John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Inevitably, I would say to the Senator from Oregon, there is going to be a question of constitutionality. It is my understanding, from my informed staff, that there was a case in North Carolina that was upheld but it has never gone any higher than that.

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

Mr. McCAIN. It is my understanding the Senator from Oregon is prepared to go forward with his amendment. It is a pretty simple amendment. It is a fairly straightforward amendment. I think we could get a time agreement, if the Senator from Kentucky is agreeable, say, for a vote at 6 o'clock. After that vote we could lay down another amendment. So we will be ready to go on that, if that is agreeable.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object--I will not object--that would not in any way preclude Members from coming down for opening statements. We want to make sure everyone can make their opening statements. I know there are a lot of Members who would like to make opening statements on the bill.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, may I say to my distinguished colleague, my statement would be 5 minutes long.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. McCAIN. I will bring it up at another time.

Mr. McCAIN. Who yields time?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, Senator Snowe, who has been a vital part of this effort with respect to probably the most controversial section of our legislation, is waiting to speak. I will be brief. I appreciate very much what the Senator from New Mexico is trying to do. All of us are aggravated and sometimes astounded when we hear of $70 million being spent in a Senate race. The way I read it from the handout it says: If the candidate exceeds $1 million in personal expenditures, the direct party contribution limits and party coordinated expenditure limits are eliminated. It does not say capped; it says ``eliminated.'' If that is incorrect, I suggest the Senator from New Mexico fix that. If that is true, then a millionaire can spend $1 million and immediately the other person can raise $50 million in coordinated and direct party expenditures. Finally, in all due respect for the Senator from New Mexico, this is a meat-ax approach to a problem that requires a scalpel. The State of Wyoming in the year 2000 had a voting-age population of 358,000. The State of California had a voting-age population of 24,873,000. Madam President, $1 million in Wyoming, in all due respect to my friends from Wyoming, probably buys every television station in Wyoming; $1 million in California is a drop in the ocean. This does not get at really the different aspects of a small State or a big State. If I had $1 million, I could buy a lot of TV in New Mexico. I cannot buy very much in California. In all due respect to a very good-intentioned and well- intentioned amendment in an area we need to address, including free television time for candidates, including raising hard money as a part of a total ban on soft money and other ways we can attack this, I think this may be the wrong way to do it. My time has expired.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. McCAIN. I don't want to take the floor from the Senator from New Mexico, but I have to tell the Senator from New Mexico, he has made substantial and probably significant and beneficial changes to his amendment. He just articulated them. We haven't had a chance to digest them to see what the impact would be. We have gone a long way from if the candidate exceeds $1 million, the direct party contributions and party coordinated expenditure limits are eliminated. We have to figure out exactly what all this means, I say to the Senator from New Mexico. This is legislating on the fly here. What we would like to do, if it is agreeable to the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Ohio and all of us involved, is to have a chance to sit down and negotiate this with him. I agree with the Senator from New Mexico. I think he has some very good provisions, but at this time we would like to be able to examine those provisions, determine exactly what the impact is, have some negotiations, which have been going on among our staffs. Hopefully, we could get something on which we can all agree. I am not sure in this very short time period where the Senator's amendment has changed rather drastically, fundamentally, when we are talking about if the candidate exceeds $1 million personal expenditures, the direct party contribution limits and party coordinated expenditure limits are eliminated--I don't frankly understand exactly the ramifications of the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. McCAIN. I want to say again to my friend from New Mexico, we can work this out. We can do that. By the way, it is my understanding if we table your amendment, you can bring up another amendment anyway, whether it is tabled or not. If we don't table the present amendment, then that will signal that the Senate agrees with that amendment. Obviously, I do not, nor do I believe does the majority. I emphasize again to the Senator from New Mexico, I think we have made great progress in these negotiations. We are in agreement in principle. All we need to do is work out the details of it. Frankly, I haven't been here nearly as long as the Senator from New Mexico, but I haven't heard of a parliamentary procedure where you would not table somebody's amendment that you oppose when there is going to be a follow-up amendment because we have unlimited amendments on this bill, very soon that we hope we will have worked out together. Again, I am optimistic that we will work out the differences we have and it will give us all a better understanding of the amendment so we can make the best and most efficient use of our time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from New Mexico, we are ready now to sit down and negotiate so we can have an agreement on his amendment in the morning. I believe the Senator from Connecticut has said he could have the next amendment. The only reason we objected to it is because we did not have sufficient time to review the modifications and continue negotiations. I say to my friend from New Mexico, we are ready to sit down right now and negotiate. I think we are very close to an agreement so we can get this done immediately and move on to other issues. Mr. President, I also would like to thank the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Wisconsin. Again, before I yield the floor, I believe we are very close to an agreement. We were before the modification. I also believe that with these negotiations, within an hour we can come up with an agreement that will get a very substantial and majority vote. I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. There may be more than 2 hours, and Members may come down afterwards since some Members are coming back late this afternoon. I would like to make that clear.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank my friend, Senator Feingold, for his partnership and for his friendship. Today we begin the first open Senate debate in many years on whether or not we should substantially reform our campaign finance laws. I want to thank Senators Lott and Daschle for their commitment to allowing a fair and open debate, and for their assurance that the Senate will be allowed to exercise its will on this matter and vote on the legislation that emerges at the end of the amendment process.

Mr. McCAIN. No.

Mr. McCAIN. I am into my statement. After 5 minutes, I will be privileged to do so. Madam President, I want to thank as well, Senator McConnell, our steadfast and all-too-capable opponent, who honestly and bravely defends his beliefs, for agreeing to the terms of this debate, a debate that we hope may settle many of the questions, held by advocates and opponents of reform, that have yet to be resolved by this body. I, of course, want to thank from the bottom of my heart, all the co- sponsors of this legislation for their steadfast support, and for proving to be far more able and persuasive advocates of our cause than I have had the skill to be. Most particularly, I want to thank my partner in this long endeavor, Senator Russ Feingold, a man of rare courage and decency, who has risked his own career and ambitions for the sake of his principles. To me, Madam President, that seem a pretty good definition of patriotism. I want to thank the President of the United States for engaging in this debate, and for his oft stated willingness to seek a fair resolution of our differences on this issue for the purpose of providing the people we serve greater confidence in the integrity of their public institutions. Too often, as this debate approached, our differences on this issue have been viewed as an extension of our former rivalry. I regret that very much. For he is not my rival. He is my President, and he retains my confidence that the country we love will be a better place because of his leadership. Lastly, I wish to thank every Member of the Senate--especially Senator Hagel, my friend yesterday, my friend today, my friend tomorrow--for their cooperation in allowing this debate to occur so early in what will surely be one of the busier congressional sessions in recent memory. I thank all my colleagues for their patience, a patience that has been tried by my own numerous faults far too often, as I beg their indulgence again. Please accept my assurance that no matter our various differences on this issue, and my own failings in arguing those differences, my purpose is limited solely to enacting those reforms that we believe are necessary to defend the government's public trust, and not to seek a personal advantage at any colleague's expense. I sincerely hope that our debate, contentious though it will be, will also be free of acrimony and rancor, and that the quality of our deliberations will impress the public as evidence of the good faith that sustains our resolve. The many sponsors of this legislation have but one purpose: to enact fair, bipartisan campaign finance reform that seeks no special advantage for one party or another, but that helps change the public's widespread belief that politicians have no greater purpose than our own reelection. And to that end, we will respond disproportionately to the needs of those interests that can best finance our ambition, even if those interests conflict with the public interest and with the governing philosophy we once sought office to advance. The sad truth is that most Americans do believe that we conspire to hold onto every single political advantage we have, lest we jeopardize our incumbency by a single lost vote. Most Americans believe that we would let this Nation pay any price, bear any burden for the sake of securing our own ambitions, no matter how injurious the effect might be to the national interest. And who can blame them? As long as the wealthiest Americans and richest organized interests can make the six and seven figure donations to political parties and gain the special access to power that such generosity confers on the donor, most Americans will dismiss the most virtuous politician's claim of patriotism. The opponents of reform will ask if the public so distrusts us and so dislikes our current campaign finance system why is there no great cry in the country to throw us all out of office? they will contend--and this point is disputable--that no one has ever lost or won an election because of their opposition to or support for campaign finance reform. Yet public opinion polls consistently show that the vast majorities of our constituents want reform, and believe our current system of campaign financing is terribly harmful to the public good. But, the opponents observe, they do not rank reform among the national priorities they expect their Government to urgently address. That is true, but why is it so? Simply put, they don't believe it will ever be done. They don't expect us to adopt real reforms and they defensively keep their hopes from being raised and their inevitable disappointment from being worse. The public just doesn't believe that either an incumbent opposing reform or a challenger supporting it will honestly work to repair this system once he or she has been elected under the rules, or lack thereof, that govern it. They distrust both. They believe that whether we publicly advocate or oppose reform, we are all working either openly or deceitfully to prevent even the slightest repair of a system they believe is corrupt. So they avoid investing too much hope in the possibility that we could surprise them. And they accommodate their disappointment by basing their pride in their country on their own patriotism and that of their neighbors, on the civilization that they have built and defended, and not on the hope that politicians will ever take courage from our convictions and not our campaign treasuries. Our former colleague, Senator David Boren of Oklahoma, recently reminded me of a poll that Time magazine has conducted over many years. In 1961, 76 percent of Americans said yes to the question, ``Do you trust your government to do the right thing?'' This year, only 19 percent of Americans still believe that. Many events have occurred in the last 30 years to fuel their distrust. Assassinations, Vietnam, Watergate, and many subsequent public scandals have squandered the public's faith in us, and have led more and more Americans from even taking responsibility for our election. But surely frequent campaign finance scandals and their real or assumed connection to misfeasance by public officials are a major part of the problem. Why should they not be? Any voter with a healthy understanding of the flaws of human nature and who notices the vast amounts of money solicited and received by politicians cannot help but believe that we are unduly influenced by our benefactors' generosity. Why can't we all agree to this very simple, very obvious truth: that campaign contributions from a single source that run into the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars are not healthy to a democracy? Is that not self-evident? Is it to the people, Madam President. It is to the people. Some will argue that there isn't too much money in politics. They will argue there is not enough. They will argue that soft money, the huge, unregulated revenue stream into political party coffers, is necessary to ensure the strength of the two-party system. I find this last point hard to understand considering that in the 15 years or so that soft money has become the dominant force in our elections the parties have grown appreciably weaker as independents become the fast growing voter registration group in the country. Some will observe that we spend more money to advertise toothpaste and yogurt in this country than to conduct campaigns for public office. I don't care, Madam President. I am not concerned with the costs of toothpaste and yogurt. We aren't selling those commodities to the public. We are offering our integrity and our principles, and the means we use to market them should not cause the consumer to doubt the value of the product. Some will argue that the first amendment of the Constitution renders unlawful any restrictions on the right of anyone to raise unlimited amounts of money for political campaigns. Which drafter of the Constitution believed or anticipated that the first amendment would be exercised in political campaigns by the relatively few at the expense of the many? We have restrictions now that have been upheld by the courts; they have simply been circumvented by the rather recent exploitation of the so-called soft money loophole. Teddy Roosevelt signed a law banning corporate contributions. Harry Truman signed a law banning contributions from labor unions. In 1974, we enacted a law to limit contributions from individuals and political action committees directly to the candidates. Those laws were not found unconstitutional and vacated by the courts. They were judged lawful for the purpose of preventing political corruption or the appearance of corruption. Those laws were rendered ineffectual not unlawful by the ingenuity of politicians determined to get around them who used an allowance in the law that placed no restrictions on what once was intended essentially to be a building fund for the State parties. That fund has run to the billions of dollars, and I haven't noticed the buildings that serve as our local and State party headquarters becoming quite that magnificent. Ah, say the opponents, if politicians will always find a way of circumventing campaign finance laws, what is the point of passing new laws? Do I believe that any law will prove effective over time? No, I do not. Were we to pass this legislation today, I am sure that at some time in the future, hopefully many years from now, we will need to address some new circumvention. So what. So we have to debate this matter again. Is that such a burden on us or our successors that we should simply be indifferent to the abundant evidence of at least the appearance of corruption and to the public's ever growing alienation from the Government of this great Nation, problems that this system has engendered? I hope not, Madam President. I hope not. The supporters of this legislation have had differences about what constitutes the ideal reform, but we have subordinated those differences to the common good, in the hope that we might enact those basic reforms that Members of both parties could agree on. It is not perfect reform. There is no perfect reform. It could be improved, and we hope it will be during this debate. We have tried to exclude any provision that could be viewed as placing one party or the other at a disadvantage. Our intention is to pass the best, most balanced, most important reforms we can. All we ask of our colleagues is that they approach this debate with the same purpose in mind. I beg my colleagues not to propose amendments intended only to kill this legislation or to seize on any change in this legislation that serves our basic goal as an excuse to withdraw your support. The sponsors want to have votes on all relevant issues involved in campaign finance reform and will support amendments that strengthen the bipartisan majority in favor of reform and that do not prevent us from achieving our fundamental goal of substantially reducing the influence of big money on our political system. If we cannot agree on every aspect of reform; if we have differences about what constitutes genuine and necessary reform, and we hold those differences honestly--so be it. Let us try to come to terms with those differences fairly. That is what the sponsors of this legislation have tried to do, and we welcome anyone's help to improve upon our efforts as long as that help is sincere and intended to reach the common goal of genuine campaign finance reform. I hope we will, for the moment, forget our partisan imperatives and take a risk for our country. Perhaps that is a hopelessly naive aspiration. It need not be. I think the good men and women I am privileged to serve with are perfectly capable of surprising a skeptical public, and maybe ourselves, by taking on this challenge to the honor of the profession of which we are willing and proud members. Real campaign finance reform will not cure all public cynicism about modern politics. Nor will it completely free politics from influence peddling or the appearance of it. But I believe it will cause many Americans who are at present quite disaffected from the machinations of politics to begin to see that their elected officials value their reputations more than their incumbency. And maybe that recognition will cause them to exercise their franchise more faithfully, to identify more closely with political parties, to raise their expectations for the work we do. Maybe it will even encourage more of them to seek public office, not for the privileges bestowed upon election winners, but for the honor of serving a great Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation with my colleagues, Senators Daschle, Inouye, Baucus, Feinstein and Cochran, to amend the Social Security Act and extend eligibility for Indian tribes to fully implement, like states, the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Act. This important legislation will make certain that Indian children living in tribal areas have the same access to services of the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Program enjoyed by other children nationwide. The purpose of the Title IV-E program is to ensure that children receive adequate care when placed in foster care and adoption programs. The Title IV-E program operates as an open-ended entitlement program for eligible state governments with approved plans. State governments receive funding for foster care maintenance payments to cover food, shelter, clothing, school supplies, and liability insurance for income- eligible children placed in foster homes by state courts, and for related administrative and training costs. While Congress intended that the Title IV-E program should benefit all eligible children, Indian children who are under the jurisdiction of the respective tribal court are generally not considered eligible. When enacted, the Title IV-E law did not properly consider that Indian tribal governments retain sole jurisdiction over the domestic affairs of their own tribal members, particularly Indian children. State administrators have attempted to meet the intended goals of these programs by extending their efforts to Indian country. However, administrative and jurisdictional hurdles make it nearly impossible to provide these services. As a result, Indian children in need of foster care and child support are not accorded the same level of service as other children nationwide. Tribal governments, who are legally responsible for Indian children in foster care, are not entitled to federal reimbursement for children placed in foster care by a tribal court, unless the tribe, as a public agency, enters into a cooperative agreement with the state. A cooperative agreement may not sound all that difficult, but in reality, such an agreement can prove impossible. Rather than providing incentives, current law often discourages states from entering into agreements with tribes. For example, a state is accountable for tribal compliance with Title IV-E requirements. If a tribe cannot fulfill a matching requirement, the state must assume the costs on behalf of the tribe in order to retain federal funds. It is entirely possible that states could lose their Title IV-E funds if tribal records were out of compliance. Unfortunately, State-tribal relations are not always productive, particularly when disputes arise over issues unrelated to child welfare. Providing this direct eligibility for tribal governments, with the same accountability and enforcement requirements, will resolve such problems. State agencies have indicated that direct participation by the tribes would help address an overburden of casework and preclude tension over jurisdictional issues. While direct tribal authority would be authorized by enactment of this legislation, I want to make clear that we have no intention to supplant or discourage State-tribal agreements. Existing agreements will be honored, while allowing Indian tribes to directly access needed resources for further protection for income-eligible Indian children. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimated that this legislation would cost $236 million over a five-year period, which generally amounts to less than 1 percent of total federal Title IV-E expenditures. While this legislation does not currently include any identified offsets to pay for adding tribal eligibility for this entitlement program, I have been assured by Senator Daschle that the inclusion of an offset, prior to final passage, will in no way affect the Social Security Trust Fund or increase the federal debt. We have pledged to work together to find the necessary and agreeable offset for this program. Enactment of this legislation will bring an end to the disparate treatment of eligible Indian children under Title IV-E programs. I urge my colleagues to correct this unfair oversight and make the benefits of the Title IV-E entitlement program available for all children as intended.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation with my colleagues, Senators Daschle, Inouye, Baucus, Feinstein and Cochran, to amend the Social Security Act and extend eligibility for Indian tribes to fully implement, like states, the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Act. This important legislation will make certain that Indian children living in tribal areas have the same access to services of the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Program enjoyed by other children nationwide. The purpose of the Title IV-E program is to ensure that children receive adequate care when placed in foster care and adoption programs. The Title IV-E program operates as an open-ended entitlement program for eligible state governments with approved plans. State governments receive funding for foster care maintenance payments to cover food, shelter, clothing, school supplies, and liability insurance for income- eligible children placed in foster homes by state courts, and for related administrative and training costs. While Congress intended that the Title IV-E program should benefit all eligible children, Indian children who are under the jurisdiction of the respective tribal court are generally not considered eligible. When enacted, the Title IV-E law did not properly consider that Indian tribal governments retain sole jurisdiction over the domestic affairs of their own tribal members, particularly Indian children. State administrators have attempted to meet the intended goals of these programs by extending their efforts to Indian country. However, administrative and jurisdictional hurdles make it nearly impossible to provide these services. As a result, Indian children in need of foster care and child support are not accorded the same level of service as other children nationwide. Tribal governments, who are legally responsible for Indian children in foster care, are not entitled to federal reimbursement for children placed in foster care by a tribal court, unless the tribe, as a public agency, enters into a cooperative agreement with the state. A cooperative agreement may not sound all that difficult, but in reality, such an agreement can prove impossible. Rather than providing incentives, current law often discourages states from entering into agreements with tribes. For example, a state is accountable for tribal compliance with Title IV-E requirements. If a tribe cannot fulfill a matching requirement, the state must assume the costs on behalf of the tribe in order to retain federal funds. It is entirely possible that states could lose their Title IV-E funds if tribal records were out of compliance. Unfortunately, State-tribal relations are not always productive, particularly when disputes arise over issues unrelated to child welfare. Providing this direct eligibility for tribal governments, with the same accountability and enforcement requirements, will resolve such problems. State agencies have indicated that direct participation by the tribes would help address an overburden of casework and preclude tension over jurisdictional issues. While direct tribal authority would be authorized by enactment of this legislation, I want to make clear that we have no intention to supplant or discourage State-tribal agreements. Existing agreements will be honored, while allowing Indian tribes to directly access needed resources for further protection for income-eligible Indian children. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimated that this legislation would cost $236 million over a five-year period, which generally amounts to less than 1 percent of total federal Title IV-E expenditures. While this legislation does not currently include any identified offsets to pay for adding tribal eligibility for this entitlement program, I have been assured by Senator Daschle that the inclusion of an offset, prior to final passage, will in no way affect the Social Security Trust Fund or increase the federal debt. We have pledged to work together to find the necessary and agreeable offset for this program. Enactment of this legislation will bring an end to the disparate treatment of eligible Indian children under Title IV-E programs. I urge my colleagues to correct this unfair oversight and make the benefits of the Title IV-E entitlement program available for all children as intended.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a simple, but essential bill that would change the name of the Social Security Trust Funds to the Social Security Accounting Funds. It is my honor to have Congressman DeMint introducing an identical measure in the House of Representatives today. It is time for us to talk straight to Americans about the Social Security program. When they see and hear ``Trust Fund'', it makes them believe that their retirement money is sitting in a bank vault safe and sound. However, the truth is precisely the opposite. Payroll tax revenues for the Social Security program in excess of what is needed to pay Social Security benefits, are deposited into the government's general funds as part of the U.S. Treasury. They are accounted for through the issuance of federal securities to the Social Security ``trust funds''. However, the trust funds themselves do not hold the money; they are simply accounts. This legislation would accurately designate the Social Security program funds as accounting funds not trust funds. Additionally, I would like to take this opportunity to once again remind my colleagues of the precarious financial condition of the entire Social Security system and the urgent need for a serious, bipartisan effort to reform and revitalize this cornerstone of many Americans' retirement planning. The only way to achieve real reform of the Social Security system is to work together in a bipartisan manner. It's time to abandon the irresponsible game of playing partisan politics with Social Security. Democrats will have to stop using the issue to scare seniors into voting against Republicans. Republicans will have to resist using Social Security revenues to finance tax cuts. And both parties must stop raiding the Trust Funds to fund more government spending. We must face up to our responsibilities, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as elected representatives of the American people with a common obligation to protect the generation of today and of tomorrow. It is time for us to talk straight to Americans about Social Security and begin working together in a bipartisan fashion to make the necessary changes to strengthen and save the nation's retirement program for the seniors of today and tomorrow. We must work together to develop fair and effective reforms that will preserve and protect the Social Security system for current and future retirees, while allowing all Americans, particularly low- and middle- income individuals, the opportunity to share in the great prosperity that our nation enjoys today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation, along with my colleagues, Senators Daschle, Inouye, Baucus and Campbell, to foster economic investment, development, and growth in Native American communities. This legislation would establish investment tax credits that will serve to attract private sector investments on Indian reservations. As a nation, the United States ranks third in entrepreneurial activity among the world's leading economies. The level of entrepreneurial activity in the country remains strong despite recent fluctuations in the market. However, what also remains are deep pockets of poverty in our country that have not substantially improved along with the economic growth that has swept the rest of our Nation, and those areas include Native American reservations. During my tenure in the Congress, I have worked on various legislative initiatives to help Indian tribes address the problems and barriers they face in attracting private sector activity onto reservation areas. Indian country, both historically and at the present time, cannot successfully compete with other areas in attracting businesses due to the unique issues affecting Indian country, such as jurisdictional complexities, taxation, and infrastructure deficits. Most Indian communities continue to struggle to provide basic jobs, infrastructure, housing and telephone service to tribal members. Some of my colleagues might only be aware of the handful of Indian tribes that have been successful in generating economic revenues through gaming activities. However, for the majority of Indian tribes, the main economic activity is the kind generated by federal or tribal government employment. I understand why this is the case, but I also believe that free enterprise must be allowed to flow freely on Indian lands as it does in the rest of our nation. By their very nature, governments, including tribal governments, simply are not good at running businesses. I know this is acknowledged by many tribes, who, consistent with their cultural traditions, have created tribal corporations or cooperative ventures that mix private sector business with tribal principles. I believe that private investment needs to be encouraged on Indian reservations if we are to see a significant improvement in the economies of Indian tribes. The investment tax credits we are proposing today are geared specifically to Indian reservations where there is economic need. The full credit is available to those reservations whose Indian unemployment rate exceeds the Nation's average unemployment by 300 percent. One-half of the credit is available on reservations where the unemployment rate is 150 to 300 percent of the national average. No investment tax credit is provided where the Indian unemployment rate is less than 150 percent of the national average. The bill is restricted to non-gaming related economic activity, which would prevent the investment from being used for development and/or operation of gaming establishments on Indian reservations. While this legislation may not be the panacea for all the economic ills afflicting Indian reservations today, I believe that the adoption of a specific program of Indian tax incentives would be a critical step toward the goal of providing Indian tribal governments with the opportunity to strengthen their economies. In previous Congresses, I have offered amendments to the federal tax code to create incentives for private sector investment on Indian reservations and remove inequities in the tax code so that tribal governments can enjoy the same tax benefits accorded other nontaxable government entities. I have offered these provisions, not to provide an advantage to Indians, but merely to give them the same kind of tax incentives and benefits the Congress has given other economically depressed areas and other units of government. We have been successful in enacting a few measures, but given the extremely underdeveloped economies of Native American communities, I believe we should enact these additional tax incentives. My colleagues and I are sponsoring this measure today because we believe these investment tax credits are necessary to reach out to those tribal communities that do not have the economic advantage of living near a booming metropolitan area, or do not enjoy the benefits of Indian gaming revenue. We believe that a strategy of tax incentives such as this legislation proposes is the most effective way that the federal government can act to stimulate reservation economic development. Tax incentives do not depend for their effectiveness on the actions of federal bureaucracies that are often slow-moving and unimaginative. The incentives are usable only by viable businesses ready and able to invest in Indian communities, which will consequently foster a strong entrepreneurial environment on Native American reservations. I look forward to working with my respective colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation, along with my colleagues, Senators Daschle, Inouye, Baucus and Campbell, to foster economic investment, development, and growth in Native American communities. This legislation would establish investment tax credits that will serve to attract private sector investments on Indian reservations. As a nation, the United States ranks third in entrepreneurial activity among the world's leading economies. The level of entrepreneurial activity in the country remains strong despite recent fluctuations in the market. However, what also remains are deep pockets of poverty in our country that have not substantially improved along with the economic growth that has swept the rest of our Nation, and those areas include Native American reservations. During my tenure in the Congress, I have worked on various legislative initiatives to help Indian tribes address the problems and barriers they face in attracting private sector activity onto reservation areas. Indian country, both historically and at the present time, cannot successfully compete with other areas in attracting businesses due to the unique issues affecting Indian country, such as jurisdictional complexities, taxation, and infrastructure deficits. Most Indian communities continue to struggle to provide basic jobs, infrastructure, housing and telephone service to tribal members. Some of my colleagues might only be aware of the handful of Indian tribes that have been successful in generating economic revenues through gaming activities. However, for the majority of Indian tribes, the main economic activity is the kind generated by federal or tribal government employment. I understand why this is the case, but I also believe that free enterprise must be allowed to flow freely on Indian lands as it does in the rest of our nation. By their very nature, governments, including tribal governments, simply are not good at running businesses. I know this is acknowledged by many tribes, who, consistent with their cultural traditions, have created tribal corporations or cooperative ventures that mix private sector business with tribal principles. I believe that private investment needs to be encouraged on Indian reservations if we are to see a significant improvement in the economies of Indian tribes. The investment tax credits we are proposing today are geared specifically to Indian reservations where there is economic need. The full credit is available to those reservations whose Indian unemployment rate exceeds the Nation's average unemployment by 300 percent. One-half of the credit is available on reservations where the unemployment rate is 150 to 300 percent of the national average. No investment tax credit is provided where the Indian unemployment rate is less than 150 percent of the national average. The bill is restricted to non-gaming related economic activity, which would prevent the investment from being used for development and/or operation of gaming establishments on Indian reservations. While this legislation may not be the panacea for all the economic ills afflicting Indian reservations today, I believe that the adoption of a specific program of Indian tax incentives would be a critical step toward the goal of providing Indian tribal governments with the opportunity to strengthen their economies. In previous Congresses, I have offered amendments to the federal tax code to create incentives for private sector investment on Indian reservations and remove inequities in the tax code so that tribal governments can enjoy the same tax benefits accorded other nontaxable government entities. I have offered these provisions, not to provide an advantage to Indians, but merely to give them the same kind of tax incentives and benefits the Congress has given other economically depressed areas and other units of government. We have been successful in enacting a few measures, but given the extremely underdeveloped economies of Native American communities, I believe we should enact these additional tax incentives. My colleagues and I are sponsoring this measure today because we believe these investment tax credits are necessary to reach out to those tribal communities that do not have the economic advantage of living near a booming metropolitan area, or do not enjoy the benefits of Indian gaming revenue. We believe that a strategy of tax incentives such as this legislation proposes is the most effective way that the federal government can act to stimulate reservation economic development. Tax incentives do not depend for their effectiveness on the actions of federal bureaucracies that are often slow-moving and unimaginative. The incentives are usable only by viable businesses ready and able to invest in Indian communities, which will consequently foster a strong entrepreneurial environment on Native American reservations. I look forward to working with my respective colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a simple, but essential bill that would change the name of the Social Security Trust Funds to the Social Security Accounting Funds. It is my honor to have Congressman DeMint introducing an identical measure in the House of Representatives today. It is time for us to talk straight to Americans about the Social Security program. When they see and hear ``Trust Fund'', it makes them believe that their retirement money is sitting in a bank vault safe and sound. However, the truth is precisely the opposite. Payroll tax revenues for the Social Security program in excess of what is needed to pay Social Security benefits, are deposited into the government's general funds as part of the U.S. Treasury. They are accounted for through the issuance of federal securities to the Social Security ``trust funds''. However, the trust funds themselves do not hold the money; they are simply accounts. This legislation would accurately designate the Social Security program funds as accounting funds not trust funds. Additionally, I would like to take this opportunity to once again remind my colleagues of the precarious financial condition of the entire Social Security system and the urgent need for a serious, bipartisan effort to reform and revitalize this cornerstone of many Americans' retirement planning. The only way to achieve real reform of the Social Security system is to work together in a bipartisan manner. It's time to abandon the irresponsible game of playing partisan politics with Social Security. Democrats will have to stop using the issue to scare seniors into voting against Republicans. Republicans will have to resist using Social Security revenues to finance tax cuts. And both parties must stop raiding the Trust Funds to fund more government spending. We must face up to our responsibilities, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as elected representatives of the American people with a common obligation to protect the generation of today and of tomorrow. It is time for us to talk straight to Americans about Social Security and begin working together in a bipartisan fashion to make the necessary changes to strengthen and save the nation's retirement program for the seniors of today and tomorrow. We must work together to develop fair and effective reforms that will preserve and protect the Social Security system for current and future retirees, while allowing all Americans, particularly low- and middle- income individuals, the opportunity to share in the great prosperity that our nation enjoys today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to join with Senators Graham, Hagel, DeWine, Dodd, Biden, Breaux, and Thompson today in introducing this important legislation to reauthorize the Andean Trade Preference Act. This legislation will renew and expand duty-free tariff treatment to our important trade partners: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. I would like to emphasize to my colleagues the importance of acting on this legislation, because the existing Andean Trade Preference Act will expire on December 4. Having recently visited the region, I would like to assure my colleagues that this program plays an important role in aiding the economic development of our Andean allies, and stabilizing fragile democracies in the region. The existing Andean Trade Preference Act has helped two-way trade between the United States and the region to nearly double in the 1990s. During this time, U.S. exports grew 65 percent and U.S. imports increased 98 percent. In addition, the program is responsible for an increase in industrial and agricultural imports from the Andean beneficiary countries. This economic diversification is beneficial for economic growth in the Andean region, and will reduce pressure for the citizens of the region to become involved in the drug trade. However, this program must be expanded to be truly effective. According to a recent study by the Congressional Research Service, only 10 percent of the imports from the Andean region enter the United States exclusively under the provisions of the existing Andean Trade Preference Act. I join with my colleagues in supporting Senator Graham's legislation, because it plays an important first step in the reauthorization process by extending to the Andean region similar trade benefits to what the Congress voted to give the Caribbean region last year. During his confirmation hearing earlier this year, Ambassador Zoellick called for a ``renewed and robust Andean Trade Preference Act.'' I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will consider the United States Trade Representative's recommendations, and those of our allies in the Andean region, who have proven that they need expanded duty and quota-free treatment for their imports. Many of us have had the benefit of traveling to Colombia over the past few months to observe the American-funded drug eradication efforts there, and to discuss Plan Colombia with the region's leaders. During my visit to Colombia in February, President Andres Pastrana made clear that liberalized trade with the United States, in the form of renewal and expansion of the Andean Trade Preference Act, was a critical pillar of his strategy to promote alternatives to the drug trade in his country. Plan Colombia is premised upon reducing the power and allure of the narco-traffickers and their rebel supporters who threaten America's interest in a democratic, prosperous, and stable Western Hemisphere. While the military component of America's assistance package remains controversial at home, expanding our trade relationship with Colombia, a nation of industrious people and vast natural resources, is a logical extension of our compelling interest in strengthening the Colombian state and providing its people with rewarding economic opportunities in the legitimate economy. It is also important to view renewal and expansion of the Andean Trade Preference Act in terms of our larger trade agenda with our Latin American neighbors. Early reauthorization of this program will show our trade partners that the United States is seriously engaged in strengthening our trade relations and promoting interdependence in the region. It is my belief that the United States should pursue four policies this year in order to accomplish our mutually beneficial trade objectives with our Latin American partners: 1. Early renewal of the Andean Trade Preference Act; 2. Passage of trade promotion authority for the President; 3. Completion of negotiations on a free trade agreement with Chile; and 4. Accomplishment of serious progress on the Free Trade Area of the Americas negotiations in order to meet an early conclusion of these negotiations in 2003. I look forward to working with the President and my colleagues in the Senate to pass this legislation in a timely manner before the December expiration. It is in our nation's economic and national security interests to reauthorize and expand trade benefits for the Andean region.