Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am delighted today to join my colleagues in paying tribute to a truly outstanding United States Senator, and that is Slade Gorton. During Slade's recent campaign, I had the privilege of going to Seattle to speak at a luncheon organized for him by women who had once worked for him in the Senate and in his capacity as attorney general. I was not at all surprised to see so many women who felt so strongly about Slade's reelection. He is, and always has been, an oasis of inclusion, encouragement, and support for women in the workplace. He is one of those people who know how to encourage, how to mentor, and how to help women and men reach their full potential. That certainly has been true in my own case. Even before I was sworn in as a new Senator some 4 years ago, Slade took me under his wing with advice on everything from choosing my committee assignments, to selecting my office space, to hiring my staff. He has continued to give me invaluable advice on a host of issues ranging from what our policy should be in Colombia and Kosovo, to how to take a different approach to education spending, to how to succeed in a tricky procedural situation. Slade has always been someone to whom I could turn for advice, for answers, for good counsel. It has also been my pleasure to work with Slade Gorton on a host of issues such as education, children's health care, and the cost of prescription drugs. What I admire most about Slade is his intellectually rigorous, challenging, and creative approach to public policy. He simply does not go along with the conventional wisdom; he challenges it, constantly seeking new ideas and innovative approaches to solve thorny problems. A perfect example of Slade's innovative style was his development of an entirely new approach to Federal education policy, one that recognized that local school boards, parents, and teachers know best what their children need. As the architect of the Straight A's bill, Slade has been a leader in education in the Senate. I was very proud to cosponsor his innovative effort to bring academic achievement and accountability to our public schools. Slade realized that when the Federal Government gives money to local schools, it should not come with dictates from D.C. on how it should be spent. He understood that it should, however, come with an expectation of results, and that is why he worked so hard to give local school boards, parents, teachers, and administrators, the freedom to decide how best to spend Federal money in exchange for holding them accountable for improving their schools. He changed the entire focus of Federal education policy from being focused on paperwork and process, to instead being focused on how much our students were learning, to a focus on student achievement and results. Slade has also been an advocate for children's health. Not only was he an early supporter of the Children's Health Insurance Program, the S-CHIP program, but he has also worked for years to increase Federal research dollars toward autism. That hard work is about to pay off because his autism bill was included this year in the omnibus children's health bill which was signed into law last month. It will direct more Federal dollars toward finding a cure and treatment for autism. Slade Gorton has had an impact on this Senate in so many ways. Whether it is serving as a valued mentor to more junior Senators, such as myself, or being the architect of very important legislation or shepherding appropriations bills through an incredibly difficult procedural morass, Slade has been front and center in every debate in this Senate. He has not only been a brilliant legislator; he has also been a wonderful friend. I will deeply miss serving with him, and I appreciate this opportunity today to pay tribute to a man who has not only been an outstanding Senator but a wonderful friend. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is with great disappointment that I rise today to comment on the decision announced yesterday by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to list as endangered Atlantic salmon in Maine. The decision represents an opportunity lost and reflects a process gone badly astray. It also raises serious questions about the mechanics of the Endangered Species Act, a law that I support, and how the Services have chosen to interpret and follow its dictates. I rise also out of deep concern for the Atlantic salmon. The rivers of Maine once played host to magnificent runs of Atlantic salmon. Scores of fish returned each year to the streams where they were born after two- or three-year journeys out to sea, venturing thousands of miles off the coast of Maine, as far away as Newfoundland. The question is, ``What is the best way to protect and restore these extraordinary fish?'' Yesterday's announcement is no small matter to my home State. It has serious implications for the aquaculture, blueberry, cranberry, and forest product industries that form the backbone of the economy in the most economically challenged area of Maine. The cruel irony underlying the decision is that Maine believed it had laid the issue to rest some three years ago when the Services withdrew a proposed listing and joined with the State in pursuing the Maine Salmon Conservation Plan. On December 15, 1997, the Services announced they were withdrawing their proposed listing of Atlantic salmon to pursue a ``cooperative recovery effort spearheaded by the State of Maine.'' At that time Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt announced: We are unlocking the full potential of rivers in Maine and opening a new chapter in conservation history. The governor showed great leadership in forging this collaboration, which will enhance the ecology and economy of the state for years to come. The seven rivers will continue to attract more anglers, boaters and other sportsmen who will help grow and sustain new jobs and revenue as the rivers continue to stand as a model for the nation. At the same time, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Deputy Administrator Terry Garcia praised Maine's salmon conservation plan with these words: This plan, which was developed by a state-appointed task force with input and advice from federal fisheries scientists, is an innovative effort to resolve the real world conflicts that occur when preserving a species clearly means rethinking traditional uses of a river. Our decision to protect salmon through this plan rather than through a listing under the Endangered Species Act highlights the ESA's flexibility and our willingness to consider state-designed plans. Bruce Babbitt's and Terry Garcia's statements purported to highlight the ESA's flexibility and the Services' willingness to consider state- designed conservation plans. But the decision to list Atlantic salmon exposes the statements as hollow rhetoric and reflects a policy of inflexibility and of rejecting potentially effective state plans as alternatives to listing. In the end, Secretary Babbitt and Mr. Garcia reneged on their commitment to work with the state, within the framework of the state plan. The Services have taken the implicit position that they are under no legally-binding obligation to abide by their earlier commitments to work with the state through the Maine Salmon Conservation Plan. In proposing the salmon listing, they abandoned the Plan, which the Services relied on to withdraw their 1995 proposal to list Atlantic salmon as threatened. Indeed, in withdrawing the proposed listing three years ago, the Services referred to the Plan as ``a comprehensive collection of measures and protective actions that offer[s] a positive benefit to the species'' and as a substitute for listing. Moreover, at the time, the Services signed a statement of cooperation with the State of Maine to support the Plan as the means toward restoring Atlantic salmon in the seven identified rivers. In short, the Services gave every indication that they were committing to the Plan as an alternative to listing the salmon under the Endangered Species Act. And that is precisely how the ESA is meant to operate. Listing determinations may not be made until the Services take ``into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State * * * to protect such species.'' As one court recently put it, ``The ESA specifically requires [the Services] to consider conservation efforts taken by a state to protect a species.'' By its own terms, the ESA also encourages states ``to develop and maintain conservation programs.'' This means that the Services can and should rely on a competent state plan to avoid listing a species as threatened or endangered. In Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, decided just last year, the court ruled that the Fish and Wildlife Service properly relied, in part, on a cooperative state/federal conservation plan to withdraw a proposed rule to list the flat-tailed horned lizard under the ESA. The court reasoned as follows: The ESA was not implemented to discourage states from taking measures to protect a species before it becomes technically or legally ``necessary'' to list the species as threatened or endangered under ESA guidelines. Rather, states are encouraged to work hand in hand with other government agencies and conservation groups to implement evolving policies and strategies to protect wildlife over time. Though the ESA regulations may represent many species' last chance at survival, Congress surely did not intend to make it the only chance at survival. The court's decision in the Defenders of Wildlife case hits the nail on the head. The ESA encourages state/federal cooperative efforts to protect and restore species before listing is required. This goal is supported further by the Services' own regulations, which authorize Candidate Conservation Agreements between the Services, states, and private entities. These agreements are ``designed with the goal of precluding or removing any need to list the covered species,'' a goal shared by the Maine Salmon Conservation Plan. The Services' stated policies, too, profess to ``[u]tilize the expertise of State agencies in designing and implementing prelisting stabilization actions * * * for species and habitat to remove or alleviate threats so that listing priority is reduced or listing as endangered or threatened is not warranted.'' The Services also are working to establish criteria for evaluating the certainty of implementation and effectiveness of formalized state conservation efforts in order to facilitate the development of such efforts. Again, the goal is to make listing a species as threatened or endangered unnecessary. In short, the Services are well-aware that the ESA encourages cooperative, responsible conservation efforts such as Maine's plan. Three years ago Commerce Department official Terry Garcia celebrated the Plan as ``highlight[ing] the ESA's flexibility and [the Services'] willingness to consider state-designed plans.'' Today, the Plan has been rejected as not ``adequately address[ing] the increasing threats salmon are facing from aquaculture, fish disease, habitat modification and catch-and-release fishing.'' No compelling record has been established indicating that the Plan has not met its interim goals. No request was made to modify the Plan. It was simply abandoned. The Services contend that the proposed rule was the direct result of a status review that they conducted some time in 1999 and issued in October of that year. Yet, the Status Review is riddled with logical fallacies and unsupportable conclusions. Moreover, its timing presents cause for concern. Under the ESA, ``species'' is defined to include any ``distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' In other words, a subpopulation of a given species can be listed under the ESA if, indeed, it is distinct and self-contained. In the current circumstance, the Services rely on a supposed distinct population segment of Atlantic salmon remarkable only for its genealogical diversity. The population segment proposed for listing includes salmon in eight Maine rivers--each of which has long been under an intensive federal stocking program--and, curiously, does not include Atlantic salmon stocked in the Merrimack and Connecticut Rivers. As far back as 1979, Congress expressed great concern about the Services' misuse of distinct population segments. In the report accompanying the bill to re-authorize the Endangered Species Act that year, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, while acknowledging there may be some instances where different population segments of a single species are appropriate stated, ``Nevertheless, the committee is aware of the great potential abuse of this authority and expects the FWS to use the ability to list populations sparingly and only when the biological evidence indicates that such action is warranted.'' In this case, the population distinction proposed by the Services fails to meet the standard set by Congress due to both a long- running stocking effort and the use of a territorial boundary that has little to do with reproductive isolation. The July 1999 Status Review documents a stocking effort in the Kennebec, Sheepscot, Ducktrap, Narraguagus, Pleasant, Machias, East Machias, and Dennys Rivers that dates back to 1871. Up until 1992, these various stocking efforts took no account of the river-specific genetics that form the basis of this proposed listing. In 1871, 1,500 parr from the Canadian province of Ontario were released into the Sheepscot River. That was the first of many instances of planned introduction of foreign salmon for the purpose of interbreeding into what the Services now claim to be a genetically distinct population segment. Over eight years in the 1960s, 136,500 parr and 65,700 smolt-- 100 percent of which came from rivers in Canada--were stocked in the Sheepscot river. As late as 1990 and 1991, 13 percent of a substantial stocking effort used fish from New Brunswick. In fact, from 1970 to 1992, while many substantial stocking efforts occurred putting millions of fry, parr, and smolt in these Maine rivers, not a single effort used salmon from the home river. In a stocking program 128 years old, only in the last seven years have river-specific salmon been used. For the Services now to try to claim that the fish in the eight rivers constitute a distinct population segment after this massive, century-long effort designed purposefully to introduce fish from other rivers and other countries into the eight is plainly disingenuous. The Biological Review Team acknowledges that historic stocking practices may have had an adverse effect upon the genetic integrity of local stocks but claims that the limited stocking abilities of these early efforts minimized interference with the genetic purity of these river stocks. This is inconsistent with other assertions in the biological review. The Services claim escaped aquaculture salmon pose a grave threat to the river-specific genetics of the salmon they propose to list. On the one hand, the Services argue that the enormous stocking of non-river specific species did not change the genetic composition of these stocks because the 128-year stocking effort was primitive, even in 1991. Yet, on the other hand, the Services claim an estimated 113 suspected adult escapees in the last ten years from aquacultural facilities in the Gulf of Maine pose a grave threat to genetic makeup of these river-specific salmon. Simply put, the Services' position defies logic. The ESA requires that a listing decision be made on the basis of scientific data relating to the status of the species taking into account state protection and conservation efforts. Nowhere does the ESA permit a listing decision to be driven by a national interest group's lawsuit meant to force a listing to occur. Yet, it appears this sort of motivation may underlie the Services' decision to abandon the Plan. I wrote Secretary Babbitt and then-Secretary Daley requesting documents concerning the listing process and, in particular, the decision to conduct the Status Review. The Status Review appears to have commenced shortly after a lawsuit was filed to force an emergency listing of the salmon. The documents shed light on the Services' motivations in ordering the Status Review and, ultimately, deciding to list Maine's Atlantic salmon. I would like to take a few minutes today to share with my Senate colleagues what I found when I examined the documents provided to me by the Services, some pursuant to subpoena. I do so because the documents reflect a listing process that appears to have been badly out of step with the letter and spirit of the ESA. It is important to keep some dates in mind. On December 18, 1997, the Services withdrew a proposed rule to list the very same Atlantic salmon under the ESA. Again, the withdrawal was made with much fanfare and was based in large part on the State's adoption of the Maine Salmon Conservation Plan. On January 27, 1999, Defenders of Wildlife and other plaintiffs filed suit against the Services claiming that the withdrawal was an arbitrary and capricious decision and seeking an emergency listing of the Atlantic salmon. Some time thereafter, the Services began a biological review of the status of Atlantic salmon in Maine. According to the Services, the review was completed in July 1999, though it was not released until October of the same year. In August 1999, a second lawsuit was filed against the Services. The two cases were eventually consolidated. Then, on November 17, 1999, the Services issued a proposed rule to list the Atlantic salmon as endangered. That proposed rule led to the recent listing decision. More than anything else, the documents I requested show that concerns about losing the lawsuits influenced the Services ultimately to abandon the Maine Salmon Conservation Plan and to proceed toward an ESA listing. But the decision to abandon the plan was not easily reached. The documents show that, throughout much of 1999, the Services were in disagreement over whether to abandon the State plan. In a March 31, 1999 e-mail, for example, Department of Interior officials express dismay over the position of the Department of Commerce legal team, which purportedly believed that ``the state should be given every opportunity to accomplish the conservation measures accepted under the 1997 non-listing decision.'' According to this same e-mail, the Commerce Department legal team felt that NMFS could ``maintain a more productive relationship with the state if eventually forced to list by the court (as opposed to willingly listing).'' For its part, the Interior Department legal team apparently did not want NMFS to give the Maine plan a further chance. In an April 2, 1999 e-mail, an Interior Department lawyer wrote to a colleague at the Commerce Department that he had heard NOAA's general counsel had, ``without consulting [the Fish & Wildlife Service], recommended that NMFS give the state a list of conservation plan deficiencies and a delay of several months to address them.'' The e-mail continues: ``Today, I heard that NOAA Assistant Administrator for Oceans & Atmosphere Terry Garcia has picked up the idea and is running with it.'' The Interior Department lawyer went on to express his concern that giving Maine time to implement and improve the plan ``will appear political, and will be difficult to defend on scientific grounds.'' Another Interior Department attorney expressed her opposition to the NMFS proposal more pointedly. She argued that giving the State of Maine more time to conserve and restore Atlantic salmon through its plan would risk a loss in the ongoing salmon litigation. In her words, ``racking up another loss on conservation agreements'' such as Maine's would ``threaten'' the Service's ability to rely on such plans in the future in lieu of listing. Yet this view was not shared equally by each Service. It appears that the Commerce Department was more optimistic that the Maine Salmon Conservation Plan could be relied upon as an effective defense to the ongoing litigation. Another e-mail, dated March 30, 1999 and between two Interior Department attorneys, notes a NMFS official's view that the state plan could provide ``a viable defense'' in the ongoing litigation. The Interior Department attorney disagreed, citing ``serious litigation risks'' and the potential for setting an adverse precedent that could ``extend to future actions in lieu of listing.'' The Services' differing stances on whether to support or abandon the State plan lasted at least into August 1999, mere months before the listing proposal was issued. An e-mail between two Interior Department attorneys, and which appears to have been written in August 1999, notes that ``NOAA management apparently still feels ESA listing over state opposition is wrong.'' The e-mail goes on to characterize a Commerce Department attorney's ``best scenario'' as the State of Maine agreeing to a ``friendly listing, perhaps as threatened.'' The notion of a ``friendly" threatened listing also appears in an August 17, 1999 e- mail between the same two Interior Department lawyers. The e-mail discusses the view of the Commerce Department attorney as follows: ``The Services could either immediately propose a threatened listing and start working on a 4(d) rule, or propose as endangered and back off to a threatened listing if the state plays ball for the next few months.'' These documents are disturbing because they show that legal considerations--and not ``solely . . . the best scientific and commercial data available,'' as required by law--motivated the Services' decision to abandon the state plan and list Atlantic salmon in the Gulf of Maine as endangered. Granted, there is a clear link between science and the viability of the Maine Salmon Conservation Plan. The plan is either effective in conserving and restoring Atlantic salmon, or it is not. But the fact that the Services differed as to whether the state plan could be relied upon as an effective defense in the salmon suits makes the decision to list appear more like a matter of litigation strategy than a matter of science. Indeed, in another e- mail, an Interior Department attorney explains the effort to complete the 1999 salmon status review as a means ``to support whatever action [the Services] take next.'' Ultimately, I believe that the Services should be able to rely on appropriate, effective state conservation plans in lieu of listing. At the same time, a state that makes the effort to craft an effective plan in cooperation with the Services, should be afforded assurances by the Services that the plan will not be abandoned, as Maine's plan was, after only one full year of implementation. A state should be encouraged to propose effective conservation plans and should be able to count on the Services' consistent support. A listing decision should not be affected by whether or not a state ``plays ball.'' It should be affected by the actions a state has made and commits to make to conserve and restore a given species. I wanted to speak to my colleagues today in the hope that the experience Maine has undergone will not be repeated. One potential solution was suggested five years ago, by President Clinton. In a 1995 white paper recommending changes to the Endangered Species Act, this administration wrote the following: To encourage states to prevent the need to protect species under the ESA, the ESA should explicitly encourage and recognize agreements to conserve a species within a state among all appropriate jurisdictional state and federal agencies. If a state has approved such a conservation agreement and the Secretary determines that it will remove the threats to the species and promote its recovery within the state, then the Secretary should be required to concur with the agreement and suspend the consequences under the ESA that would otherwise result from a final decision to list a species. The suspension should remain in place as long as the terms or goals of the agreement are met. Were such a standard adopted by policy or statute, Maine and other states would have the incentive to devise and fully implement effective conservation agreements. The alternative is what has taken place in Maine. A plan is announced with great fanfare and a listing proposal is withdrawn. One year and a lawsuit later, the Services reverse course, deeming the plan as unfit to rely upon as a litigation defense. This is the wrong result, and I would hope that during the next Congress, we can change the Services' policy or change the law to encourage responsible, effective state conservation plans. Mr. President, in order to avoid taxpayer expense, I will not ask that the documents I referred to be printed in the Record. Instead, I will post the documents on my Web site. Thank you. Mr. President, I yield the floor and, seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed in morning business for 15 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is now considering legislation I introduced to stem the proliferation of websites that distribute counterfeit identification documents and credentials over the Internet. I appreciate the timely action on this legislation by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, as well as the support and assistance of Senators Kyl, Leahy, and Feinstein. The substitute amendment proposed by Senator Feinstein and me improves the bill while retaining all of its key features. After this measure becomes law, Internet commerce in computer discs, files, and templates designed for use in the production of false identification documents will be illegal. The bill will also outlaw the practice of producing false identification containing easily removable disclaimers, a method currently used to avoid prosecution. Finally, the legislation will establish a coordinating committee to concentrate resources of several federal agencies on investigating and prosecuting the creation of false identification. I authored this legislation after the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, held hearings on a disturbing new trend--the use of the Internet to manufacture and market counterfeit identification documents and credentials. Our hearing and investigation revealed the widespread availability on the Internet of a variety of fake identification documents and computer templates that allow individuals to manufacture authentic-looking IDs in the seclusion of their own homes. The Internet False Identification Prevention Act of 2000 will strengthen current law to prevent the distribution of false identification documents over the Internet and make it easier to prosecute this criminal activity. Mr. President, the high quality of the counterfeit identification documents that can be obtained through the Internet is astounding. With little difficulty, my staff was able to use Internet materials to manufacture convincing IDs that would allow me to pass as a member of our Armed Forces, a reporter, a student at Boston University, or a licensed driver in Florida, Michigan, or Wyoming, to name just a few of the identities I could assume. For instance, using the Internet my staff created a counterfeit Connecticut driver's license that is virtually identical to an authentic license issued by the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles. Just like the real Connecticut license, this fake with my picture includes a signature written over the picture and an adjacent ``shadow picture'' of the license holder. The State of Connecticut added both of these sophisticated security features to the license in order to reduce counterfeiting. Unfortunately, some websites offer to sell fake IDs complete with State seals, holograms, and bar codes to replicate a license virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. Thus, technology now allows website operators to copy authentic identification documents with an extraordinary level of sophistication and then mass produce those fraudulent documents for their customers. The websites investigated by the subcommittee offer a vast and varied product line, ranging from driver's licenses to military identification cards to federal agency credentials, including those of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Other sites offer to produce Social Security cards, birth certificates, diplomas, and press credentials. Testimony before the subcommittee demonstrated that the availability of false identification documents from the Internet is a growing problem. Special Agent David Myers, Identification Fraud Coordinator of the State of Florida's Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, testified that 2 years ago only 1 percent of false identification documents came from the Internet. Last year, he testified, a little less than 5 percent came from the Internet. Now he estimates that about 30 percent of the false identification documents he seizes comes from the Internet. He predicts that by next year his unit will find at least 60 to 70 percent of the false identification documents they seize will come from the Internet. The General Accounting Office (GAO) and the FBI have both confirmed the findings of the subcommittee's investigation. Earlier this year the GAO used counterfeit credentials and badges, readily available for purchase on the Internet, to breach the security at 19 federal buildings and two commercial airports. GAO's findings demonstrate that, in addition to the poor security measures at federal facilities, the Internet and computer technology allow nearly anyone to create convincing identification cards and credentials. The FBI has also focused on the potential for misuse of official identification, and recently executed search warrants at the homes of several individuals who had been selling federal law enforcement badges over the Internet. In response to these findings, the House has passed legislation that will complement the provisions in the bill we currently have under consideration. H.R. 4827, the Enhanced Federal Security Act of 2000, was introduced by Congressman Steve Horn, and would make it a crime to enter federal property under false pretenses or for an unauthorized individual to traffic in genuine or counterfeit police badges. The House bill, supported by Congressman McCollum, chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, provides an additional measure to curb the use of false identification, and I hope that the Senate will approve it along with S. 2924. Mr. President, the Internet is a revolutionary tool of commerce and communication that benefits us all. But many of the Internet's greatest attributes also further its use for criminal purposes. While the manufacture of false identification documents by criminals is nothing new, the Internet allows those specializing in the sale of counterfeit identification to reach a broader market of potential buyers than they ever could by standing on a street corner in a shady part of town. They can sell their products with virtual anonymity through the use of e- mail services and free Web hosting services, and by providing false information when registering their domain names. Similarly, the Internet allows criminals to obtain fake IDs in the privacy of their own homes, substantially diminishing the risk of apprehension that attends purchasing counterfeit documents on the street. Because this is a relatively new phenomenon, there are no good data on the size of the false identification industry or the growth it has experienced as a result of the Internet. The subcommittee's investigation, however, found that some Web site operators apparently have made hundreds of thousands of dollars through the sale of phony identification documents. One website operator that we investigated told a state law enforcement official that he sold approximately 1,000 fake IDs every month and generated about $600,000 in annual sales. Identity theft is a growing problem that these Internet sites encourage. Recent testimony by the Federal Trade Commission noted that the number of calls to their ID theft hotline had doubled between March and July of this year, that the agency was receiving between 800 and 850 calls a week, and that their phone counselors had handled more than 20,000 calls in an 8-month period earlier this year. Fake IDs, however, facilitate a broader array of criminal conduct. The subcommittee's investigation found that some Internet sites were used to obtain counterfeit identification documents for the purpose of committing other crimes, ranging from very serious offenses such as bank fraud to the more common problem of underage teenagers buying alcohol or gaining access to bars. The legislation under consideration today is designed to address the problem of counterfeit identification documents in several ways. The central features of the bill are provisions that modernize existing law to address the widespread availability of false identification documents on the Internet. First, the legislation strengthens federal law against false identification to ensure that it is suited to the Internet age and the technology associated with it. The primary law prohibiting the use and distribution of false identification documents was enacted in 1982. Advances in computer technology and the use of the Internet may have rendered the law inadequate to encompass the technology of the present day. This bill will clarify that current law prohibits the sale or distribution of false identification documents through computer files and templates, which our investigation found are the vehicles of choice for manufacturing fake IDs in the Internet age. Second, the legislation will make it easier to prosecute those criminals who manufacturer, distribute or sell counterfeit identification documents by ending the practice of using easily removable disclaimers as part of an attempt to shield the illegal conduct from prosecution through a bogus claim of ``novelty.'' No longer will it be acceptable to provide computer templates of government-issued identification containing an easily removable layer saying it is not a government document. For instance, the subcommittee staff purchased a fake Oklahoma driver's license as part of an undercover operation conducted during our investigation. The fake license appears to bear the disclaimer, ``Not a Government Document,'' which is required by federal law. We found, however, that with one simple snip of the scissors, the fake ID could be removed from his laminated pouch, effectively discarding the disclaimer. It will no longer be acceptable under my bill to sell a false identification document in this fashion. Finally, my legislation seeks to encourage more aggressive enforcement by dedicating investigative and prosecutorial resources to this emerging problem. The bill establishes a multi-agency coordinating committee that will concentrate the investigative and prosecutorial resources of several agencies with responsibility for enforcing laws that criminalize the manufacture, sale, and distribution of counterfeit identification documents. While the new provisions are intended to cover any individual or entity using a computer disc, file, template, or the Internet to produce, transfer or make available false identification documents or document-making implements, the substitute bill makes clear that the new offense does not cover companies providing interactive computer services, such as Internet service providers, communications facilities, or electronic mail services, who are innocent conduits of false identification documents. Just as the counterfeiting laws do not cover an unknowing provider of a device or service used to manufacture or transmit counterfeit money, the provisions in this legislation are not meant to apply to unknowing parties whose devices or services are used in the production or transfer of false identification documents. This exception is inapplicable, however, and ordinary common law doctrines of criminal lability will apply in cases of conspiracy between the interactive computer service and the user; knowledge of and specific intent of an officer, director, partner or controlling shareholder that the server or system be used for this criminal purposes; or when the material available through a service consists primarily of material that is covered by the new offense in this legislation. This bill is one in a line of bills that have been considered by Congress in recent years that address the issue of service provider liability relevant to the unlawful conduct of third parties. These have ranged from bills dealing with the liability of service providers in cases of defamation suits, to copyright infringement actions, to criminal prosecutions for online drug trafficking, Internet gambling, and in this case, online distribution of false identification document-making implements. Through these bills, Congress has had to consider the complexities of the particular area of law at hand, the application of common law doctrines, such as respondant superior and theories of contributory and vicarious liability, and the nature of liability with respect to specific violations in both civil and criminal contexts. In short, I believe that my bill, while addressing a number of these issues, does not necessarily set a standard for Congress to follow when considering the issue of service provider liability in future bills, in future contexts. Mr. President, our investigation established that federal law enforcement officials have failed to devote the necessary resources and attention to this serious problem. By striking at the purveyors of false identification materials, I believe we can reduce the end-use crime that often depends upon the availability of counterfeit identification. For instance, the convicted felon who testified at the subcommittee's hearing said that he would not have been able to commit bank fraud had he not been able to easily and quickly obtain high quality, fraudulent identification documents over the Internet. I am confident that, if federal law enforcement officials prosecute the most blatant violators of the law, the false ID industry on the Internet will wither in short order. By strengthening the law and by focusing our prosecution efforts, I believe that we can curb the widespread availability of false identification documents that the Internet encourages. The Director of the United States Secret Services testified at our hearing that the use of fraudulent identification documents and credentials almost always accompanies the serious financial crimes that they investigate. Thus, I believe that a stronger law against making false identification documents will deter criminal activity in other areas as well. I urge my colleagues to support S. 2924. I ask unanimous consent to have print in the Record a brief section- by-section summary of the substitute for S. 2924.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on November 11th, people across the United States will celebrate Veterans' Day--a day in which we pause to remember and to honor the brave men and women who served their country in our armed forces. November 11th also marks the anniversary of the armistice that ended World War I, a conflict that promised to be the ``war to end all wars.'' Unfortunately, the peace that followed World War I was short- lived. The world soon was plunged into the cauldron of World War II, followed by the terror of the Cold War--played out on so many fronts, most tragically in Korea and Vietnam. Today we face continued threats to our liberty, with outlaw leaders of rogue states waging extremist campaigns against freedom and democracy, as well as the persistent danger of terrorist attacks--which we have seen all too recently with the USS Cole tragedy. Indeed, the world is still a dangerous place, and World War I's promise of a lasting, worldwide peace has yet to be realized. The conflicts of the last century remind us that freedom constantly requires great sacrifices and often the lives of those who defend it. It is these patriots, the men and women of our armed forces, who answered the call of service and protected the freedoms we cherish. Although we can never fully repay the debt we owe these courageous Americans, we can and must continue to recognize the price they paid. This year, Veterans' Day falls just four days after Election Day. I find this particularly fitting, as there is no greater symbol of American liberty than our ability to participate in free and fair elections. Above all else, we owe this freedom to our veterans. Time and again, our democracy has been preserved by these brave men and women. This Veterans' Day marks another special occasion; the groundbreaking ceremony for the World War II Memorial, to be located on the National Mall in our nation's capital. This monument will stand in recognition of a generation of Americans who served their country so ably in resisting the forces of Nazism and oppression. This was a defining moment in our nation's history, and one to which almost every American feels some connection. My own father is a World War II veteran, and Purple Heart recipient. Unlike my father, however, many Americans did not return home from this noble campaign. They were the duty-bound sons and daughters of our nation, who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country and for freedom. In the words of President Lincoln, they ``gave the last full measure of devotion,'' and we must uphold the memory of their heroism with respect, with reverence, and with our heartfelt admiration. This is the purpose of Veterans' Day. Although mere words do not pay adequate tribute to the sacrifices our veterans have laid upon the altar of freedom, the knowledge of their noble deeds lives in the hearts and minds of those who are free--and shall not be forgotten.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering S. 2528, the Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act of 2000, which I introduced with my friend from Wisconsin, Senator Russ Feingold. Our bill is intended to improve access to automated external defibrillators in small communities and rural areas to boost the survival rates of individuals in those communities who suffer cardiac arrest. Joining us as cosponsors of the bill are Senators Jeffords, Murray, Abraham, Wellstone, Hutchinson, Dorgan, Grams, Bingaman, Chafee, Enzi, Snowe, Grassley, Biden, Leahy, Robb, Kerry,and Durbin. I particularly want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Senator Jeffords, for all of his assistance in helping us to expedite action on this important measure. Heart disease is the leading cause of death both in the state of Maine and in the United States. According to the American Heart Association, an estimated 250,000 Americans die each year from cardiac arrest. Many of these deaths could be prevented if automated external defibrillators--or AEDs--were more accessible. AEDs are computerized devices that can shock a heart back into normal rhythm and restore life to a cardiac arrest victim. They must, however, be used promptly. For every minute that passes before a victim's normal heart rhythm is restored, his or her chance of survival falls by as much as 10 percent. We have a number of new and improved technologies in our arsenal of weapons to fight heart disease, including a new generation of small, easy-to-use AEDs that can strengthen the chain of survival for cardiac arrest victims. These new devices make it possible for not only emergency medical personnel, but also trained lay rescuers, to deliver defibrillation safely and effectively. The new AEDs are safe, effective, lightweight, low maintenance, and relatively inexpensive. Moreover, they are specifically designed so that they can be used by non-medical personnel such as police, fire fighters, security guards and other lay rescuers, providing they have been properly trained. According to the American Heart Association, making AEDs standard equipment in police cars, fire trucks, ambulances and other emergency vehicles and getting these devices into more public places could save more than 50,000 lives a year. Last December, the Bangor Mall installed an AED that is one of the first of these devices in Maine to be placed in a public setting outside the direct control of emergency medical personnel and hospital staff. Both the AED and an oxygen tank are kept inside a customer service booth, which is in an area of the mall where there is a high concentration of traffic and where heart emergencies might occur. Mall personnel have also received special training and, during mall hours, there is always at least one person who has been certified in both CPR and defibrillator use. For at least one Bangor woman, this has been a lifesaver. On January 12th, just weeks after the AED was installed, two shoppers at the Mall collapsed in a single day. One was given oxygen and quickly revived. But the other shopper was unconscious and had stopped breathing. The trained mall staff--Maintenance Supervisor Larry Lee, Security Chief Dusty Rhodes, and General Manager Roy Daigle-- were only able to detect a faint pulse. They quickly commenced CPR and attached the AED. It is important to note that defibrillation is intended to supplement, not replace standard CPR. These devices, which are almost completely automated, run frequent self-diagnostics and will not allow the administration of shock unless the victim's recorded heart pattern requires it. When the AED is attached, it automatically analyzes the victim's vital signs. One of two commands will then be voiced and displayed by the unit: ``Shock advised--charging''; or ``Shock not advised--continue CPR.'' In the Bangor Mall case, the shock was not advised, so CPR was continued until the emergency medical personnel arrived. The EMT's told Mr. Daigle, the General Manager of the mall, that the woman--who had had a heart attack and subsequently required triple by-pass surgery-- simply would not have survived if they had not been so prepared. As Mr. Daigle observed, ``Twelve to fifteen minutes is just too long to wait for the emergency services to arrive.'' Cities across America have begun to recognize the value of fast access to AEDs and are making them available to emergency responders. In many small and rural communities, however, limited budgets and the fact that so many rely on volunteer organizations for emergency services can make acquisition and appropriate training in the use of these life-saving devices problematic. The legislation we are considering today is intended to increase access to AEDs and trained local responders for smaller towns and rural areas in Maine and elsewhere where those first on the scene may not be paramedics or others who would normally have AEDs. Our bill provides $25 million over three years to be given as grants to community partnerships consisting of local emergency responders, police and fire departments, hospitals, and other community organizations. This money could then be used to help purchase AEDs and train potential responders in their use, as well as in basic CPR and first aid. The Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act has been endorsed by both the American Heart Association and the American Red Cross as a means of expanding access to these lifesaving devices across rural America, and I urge all of our colleagues to join us in supporting this important measure.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I want to again thank the distinguished Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. In crafting this conference report, he has accomplished a Herculean task with this usual grace and skill. And the $5.0 million he has helped secure will promote a vigorous and effective salmon conservation and restoration effort in my State.

Ms. COLLINS. I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for his invaluable help in securing funding for vital, time-sensitive, on-the-ground Atlantic salmon conservation and restoration programs in Maine on an emergency basis. Due to your efforts, $5.0 million in emergency appropriations were included in the Interior Appropriations conference report for this purpose. It is critical that these funds be on the ground this year in order to demonstrate a federal financial commitment to salmon in my State, and that a listing under the Endangered Species Act is not necessary to conserve and restore Maine's Atlantic salmon.

Ms. COLLINS. The emergency appropriation included in the Interior Appropriations conference report will make a substantial contribution to salmon conservation and restoration efforts in the State. The funds will be made available to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (or ``NFWF''), which has made a commitment to me to allocate the monies to worthwhile projects as soon as possible. The conference report provides $5.0 million to NFWF, of which $2.0 million will be made available to the Atlantic Salmon Commission and $500,000 will be made available to the National Academy of Sciences. The remaining $2.5 million will be administered by NFWF to carry out a grant program that will fund on- the-ground projects to further Atlantic salmon conservation or restoration efforts in coordination with the State of Maine and the Maine Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan. The conference report contains language indicating that funds administered by NFWF will be subject to cost sharing. Is it your understanding, Mr. Chairman, that this language means the $2.5 million administered by NFWF to carry out a grant program must be matched, in the aggregate, by at least $2.5 million in non-federal funds?

Ms. COLLINS. And is it also your understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the $2.0 million made available to the Atlantic Salmon Commission and the $500,000 made available to the National Academy of Sciences will not be subject to any matching requirement?

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues, the chair and ranking member of the Public Health Subcommittee of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, for all of their efforts in bringing the Children's Health Act of 2000 to the Senate floor. This omnibus bill is the result of months of bipartisan collaboration and discussion between Members of both the House and the Senate in an effort to address important children's health issues in this Congress. As the co-chair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I am particularly pleased that the Pediatric Diabetes Research and Prevention Act, which I introduced earlier this year with Senators Breaux, Abraham, Craig, and Bunning, has been included in this bill. Our legislation--which was also cosponsored by Senators Grassley, Bingaman, Chafee, Roth, Hollings, and Schumer--will help us to reduce the tremendous toll that diabetes takes on our nation's children and young people, and I want to thank my colleagues for including it in the omnibus bill. As noted in the recent cover story in Newsweek, diabetes is a devastating, lifelong condition that affects people of every age, race, and nationality. Sixteen million Americans suffer from diabetes and about 800,000 new cases are diagnosed each year. It is one of our nation's most costly diseases in both human and economic terms. Diabetes is the leading cause of kidney failure, blindness in adults, and amputations not related to injury. It is a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke and shortens life expectancy up to 15 years. Moreover, diabetes costs our nation more than $105 billion a year in health-related expenditures. More than one out of every ten health care dollars and about one out of four Medicare dollars are spent on people with diabetes. Unfortunately, there currently is no method to prevent or cure diabetes and available treatments have only limited success in controlling its devastating consequences. The burden of diabetes is particularly heavy for children and young adults with type I, also known as juvenile diabetes. Juvenile diabetes is the second most common chronic disease affecting children. Moreover, it is one that they never outgrow. As the founder of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I have met many children with diabetes who face a daily struggle to keep their blood glucose levels under control: kids like nine-year-old Nathan Reynolds, an active young boy from North Yarmouth, who was Maine's delegate to the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation's Children's Congress last year. Nathan was diagnosed with diabetes in December of 1997, which forced him to change both his life and his family's life. He has learned how to take his blood--something his four-year-old brother reminds him to do before every meal--check his blood sugar level, and give himself an insulin shot on his own, sometimes with the help of his parents or his school nurse. Nathan told me that his greatest wish was that, just once, he could take a ``day off'' from his diabetes. The sad fact is that children like Nathan with diabetes can never take a day off from their disease. There is no holiday from dealing with their diabetes. They face a lifetime of multiple daily finger pricks to check their blood sugar levels and daily insulin shots. Moreover, insulin is not a cure for diabetes, and it does not prevent the onset of serious complications. As a consequence, children like Nathan also face the possibility of lifelong disabling complications, such as kidney failure and blindness. Reducing the health and human burden of diabetes and its enormous economic impact depends upon identifying the factors responsible for the disease and developing new methods for prevention, better treatment, and ultimately a cure. The provisions of the Pediatric Diabetes Research and Prevention Act that have been included in the Children's Health Act of 2000 will do just that. One of the most important actions we can take is to establish a type I diabetes monitoring system. Currently there is no way to track the incidence of type I diabetes across the country. As a consequence, the estimates for the number of people with type I diabetes from the American Diabetes Association, the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health vary enormously from 123,000 to over 1.5 million, a 13-fold variation. One of the best ways to define the prevalence and incidence of a disease, as well as to characterize and study populations, is to establish a national database specific to that disease, which our legislation would do. Obesity and inadequate physical activity--both major problems in the United States today--are important risk factors for type 2, or non- insulin dependent diabetes. Unfortunately, obesity is a significant and growing problem among children in the United States, which has led to a disturbing increase in the incidence of type 2 diabetes among young people. This is particularly alarming since type 2 diabetes has long been considered an ``adult'' disease. Nearly all of the documented cases of type 2 diabetes in young people have occurred in obese children, who are also at increased risk for the complications associated with the disease. Moreover, these complications will likely develop at an earlier age than if these children had developed type 2 diabetes as adults. Our legislation therefore calls for the implemention of a national public health effort to address the increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes in children and young people. In addition, the legislation calls for long-term studies of persons with type 1 diabetes at the National Institutes of Health where these individuals will be followed for 10 years or more. This long-term analysis of type 1 diabetes will provide an invaluable basis for the investigation and identification of the causes and characteristics of diabetes and its complications and it will also help to identify a potential study population for clinical trials. The legislation also directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to support regional clinical research centers for the prevention, detection, treatment and cure of type 1 diabetes. And finally, the legislation directs the Secretary of HHS to provide for a national program to prevent type 1 diabetes, including efforts to develop a vaccine. Mr. President, these provisions will help us to better understand and ultimately conquer diabetes, which has had such a devastating impact on millions of American children and their families. It is therefore most appropriate that they be included in the Children's Health Act of 2000, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Encouraging Investment in Small Business Act, legislation intended to stimulate private investment in the entrepreneurs who drive our economy. I am very pleased to be joined today by my good friend, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Cleland, and by the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, in introducing this important legislation. Senators Cleland and Roth both understand the importance of small businesses to our economy and have been tireless advocates on their behalf. The bill we are introducing today will encourage long-term investment in small and emerging businesses by rewarding individuals who risk investment in such firms. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, small firms account for three-quarters of the Nation's employment growth and almost all of our net new jobs. Small businesses employ more than 50 percent of all private workers, provide 51 percent of our private sector output, and are responsible for a disproportionate share of innovations. Moreover, small businesses are avenues of opportunity for women and minorities, younger and older workers, and those making the transition from welfare to work. At the same time, small businesses face unique financing challenges. I know this from my experience serving as the New England Administrator for the Small Business Administration. There are so many small entrepreneurs who have a wonderful idea for an innovative product but simply have great difficulty in getting the financing they need to get that idea off the ground. Simply put, entrepreneurs need access to more capital to start and expand their businesses. Small businesses that cannot deliver ``dot- com'' rates of return are particularly having trouble raising needed funds. As the Small Business Administration noted earlier this year, ``Adequate financing for rapidly growing firms will be America's greatest economic policy challenge of the new century.'' A recent report by the National Commission on Entrepreneurship presented findings of 18 focus groups with more than 250 entrepreneurs from across the country. According to the report, these entrepreneurs were ``nearly unanimous in identifying difficulties in obtaining seed capital investments.'' That is the early stage financing that helps get a business off the ground. Moreover, minority-owned small businesses and research-intensive businesses that may take many years to develop a product find raising sufficient capital to be particularly difficult. Consider that it takes, on average, 14 years for a biotechnology company to develop a new pharmaceutical. This promising and growing sector of our economy requires patient capital--and lots of it. Cheryl Timberlake, the executive director of the Biotechnology Association in my State, recently wrote to endorse the legislation I am introducing today and to reinforce the need to stimulate more investment in biotech firms. Cheryl wrote that: Many of the Maine biotech companies are still in the research stage and rely on venture capital to fund their innovative drug development. Most research-stage biotech companies do not yet have products on the market. Without a source of revenue, there are no profits to fund their business. These companies are dependent on private investors for most or all of their financial support. [Therefore, the Biotechnology Association of Maine] believes that the changes in . . . the Internal Revenue Code [such as you propose] will enable more small business investment in our member companies. I think Cheryl summed up the problem well in Maine. We have a growing and diverse biotechnology sector, but they are having difficulty in finding the kind of financial support that they need to grow. I also received recently a letter of support from the executive director of the National Commission on Entrepreneurship. He noted that startup companies are ``struggling to find access to equity investments [particularly in the range] between $100,000 and $3 million.'' His letter continues: So the question becomes: how can we motivate more individuals with investment capital, who may not have previous experience with entrepreneurial companies, to invest in such companies at the ``seed'' or ``early-stage'' level? The Encouraging investment in Small Business Act, by increasing the incentives provided by Section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code, may well provide one important part of the answer to this question. Similarly, the National Federation of Independent Business, our Nation's largest small business group, has also written in support of the legislation that the Senator from Georgia and I are introducing today. Dan Danner wrote: Unfortunately, while our nation's current prosperity has brought unprecedented funds to certain sectors of our economy, small business entrepreneurs still lack access to valuable capital needed to start and expand their businesses. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the three letters from which I quoted this morning be printed in the Record, in their entirety.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if we want to remain the world's most entrepreneurial country, which is certainly the strength of this Nation, where small businesses generate the ideas and create the jobs that fuel our economy, we must continue to create an environment that nurtures and supports entrepreneurs. Our bill would help to create such an environment, not by establishing a new Federal program or adding a complicated new section to our Tax Code but, rather, by simplifying and improving a provision that is already there. By way of background, section 1202 was added to the Internal Revenue Code in 1993 in order to encourage investment in small business. The bill that created this section was introduced by senator Dale Bumpers and enjoyed widespread bipartisan support. Similarly, the legislation we introduce today will improve upon the 1993 legislation. In brief, section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code permits noncorporate taxpayers to exclude from gross income 50 percent of the gain from the sale or exchange of qualified small business stock, known as QSB stock, held for more than 5 years. The concept is a sound one. In practice, however, this section has proven to be cumbersome to use and less advantageous than originally intended. As an article in the December 1998 edition of the Tax Adviser noted: Section 1202 places numerous and complex requirements on both the qualified small business and the shareholder. The article went on to note that the provision ``is no longer the deal it seemed to be.'' The Encouraging investment in Small Business Act would amend section 1202 to eliminate unnecessary complexity and to make it a more robust engine of capital formation for small business. As it stands now, that engine needs some fine-tuning. Given the reductions in capital gains rates subsequent to section 1202's enactment and the fact that more and more taxpayers are now subject to the alternative minimum tax, section 1202 is no longer a viable option in many circumstances. Moreover, its impact will continue to be diluted by a scheduled decrease in long-term capital gains rates applicable to most stock purchased after the year 2000, as well as the probability that still more taxpayers will be subject to the AMT. The Encouraging Investment in Small Business Act makes a number of improvements to this section of the code. First, the bill increases the amount of qualified small business stock gain that an individual can exclude from gross income from 50 percent to 75 percent. Second, the legislation strikes the section of the Tax Code that makes a portion of the section 1202 exclusion a preference item under the alternative minimum tax. These two changes rejuvenate the section and make it the potent generator of small business capital that it was intended to be. Currently, an individual who invested in QSB stock, sold it, and found her or himself subject to the AMT, would face an effective capital gains rate of 19.9 percent or just .1 percent less than the existing rate on long-term capital gains. When we consider that the number of taxpayers subject to the AMT is predicted to triple over the next 5 years, it becomes crystal clear that a fix is needed now. The legislation would take additional steps to make section 1202 more attractive to small businesses and investors. The legislation may sound complicated and, indeed, revising tax law is always a challenge, but the bottom line is that our legislation makes a number of common sense changes that are all designed to encourage more investment in small businesses, the engine of our economy. These changes have been endorsed by the leading small business organizations. They are changes recommended by a recent Securities and Exchange Commission forum on small business capital formation, and they are the changes needed to accommodate and, indeed, to foster the capital-raising needs of small business, the foundation of our national economy. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for up to 12 minutes to introduce legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Encouraging Investment in Small Business Act, legislation intended to stimulate private investment in the entrepreneurs who drive our economy. I am very pleased to be joined today by my good friend, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Cleland, and by the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, in introducing this important legislation. Senators Cleland and Roth both understand the importance of small businesses to our economy and have been tireless advocates on their behalf. The bill we are introducing today will encourage long-term investment in small and emerging businesses by rewarding individuals who risk investment in such firms. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, small firms account for three-quarters of the Nation's employment growth and almost all of our net new jobs. Small businesses employ more than 50 percent of all private workers, provide 51 percent of our private sector output, and are responsible for a disproportionate share of innovations. Moreover, small businesses are avenues of opportunity for women and minorities, younger and older workers, and those making the transition from welfare to work. At the same time, small businesses face unique financing challenges. I know this from my experience serving as the New England Administrator for the Small Business Administration. There are so many small entrepreneurs who have a wonderful idea for an innovative product but simply have great difficulty in getting the financing they need to get that idea off the ground. Simply put, entrepreneurs need access to more capital to start and expand their businesses. Small businesses that cannot deliver ``dot- com'' rates of return are particularly having trouble raising needed funds. As the Small Business Administration noted earlier this year, ``Adequate financing for rapidly growing firms will be America's greatest economic policy challenge of the new century.'' A recent report by the National Commission on Entrepreneurship presented findings of 18 focus groups with more than 250 entrepreneurs from across the country. According to the report, these entrepreneurs were ``nearly unanimous in identifying difficulties in obtaining seed capital investments.'' That is the early stage financing that helps get a business off the ground. Moreover, minority-owned small businesses and research-intensive businesses that may take many years to develop a product find raising sufficient capital to be particularly difficult. Consider that it takes, on average, 14 years for a biotechnology company to develop a new pharmaceutical. This promising and growing sector of our economy requires patient capital--and lots of it. Cheryl Timberlake, the executive director of the Biotechnology Association in my State, recently wrote to endorse the legislation I am introducing today and to reinforce the need to stimulate more investment in biotech firms. Cheryl wrote that: Many of the Maine biotech companies are still in the research stage and rely on venture capital to fund their innovative drug development. Most research-stage biotech companies do not yet have products on the market. Without a source of revenue, there are no profits to fund their business. These companies are dependent on private investors for most or all of their financial support. [Therefore, the Biotechnology Association of Maine] believes that the changes in . . . the Internal Revenue Code [such as you propose] will enable more small business investment in our member companies. I think Cheryl summed up the problem well in Maine. We have a growing and diverse biotechnology sector, but they are having difficulty in finding the kind of financial support that they need to grow. I also received recently a letter of support from the executive director of the National Commission on Entrepreneurship. He noted that startup companies are ``struggling to find access to equity investments [particularly in the range] between $100,000 and $3 million.'' His letter continues: So the question becomes: how can we motivate more individuals with investment capital, who may not have previous experience with entrepreneurial companies, to invest in such companies at the ``seed'' or ``early-stage'' level? The Encouraging investment in Small Business Act, by increasing the incentives provided by Section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code, may well provide one important part of the answer to this question. Similarly, the National Federation of Independent Business, our Nation's largest small business group, has also written in support of the legislation that the Senator from Georgia and I are introducing today. Dan Danner wrote: Unfortunately, while our nation's current prosperity has brought unprecedented funds to certain sectors of our economy, small business entrepreneurs still lack access to valuable capital needed to start and expand their businesses. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the three letters from which I quoted this morning be printed in the Record, in their entirety.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if we want to remain the world's most entrepreneurial country, which is certainly the strength of this Nation, where small businesses generate the ideas and create the jobs that fuel our economy, we must continue to create an environment that nurtures and supports entrepreneurs. Our bill would help to create such an environment, not by establishing a new Federal program or adding a complicated new section to our Tax Code but, rather, by simplifying and improving a provision that is already there. By way of background, section 1202 was added to the Internal Revenue Code in 1993 in order to encourage investment in small business. The bill that created this section was introduced by senator Dale Bumpers and enjoyed widespread bipartisan support. Similarly, the legislation we introduce today will improve upon the 1993 legislation. In brief, section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code permits noncorporate taxpayers to exclude from gross income 50 percent of the gain from the sale or exchange of qualified small business stock, known as QSB stock, held for more than 5 years. The concept is a sound one. In practice, however, this section has proven to be cumbersome to use and less advantageous than originally intended. As an article in the December 1998 edition of the Tax Adviser noted: Section 1202 places numerous and complex requirements on both the qualified small business and the shareholder. The article went on to note that the provision ``is no longer the deal it seemed to be.'' The Encouraging investment in Small Business Act would amend section 1202 to eliminate unnecessary complexity and to make it a more robust engine of capital formation for small business. As it stands now, that engine needs some fine-tuning. Given the reductions in capital gains rates subsequent to section 1202's enactment and the fact that more and more taxpayers are now subject to the alternative minimum tax, section 1202 is no longer a viable option in many circumstances. Moreover, its impact will continue to be diluted by a scheduled decrease in long-term capital gains rates applicable to most stock purchased after the year 2000, as well as the probability that still more taxpayers will be subject to the AMT. The Encouraging Investment in Small Business Act makes a number of improvements to this section of the code. First, the bill increases the amount of qualified small business stock gain that an individual can exclude from gross income from 50 percent to 75 percent. Second, the legislation strikes the section of the Tax Code that makes a portion of the section 1202 exclusion a preference item under the alternative minimum tax. These two changes rejuvenate the section and make it the potent generator of small business capital that it was intended to be. Currently, an individual who invested in QSB stock, sold it, and found her or himself subject to the AMT, would face an effective capital gains rate of 19.9 percent or just .1 percent less than the existing rate on long-term capital gains. When we consider that the number of taxpayers subject to the AMT is predicted to triple over the next 5 years, it becomes crystal clear that a fix is needed now. The legislation would take additional steps to make section 1202 more attractive to small businesses and investors. The legislation may sound complicated and, indeed, revising tax law is always a challenge, but the bottom line is that our legislation makes a number of common sense changes that are all designed to encourage more investment in small businesses, the engine of our economy. These changes have been endorsed by the leading small business organizations. They are changes recommended by a recent Securities and Exchange Commission forum on small business capital formation, and they are the changes needed to accommodate and, indeed, to foster the capital-raising needs of small business, the foundation of our national economy. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business throughout most of the day. The Senate may also resume debate on the motion to proceed to the H-1B visa bill. As a reminder, the first vote of next week is scheduled to occur at 4:50 p.m. on Monday, September 25. The vote is on final passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. Also next week, the Senate will continue consideration of the H-1B visa bill. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, be recognized for the purposes of morning business for up to 30 minutes at 11 a.m. today.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I am pleased to confirm to the Senator from Kansas that my legislation has strong support not only from the Senator from Kansas but many of our colleagues. It has 55 Senate cosponsors, including 32 Republicans and 23 Democrats, showing that this is a nationwide problem. It also has strong backing of many consumer and patient groups, including the American Diabetes Association, American Nurses Association, National Council on Aging, and the American Hospital Association. All of these groups have come together because they know that an additional 15-percent cutback would be absolutely devastating to American seniors and people with disabilities. So if we allow this to go into effect, any of our other efforts to strengthen Medicare and home health, to help improve that benefit will really be meaningless.

Ms. COLLINS. The Senator from Kansas has been a strong supporter along with my colleagues, Senators Bond and Ashcroft from Missouri, as well as many colleagues, in cosponsoring legislation introduced to eliminate the automatic 15-percent reduction in Medicare payments that would otherwise occur. It would provide a measure of financial relief for those home health agencies that already are cost-efficient and doing a good job. That is what we need to do--to pass that legislation before we adjourn.

Ms. COLLINS. A further 15-percent cut would be devastating. It would sound the death knell for those low-cost, nonprofit agencies in our States, which are currently struggling to hang on. It would further reduce our seniors' access to critical home care services. As we have discussed, we don't need to do it. We already have more than achieved the savings goals that were put forth in 1997.