Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I neglected to mention Senator Roberts wants to be a cosponsor of the amendment as well. He is on the amendment I sent to the desk. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Domenici be added as a cosponsor as well.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, in introducing bipartisan legislation, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act, that is designed to make health insurance more affordable both for individuals and for small businesses that provide health care coverage for their employees. In the past few years, Congress has taken some major steps to expand access to affordable health insurance for all Americans. One of the first bills I sponsored on coming to the Senate was legislation to establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which was enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Act. States have enthusiastically responded to this program, which now provides affordable health insurance coverage to over two million children nationwide, including nearly 10,000 in Maine's expanded Medicaid and CubCare programs. Thanks to these efforts, coupled with an increase in employer coverage fueled by our strong economy, we are making some progress. For the first time in twelve years, the number of Americans without health insurance actually dropped from about 44 million to 42.6 million. While this is good news, it by no means minimizes the problem. There are still far too many Americans without health insurance. Clearly, we must make health insurance more available and affordable. Since most Americans get their health insurance through the workplace, it is a common assumption that people without health insurance are unemployed. The fact is, however, that most uninsured Americans are members of families with at least one full-time worker: 85 percent of the Americans who do not have health insurance are in a family with a worker. Uninsured, working Americans are most often employees of small businesses, the backbone of the economy in Maine. Some 60 percent of uninsured workers are employed by small firms. If we want to reduce the number of uninsured Americans, we need to consider how we can help more small businesses afford health insurance for their employees. According to a recent National Federation of Independent Businesses survey, the cost of health insurance is the number one problem facing small businesses. And it has been since 1986. It is time for us to listen and to lend a hand to these small businesses. Small employers generally face higher costs for health insurance than larger firms, which makes them less likely to offer coverage. Premiums are generally higher for small businesses because they do not have as much purchasing power as large companies, which limits their ability to bargain for lower rates. They also have higher administrative costs because they have fewer employees among whom to spread the fixed costs of a health benefits plan. Moreover, they are not as able to spread risks of medical claims over as many employees as can large firms. As a consequence, only 42 percent of small businesses with fewer than 50 employees offer health insurance to their employees. By way of contrast, more than 95 percent of businesses with 100 or more employees offer insurance. Moreover, the smaller the business, the less likely it is to offer health insurance to its employees. Small businesses want to provide health insurance for their employees, but the cost is often just too high. Simply put, the biggest obstacle to health care coverage in the United States today is cost. While American employers everywhere, from giant multinational corporations to the small corner store, are facing huge hikes in their health insurance costs, these rising costs are particularly problematic for small businesses and their employees. Many small employers are facing premium increases of 15 to 30 percent or more. This can cause them either to drop their health benefits or to pass the additional costs on to their employees through increased deductibles, higher copays or premium hikes. This, too, is troubling and will likely add to the ranks of the uninsured since it will cause some employees, particularly lower-wage workers who are disproportionately affected by increased costs, to drop or turn down coverage when it is offered to them. According to another survey of small businesses, two-thirds of small business owners said that they would seriously consider offering health benefits if they were provided with some assistance with premiums. Almost one-half would consider doing so if their costs fell 10 percent. To respond to these findings, we are introducing the Access to Affordable Health Care Act, which will help small employers cope with these rising costs. Our bill will provide new tax credits for small businesses to help make health insurance more affordable. It will encourage those small businesses that do not currently offer health insurance to do so and will help businesses that currently do offer insurance to continue coverage even in the face of rising costs. Under our proposal, employers with fewer than ten employees will receive a tax credit of 50 percent of the employer contribution to the cost of employee health insurance. Employers with ten to 25 employees will receive a 30 percent credit. Under the bill, the credit would be based on an employer's yearly qualified health insurance expenses of up to $2,000 for individual coverage and $4,000 for family coverage. The legislation we are introducing will also make health insurance more affordable for individuals and families who must purchase health insurance on their own. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will provide an above-the-line tax deduction for individuals who pay at least 50 percent of the cost of their own health and long-term care insurance. Regardless of whether an individual takes the standard deduction or itemizes, he or she will be provided relief by the new above-the-line deduction. The bill also will allow self-employed Americans to deduct the full amount of their health care premiums. Some 25 million Americans are in families headed by a self-employed individual, of these, five million are uninsured. Establishing parity in the tax treatment of health insurance costs between the self-employed and those working for large businesses is not just a matter of equity. It will also help to reduce the number of uninsured, but working Americans. Our bill will make health insurance more affordable for the 82,000 people in Maine who are self-employed. They include our lobstermen, our hairdressers, our electricians, our plumbers, and the many owners of mom-and-pop stores that dot communities throughout the state. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act, which has been endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Business, will help small businesses afford health insurance for their employees, and it will also make coverage more affordable for working Americans who must purchase it on their own. I urge my colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, in introducing bipartisan legislation, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act, that is designed to make health insurance more affordable both for individuals and for small businesses that provide health care coverage for their employees. In the past few years, Congress has taken some major steps to expand access to affordable health insurance for all Americans. One of the first bills I sponsored on coming to the Senate was legislation to establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which was enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Act. States have enthusiastically responded to this program, which now provides affordable health insurance coverage to over two million children nationwide, including nearly 10,000 in Maine's expanded Medicaid and CubCare programs. Thanks to these efforts, coupled with an increase in employer coverage fueled by our strong economy, we are making some progress. For the first time in twelve years, the number of Americans without health insurance actually dropped from about 44 million to 42.6 million. While this is good news, it by no means minimizes the problem. There are still far too many Americans without health insurance. Clearly, we must make health insurance more available and affordable. Since most Americans get their health insurance through the workplace, it is a common assumption that people without health insurance are unemployed. The fact is, however, that most uninsured Americans are members of families with at least one full-time worker: 85 percent of the Americans who do not have health insurance are in a family with a worker. Uninsured, working Americans are most often employees of small businesses, the backbone of the economy in Maine. Some 60 percent of uninsured workers are employed by small firms. If we want to reduce the number of uninsured Americans, we need to consider how we can help more small businesses afford health insurance for their employees. According to a recent National Federation of Independent Businesses survey, the cost of health insurance is the number one problem facing small businesses. And it has been since 1986. It is time for us to listen and to lend a hand to these small businesses. Small employers generally face higher costs for health insurance than larger firms, which makes them less likely to offer coverage. Premiums are generally higher for small businesses because they do not have as much purchasing power as large companies, which limits their ability to bargain for lower rates. They also have higher administrative costs because they have fewer employees among whom to spread the fixed costs of a health benefits plan. Moreover, they are not as able to spread risks of medical claims over as many employees as can large firms. As a consequence, only 42 percent of small businesses with fewer than 50 employees offer health insurance to their employees. By way of contrast, more than 95 percent of businesses with 100 or more employees offer insurance. Moreover, the smaller the business, the less likely it is to offer health insurance to its employees. Small businesses want to provide health insurance for their employees, but the cost is often just too high. Simply put, the biggest obstacle to health care coverage in the United States today is cost. While American employers everywhere, from giant multinational corporations to the small corner store, are facing huge hikes in their health insurance costs, these rising costs are particularly problematic for small businesses and their employees. Many small employers are facing premium increases of 15 to 30 percent or more. This can cause them either to drop their health benefits or to pass the additional costs on to their employees through increased deductibles, higher copays or premium hikes. This, too, is troubling and will likely add to the ranks of the uninsured since it will cause some employees, particularly lower-wage workers who are disproportionately affected by increased costs, to drop or turn down coverage when it is offered to them. According to another survey of small businesses, two-thirds of small business owners said that they would seriously consider offering health benefits if they were provided with some assistance with premiums. Almost one-half would consider doing so if their costs fell 10 percent. To respond to these findings, we are introducing the Access to Affordable Health Care Act, which will help small employers cope with these rising costs. Our bill will provide new tax credits for small businesses to help make health insurance more affordable. It will encourage those small businesses that do not currently offer health insurance to do so and will help businesses that currently do offer insurance to continue coverage even in the face of rising costs. Under our proposal, employers with fewer than ten employees will receive a tax credit of 50 percent of the employer contribution to the cost of employee health insurance. Employers with ten to 25 employees will receive a 30 percent credit. Under the bill, the credit would be based on an employer's yearly qualified health insurance expenses of up to $2,000 for individual coverage and $4,000 for family coverage. The legislation we are introducing will also make health insurance more affordable for individuals and families who must purchase health insurance on their own. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will provide an above-the-line tax deduction for individuals who pay at least 50 percent of the cost of their own health and long-term care insurance. Regardless of whether an individual takes the standard deduction or itemizes, he or she will be provided relief by the new above-the-line deduction. The bill also will allow self-employed Americans to deduct the full amount of their health care premiums. Some 25 million Americans are in families headed by a self-employed individual, of these, five million are uninsured. Establishing parity in the tax treatment of health insurance costs between the self-employed and those working for large businesses is not just a matter of equity. It will also help to reduce the number of uninsured, but working Americans. Our bill will make health insurance more affordable for the 82,000 people in Maine who are self-employed. They include our lobstermen, our hairdressers, our electricians, our plumbers, and the many owners of mom-and-pop stores that dot communities throughout the state. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act, which has been endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Business, will help small businesses afford health insurance for their employees, and it will also make coverage more affordable for working Americans who must purchase it on their own. I urge my colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in 1993, Congress created the Community Empowerment Program to provide communities with real opportunities for growth and revitalization. The program challenged local jurisdictions to develop strategic plans for the future and rewarded the communities that have developed the best plans with a ten-year designation as an Empowerment Zone or Enterprise Community. Once a designation is awarded, communities receive Federal support to assist local efforts to promote economic opportunity and implement strategies designed to help communities obtain their development goals. When it authorized the program, Congress also provided, in one appropriation, the funding necessary to support the communities for the full life of the ten-year designations. In response to the initial success of the Community Empowerment Program, Congress authorized a second round of the Enterprise Community designations in 1998, creating an additional 20 Enterprise Communities. These designations were awarded to deserving communities shortly thereafter by the Department of Agriculture. When Congress authorized a second round of Enterprise Communities, it only appropriated funding for the program in Fiscal Year 1999. Consequently, communities have had to rely on funding added in conference to the VA-HUD appropriations bill in each of the subsequent fiscal years. This last minute approach to funding these communities is not at all conducive to the strategic planning that the Community Empowerment Program is supposed to encourage. We cannot expect local leaders to effectively implement their plans if the Federal support they have been promised is still in question. I believe it is time for Congress to demonstrate its support for the Round II Enterprise Communities by setting aside, as it did in Round I, the funding necessary to sustain this important program. Today, I am introducing legislation that would ensure that Congress keeps its commitment to the Round II Enterprise Communities by authorizing a one time appropriation to the States through the Social Service Block Grant program to support the remaining years of the designations. My bill, the Enterprise Communities Enhancement Act of 2001, also authorizes the States to make annual grants for each of the seven remaining years of the program of $500,000 for each of the 20 Round II Enterprise Communities. By guaranteeing funding, Congress would demonstrate its support for the work being done by these communities and provide local leaders with the assurance that Federal dollars will be available as they make their plans for the future. The Enterprise Communities Enhancement Act will also allow for more local control over how the annual funding is used. My bill allows communities to use funds to capitalize local revolving loan accounts should community leaders deem such accounts as an important part of their economic development efforts. I have long been a strong supporter of Empower Lewiston--the local effort that secured and is implementing the Enterprise Community designation for the city of Lewiston, Maine. Thousands of local people and dozens of organizations worked together for a year to develop a strategic plan for the city as a whole and those neighborhoods most affected by poverty. The plan includes proposals to enhance lifelong learning and employment opportunities, improve the community's housing, and revitalize the city's downtown. Empower Lewiston has been able to leverage its funding by more than 50 to 1, generating more than $11 million in public and private investment in the community. Included among the projects that have been funded are investments in a local employment firm that created 60 new jobs and in the Seeds of Change program that enhances outreach among community residents. Looking ahead, Empower Lewiston will be developing a community resource center, working to develop safe and affordable housing, and expanding education programs that target the needs of local residents. Empower Lewiston provides a wonderful example of what the new Enterprise Communities are able to accomplish. By passing the Enterprise Communities Enhancement Act, Congress can ensure that communities such as Lewiston will have the resources they need to complete their missions and create a brighter future.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in 1993, Congress created the Community Empowerment Program to provide communities with real opportunities for growth and revitalization. The program challenged local jurisdictions to develop strategic plans for the future and rewarded the communities that have developed the best plans with a ten-year designation as an Empowerment Zone or Enterprise Community. Once a designation is awarded, communities receive Federal support to assist local efforts to promote economic opportunity and implement strategies designed to help communities obtain their development goals. When it authorized the program, Congress also provided, in one appropriation, the funding necessary to support the communities for the full life of the ten-year designations. In response to the initial success of the Community Empowerment Program, Congress authorized a second round of the Enterprise Community designations in 1998, creating an additional 20 Enterprise Communities. These designations were awarded to deserving communities shortly thereafter by the Department of Agriculture. When Congress authorized a second round of Enterprise Communities, it only appropriated funding for the program in Fiscal Year 1999. Consequently, communities have had to rely on funding added in conference to the VA-HUD appropriations bill in each of the subsequent fiscal years. This last minute approach to funding these communities is not at all conducive to the strategic planning that the Community Empowerment Program is supposed to encourage. We cannot expect local leaders to effectively implement their plans if the Federal support they have been promised is still in question. I believe it is time for Congress to demonstrate its support for the Round II Enterprise Communities by setting aside, as it did in Round I, the funding necessary to sustain this important program. Today, I am introducing legislation that would ensure that Congress keeps its commitment to the Round II Enterprise Communities by authorizing a one time appropriation to the States through the Social Service Block Grant program to support the remaining years of the designations. My bill, the Enterprise Communities Enhancement Act of 2001, also authorizes the States to make annual grants for each of the seven remaining years of the program of $500,000 for each of the 20 Round II Enterprise Communities. By guaranteeing funding, Congress would demonstrate its support for the work being done by these communities and provide local leaders with the assurance that Federal dollars will be available as they make their plans for the future. The Enterprise Communities Enhancement Act will also allow for more local control over how the annual funding is used. My bill allows communities to use funds to capitalize local revolving loan accounts should community leaders deem such accounts as an important part of their economic development efforts. I have long been a strong supporter of Empower Lewiston--the local effort that secured and is implementing the Enterprise Community designation for the city of Lewiston, Maine. Thousands of local people and dozens of organizations worked together for a year to develop a strategic plan for the city as a whole and those neighborhoods most affected by poverty. The plan includes proposals to enhance lifelong learning and employment opportunities, improve the community's housing, and revitalize the city's downtown. Empower Lewiston has been able to leverage its funding by more than 50 to 1, generating more than $11 million in public and private investment in the community. Included among the projects that have been funded are investments in a local employment firm that created 60 new jobs and in the Seeds of Change program that enhances outreach among community residents. Looking ahead, Empower Lewiston will be developing a community resource center, working to develop safe and affordable housing, and expanding education programs that target the needs of local residents. Empower Lewiston provides a wonderful example of what the new Enterprise Communities are able to accomplish. By passing the Enterprise Communities Enhancement Act, Congress can ensure that communities such as Lewiston will have the resources they need to complete their missions and create a brighter future.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for pointing out to the Senator from Oregon and myself that in drafting this amendment we erred. I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment to correct the mistake, and I send the modification to the desk.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am delighted to join the Senator from Oregon in sponsoring this important legislation. The premise of our amendment is clear. Candidates who run negative television and radio ads against their opponents should have to stand by their ads. That is the premise of our amendment. The Wyden-Collins amendment would require the candidate to clearly identify himself or herself as the sponsor of the ad. No more stealth campaign negative ads. There are many legitimate policy disputes between candidates and certainly an ad airing these differences is perfectly legitimate and, indeed, contributes to the political debate. But when a candidate launches an ad that talks about his opponent-- whether it is a high-minded discussion of policy differences or a vicious attack on an opponent's character--a candidate should be required to own up to its sponsorship. The public should not have to guess or decipher as to who is the sponsor of the ad. The candidate's sponsorship should be absolutely clear. Our amendment would accomplish that goal by requiring a clearly identifiable picture of the candidate and statement of sponsorship for the TV ad. The statement would require the candidate to say that he or she has approved the broadcast. Similarly, for radio, the candidate would have to identify himself, the office he is seeking, and state that he has approved the radio broadcast. We recognize that our amendment tackles only part of the problem of the deluge of negative attack ads since so many of them are sponsored not just by candidates but by outside special interest groups. Nevertheless, the Wyden-Collins amendment is an important first step. It would help curb the abuse of self-negative ads sponsored by candidates, and it would strengthen the underlying McCain-Feingold bill. I hope it will be approved. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. I request not more than 5 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I will briefly explain. The Senator from Kentucky pointed out that in drafting the amendment, we inadvertently deleted the requirement that there be a disclaimer that the ad is paid for by the candidate's authorized committee. We did not in any way intend to remove that disclaimer requirement. The legislation I sent to the desk makes it clear that the candidate's ad has to include the statement that the ad was paid for by the candidate's authorized committee. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for pointing out that error and allowing us to correct it.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for his very gracious comments. We would not be where we are today without his tenacity in pushing for true campaign finance reform. I want to respond, also, to the comments made by the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Michigan and thank them for their support of the Wyden-Collins proposal. Senator Dodd and Senator Feingold also raised a very important point, and that is, the deluge of negative attack ads discourages people from voting and really turns off the American public. This is exacerbated by the fact that a lot of times it is not evident who is sponsoring these ads, who is behind these charges and allegations that are hurled particularly in the final days of the campaign. I believe the Snowe-Jeffords amendment will help in that regard and that the amendment Senator Wyden and I are sponsoring today will make very clear that when a candidate launches a negative ad attacking his opponent, that candidate will have to take responsibility for that ad. It is important to note, however, that there is nothing wrong with a candidate running an ad that discusses policy differences. Indeed, that is valuable to the political discourse and debate. And, indeed, as Senator Levin pointed out, there is nothing in our amendment that prevents a candidate from running an irresponsible attack ad that perhaps is a vicious attack on an opponent's character. But if that is done--in either case--the candidate has to take responsibility for the ad. Under our proposal, the candidate's picture would appear at the end of the ad and the candidate would have to have a statement saying he or she approved the ad in order to get the lowest broadcast rate. So we are not, in any way, attempting to regulate speech or attempting to impose our ideas of what constitutes an appropriate ad. Rather, all we are doing is saying that if a candidate runs an ad that talks about his opponent, he has to own up to that ad. He has to clearly state that he paid for the ad, that he is responsible for its content. I think that would have the very beneficial effect of making candidates think twice before hurling accusations that perhaps are exaggerated or unfounded against an opponent. I believe it would help elevate the political debate and it would help curb some of the egregious negative ads that offend all of us. So I thank the Senator from Michigan, the Senator from Connecticut, and the Senator from Wisconsin for their support of this proposal. In particular, I thank my colleague from Oregon for the opportunity to work with him to craft what I think is a reasonable proposal, a modest but important first step that will help improve the quality of our campaigns. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his kind words.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am delighted that our opening prayer this morning was so eloquently delivered by my good friend, Father James L. Nadeau, the rector of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Portland, ME, and a native of my hometown of Caribou, ME. Father Jim is an inspiring testament to the power of faith and education. My family takes special pride in Father Jim because of our close connections growing up in Northern Maine. Both our families attended the same church in Caribou, Holy Rosary, where my mother was the director of religious education. Father Jim and his brother have both become priests. So we take special pride. Father Jim has a truly inspiring story. He was the first member of his family to graduate from college, and he credits this accomplishment to the academic preparation and support he received from the Upward Bound program at Bowdoin College. I wish to quote from Father Jim's own words, which describe his family background: Growing up in a rural Franco-American background, I was expected to follow my ancestors who for over 250 years were farmers and woodsmen. . . . I recall my parents not even wanting me to think about college. They could not afford it; plus, no one had gone to college in my family. In fact, my mother and father only studied to 8th grade. My mother, the oldest girl of 15 children, had to stay home and take care of her brothers and sisters. My father, when just a teenager, began working on the farms and at a french fry processing plant. For young Jim Nadeau, everything changed in his life when he first met the director of the Bowdoin College Upward Bound program in 1977. She encouraged him to go to college, and, indeed, after graduating from Caribou High School as valedictorian, he enrolled at Dartmouth College in the fall of 1979. With Pell grants and other financial aid making his education possible, he excelled in his studies. After graduating from college, Father Jim studied at Gregorian University in Rome for 5 years where he received two graduate degrees in theology. Father Jim also worked with Mother Teresa of Calcutta in her Roman missions and was ordained a Roman Catholic priest in 1988. Father says that he truly can credit the Upward Bound program with changing his life. We are, indeed, fortunate that the power of God and education transformed the life of young Jim Nadeau. He is an inspiration to us all and continues his important work today as rector of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Portland, ME. There he has guided many financially disadvantaged students and encouraged them to go to college. I am delighted to have him with us today. It is a great honor and privilege to have this outstanding priest join us and offer to us his inspiring opening prayer. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for allowing me to proceed.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. Madam President, I am delighted we are beginning the debate on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001, and of the campaign finance reform efforts that have been led for many years by my good friends, Senators McCain and Feingold. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of their bill, which takes several critical steps toward reform of our campaign finance system. I have long supported campaign finance reform. When I was running for the Senate in 1996, I promised to advocate reform, and I kept that promise by becoming an early cosponsor of McCain-Feingold during my first year in the Senate. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 goes a long way toward fixing a broken system. First and foremost, the bill closes the most glaring loophole in our campaign finance laws by banning the unlimited, unregulated contributions known as ``soft money.'' Second, the bill regulates and limits the campaign advertisements masquerading as issue ads that corporations and labor organizations often run in the weeks leading up to an election. And third, the bill prohibits foreign nationals from contributing soft money in connection with federal, state, or local elections. My home State of Maine has a deep commitment to preserving the integrity of the electoral system and ensuring that all Mainers have an equal political voice. Mainers have backed their commitment to an open political process in both word and deed. In many regions of Maine, town meetings in which all citizens are invited to debate issues and make decisions are still prevalent. This is unvarnished, direct democracy. It contrasts sharply with the increasing ability of people with more money to speak longer and louder in federal elections. Maine's tradition of town meetings and equal participation rejects the notion that wealth dictates political discourse. Maine citizens feel strongly about reforming our federal campaign laws, as do I. Soft money has become the conduit through which wealthy individuals, labor unions and corporations have in many ways seized control of our political process. The problem with soft money was evident during the 1997 hearings by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, chaired by my good friend, Senator Thompson. During those investigations, we heard from one individual who gave $325,000 to the Democratic National Committee in order to secure a picture with the President of the United States. We also heard from the infamous Roger Tamraz who testified that the $300,000 he spent to gain access to the White House was not enough and that, next time, he would spend $600,000. And we heard of individuals, such as Chinese millionaire Ted Sioeng, who orchestrated nearly $600,000 in political contributions during the 1996 election cycle. Sieong, we later discovered, was a self-described agent of the Chinese government who made his fortune manufacturing a popular brand of cigarettes in China. According to the Congressional Research Service, soft money donations nearly doubled in the 2000 presidential election cycle, from $262 million in 1996 to $488 million in 2000. Other estimates set the figures even higher. At the same time, regulated, hard money donations increased a little more than 10-percent. In short, soft money is a growing wave that threatens to swamp our campaign finance system. Each election cycle, the wave gains momentum and size. Just two presidential elections ago, soft money contributions totaled $86 million, or one-sixth of the amount raised in the latest cycle. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 has served our country well. But those seeking ways to influence our elections have found loopholes that have overwhelmed the rule themselves. I therefore applaud the bipartisan efforts of Senators McCain and Feingold and pledge my continued support throughout the long process ahead. I know we are in for a spirited debate and believe that, ultimately, the will of the majority of Americans will prevail. They want reform. It is time we heed their message.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I voted to table Senator Domenici's amendment not because I was not sympathetic with the same. And I give him great credit for bringing up a real problem in our campaign finance system of very wealthy candidates being able to self-finance their races. That discourages a lot of otherwise very qualified people from even running for office in the first place. I commend the Senator from New Mexico for bringing up an important issue. I did not support his amendment because I disagreed with some of the provisions in it. I believe, however, that the amendment he is likely to propose with Senator DeWine is a far superior amendment. I think it was very unfortunate that the Senator from New Mexico was not allowed unanimous consent to modify his amendment. That is very unusual. Members usually are allowed to modify their own amendments. I think it is very unfortunate that did not occur in this case. It does not bode well for the debate on this issue for us to start off like that. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to extend to Federal retirees and both active and retired military personnel the same health insurance premium conversion benefits allowed to current civilian Federal employees. This legislation directs the Office of Personnel Management to establish a system allowing those who participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, FEHBP, to pay their health insurance premiums from pre-tax income. The practice of allowing health care participants to use pre-tax income to pay their health insurance premiums is often used in the private sector as a way of recognizing the importance of adequate, affordable health insurance. This system is called premium conversion. Last year, the Office of Personnel Management recognized this concept by establishing a plan to allow most employees of the executive, legislative and judicial branches to participate in premium conversion. Many Federal retirees also participate in the FEHBP program and as a matter of fairness should be extended the opportunity to participate in premium conversion. In addition, the military currently has a separate health care system, but it is exploring offering health benefits under FEHBP, and therefore military employees or retirees who do participate in FEHBP should also be allowed premium conversion. I have heard from Federal retirees in Maine who have pointed out the unfairness of not including retired Federal employees in the premium conversion system. This legislation will address this inequity. I urge my colleagues to review and support this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to extend to Federal retirees and both active and retired military personnel the same health insurance premium conversion benefits allowed to current civilian Federal employees. This legislation directs the Office of Personnel Management to establish a system allowing those who participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, FEHBP, to pay their health insurance premiums from pre-tax income. The practice of allowing health care participants to use pre-tax income to pay their health insurance premiums is often used in the private sector as a way of recognizing the importance of adequate, affordable health insurance. This system is called premium conversion. Last year, the Office of Personnel Management recognized this concept by establishing a plan to allow most employees of the executive, legislative and judicial branches to participate in premium conversion. Many Federal retirees also participate in the FEHBP program and as a matter of fairness should be extended the opportunity to participate in premium conversion. In addition, the military currently has a separate health care system, but it is exploring offering health benefits under FEHBP, and therefore military employees or retirees who do participate in FEHBP should also be allowed premium conversion. I have heard from Federal retirees in Maine who have pointed out the unfairness of not including retired Federal employees in the premium conversion system. This legislation will address this inequity. I urge my colleagues to review and support this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

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

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 16, which is at the desk.

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

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Presiding Officer for replacing me as the Chair so I could offer the amendment to the bill he is managing so effectively on the Senate floor. I appreciate his courtesy. I rise to offer an amendment to the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001. I am very pleased to be joined by Senators Kerry, Stevens, and Kennedy. Our amendment provides the family fisherman with the same kind of protections and terms as granted family farmers under chapter 12 of our bankruptcy laws. It was passed by the Senate last year as part of bankruptcy reform legislation, but I rise, once again, to briefly take the opportunity to explain the amendment and its importance to commercial fishermen in coastal States. I do not condone those who use the bankruptcy code as a tool to cure their self-induced financial woes. I have supported and will continue to support reasonable reforms to the bankruptcy laws that ensure the responsible use of its provisions. All consumers bear the burden of irresponsible debtors who abuse the system. At the same time, there are those who legitimately need the protection of our bankruptcy laws and who do not abuse it. I commend the Presiding Officer for striking the right balance in the legislation he has brought before the Senate. I believe bankruptcy should remain a tool of last resort for those in severe financial distress. As those familiar with the bankruptcy code know, however, a business reorganization in bankruptcy is very different from a business dissolution. Reorganization embodies the hope that by providing a business with some relief and allowing debt to be adjusted, the business will have the opportunity to get back on sound financial footing and thrive. In that vein, chapter 12 was added to the bankruptcy code in 1986 by the Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, to provide for bankruptcy reorganization of the family farm and to give family farmers ``a fighting chance to reorganize their debts and keep their lands.'' To provide the fighting chance envisioned by the authors of chapter 12, Congress provided a distinctive set of rules to govern the reorganization of a family farm. In essence, chapter 12 recognized the unique situation of family-owned businesses and the enormous value of the family farmer to the American economy and to our American heritage. Chapter 12 provides, for example, significant advantages over the standard chapter 13 proceeding, including a longer time period in which to file a plan for relief, greater flexibility for the debtor to modify the debts secured by their assets, and the alteration of the statutory time limit to repay secured debt. The chapter 12 debtor is also given the freedom to sell off parts of his or her property as part of a reorganization plan. As the Chair well knows, chapter 12 has been a considerable success in the farm community. According to a recent University of Iowa study, 74 percent of family farmers who file chapter 12 bankruptcy are still farming, and 61 percent of the farmers who went through chapter 12 believe the law was very helpful in getting them back on their feet. Recognizing the effectiveness of this law for farmers, I have supported making chapter 12 a permanent part of the bankruptcy code. Now I am proposing to extend its protections to the family fisherman as well as the family farmer. In the State of Maine, fishing is a vital part of our economy and our way of life. The commercial fishing industry is made up of proud and fiercely independent individuals whose goal is to simply preserve their business, family income, and community. My legislation would afford fishermen the same protection of business reorganization as is provided to family farmers. There are many similarities between the family farmer and the fisherman. Like the family farmer, the fisherman should be valued not only for his contributions to our economy and to our food supply, but also for his contributions to our heritage and our precious way of life. Like farmers, fishermen face perennial threats from nature and the elements, as well as from the laws and regulations that, unfortunately, can at times threaten their very existence. Like family farmers, fishermen are not seeking special treatment or a handout from the Federal Government. They seek only the fighting chance to remain afloat so they can continue their way of life. Recently I attended the Maine Fishermen's Forum, an annual event which provides the opportunity for policymakers to meet and discuss issues affecting our fishing communities. I spoke with many fishermen, and they told me they believe they need and deserve the protections granted under the bankruptcy code to others who face similar, often unavoidable problems. Fishermen should not be denied the special bankruptcy protections accorded to farmers solely because they harvest the sea and not the land. Our amendment tracks closely how chapter 12 applies to family farmers. Its protections are restricted to those fishermen with a regular income who have total debt of less than $1.5 million, most of which, 80 percent, must stem from commercial fishing. Moreover, families must rely on fishing income for these provisions to apply. The same protections and flexibility we grant to farmers should also be granted to fishermen. By making this modest but important change to our bankruptcy laws, we will express our respect for the business of fishing and our shared wish that this unique way of life, which so embodies the State of Maine, should continue. I ask that at the appropriate time my amendment be considered. I am hopeful it will be accepted by the Presiding Officer and the committee's ranking majority member, and that it will be adopted as we continue the debate on the bankruptcy legislation.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his kind words about the amendment I offered to extend the protections of chapter 12 of our bankruptcy code to our fishermen so that a fisherman can be treated the same way as a farmer is treated. I appreciate his efforts to clear the amendment, which is a bipartisan amendment, on his side of the aisle. I also commend the Senator from Vermont for the amendment he just proposed that safeguards the names of minor children in bankruptcy proceedings. Last weekend, I had a discussion with a member of my staff who is responsible for Cumberland and York Counties. He told me of our office's attempts to assist women who are legally establishing new identities in order to avoid being pursued by a violent ex-spouse or former boyfriend. He told me the Social Security Administration, for example, is very helpful once these women have gone to court and legally changed their names for these very good reasons and helping them to get new Social Security numbers. But he mentioned to me that oftentimes the violent former spouse or boyfriend pursues these women using other public records. For example, when they get a new driver's license in the State of Maine, Maine has the requirement that the State where they previously held a driver's license be notified. That creates a paper trail by which the former spouse can pursue the woman who is trying to get a fresh start for herself. It occurs to me while listening to the comments of the Senator from Vermont that the bankruptcy proceedings could also be a way that this information is disclosed, and that in cases where parental rights have been terminated this would be a means of a former spouse tracing the children to which he no longer has any parental rights. There are a number of other examples where children can be preyed on by predators who gain access to this information. But I wanted to share the experience that I had this last weekend with my staff's efforts to assist abused women in starting new lives through legally assuming a new identity. I commend the Senator from Vermont for his efforts. I look forward to working further with him on this issue. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the concerns and needs of small businesses have always been a priority for me. When I talk to small business owners throughout the State of Maine, I hear over and over again that they have two major problems: One is the high cost of health insurance. I will be introducing legislation shortly to try to help small businesses cope with that issue. The second issue is the need for more capital to finance their enterprises. Today, I rise to introduce the Encouraging Investment in Small Business Act, a bill intended to stimulate private investment in the entrepreneurs who drive our economy. I am pleased to be joined today by my good friends and staunch supporters of small business, Senators Cleland, Breaux, Landrieu, Allard, Chafee, Lieberman, Hutchinson, and Hatch. The bill we introduce today will encourage long-term investment in small and emerging businesses by providing incentives to individuals who risk investment in such firms. According to the Small Business Administration, small firms account for three-quarters of our Nation's employment growth and almost all of our net new jobs. At the same time, small businesses face unique financing challenges. Simply put, entrepreneurs need access to more capital to start and to expand their businesses. As the SBA noted last year, ``Adequate financing for rapidly growing firms will be America's greatest economic policy challenge of the new century.'' Just a few months ago, it would have been difficult for us to imagine that a capital gap could exist in an economy that had experienced such an unprecedented run of prosperity. Venture capital investments in emerging firms reached a record $103 billion last year, up 74 percent from the year before. Yet, there are signs that the rush of funds is subsiding. Venture capital investment activity decreased by 31 percent in the fourth quarter of last year, and much of the funds that have been raised remains uninvested. More important, venture capital funds tend to gravitate towards certain types of businesses and geographic regions, and tend to be invested in increasingly larger amounts, leaving many small business entrepreneurs frozen out of the capital markets. Internet-related companies attracted 76 percent of the venture capital invested in the first three quarters of 2000. And more than two-thirds of all the venture capital invested in the United States in 1999 went to just five States. Moreover, the average amount of venture capital invested in small businesses increased from $6.6 million in 1998 to $13.3 million in 1999, prompting the SBA to conclude that the needs of many small businesses for equity financing remain unmet. The data paint a troubling picture. It is, unfortunately, a familiar one. Take the example of Vladimir Koulchin, a Russian by birth but a Mainer in heart and spirit. Vladimir holds a doctorate in biochemistry and has 25 years of research experience in the field. Six years ago, Mr. Koulchin moved to Portland, ME, to work for a biotechnology firm where he became vice president for research and development. This past fall, with no funding other than his own, he founded Chemogen with the goal of developing products to diagnose, treat, and prevent tuberculosis and other dangerous infectious diseases in humans and animals. Mr. Koulchin told me how difficult it has been to find the seed and early stage capital he needs to get his promising business off the ground. He spoke of the relative lack of seed capital in small markets and the welcome assistance that strong Federal tax incentives could provide. Vladimir's experiences are all-too-common. A recent report by the National Commission on Entrepreneurship presented findings of 18 focus groups with more than 250 entrepreneurs across the country. According to the report, the focus groups were ``nearly unanimous in identifying difficulties in obtaining seed capital investments.'' And although the capital gap is pervasive, it disproportionately harms women- and minority-owned businesses. The Milken Institute, an independent economic think tank, concluded in a research report issued last year that, ``While minority businesses are growing faster than majority firms in number and revenue, they remain severely constrained by a lack of access to capital.'' Moreover, women receive only 12 percent of all credit provided to small businesses in the U.S. despite owning nearly 40 percent of the businesses. If we want to remain the world's most entrepreneurial country, 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. The legislation we are introducing helps to create a supportive environment, not by establishing an expensive, 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. The provision, known as section 1202, was added to the Internal Revenue Code in 1993 with strong bipartisan support. Section 1202 allows investors to exclude from taxable income 50 percent of the gain from the sale of qualified small business stock when the stock is held for at least 5 years. Now, that concept is a sound one, but unfortunately, section 1202 prescribes a complicated set of requirements, and its attractiveness has been diminished due to the fact that when capital gains rates were lowered in 1997, the section 1202 rate remained the same. In addition, the increasing application of the alternative minimum tax has reduced its value. Indeed, early data on the use of section 1202 suggests that the alternative minimum tax has sharply limited its effectiveness. Our bill restores section 1202 to its original role as a potent engine of small business capital formation. Our legislation simplifies section 1202, enhances its incentives, and eliminates the threat that gains on small business stock will be subject to the alternative minimum tax. In short, our bill makes a number of commonsense changes designed to encourage investment in small business. The Encouraging Investment in Small Business Act is supported by the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Women's Business Council, the National Commission On Entrepreneurship, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and the Biotechnology Association Of Maine. Our legislation would implement changes recommended by a recent Securities and Exchange Commission forum on small business capital formation. In sum, our legislation would accommodate the capital- raising needs of small business, the foundation of our economy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of the Encouraging Investment in Small Business Act be printed in the Record.