Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, today I am introducing the Securing Our States Act. As the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11 taught us all too well, our Nation is not as prepared for widespread emergencies as it should be. The legislation I am introducing today, Securing Our States Act, or SOS Act, will help make our Nation more secure by strengthening our first line of defense, the first responders in our States and communities. As the Presiding Officer is well aware, when a terrorist attack or other disaster occurs, it is the State and local police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel who are first on the scene. Nearly 2 million State and local police, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and others are closest to these challenges. They understand best what is needed to respond effectively, and they tell me they need improved training, more and better equipment, greater coordination, and more exercises. They need them as soon as possible. They are the ones who are always on the front lines when disaster strikes. Properly trained and equipped, first responders have the greatest potential to save lives and limit casualties after a terrorist attack. Currently, however, our capabilities for responding to a terrorist attack vary widely from community to community, State to State, across this great country. Many areas simply have very little capacity to respond to a terrorist attack. In fact, most localities could not respond effectively to a terrorist attack if weapons of mass destruction were used. Even the best prepared States and communities do not possess adequate resources to respond to the full range of possible terrorist attacks. This legislation I am introducing will help by providing much needed resources. The SOS Act, which is consistent with the first responders proposal in President Bush's budget, will provide $4 billion in critically needed funding, an increase of more than 1,000 percent in Federal resources that will flow to State and local governments. This bill is designed to accomplish the following objectives: First, more resources to States and communities to conduct important planning and exercises, purchase equipment, and better train their personnel. Second, it would provide flexibility for States and localities to address whatever the needs of their particular locality may be. States differ in their preparedness, and this would allow flexibility in the use of funds. Third, another important feature of this bill is its simplicity. We need to speed the disbursement of Federal funds to States and communities without further delay. Fourth, this legislation is designed to promote cooperation across the Nation so local, State, Federal, and volunteer networks can operate together effectively. To achieve these objectives, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, known as FEMA, will implement a streamlined and simple procedure designed to speed the flow of resources to States and communities. The funds may be used for a variety of activities, including planning to develop comprehensive plans to prepare for and respond to a terrorist attack; equipment to respond more effectively to terrorist attack, including personal protective equipment, chemical, and biological detectors and interoperable communications gear. We want to make sure our emergency personnel can communicate with one another. We have learned from the lessons of September 11 that can be a devastating problem. The legislation would also allow funds to be used for more training to enable firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical professionals to respond and operate in a chemical or biological environment, even a very dangerous environment. We need to have more exercises to improve response capabilities, practice mutual aid and assess operational improvements and deficiencies. The legislation I am introducing will help make our Nation safer. Nearly 2 million first responders are always there, willing to put their lives at risk to save the lives of others and to make our country safer. This bill will help these brave men and women do their jobs better and will help all of our communities be more secure. The benefits of the Securing Our States Act are immediate and widespread and the goal is one we can all embrace, the goal of making our Nation safer from terrorist attacks while also bolstering everyday response capabilities. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, today I am introducing the Securing Our States Act. As the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11 taught us all too well, our Nation is not as prepared for widespread emergencies as it should be. The legislation I am introducing today, Securing Our States Act, or SOS Act, will help make our Nation more secure by strengthening our first line of defense, the first responders in our States and communities. As the Presiding Officer is well aware, when a terrorist attack or other disaster occurs, it is the State and local police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel who are first on the scene. Nearly 2 million State and local police, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and others are closest to these challenges. They understand best what is needed to respond effectively, and they tell me they need improved training, more and better equipment, greater coordination, and more exercises. They need them as soon as possible. They are the ones who are always on the front lines when disaster strikes. Properly trained and equipped, first responders have the greatest potential to save lives and limit casualties after a terrorist attack. Currently, however, our capabilities for responding to a terrorist attack vary widely from community to community, State to State, across this great country. Many areas simply have very little capacity to respond to a terrorist attack. In fact, most localities could not respond effectively to a terrorist attack if weapons of mass destruction were used. Even the best prepared States and communities do not possess adequate resources to respond to the full range of possible terrorist attacks. This legislation I am introducing will help by providing much needed resources. The SOS Act, which is consistent with the first responders proposal in President Bush's budget, will provide $4 billion in critically needed funding, an increase of more than 1,000 percent in Federal resources that will flow to State and local governments. This bill is designed to accomplish the following objectives: First, more resources to States and communities to conduct important planning and exercises, purchase equipment, and better train their personnel. Second, it would provide flexibility for States and localities to address whatever the needs of their particular locality may be. States differ in their preparedness, and this would allow flexibility in the use of funds. Third, another important feature of this bill is its simplicity. We need to speed the disbursement of Federal funds to States and communities without further delay. Fourth, this legislation is designed to promote cooperation across the Nation so local, State, Federal, and volunteer networks can operate together effectively. To achieve these objectives, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, known as FEMA, will implement a streamlined and simple procedure designed to speed the flow of resources to States and communities. The funds may be used for a variety of activities, including planning to develop comprehensive plans to prepare for and respond to a terrorist attack; equipment to respond more effectively to terrorist attack, including personal protective equipment, chemical, and biological detectors and interoperable communications gear. We want to make sure our emergency personnel can communicate with one another. We have learned from the lessons of September 11 that can be a devastating problem. The legislation would also allow funds to be used for more training to enable firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical professionals to respond and operate in a chemical or biological environment, even a very dangerous environment. We need to have more exercises to improve response capabilities, practice mutual aid and assess operational improvements and deficiencies. The legislation I am introducing will help make our Nation safer. Nearly 2 million first responders are always there, willing to put their lives at risk to save the lives of others and to make our country safer. This bill will help these brave men and women do their jobs better and will help all of our communities be more secure. The benefits of the Securing Our States Act are immediate and widespread and the goal is one we can all embrace, the goal of making our Nation safer from terrorist attacks while also bolstering everyday response capabilities. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to two pillars of the Community of Maine, Buzz Fitzgerald and Joel Abromson. How can I describe what these two men meant to their beloved home State? These words of then President-elect John Fitzgerald Kennedy provide a start: ``And when, at some future date, the high court of history sits in judgment on each of us, recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state, our success or failure, in whatever office we hold, will be measured by the answers to four questions: first, were we truly men of courage; second, were we truly men of judgment; third, were we truly men of integrity; and finally, were we truly men of dedication?'' These words, first uttered by President-elect Kennedy when I was an elementary school student in Caribou, began to have real meaning for me when they were quoted regularly in speeches by my old boss and mentor, Bill Cohen, a gifted orator and, in many ways, a walking Bartlett's. But the full impact of Kennedy's glorious phrases struck me with special poignancy this year as I pondered the loss of two of Maine's leading citizens, two good friends, two wonderful men who were taken from us while still in their early 60's, at the height of their powers. One was born in St. John Plantation in far northern Maine, the other in Auburn. One moved when he was one year old, the other after college. But each became synonymous with his community, Buzz Fitzgerald with Bath, and Joe Abromson with Portland. Each contributed mightily to his company, to his community, to his State. Each had a family that extended well beyond actual relatives to Mainers in all walks of life. Each made the lives of thousands of people better, and each did it without apparent effort and without a hint of self-righteousness. It is often said that if you want a job done well, find a busy man. Each of these remarkable individuals ran a company, each possessed a breathtaking list of civic and charitable credentials, and each demonstrated a willingness to embrace causes that would send many businessmen fleeing for cover. As I watch Buzz become a champion of reproductive rights for women, or Joel become a leading advocate for equal rights for gays and lesbians, I watched the embodiment of Kennedy's four defining characteristics: courage, judgment, integrity, dedication. Those four qualities were an immense aid to Joel as he championed a state law that would outlaw discrimination against Maine citizens who are gay or lesbian. Even though he did not prevail, he led his noble fight for gay rights with courage and integrity, in a manner that is to be commended. Indeed, I saw two men who could immerse themselves in the most emotional of issues, those causes that rubbed nerves raw in public debate, and I could see them emerge without enemies. Disagreeing without being disagreeable is a high art form, and these two men created a portrait of what informed public discourse should be. Buzz and Joel took their jobs and their commitments seriously, but never themselves. A rich store of humor, often self-deprecating, was never far from their lips. Successful people rarely lack charm, and each possessed it in abundance. Whether it was the union leadership hammering out a contract agreement with Buzz at the Bath Iron Works or Joel's colleagues on both sides of the aisle negotiating with him on a bill in the Maine Senate, friends and adversaries alike were drawn to both men because they invariably deserved to be trusted. It may be hackneyed to say their word was their bond. But it was. Always. A friend of mine who knew both men, but was not an intimate of either, tells a story that is illustrative. When my friend's father died in Florida, the first contribution made in his memory came from Joel Abromson. And when Buzzy's sister, Gayle Corey, died of a virulent form of cancer, Buzz did not wait to receive expressions of condolence; rather, he sent notes to Gayle's friends thanking them for befriending her. One does not easily forget gestures such as these, and there were thousands of others. In the final days and weeks of his life, Buzz called other cancer patients trying to cheer them up. Fortunately for all of us who benefited from knowing them, many Maine leaders, led by Governor King, participated in exceptionally moving public tributes to these two remarkable individuals while they were still alive to hear the accolades. Having spoken to both of them shortly before they died, I know that they were touched by the outpouring of appreciation for lives well lived. Losing public treasures like Joel and Buzz when they had so much more to give reminds us anew that life is unfair, as President Kennedy often noted. Fair or not, our state has lost two remarkable citizens and we will not see their like again soon. To me, they are the standard by which we should measure ourselves. Each of us will honor their memory most appropriately if we try to emulate the service they gave so generously to our State and its people.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my good friend and colleague, the Senator from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu, in introducing the Access to Affordable Health Care Act. This is a comprehensive seven-point plan that builds on the strengths of our current programs, both public and private, to make quality affordable health care available to millions more Americans. One of my top priorities in the Senate has been to expand access to affordable health care to all Americans. There are still far too many people in our country without health insurance or with woefully inadequate coverage. An estimated 39 million Americans do not have health care insurance, including more than 150,000 in my home State of Maine. The fact is, health insurance matters. The simple fact is that people with health insurance are healthier than those who lack coverage. People without health insurance are less likely to seek care when they need it and tend to forgo services such as periodic checkups and preventative services. As a consequence, they are far more likely to be hospitalized or to require costly medical attention for conditions that could have been prevented or cured if caught at an early stage. Not only does this put the health of these individuals at greater risk, but it also puts additional pressure on our already financially challenged hospitals and emergency rooms. Compared with people who have health insurance coverage, uninsured adults are four times and uninsured children five times more likely to use a hospital emergency room. The costs of care for these individuals are often absorbed by providers and then passed on to covered individuals through increased fees and higher insurance premiums. Maine is in the midst of a growing health insurance crisis. Insurance premiums are rising at alarming rates. Whether I am talking to a self- employed fisherman or the owner of a struggling small business or the human resources manager of a large corporation, the cost of health insurance is a common concern. In 1999, the average family premium for employer-based coverage in Maine was more than $6,000, the 14th highest in the Nation at that time. Since then, Maine employers have faced premium increases of as much as 40 percent a year. In fact, my own brother called me recently to tell me that his small business is faced with a 40-percent increase in health insurance premiums on top of a 30-percent increase the year before. These premium increases are particularly burdensome for smaller businesses, the backbone of Maine's economy. Many small business owners are caught in a real squeeze. They know if they pass on the premium increase to their employees, then more and more employees will be forced to decline coverage and, thus, will be completely uninsured, and yet these small employers simply cannot continue to absorb premium increases of 20 to 30 to 40 percent year after year. The problem of rising costs is even more acute for individuals and families who must purchase health insurance on their own. Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the single remaining carrier in Maine's nongroup market, has increased its rates by 40 percent over the past 2 years. Monthly insurance premiums often exceed the family's monthly mortgage payments. It is no wonder that more than 150,000 Mainers are now uninsured. Clearly, we simply must do more to make health insurance more affordable and more available. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act, which Senator Landrieu and I are introducing today, is a 7-point plan that combines a variety of public and private approaches to make quality health care coverage more affordable. The legislation's seven goals are: One, to expand access to affordable health care for small businesses; two, to make health insurance more affordable for individuals and families purchasing coverage on their own; three, to strengthen the health care safety net for those who lack coverage; four, to expand access to care in rural and underserved areas; five, to increase access to affordable long-term care; six, to promote healthier lifestyles, and seven, to provide more equitable Medicare payments to Maine providers to reduce the Medicare shortfall. This shortfall, this lack of fair reimbursement for Medicare services, has forced hospitals, physicians, and other providers to shift costs on to other payers in the form of higher charges. That drives up the cost of health insurance, and it is one of the reasons that Maine's rates are higher than the insurance rates in most other States. I will discuss each of these seven points in more detail. First, expanding access for small businesses, this legislation builds upon a bill I introduced with Senator Landrieu last year to help small employers cope with rising health care costs. Since most Americans get their health insurance through their employers, it is a common assumption that people without health insurance are unemployed, but that is not accurate. The fact is most uninsured Americans are members of families with at least one full-time worker. As many as 82 percent of Americans without health insurance are in a family with a full-time worker. Uninsured working Americans are most often the employees of small businesses. In fact, some 60 percent of uninsured workers are employed by small firms. Smaller firms generally face higher costs for health insurance than larger companies, which makes them less likely to offer coverage. I know from my conversations with small businesses all over Maine that they want to offer health insurance as a benefit for their employees. They know it would help them to attract and retain good workers. The only reason these small businesses are not offering health insurance is a simple one: They simply cannot afford the premium costs. The legislation we are introducing today will help small businesses cope with rising costs by providing new tax credits for them to make health insurance more affordable. It will encourage those small businesses who are now offering health insurance to continue to do so in the face of escalating premiums. It will encourage them to make the decision not to drop coverage, and it will prompt small employers who want to provide this coverage but have found it financially out of reach, to now offer this important benefit. The legislation will also help to increase the clout of small businesses in negotiating with insurers. Premiums are generally higher for smaller businesses because they do not have as much purchasing power as large companies. This limits their ability to bargain for lower rates. They also tend to have higher administrative costs than larger companies because they have fewer employees among whom to spread the fixed costs of a health insurance plan. Moreover, they are not able to spread the risks of medical claims over as many employees as large firms. The legislation we are introducing will help address these problems by authorizing Federal grants to provide start-up funding to States to assist them with the planning, development, and operation of small employer purchasing cooperatives. I am not talking about association health plans, which are controversial for a number of reasons. I am talking about small employer purchasing cooperatives. They will help to reduce the costs of health insurance for small employers by allowing them to band together to purchase insurance jointly. Group purchasing cooperatives have a number of advantages for smaller employers. They will, for example, bring an increased number of participants into the group and that helps to lower the premium costs. They also decrease the risk of adverse selection. Our legislation would also authorize a Small Business Administration grant program for States, local governments, and nonprofits to provide information about the benefits of health insurance to smaller employers, including the tax benefits, the increased productivity of employees and decreased turnover. Grants would be used to make employers aware of their current rights under State and Federal laws. For example, one survey showed that 57 percent of small employers did not realize they could deduct 100 percent of the costs of their health insurance premiums as a business expense. The legislation that Senator Landrieu and I are introducing would also create a new program to encourage innovation by awarding demonstration grants in up to 10 States to look at innovative coverage expansion such as alternative group purchasing or pooling arrangements, individual or small group market reforms, or subsidies to employers or individuals purchasing coverage. The States have been the laboratories of reform. For example, some States have looked at providing assistance to employees to help them afford their share of an employer-provided insurance plan. Second, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act will help expand access to affordable health care for individuals and families who are purchasing coverage on their own. It would, for example, allow self- employed Americans to deduct the full amount of their health care premiums retroactive to January 1 of this year. Some 25 million Americans are in families headed by a self-employed individual, and of these 5 million are uninsured. So if we establish parity in the tax treatment for health insured costs between the self- employed and those working for large corporations, we will promote equity, and we will help to reduce the number of uninsured by working Americans. Another step this bill would take would build on the success of the State children's health insurance program, one of the very first bills I sponsored as a Senator. This program provides insurance for children of low-income families who cannot afford health insurance and yet earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid. We are proposing that we allow, as Senator Kennedy's family care bill would, the option for States to cover the parents of children who are enrolled in programs like Maine's MaineCare program. States could also use funds provided through this program to help eligible working families pay their share of an employer-based health insurance plan. In short, this legislation will help ensure low-income working families receive the health care they need. Another provision of the bill would allow States to expand coverage to eligible legal immigrants through the Medicaid and SCHIP programs. Maine is one of a number of States that is already covering eligible legal immigrants, pregnant women, and children under Medicaid using 100 percent State dollars. Giving States the option of covering these children and families under Medicaid will enable them to receive Federal matching funds. Another provision of the bill would give States the option of extending Medicaid to childless adults below 125 percent of the Federal poverty level who cannot afford private insurance and who have been forgotten or overlooked by other public programs. Maine has applied for a waiver to expand its Medicaid Program in this way, and the State estimates this will provide health coverage to an estimated 16,000 low- income uninsured Mainers. Many people with serious health problems encounter difficulties in finding a company that is willing to insure them. To address this problem, the Collins-Landrieu bill authorizes Federal grants to provide money for States to create high-risk pools through which individuals who have preexisting health conditions can obtain affordable health insurance. Finally, the legislation in this section would provide an advanceable, refundable tax credit of up to $1,000 for individuals earning up to $30,000, and up to $3,000 for families earning up to $60,000. This provision, which is similar to that proposed by President Bush, would help to provide coverage for up to 6 million Americans who otherwise would be uninsured for 1 or more months. It will help many more working lower income families who currently purchase private health insurance with little or no government help and finding it increasingly difficult to do so. Third, the Access to Affordable Health Insurance Act will help to strengthen our Nation's health care safety net by doubling funding over the next 5 years for community health centers. We want to make sure we are reaching individuals who are homeless, individuals who are migrant workers, individuals who are living in public housing. These centers, which operate in underserved rural and urban communities, provide critical primary care services to millions of Americans, regardless of their ability to pay. About 20 percent of the patients treated at Maine's community health centers have no insurance coverage. Many more have inadequate coverage. These community health centers play a critical role in providing a health care safety net for some of our most vulnerable individuals. The problem of access to affordable health care services is not limited to the uninsured. It is also shared by many Americans living in rural and underserved areas where there is a serious shortage of health care providers. The legislation we are introducing, therefore, includes a number of provisions to strengthen the National Health Service Corps, which supports doctors, dentists, and other clinicians who serve in rural and inner-city areas. For example, taxing students adversely affects their financial incentive to participate in the National Health Service Corps and provide health care services in underserved communities. Last year's tax bill provided a tax deduction for National Health Service Corps scholarship recipients to deduct all tuition, fees, and related educational expenses from their income taxes. The deduction did not extend to loan repayment recipients however, so loan repayment amounts are still taxed as income. Participants in the loan repayment program are actually given extra payment amounts to help them cover their tax lability which, frankly, is a little ridiculous. It makes much more sense to simply exempt them from taxation in the first place. In addition, the legislation will allow National Health Service Corps participants to fulfill their commitment on a part-time basis. Current law requires all National Health Service Corps participants to serve full time. Many rural communities, however, simply do not have enough volume to support a full-time health care practitioner. Moreover, some sites may not need a particular type of provider--for example, a dentist--on a full-time basis. Some practitioners may also find part- time service more attractive, which, in turn, could improve recruitment and retention. Our bill will therefore give the program additional flexibility to meet community needs. Long-term care is the major catastrophic health care expense faced by older American today, and these costs will only increase with the aging of the baby boomers. Most Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare or their private health insurance policies will cover the costs of long- term care should they develop a chronic illness or cognitive impairment like Alzheimer's Disease. Unfortunately, far too many do not discover that they do not have coverage until they are confronted with the difficult decision of placing a much-loved parent or spouse in long- term care and facing the shocking realization that they will have to cover the costs themselves. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will provide a tax credit for long-term care expenses of up to $3,000 to provide some help to those families struggling to provide long-term care to a loved one. It will also encourage more Americans to plan for their future long-term care needs by providing a tax deduction to help them purchase private long-term insurance. Health insurance alone is not going to ensure good health. As noted author and physician Dr. Michael Crichton has observed, ``the future of medicine lies not in treating illness, but preventing it.'' Many of our most serious health problems are directly related to unhealthy behaviors-- smoking, lack of regular exercise, and poor diet. These three major risk factors alone have made Maine the State with the fourth highest death rate due to four largely preventable disease: Cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic lung disease and diabetes. These four chronic diseases are reponsible for 70 percent of the health care problems in Maine. Our bill therefore contains a number of provisions designed to promoted healthy lifestyles. An ever-expanding body of evidence shows that these kinds of investment in health promotiong and prevention offer returns not only in reduced health care bill, but in longer life and increased productivity. The legislation will provide grants to States to assist small businesses wishing to establish ``worksite wellness'' programs for their employees. It would also authorize a grant program to support new and existing ``community partnerships,'' such as the Healthy Community Coalition in Franklin County, to promote healthy lifestyles among hospitals, employers, schools and community organizations. And, it would provide funds for States to establish or expand comprehensive school health education, including, for example, physical education programs that promote lifelong physical activity, healthy food service selections, and programs that promote a healthy and safe school environment. And finally, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act would promote equity in Medicare payments and help to ensure that the Medicare system rewards rather than punishes States like Maine that deliver high- quality, cost effective Medicare services to our elderly and disabled citizens. According to a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Maine ranks third in the nation when it comes to the quality of care delivered to our Medicare beneficiaries. Yet we are 11th from the bottom when it comes to per-beneficiary Medicare spending. The fact is that Maine's Medicare dollars are being used to subsidize higher reimbursements in other parts of the country. This simply is not fair. Medicare's reimbursement systems have historically tended to favor urban areas and failed to take the special needs of rural States into account. Ironically, Maine's low payment rates are also the result of its long history of providing high-quality, cost-effective care. In the early 1980s, Maine's lower than average costs were used to justify lower payment rates. Since then, Medicare's payment policies have only served to widen the gap between low and high-cost States. As a consequence, Maine's hospitals, physicians, and other providers have experienced a serious Medicare shortfall, which has forced them to shift costs on to other payers in the form of higher charges. The Medicare shortfall is one of the reasons that Maine has among the highest health insurance premiums in the Nation. The provisions in the Access to Affordable Health Care Act provide a complement to legislation that I introduced earlier this year with Senator Russ Feingold to promote greater fairness in Medicare payments to physicians and other health professionals by eliminating outdated geographic adjustment factors that discriminate against rural areas. Mr. President, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act outlines a blueprint for reform based upon principles upon which I believe a bipartisan majority in Congress could agree. The plan takes significant strides toward the goal of universal health care coverage by bringing million more Americans into the insurance system, by strengthening the health care safety net, and by addressing the inequities in the Medicare system.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my good friend and colleague, the Senator from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu, in introducing the Access to Affordable Health Care Act. This is a comprehensive seven-point plan that builds on the strengths of our current programs, both public and private, to make quality affordable health care available to millions more Americans. One of my top priorities in the Senate has been to expand access to affordable health care to all Americans. There are still far too many people in our country without health insurance or with woefully inadequate coverage. An estimated 39 million Americans do not have health care insurance, including more than 150,000 in my home State of Maine. The fact is, health insurance matters. The simple fact is that people with health insurance are healthier than those who lack coverage. People without health insurance are less likely to seek care when they need it and tend to forgo services such as periodic checkups and preventative services. As a consequence, they are far more likely to be hospitalized or to require costly medical attention for conditions that could have been prevented or cured if caught at an early stage. Not only does this put the health of these individuals at greater risk, but it also puts additional pressure on our already financially challenged hospitals and emergency rooms. Compared with people who have health insurance coverage, uninsured adults are four times and uninsured children five times more likely to use a hospital emergency room. The costs of care for these individuals are often absorbed by providers and then passed on to covered individuals through increased fees and higher insurance premiums. Maine is in the midst of a growing health insurance crisis. Insurance premiums are rising at alarming rates. Whether I am talking to a self- employed fisherman or the owner of a struggling small business or the human resources manager of a large corporation, the cost of health insurance is a common concern. In 1999, the average family premium for employer-based coverage in Maine was more than $6,000, the 14th highest in the Nation at that time. Since then, Maine employers have faced premium increases of as much as 40 percent a year. In fact, my own brother called me recently to tell me that his small business is faced with a 40-percent increase in health insurance premiums on top of a 30-percent increase the year before. These premium increases are particularly burdensome for smaller businesses, the backbone of Maine's economy. Many small business owners are caught in a real squeeze. They know if they pass on the premium increase to their employees, then more and more employees will be forced to decline coverage and, thus, will be completely uninsured, and yet these small employers simply cannot continue to absorb premium increases of 20 to 30 to 40 percent year after year. The problem of rising costs is even more acute for individuals and families who must purchase health insurance on their own. Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the single remaining carrier in Maine's nongroup market, has increased its rates by 40 percent over the past 2 years. Monthly insurance premiums often exceed the family's monthly mortgage payments. It is no wonder that more than 150,000 Mainers are now uninsured. Clearly, we simply must do more to make health insurance more affordable and more available. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act, which Senator Landrieu and I are introducing today, is a 7-point plan that combines a variety of public and private approaches to make quality health care coverage more affordable. The legislation's seven goals are: One, to expand access to affordable health care for small businesses; two, to make health insurance more affordable for individuals and families purchasing coverage on their own; three, to strengthen the health care safety net for those who lack coverage; four, to expand access to care in rural and underserved areas; five, to increase access to affordable long-term care; six, to promote healthier lifestyles, and seven, to provide more equitable Medicare payments to Maine providers to reduce the Medicare shortfall. This shortfall, this lack of fair reimbursement for Medicare services, has forced hospitals, physicians, and other providers to shift costs on to other payers in the form of higher charges. That drives up the cost of health insurance, and it is one of the reasons that Maine's rates are higher than the insurance rates in most other States. I will discuss each of these seven points in more detail. First, expanding access for small businesses, this legislation builds upon a bill I introduced with Senator Landrieu last year to help small employers cope with rising health care costs. Since most Americans get their health insurance through their employers, it is a common assumption that people without health insurance are unemployed, but that is not accurate. The fact is most uninsured Americans are members of families with at least one full-time worker. As many as 82 percent of Americans without health insurance are in a family with a full-time worker. Uninsured working Americans are most often the employees of small businesses. In fact, some 60 percent of uninsured workers are employed by small firms. Smaller firms generally face higher costs for health insurance than larger companies, which makes them less likely to offer coverage. I know from my conversations with small businesses all over Maine that they want to offer health insurance as a benefit for their employees. They know it would help them to attract and retain good workers. The only reason these small businesses are not offering health insurance is a simple one: They simply cannot afford the premium costs. The legislation we are introducing today will help small businesses cope with rising costs by providing new tax credits for them to make health insurance more affordable. It will encourage those small businesses who are now offering health insurance to continue to do so in the face of escalating premiums. It will encourage them to make the decision not to drop coverage, and it will prompt small employers who want to provide this coverage but have found it financially out of reach, to now offer this important benefit. The legislation will also help to increase the clout of small businesses in negotiating with insurers. Premiums are generally higher for smaller businesses because they do not have as much purchasing power as large companies. This limits their ability to bargain for lower rates. They also tend to have higher administrative costs than larger companies because they have fewer employees among whom to spread the fixed costs of a health insurance plan. Moreover, they are not able to spread the risks of medical claims over as many employees as large firms. The legislation we are introducing will help address these problems by authorizing Federal grants to provide start-up funding to States to assist them with the planning, development, and operation of small employer purchasing cooperatives. I am not talking about association health plans, which are controversial for a number of reasons. I am talking about small employer purchasing cooperatives. They will help to reduce the costs of health insurance for small employers by allowing them to band together to purchase insurance jointly. Group purchasing cooperatives have a number of advantages for smaller employers. They will, for example, bring an increased number of participants into the group and that helps to lower the premium costs. They also decrease the risk of adverse selection. Our legislation would also authorize a Small Business Administration grant program for States, local governments, and nonprofits to provide information about the benefits of health insurance to smaller employers, including the tax benefits, the increased productivity of employees and decreased turnover. Grants would be used to make employers aware of their current rights under State and Federal laws. For example, one survey showed that 57 percent of small employers did not realize they could deduct 100 percent of the costs of their health insurance premiums as a business expense. The legislation that Senator Landrieu and I are introducing would also create a new program to encourage innovation by awarding demonstration grants in up to 10 States to look at innovative coverage expansion such as alternative group purchasing or pooling arrangements, individual or small group market reforms, or subsidies to employers or individuals purchasing coverage. The States have been the laboratories of reform. For example, some States have looked at providing assistance to employees to help them afford their share of an employer-provided insurance plan. Second, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act will help expand access to affordable health care for individuals and families who are purchasing coverage on their own. It would, for example, allow self- employed Americans to deduct the full amount of their health care premiums retroactive to January 1 of this year. Some 25 million Americans are in families headed by a self-employed individual, and of these 5 million are uninsured. So if we establish parity in the tax treatment for health insured costs between the self- employed and those working for large corporations, we will promote equity, and we will help to reduce the number of uninsured by working Americans. Another step this bill would take would build on the success of the State children's health insurance program, one of the very first bills I sponsored as a Senator. This program provides insurance for children of low-income families who cannot afford health insurance and yet earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid. We are proposing that we allow, as Senator Kennedy's family care bill would, the option for States to cover the parents of children who are enrolled in programs like Maine's MaineCare program. States could also use funds provided through this program to help eligible working families pay their share of an employer-based health insurance plan. In short, this legislation will help ensure low-income working families receive the health care they need. Another provision of the bill would allow States to expand coverage to eligible legal immigrants through the Medicaid and SCHIP programs. Maine is one of a number of States that is already covering eligible legal immigrants, pregnant women, and children under Medicaid using 100 percent State dollars. Giving States the option of covering these children and families under Medicaid will enable them to receive Federal matching funds. Another provision of the bill would give States the option of extending Medicaid to childless adults below 125 percent of the Federal poverty level who cannot afford private insurance and who have been forgotten or overlooked by other public programs. Maine has applied for a waiver to expand its Medicaid Program in this way, and the State estimates this will provide health coverage to an estimated 16,000 low- income uninsured Mainers. Many people with serious health problems encounter difficulties in finding a company that is willing to insure them. To address this problem, the Collins-Landrieu bill authorizes Federal grants to provide money for States to create high-risk pools through which individuals who have preexisting health conditions can obtain affordable health insurance. Finally, the legislation in this section would provide an advanceable, refundable tax credit of up to $1,000 for individuals earning up to $30,000, and up to $3,000 for families earning up to $60,000. This provision, which is similar to that proposed by President Bush, would help to provide coverage for up to 6 million Americans who otherwise would be uninsured for 1 or more months. It will help many more working lower income families who currently purchase private health insurance with little or no government help and finding it increasingly difficult to do so. Third, the Access to Affordable Health Insurance Act will help to strengthen our Nation's health care safety net by doubling funding over the next 5 years for community health centers. We want to make sure we are reaching individuals who are homeless, individuals who are migrant workers, individuals who are living in public housing. These centers, which operate in underserved rural and urban communities, provide critical primary care services to millions of Americans, regardless of their ability to pay. About 20 percent of the patients treated at Maine's community health centers have no insurance coverage. Many more have inadequate coverage. These community health centers play a critical role in providing a health care safety net for some of our most vulnerable individuals. The problem of access to affordable health care services is not limited to the uninsured. It is also shared by many Americans living in rural and underserved areas where there is a serious shortage of health care providers. The legislation we are introducing, therefore, includes a number of provisions to strengthen the National Health Service Corps, which supports doctors, dentists, and other clinicians who serve in rural and inner-city areas. For example, taxing students adversely affects their financial incentive to participate in the National Health Service Corps and provide health care services in underserved communities. Last year's tax bill provided a tax deduction for National Health Service Corps scholarship recipients to deduct all tuition, fees, and related educational expenses from their income taxes. The deduction did not extend to loan repayment recipients however, so loan repayment amounts are still taxed as income. Participants in the loan repayment program are actually given extra payment amounts to help them cover their tax lability which, frankly, is a little ridiculous. It makes much more sense to simply exempt them from taxation in the first place. In addition, the legislation will allow National Health Service Corps participants to fulfill their commitment on a part-time basis. Current law requires all National Health Service Corps participants to serve full time. Many rural communities, however, simply do not have enough volume to support a full-time health care practitioner. Moreover, some sites may not need a particular type of provider--for example, a dentist--on a full-time basis. Some practitioners may also find part- time service more attractive, which, in turn, could improve recruitment and retention. Our bill will therefore give the program additional flexibility to meet community needs. Long-term care is the major catastrophic health care expense faced by older American today, and these costs will only increase with the aging of the baby boomers. Most Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare or their private health insurance policies will cover the costs of long- term care should they develop a chronic illness or cognitive impairment like Alzheimer's Disease. Unfortunately, far too many do not discover that they do not have coverage until they are confronted with the difficult decision of placing a much-loved parent or spouse in long- term care and facing the shocking realization that they will have to cover the costs themselves. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will provide a tax credit for long-term care expenses of up to $3,000 to provide some help to those families struggling to provide long-term care to a loved one. It will also encourage more Americans to plan for their future long-term care needs by providing a tax deduction to help them purchase private long-term insurance. Health insurance alone is not going to ensure good health. As noted author and physician Dr. Michael Crichton has observed, ``the future of medicine lies not in treating illness, but preventing it.'' Many of our most serious health problems are directly related to unhealthy behaviors-- smoking, lack of regular exercise, and poor diet. These three major risk factors alone have made Maine the State with the fourth highest death rate due to four largely preventable disease: Cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic lung disease and diabetes. These four chronic diseases are reponsible for 70 percent of the health care problems in Maine. Our bill therefore contains a number of provisions designed to promoted healthy lifestyles. An ever-expanding body of evidence shows that these kinds of investment in health promotiong and prevention offer returns not only in reduced health care bill, but in longer life and increased productivity. The legislation will provide grants to States to assist small businesses wishing to establish ``worksite wellness'' programs for their employees. It would also authorize a grant program to support new and existing ``community partnerships,'' such as the Healthy Community Coalition in Franklin County, to promote healthy lifestyles among hospitals, employers, schools and community organizations. And, it would provide funds for States to establish or expand comprehensive school health education, including, for example, physical education programs that promote lifelong physical activity, healthy food service selections, and programs that promote a healthy and safe school environment. And finally, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act would promote equity in Medicare payments and help to ensure that the Medicare system rewards rather than punishes States like Maine that deliver high- quality, cost effective Medicare services to our elderly and disabled citizens. According to a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Maine ranks third in the nation when it comes to the quality of care delivered to our Medicare beneficiaries. Yet we are 11th from the bottom when it comes to per-beneficiary Medicare spending. The fact is that Maine's Medicare dollars are being used to subsidize higher reimbursements in other parts of the country. This simply is not fair. Medicare's reimbursement systems have historically tended to favor urban areas and failed to take the special needs of rural States into account. Ironically, Maine's low payment rates are also the result of its long history of providing high-quality, cost-effective care. In the early 1980s, Maine's lower than average costs were used to justify lower payment rates. Since then, Medicare's payment policies have only served to widen the gap between low and high-cost States. As a consequence, Maine's hospitals, physicians, and other providers have experienced a serious Medicare shortfall, which has forced them to shift costs on to other payers in the form of higher charges. The Medicare shortfall is one of the reasons that Maine has among the highest health insurance premiums in the Nation. The provisions in the Access to Affordable Health Care Act provide a complement to legislation that I introduced earlier this year with Senator Russ Feingold to promote greater fairness in Medicare payments to physicians and other health professionals by eliminating outdated geographic adjustment factors that discriminate against rural areas. Mr. President, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act outlines a blueprint for reform based upon principles upon which I believe a bipartisan majority in Congress could agree. The plan takes significant strides toward the goal of universal health care coverage by bringing million more Americans into the insurance system, by strengthening the health care safety net, and by addressing the inequities in the Medicare system.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that recognizes the value of America's existing renewable energy resources. The Bingaman amendment does not give credit to existing renewable energy facilities. I believe a facility should receive credit at least for new renewable energy generation that is higher than the facility's average generation over the previous three years. My amendment would allow existing facilities to receive credit for increased generation of renewable energy. I support increasing our use of renewable energy. I believe it is important that any comprehensive energy legislation significantly boost the use of electricity produced from clean resources such as biomass, wind, geothermal, and solar energy. I support a significant renewable portfolio standard, which requires electricity suppliers to sell electricity that has a minimum amount of renewable energy. Promoting our renewable energy resources will help diversify our energy supplies, increase our energy security, and reduce pollution. It will move us one step closer to a cleaner energy future that reduces our reliance on fossil fuels. States are leading the way in demonstrating the benefits of clean energy standards. Twelve States, including Arizona, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin, have already adopted a renewable portfolio standard. A national RPS will complement and enhance the groundbreaking efforts by these states and will provide particular benefits to hard-pressed agricultural and rural areas. Perhaps most important, a national RPS would create a new and vibrant national market across all states, and help to maintain America's international leadership in these energy technologies of the future. I commend the efforts to develop renewable energy in my home State of Maine. Maine has been a leader in developing renewable energy. In fact, Maine has enacted a state-wide renewable portfolio standard of 30 percent. No other State has adopted as high a standard as Maine. Even though I am emphatically in favor of increasing renewable energy production, we must do so in a fair and equitable way. The proposal before us, offered by my friend from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, unfairly discriminates against existing renewable energy resources. Unfortunately, the Senator from New Mexico has drafted legislation that does not properly give credit to existing renewable energy production. Why should we discriminate against States which have been proactive and invested heavily in renewable energy? I know my home State of Maine, as well as California and a number of other States, have invested huge resources into developing our renewable energy resources. These States have developed new technologies and set an example for other States to follow. Let's not penalize those States which have worked to develop our renewable energy industry from the ground up. Ideally, every existing renewable energy resource should receive full credit. I would like to see existing renewable energy resources receive 100% credit. Doing so would help bring our total renewable energy generation to a higher level at less cost. Under the Bingaman approach, existing renewable energy resources will find themselves in an unfair competitive environment with new renewable energy sources. Existing renewable energy facilities will shut down, and new ones will be built next door. That is a poor use of resources. It will cost more money and raise electricity prices. Wouldn't it be better if States could form partnerships with each other to develop renewable energy resources in the most cost efficient manner possible? Surely we should allow States which don't have a lot of existing renewable resources to save money by buying inexpensive, existing credits from other States. I am offering this amendment that would provide at least partial recognition of those hard working Americans who have built our existing renewable energy resources. I would like to see all existing renewable energy resources included in this standard. However, my amendment does not go that far in an attempt to accommodate Senator Bingaman. My amendment merely says that increased output at existing renewable energy facilities should be counted. If an existing renewable energy facility were to increase its renewable energy output by 50%, then under my amendment that facility would receive credit for that 50% increase. Thus, consistent with the interest of Senator Bingaman's proposal, my amendment only gives credit to new renewable energy production. Those who have developed America's existing renewable energy resources should have their efforts recognized. At a minimum, I hope my colleagues will at least join me in giving these hard working Americans who have led the way on renewables partial credit. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. To reiterate, my amendment merely says that increased output at an existing renewable energy facility should be counted under this bill. If an existing renewable energy facility were to increase its renewable energy output by 50 percent, then under my amendment that facility would receive credit for that 50-percent increase. Thus, I believe it is consistent with the intent of Senator Bingaman's proposal in that it gives credit to expand renewable energy production. I ask for consideration of the amendment, and I thank both Senator Bingaman and Senator Murkowski for their assistance in this matter.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Snowe, I send an amendment to the desk.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 2042 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Amendments Nos. 3033 and 3040

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous order be delayed and that I be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I wanted to ask the sponsors about a provision that was not included in the Senate bill--the prohibition on contributions by minors. Can you explain the justification for this new provision?

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I would like to ask the sponsors a question concerning the term ``refers to'' in certain provisions of the bill. I have heard the argument made that the definitions of ``Federal election activity'' and ``electioneering communication'' are somehow vague because they are defined to include a communication that ``refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office.'' Can the sponsors address that argument?

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, when the McCain-Feingold bill passed the Senate, it was to be effective 30 days after enactment. Would the sponsors please explain the decision to change the effective date of the bill to November 6, 2002, and discuss the transition rules that apply after that date? In addition, can they please clarify their intent concerning the campaign finance rules that will govern runoff elections should there be any in 2002?

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Madam President. Today we stand on the threshold of an accomplishment that for many years had seemed unachievable. We are here because of the tenacious leadership, advocacy, and courage of Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold. How well I remember, after being elected in 1996 and sworn in in early 1997, Senator Feingold coming and meeting with me. He had with him a pile of papers, everything I had ever said on the issue of campaign finance reform. So he knew well I had pledged to the people of Maine my determination to reform our campaign finance laws. We talked, and I said to him: This sounds very good. How many other Republicans do you have on this bill? He paused and he said: You mean other than John McCain? I said: Yes. He said: Well, there is Fred Thompson. I was delighted to sign on as the third Republican to support the McCain-Feingold bill. I wish to pay tribute to my friend Russ Feingold for his persistence, for his attention to detail, and for never giving up the fight. He and Senator McCain are true heroes. It is wonderful to be here today. The growth and support for campaign finance reform among members of my party underscores the importance of the legislation and the increasing realization that our campaign system was out of control. My home State of Maine has a deep commitment to preserving the integrity of the electoral process, to opening the doors to public office to many more citizens, and to ensuring that all Mainers, indeed all Americans, have an equal political voice. In many communities in Maine, this is the season for town meetings, town meetings in which all citizens are invited to debate the issues with their neighbors and to make decisions. This is unvarnished, direct democracy. It is a tradition where those who have more money do not speak any louder or have any more clout than those who have less money. It is a tradition that has made Maine a State that values political participation from all of its citizens. Maine's tradition of town meetings and equal participation rejects the notion that wealth dictates political discourse. Maine's citizens feel strongly about reforming the campaign finance system, as do I. Soft money has become the conduit through which wealthy individuals, labor unions, and corporations have been able to evade the campaign contribution limits, as well as the ban on direct corporate and union contributions. The problem with soft money was painfully evident during the 1997 hearings held by my friend and colleague, Senator Fred Thompson, before the Committee on Governmental Affairs. We heard from individual after individual who testified about giving hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to buy access. One gave $325,000 to the Democratic National Committee in order to secure a picture with the President of the United States. Another was the infamous Roger Tamraz, who testified the $300,000 he donated to gain access to the White House was not enough and that next time he was prepared to double the amount he would give. According to the Congressional Research Service, soft money donations nearly doubled in the 2000 election cycle, from $262 million in 1996 to $488 million in the year 2000. Other estimates set the explosion in soft money donations at even higher levels. Just two Presidential elections ago, soft money contributions totaled $86 million. At the same time, during this period, regulated hard money donations, which all of us wish to encourage to get individuals more involved in the political process, grew by only about 10 percent. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 has served our country well in many aspects, but the loopholes in the law have swallowed the rules themselves. If left unchecked, soft money threatens to swamp our campaign finance system, and that is why this legislation we are on the threshold of clearing today is so important. I am also pleased the bill includes an amendment that Senator Wyden and I offered to raise the level of discourse in campaign ads. Our amendment requires that candidates be clearly identified when they or their authorized committees air negative advertising. When a candidate launches an ad that refers directly to an opponent, whether it is a high-minded discussion of policy differences or a vicious attack on an opponent's character, the candidate should be required to stand by his ad and not hide behind a committee that may not include the name of the candidate. Our amendment requires the candidate to clearly identify himself or herself as the sponsor of the ad, thus putting an end to disingenuous stealth attack ads. Finally, I pay tribute to a principled opponent of this legislation, Senator McConnell. We could not disagree more on the substance of this issue, but I respect his tenacity and the strength of his convictions. The problems in our country campaign finance system are well known. Today, finally, at long last, due to Senator Russ Feingold and Senator John McCain, we are going to make tremendous progress. I am delighted to have been part of this fight. I am so pleased we are on the verge of sending this landmark legislation to the President of the United States for his signature.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this is a change that makes sense. I hope we will adopt it this year. It is long overdue to change our tax policy to reflect the modern-day realities of running a small business.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to benefit our Nation's small businesses--the backbone of our economy. I am very pleased to be joined by several of my colleagues, including Senator Bond, Senator Tim Hutchinson, and Senator Gordon Smith. All of these Senators have been steadfast proponents and supporters of small businesses throughout their Senate career. Today, we are introducing legislation to allow small businesses to expense more of their investments in equipment and property. In short, we are introducing legislation to help small businesses grow. The importance of small businesses to our economy cannot be overstated. According to the Small Business Administration, small firms account for three-quarters of our Nation's employment growth and almost all of the net new jobs. That is certainly true in my home State of Maine. These are good jobs, jobs that make our communities strong. Mr. President, last Friday the Senate overwhelmingly passed a critical piece of legislation designed to boost our economy. The legislation extends benefits for an additional 13 weeks to an estimated 3 million unemployed workers who have exhausted, or will soon exhaust, their regular unemployment benefits before being able to find new work. This program will help put food on the table for an estimated 23,000 unemployed workers in Maine by providing money for extended benefits. The economic recovery legislation also includes ``bonus depreciation'' provisions that will encourage mostly larger firms to invest in new property and equipment. Again, that is another provision I support. It includes a number of other important proposals, including one that is near and dear to me providing tax relief to teachers who reach deep into their own pockets to buy supplies and materials for their students. Yet my biggest regret about the economic recovery package we passed last week is that it does very little for smaller businesses. I think that is disappointing and I think that is wrong because it is small businesses that tend to lead our economy out of recession. Often, I think we take smaller businesses for granted. When times are good, we expect small businesses to create vast numbers of good, new jobs for American workers, and when times are tough, we count on small businesses to resuscitate our sluggish economy. Time and time again, entrepreneurs lead the Nation down avenues of new economic opportunity, and our expectations rise with each remarkable success story. But if we expect so much from small businesses, if we count on them to this degree, we owe it to them to create a climate that nurtures and rewards entrepreneurship. That is why we have come together to introduce this straightforward legislation. Under section 179 of the Tax Code, a taxpayer with a relatively small amount of annual investment may elect to deduct up to $24,000 of the cost of qualifying property and equipment placed in service in any given year. The deduction is phased out for taxpayers who invest over $200,000 per year. Our bill would permit small businesses to expense their new equipment purchases up to $40,000 per year. In other words, we would be increasing the section 179 expensing limit from $24,000 to $40,000. That is a fairly significant increase, but it should be; the last time Congress increased the small business expensing limit was back in 1996. An adjustment is well overdue. Section 179 is critically important to small businesses. Direct expensing allows a small employer to avoid the complexities of the depreciation rules as well as unrealistic recovery periods for many assets. For example, under current law, a computer must be depreciated over 5 years. Now, all of us know that the useful life of most computers is only 2 or 3 years, at best. Expensing also addresses a top concern of small businesses that has been exacerbated by the recent recession. The concern is access to capital. I served for a time as the New England Administrator of the Small Business Administration, and I know there are so many small companies where the owner of the company has a wonderful concept, a workable business plan, yet lacks access to capital to get the business underway or to grow it to the next level. The concern is access to capital, which the Small Business Administration has called the ``greatest economic policy challenge'' for rapidly growing businesses. One indication of the need for additional financing is the amount of venture capital invested into the United States. In the year 2000, a record $103 billion was invested. But in 2001, that total fell by 65 percent, to $36.5 billion. When we see this decrease in access to venture capital, inevitably, it seems, women-owned companies and minority-owned firms are disproportionately affected and are shut out of the capital market. By raising the section 179 limit, our bill, in effect, will reduce the cost of capital for small businesses nationwide and it will free up additional capital for small businesses to purchase more plant and equipment. I have spoken to small business owners in my home State of Maine, and they have told me time and again that an increase in the small business expensing limit would make a real difference to them. It would allow them to expand their businesses, thus create more good, new jobs. Terry Skillins of Skillins Greenhouses is a fourth-generation Maine family business founded in 1885. It is a good example of what I am talking about. Skillins Greenhouses employs between 70 and 120 employees, depending on the season, in its landscaping, greenhouse, and floral businesses. Terry told me the company is looking to expand but that to do so takes money. From tractors, to conveyor belts, to specialized machinery, the equipment needed to expand is expensive. Terry said raising the small business expensing limit to $40,000 would help tip the scales in favor of his proceeding with an expansion, particularly if the increase were made permanent. Terry said his business plan extends over a number of years and, hence, knowing the expensing limit would be increased permanently, he could and would use a significant multiyear savings to expand his business. We offered a small business expensing amendment to the economic recovery bill back in January. The amendment was offered by my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, and myself. It included exactly the same increases as I am proposing in the bill we are introducing today. I point out that our amendment passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 90 to 2. So, clearly, there is an understanding among our colleagues that this tax change is long overdue and that it would make a real difference to the small businesses in our country. Today, I am inviting all of our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this bill, which is strongly supported and has been endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Business, our Nation's largest small business organization. In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Dan Danner, senior vice president of the NFIB, be printed in Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this is a change that makes sense. I hope we will adopt it this year. It is long overdue to change our tax policy to reflect the modern-day realities of running a small business.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to benefit our Nation's small businesses--the backbone of our economy. I am very pleased to be joined by several of my colleagues, including Senator Bond, Senator Tim Hutchinson, and Senator Gordon Smith. All of these Senators have been steadfast proponents and supporters of small businesses throughout their Senate career. Today, we are introducing legislation to allow small businesses to expense more of their investments in equipment and property. In short, we are introducing legislation to help small businesses grow. The importance of small businesses to our economy cannot be overstated. According to the Small Business Administration, small firms account for three-quarters of our Nation's employment growth and almost all of the net new jobs. That is certainly true in my home State of Maine. These are good jobs, jobs that make our communities strong. Mr. President, last Friday the Senate overwhelmingly passed a critical piece of legislation designed to boost our economy. The legislation extends benefits for an additional 13 weeks to an estimated 3 million unemployed workers who have exhausted, or will soon exhaust, their regular unemployment benefits before being able to find new work. This program will help put food on the table for an estimated 23,000 unemployed workers in Maine by providing money for extended benefits. The economic recovery legislation also includes ``bonus depreciation'' provisions that will encourage mostly larger firms to invest in new property and equipment. Again, that is another provision I support. It includes a number of other important proposals, including one that is near and dear to me providing tax relief to teachers who reach deep into their own pockets to buy supplies and materials for their students. Yet my biggest regret about the economic recovery package we passed last week is that it does very little for smaller businesses. I think that is disappointing and I think that is wrong because it is small businesses that tend to lead our economy out of recession. Often, I think we take smaller businesses for granted. When times are good, we expect small businesses to create vast numbers of good, new jobs for American workers, and when times are tough, we count on small businesses to resuscitate our sluggish economy. Time and time again, entrepreneurs lead the Nation down avenues of new economic opportunity, and our expectations rise with each remarkable success story. But if we expect so much from small businesses, if we count on them to this degree, we owe it to them to create a climate that nurtures and rewards entrepreneurship. That is why we have come together to introduce this straightforward legislation. Under section 179 of the Tax Code, a taxpayer with a relatively small amount of annual investment may elect to deduct up to $24,000 of the cost of qualifying property and equipment placed in service in any given year. The deduction is phased out for taxpayers who invest over $200,000 per year. Our bill would permit small businesses to expense their new equipment purchases up to $40,000 per year. In other words, we would be increasing the section 179 expensing limit from $24,000 to $40,000. That is a fairly significant increase, but it should be; the last time Congress increased the small business expensing limit was back in 1996. An adjustment is well overdue. Section 179 is critically important to small businesses. Direct expensing allows a small employer to avoid the complexities of the depreciation rules as well as unrealistic recovery periods for many assets. For example, under current law, a computer must be depreciated over 5 years. Now, all of us know that the useful life of most computers is only 2 or 3 years, at best. Expensing also addresses a top concern of small businesses that has been exacerbated by the recent recession. The concern is access to capital. I served for a time as the New England Administrator of the Small Business Administration, and I know there are so many small companies where the owner of the company has a wonderful concept, a workable business plan, yet lacks access to capital to get the business underway or to grow it to the next level. The concern is access to capital, which the Small Business Administration has called the ``greatest economic policy challenge'' for rapidly growing businesses. One indication of the need for additional financing is the amount of venture capital invested into the United States. In the year 2000, a record $103 billion was invested. But in 2001, that total fell by 65 percent, to $36.5 billion. When we see this decrease in access to venture capital, inevitably, it seems, women-owned companies and minority-owned firms are disproportionately affected and are shut out of the capital market. By raising the section 179 limit, our bill, in effect, will reduce the cost of capital for small businesses nationwide and it will free up additional capital for small businesses to purchase more plant and equipment. I have spoken to small business owners in my home State of Maine, and they have told me time and again that an increase in the small business expensing limit would make a real difference to them. It would allow them to expand their businesses, thus create more good, new jobs. Terry Skillins of Skillins Greenhouses is a fourth-generation Maine family business founded in 1885. It is a good example of what I am talking about. Skillins Greenhouses employs between 70 and 120 employees, depending on the season, in its landscaping, greenhouse, and floral businesses. Terry told me the company is looking to expand but that to do so takes money. From tractors, to conveyor belts, to specialized machinery, the equipment needed to expand is expensive. Terry said raising the small business expensing limit to $40,000 would help tip the scales in favor of his proceeding with an expansion, particularly if the increase were made permanent. Terry said his business plan extends over a number of years and, hence, knowing the expensing limit would be increased permanently, he could and would use a significant multiyear savings to expand his business. We offered a small business expensing amendment to the economic recovery bill back in January. The amendment was offered by my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, and myself. It included exactly the same increases as I am proposing in the bill we are introducing today. I point out that our amendment passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 90 to 2. So, clearly, there is an understanding among our colleagues that this tax change is long overdue and that it would make a real difference to the small businesses in our country. Today, I am inviting all of our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this bill, which is strongly supported and has been endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Business, our Nation's largest small business organization. In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Dan Danner, senior vice president of the NFIB, be printed in Record.

Ms. COLLINS

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

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join several of my colleagues in rising in support of increased fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. Some people have tried to cast this argument as a choice between trucks and better fuel economy. This is simply a false choice. I am convinced that we can, with America's can-do attitude and technological know-how, provide safer, more efficient cars and trucks that will go further on a gallon of gas and save consumers money at the gas pump. CAFE standards will give us better trucks and more money in our pockets. OPEC's anticompetitive manipulations have driven the price of oil to a 6-month high. If we don't increase CAFE standards, America will only grow more and more dependent on foreign oil. Already we rely on foreign oil for 60 percent of our supply. That is a dangerous dependency. How much further into OPEC's clutches do we have to let ourselves slide before we decide that there is another way, a better way? CAFE is the American way of sending OPEC a message that we will not stand for their anticompetitive manipulative price increases. Our proposal will save more than 1 million barrels of oil a day. It will save billions of dollars for consumers. And it will do more to reduce our reliance on foreign oil than any other single measure before us. I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting the proposal to increase CAFE standards. This proposal is the right thing to do for the environment, for the economy, for consumers, and for America. I commend Senators Kerry, Bingaman, McCain, and my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, for their efforts in coming up with an alternative approach.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I join Senators Wellstone, Kennedy, DeWine, and Bayh in introducing the National Domestic Violence Hotline Enhancement Act. This legislation would authorize the Department of Health and Human Services to oversee the creation of a secure web site that would link every domestic violence shelter and service provider in the United States and the National Domestic Violence Hotline. The objective is to enable victims of domestic violence and their families who are seeking safety from abuse to more quickly and easily find the shelter and other services they so desperately need. The secure and confidential web site would keep a continuously updated, nationwide list of available shelter and services, such as transportation and children's services, for victims of domestic violence and their families. Once the web site is operational, whenever a woman calls the Hotline, a shelter or other domestic violence project, the operator can immediately check the site and get an up-to-date listing of available shelters and services around the country. With a single phone call, a victim of domestic violence and her family can be placed in the most appropriate shelter to meet their needs or more quickly obtain the other services that will enable them to escape a dangerous situation. Domestic violence is the number one cause of injury to women in the United States. In this country, a woman is battered every 15 seconds. It is estimated that one in five women admitted to emergency rooms is there due to battering. Almost one-third of the American women murdered each year are killed by their current or former partners, usually a husband. In the State of Maine, the overall crime rate dropped by 12 percent in 2000, but domestic violence reports increased by 12.5 percent. It is the leading cause of murder in Maine, resulting in over half the state's homicides. Even when children aren't the target of family violence, those who witness abuse in their homes do not escape unscathed. Tragically, they too are victims, with effects that can include physical, psychological and behavioral problems. Moreover, many of the millions of children who suffer or witness abuse in their homes grow up to perpetuate the legacy of family violence. A report by the American Psychological Association found that a ``child's exposure to the father abusing the mother is the strongest risk for transmitting violent behavior from one generation to the next.'' According to one estimate by the American Medical Association, domestic violence costs the nation from $5 to $10 billion annually in medical expenses, police and court costs, shelters and foster care, sick leave, absenteeism, and nonproductivity. Add the untold costs in suffering and destroyed lives caused by domestic abuse, and the need to more effectively intervene and break the cycle of violence becomes even more compelling. Information technology has improved many aspects of our lives in recent years, and it is time we used advances in technology to help victims and break the cycle of domestic violence. The National Domestic Violence Hotline Enhancement Act will do just that by more effectively helping women and children escape unsafe and violent situations. To achieve the goal of linking the National Domestic Violence Hotline and every domestic violence shelter and service provider on an electronic network, the legislation authorizes the use of funds to provide Internet access and training to shelters that currently do not have the necessary technology. This is a critical element of the bill because only 43 percent of shelters in the United States have Internet access, leaving over half of all shelters without services that many of us now take for granted. The National Domestic Violence Hotline Enhancement Act would create a national domestic violence website and secure network, and it will give service providers the tools to both contribute to and benefit from that network. By doing so, the bill would help ensure that hundreds of thousands of women and children in need of help to escape violence will find the safety and well-being they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I join Senators Wellstone, Kennedy, DeWine, and Bayh in introducing the National Domestic Violence Hotline Enhancement Act. This legislation would authorize the Department of Health and Human Services to oversee the creation of a secure web site that would link every domestic violence shelter and service provider in the United States and the National Domestic Violence Hotline. The objective is to enable victims of domestic violence and their families who are seeking safety from abuse to more quickly and easily find the shelter and other services they so desperately need. The secure and confidential web site would keep a continuously updated, nationwide list of available shelter and services, such as transportation and children's services, for victims of domestic violence and their families. Once the web site is operational, whenever a woman calls the Hotline, a shelter or other domestic violence project, the operator can immediately check the site and get an up-to-date listing of available shelters and services around the country. With a single phone call, a victim of domestic violence and her family can be placed in the most appropriate shelter to meet their needs or more quickly obtain the other services that will enable them to escape a dangerous situation. Domestic violence is the number one cause of injury to women in the United States. In this country, a woman is battered every 15 seconds. It is estimated that one in five women admitted to emergency rooms is there due to battering. Almost one-third of the American women murdered each year are killed by their current or former partners, usually a husband. In the State of Maine, the overall crime rate dropped by 12 percent in 2000, but domestic violence reports increased by 12.5 percent. It is the leading cause of murder in Maine, resulting in over half the state's homicides. Even when children aren't the target of family violence, those who witness abuse in their homes do not escape unscathed. Tragically, they too are victims, with effects that can include physical, psychological and behavioral problems. Moreover, many of the millions of children who suffer or witness abuse in their homes grow up to perpetuate the legacy of family violence. A report by the American Psychological Association found that a ``child's exposure to the father abusing the mother is the strongest risk for transmitting violent behavior from one generation to the next.'' According to one estimate by the American Medical Association, domestic violence costs the nation from $5 to $10 billion annually in medical expenses, police and court costs, shelters and foster care, sick leave, absenteeism, and nonproductivity. Add the untold costs in suffering and destroyed lives caused by domestic abuse, and the need to more effectively intervene and break the cycle of violence becomes even more compelling. Information technology has improved many aspects of our lives in recent years, and it is time we used advances in technology to help victims and break the cycle of domestic violence. The National Domestic Violence Hotline Enhancement Act will do just that by more effectively helping women and children escape unsafe and violent situations. To achieve the goal of linking the National Domestic Violence Hotline and every domestic violence shelter and service provider on an electronic network, the legislation authorizes the use of funds to provide Internet access and training to shelters that currently do not have the necessary technology. This is a critical element of the bill because only 43 percent of shelters in the United States have Internet access, leaving over half of all shelters without services that many of us now take for granted. The National Domestic Violence Hotline Enhancement Act would create a national domestic violence website and secure network, and it will give service providers the tools to both contribute to and benefit from that network. By doing so, the bill would help ensure that hundreds of thousands of women and children in need of help to escape violence will find the safety and well-being they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I also appreciate you staying in the chair. I will try not to unduly delay you.