Internet in America today. It is an indisputable fact. There is no Member of the Senate who is more qualified and has more credibility to address this issue than the Senator from Indiana. It is my understanding that the Senator from Montana is not going to seek a recorded vote on the second-degree amendment of the Senator from Connecticut. Fairly shortly, if there is no other debate on this amendment, we will move to a vote around noon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after adoption of the Dodd second-degree amendment that the Senate vote at 12 noon on the Coats amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. I amend my unanimous consent request that the Senator from Indiana have 2 minutes prior to the vote.

Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on Amendment No. 3695, As Modified, As Amended

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand the following amendments which were filed earlier are acceptable to both sides. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be considered en bloc, and agreed to: Amendments numbered 3734, 3723, as modified, 3717, 3713, 3710, 3712, 3735, and 3721, as modified.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment numbered 3722 be the pending business.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is simple. It is offered by myself for Senators Gregg and Lieberman. The amendment instructs the commission created in this bill to examine model state legislation and provide definitions of what should be subject to or exempt from taxation. Additionally, the Commission would be instructed to look specifically at Internet transactions. Some would like to see the scope of the commission expanded. This is not necessary. The Commission may look at any form of remote sales, but it is not forced to. This bill is about the Internet, and its potential as a new technology--but more importantly, as a medium for electronic commerce. The Internet is not like the mail. It is not a monopoly. It is unlike anything that we have seen to date. For that reason we believe that it should be protected from discriminatory taxation. Mr. President, there will be some who seek to defeat this amendment or will offer second degree amendments to it regarding remote sales, specifically mail order sales. We dealt with that subject specifically the other day. My good friend from Arkansas offered an amendment to overturn the Quill decision regarding mail order sales. Senator Graham of Florida spoke in favor of the amendment. And then the Senate voted on the matter. The amendment was defeated handily: 65-30. We don't need to revisit this issue again. If we do, I would hope the vote to table would be the same. We should let this commission do its work. We should not prejudge what they will decide or attempt to force them to examine certain subjects or come to certain conclusions. That would be wrong and would undermine the mission of the Commission. The bi-partisan amendment before the Senate gives the commission free reign to decide what it believes is best and report such findings to the Congress. I urge my colleagues to support the McCain/Gregg/Lieberman amendment and defeat any second degree amendments that may be offered. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment does not say anything about what to do or not to do. What we are talking about here is whether the commission should say we should overturn the Quill decision. That is what we get down to, if we want to get through all the rhetoric and language about this. We don't think the Quill decision should be overturned. Obviously, the proponents of the amendment do, and that really is, to a significant degree, what this amendment is all about. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to withhold for 2 minutes before I make the motion to table.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senate has spoken. I move that we adopt the underlying amendment and the pending amendment.

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

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk, en bloc, and ask for their immediate consideration.

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

Mr. McCAIN. These have been accepted by both sides. I know of no further debate.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are now down to basically two issues about which the Senator from Wyoming, the Senator from North Dakota, and the Senator from Oregon are deeply concerned. We are negotiating those. We hope we can get an agreement on those so that we can finish up on this legislation. If not, we will probably have votes on those two issues. But we have resolved the remaining amendments, except for those two. There is more than one amendment associated with those two issues. But if we can get that agreement within the next half hour or so, I think we can move to final passage. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his cooperation with this difficult issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is a letter I sent to the President this morning concerning Kosovo. It reads as follows: Dear Mr. President: I am writing because of my serious concern about developments in Kosovo. With a brutality that would be almost unimaginable were anyone else responsible for it, Slobodan Milosevic has subjected yet another innocent population to the bloody carnage of ethnic cleansing. The stark depravity of his actions gravely offends the basic moral values of Western civilization. Moreover, the conflict in Kosovo threatens the stability of Europe, as the prospects are quite real that it may eventually embroil other countries in the region in a larger war. More than once, the United States has warned Serbia that NATO will not tolerate its continued aggression against Kosovo. Serbia has ignored our warnings, thereby challenging the credibility of the United States, obliging us and our NATO allies to consider using military force to prevent further aggression against our values and interests in Kosovo. Congress has reservations about such a course of action, however. While I am inclined to support military action, I understand the basis for my colleagues' reservations, and I believe it is imperative that prior to ordering any military strike on Serbia you take all necessary steps to ensure both Congress and the American people that the action is necessary, affordable, and designed to achieve clearly defined goals. First, you must state clearly the American interest in resolving this terrible conflict; describe in detail the facts on the ground; identify all parties responsible for perpetrating the terrible atrocities committed in Kosovo while making clear that Serbia is indisputably the primary culprit; explain how our own security is threatened by Serbian aggression and justifies risking the lives of American pilots, and how the use of air power can prevent further aggression. You must also define for the public what will constitute the operation's success so that Americans know that air strikes were launched with a realistic end game in mind. Second, you must convincingly explain to the American people why it is that we should be involved in a conflict that to many people seems to affect our interests indirectly, and that should be resolved exclusively by those countries most directly threatened by it--our European allies. As I am sure you appreciate, Congress and the public's frustration over Europe's lack of willingness to bear a greater share of the burden for maintaining peace in their own backyard is at an all time high, threatening the nation's consensus that our leadership in NATO should remain a priority interest for the United States. You could go a long way toward alleviating that frustration by ensuring that any ground forces that might ultimately be needed to keep the peace in Kosovo will be provided by European countries alone. Third, should you order air strikes you must ensure the nation that they will be of sufficient magnitude to achieve their objectives. I hope you will view the following criticism in the constructive spirit in which it is offered. In the past, your administration has too often threatened and then backed down from the use of force, or authorized cruise missile strikes that amounted to little more than ineffective gestures intended, I suspect, to send a message to our adversaries, but because of their small scale interpreted by our adversaries as a lack of resolve on the part of the United States to defend our interests vigorously. Your administration's failure to support UNSCOM inspectors in Iraq has also greatly exacerbated our adversaries' lack of respect for America's resolve. Finally, you should explain how you intend to find additional resources to fund the operation in order to alleviate well-founded Congressional anxiety regarding the over-extension of U.S. military commitments at a time when spending on national defense is woefully inadequate. Mr. President, should you convincingly address the issues I have raised, which I believe you can do, I am confident you will have the support of Congress and our constituents for operations against Serbia. You will certainly have mine. I believe there exists a clear and compelling case for such an action that Americans will accept if you avoid the mistakes made in the past when your administration has attempted to build public support for the use of force. I urge to give these concerns your most serious consideration.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3719, as modified, be the pending business; that Senator Dorgan be recognized to offer a second-degree amendment, as modified, that will be adopted; and it be in order for me to offer a nonfiled second-degree amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, let me comment on what is going on here for the benefit of my colleagues. We have agreed on the language concerning the grandfathering of this legislation, which was important. Now we have resolved all matters with the exception of whether the moratorium should last for 3 or 4 years. My amendment, after we accept the grandfather language from the Senator from North Dakota, will be to have the moratorium expire at the end of 4 years, for which there will probably be a recorded vote, after which it is most likely--although we have to check with both sides about further debate--we will have completed the amending process of the germane amendments that were on the bill and we will be very close to final passage of the legislation.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I don't know if there is any debate on the Dorgan second-degree amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the other day the Senate adopted amendment No. 3678, which had technical and drafting errors. I ask unanimous consent that the modification of the amendment be adopted.