Susan Collins

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the amendment offered by my colleague and friend from Maine, Senator Snowe. As many of you may know, the Maine lobster industry and many other fishing industries along the Atlantic coast have been threatened with extinction by a seriously flawed proposal from the National Marine Fisheries Service. That proposal was designed supposedly to protect the endangered right whale and other large whales from getting entangled in commercial fishing gear. Yet few Maine lobstermen have ever seen a right whale, let alone entangled one. Records show that about 20 right whales have been sighted within 12 miles of the Maine coast in the last quarter-century, and only one has become entangled in that period--a whale that, it is critical to note, was released unharmed. Clearly, the proposed rules affect Maine in a way that is drastically disproportionate to the threat to right whales in our State. But though entanglements in or near Maine waters are exceedingly rare, they do occur more frequently in other waters. And when an entanglement does occur, we should make certain that there is in place a system that encourages the fisherman to do all he can to help that whale. This amendment would remove a significant barrier to that, and create an environment where a fisherman is more likely to take the appropriate steps to help the entangled whale. This amendment would simply protect a fisherman who comes across a whale entangled in fishing gear or debris, reports the entanglement, and either begins to disentangle the whale himself or stays with the whale to await help from a trained disentangling team, from being prosecuted or fined for doing so. Currently, there is a disincentive for a fisherman to help or even report a whale that has become entangled in fishing gear: the fear of being held liable if that whale suffers a serious injury or dies as a result of the entanglement. Several large whales are among our most endangered species. It seems to me that it is in our best interest--and surely the whale's best interest--to encourage, rather than discourage, fishermen to do all they can to protect this species from being eradicated. This amendment would provide a measure of protection for the fisherman who, through no fault of his own, comes across an entangled large whale. That fisherman could feel confident in reporting the entanglement to the appropriate officials, staying with the whale until a disentanglement team arrived, and helping in the disentanglement, all without fear of being slapped with a fine when he or she returned to shore. We all want to protect whales, particularly right whales, and do all we can to restore this troubled species. The Snowe amendment takes a step in the right direction by specifically permitting a fisherman to report and stay with a whale that is entangled, without fear of reprisal. I am pleased to support it and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, during this past weekend, 14 students from St. Dominic Regional High School in Lewiston, ME, joined with almost 1,200 other high school students from across the Nation to participate in the national finals for the ``We the People'' competition, a program designed to help students better understand the history of our Constitution and its Bill of Rights, which are the foundations upon which our system of government rests. The St. Dominic High School students have been representing the State of Maine during this weekend's activities, which will culminate in a national winner being chosen tonight, at an awards banquet here in Washington. The St. Dominic's team spent a considerable amount of time and energy reaching the national finals this weekend by winning various competitions in Maine in order to earn the honor of representing our State. The 14 members of our State's outstanding team, who should be individually acknowledged for their efforts in this undertaking, are: Robyn Adair, Michael Beam, Julie Blanchette, Nicole Bouttenot, Rachel Bouttenot, Martin Bruno, Derek Coulombe, Emma Dore-Hark, Jennifer Elliott, Jonathan LaBonte, Kendra LaRoche, Kathryn Mailhot, Michael Theriault, and Matthew Walton. Of course, in addition to these outstanding students, I want to acknowledge and recognize the hard work of their teacher, Rosanne Ducey, who deserves her fair share of the credit for the team's success as well. The ``We the People'' program coordinator for Maine, Pamela Beal, has also contributed a significant amount of her time and effort to help the St. Dominic team reach the national finals. The ``We the People'' program, which is administered by the Center for Civic Education, is the most indepth educational program in the country developed specifically to educate high school students about the U.S. Constitution. This past weekend's 3-day national competition re-creates a public hearing in which the student's oral presentations are judged on the basis of their knowledge of constitutional principles and their ability to apply them to historical and contemporary issues. The ``We the People'' program has been operating for 10 years now. Since its origination, millions of students nationwide have participated in this program at either the elementary, middle, and/or high school level. This program provides an excellent opportunity for students to gain an informed perspective on the significance of the U.S. Constitution and its place in our history and our lives. Mr. President, I'm pleased to be able to recognize the valuable contribution that the St. Dominic Regional High School team has made to the success of the ``We the People'' program, and I wish these students and their teachers the very best of luck. I am proud of their accomplishments.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield myself the time allotted to the majority leader under the standing order.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I announce that it is hoped that the Senate will shortly enter into a consent agreement, which would allow for consideration of the resolution relating to the decertification of Mexico. If that agreement is reached, the Senate would be expected to begin consideration of the resolution this morning, possibly as early as 10 o'clock. Rollcall votes are expected on the Mexico resolution, and all Members will be notified as to when those votes can be anticipated once we reach this agreement. It is also possible that the Senate will begin consideration of the nuclear waste legislation prior to the Easter adjournment. And, again, all Senators will be notified accordingly. I thank my colleagues for their attention. (Mr. HAGEL assumed the chair.)

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am proud to be introducing the Family Business and Family Farm Preservation Act of 1997, which will provide urgently needed estate tax relief to our Nation's family-owned businesses and farms. It is no accident that this is my first bill as a Member of the U.S. Senate, for I fervently believe that small, family enterprises hold the key to our economic growth and prosperity and that Government policies must promote and not undermine their continued existence. Simply put, the extremely high estate tax rates make it very difficult for many families to pass their businesses on to the next generation--the very opposite of what Government policy should be. After allowing for what is essentially a $600,000 exemption, an amount which has not been increased in a decade, the marginal rates that effectively apply for estate tax purposes range from 37 to 55 percent, higher than any other generally applicable Federal tax rates. Adding insult to injury, some of what we leave to our children has already been subject to income taxation, and the combined effect of income and estate taxes can be a tax bite as high as 73 percent. It should come as no surprise that when a family business or farm is left to the sons and daughters of the owner, the estate often lacks the cash to pay the tax. A 1995 Gallup survey found that one-third of the owners of family businesses expect that some or all of the company will have to be sold to satisfy estate tax liabilities. That this actually comes about is reflected in the experience of the inheritors of such businesses, 37 percent of whom reported that they had to shrink or restructure the enterprises solely to meet estate tax obligations. Mr. President, behind these statistics are the stories of hard- working Americans whose life's work is dismantled by a confiscatory tax. One of those stories was recently told to me by Judy Vallee of Cumberland, ME. In 1933, her father opened a restaurant in Portland and worked hard over time to expand the business into a chain of 25 restaurants along the east coast. When the father died in 1977, the family was left with a staggering estate tax bill of about $1 million. Lacking the cash to pay the tax, they had to take on partners outside the family, totally restructure the company, and arrange to pay the tax in installments. Unfortunately, even these measures were not enough, and they ultimately had to liquidate the business at fire-sale prices. Ironically, Judy Vallee now finds herself in the very same situation, but this time as a business owner and not a potential heir. When the original business was liquidated, she managed to purchase one of the restaurants in her own name, which she has now developed into a prosperous enterprise. Eager to leave the restaurant to her son and desperate to ensure that history does not repeat itself, she has spent a small fortune on life insurance to enable her son to enjoy the fruits of her own hard work. Mr. President, jobs are the primary worry of Maine people, and often overlooked in this debate is the negative effect of the estate tax on employment. Let me give you an example. A potato bag manufacturer in northern Maine, the area I'm originally from, has told me that he would be able to expand his operation and hire more people were it not for the money he has to spend on estate planning and life insurance. In another instance, the owner of a Maine trucking company made the painful decision to sell the business to a large, out-of-state corporation rather than leaving it to his children and forcing them to assume a large debt to pay the estate tax. Not only was he compelled to abandon what he and his father before him had spent their lives building, but making matters worse, the new corporate owner moved the administrative operations out of State, costing Maine 50 good jobs. Maine's experience is common throughout our Nation. The Gallup survey found that 60 percent of business owners reported that they would add to their work forces were it not for the estate tax. Two studies mentioned in a Wall Street Journal editorial last month quantified the job losses caused by this levy--one put it at 150,000 and the other at 228,000. In a word, the harm is widespread. My bill would give relief to small businesses. It would raise the amount effectively excluded from the tax from $600,000 to $1,000,000, which probably does little more than compensate for inflation during the past decade. While $600,000 understandably seems like a considerable sum, the fact is that many small businesses require investment in complex or heavy equipment which easily exceeds that threshold. Referring to a machine essential to his business, the owner of a Maine sawmill recently asked me, ``What are my sons supposed to do? Sell the debarker to pay the tax?'' There is no justification for this legal Catch 22, under which the second- or third-generation business owner can only pay the tax by selling assets essential to running the business. My legislation would also lower the effective tax rate for the next $1.5 million from 55 to 27.5 percent and would increase from 10 to 20 years the time during which family businesses could pay the tax on an installment basis. These measures are not designed to provide relief to large enterprises. Rather, the beneficiaries, Mr. President, will be enterprising Americans, many of whom risk their life savings and work at their factories, mills, offices, and farms 7 days a week to build a small business, with the reasonable expectation that their Government will let them pass it along to their children. Prior to becoming a Member of the Senate, I ran Husson College's Family Business Center in Bangor, ME. I would share with you two lessons I learned from that experience. First, those family business owners who understand the estate tax cannot comprehend why the Federal Government imposes a tax that undermines the very type of activity it says it wishes to encourage. Second, many small business owners do not take the extreme measures required to prepare for the estate tax, often with devastating and totally unexpected consequences for their families. Why do I call these measures extreme? In the Gallup survey, the respondents estimated spending an average of more than $33,000 over 6\1/2\ years on lawyers, accountants, and financial experts to help plan and prepare for the estate tax. The cost is not only monetary, for the average number of hours spent in the planning process was 167. As currently designed, the estate tax represents bad public policy. In my State, it is the 30,000 small businesses, many of them family owned, which provide most of the new employment opportunities, and it is these businesses which will account for two- thirds of the new jobs in the future. By discouraging the development and expansion of family enterprises, the estate tax stands as the enemy of job creation and economic growth. Mr. President, it is time for our actions to match our rhetoric. If we believe in promoting family businesses, as we say we do, and if we believe in promoting family farms, as we say we do, we must change a tax policy which takes the family out of the family business and family farm. Mine is not a call for Government assistance or for special treatment. Mine is a call to reform an unfair, destructive, and confiscatory tax.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am proud to be introducing the Family Business and Family Farm Preservation Act of 1997, which will provide urgently needed estate tax relief to our Nation's family-owned businesses and farms. It is no accident that this is my first bill as a Member of the U.S. Senate, for I fervently believe that small, family enterprises hold the key to our economic growth and prosperity and that Government policies must promote and not undermine their continued existence. Simply put, the extremely high estate tax rates make it very difficult for many families to pass their businesses on to the next generation--the very opposite of what Government policy should be. After allowing for what is essentially a $600,000 exemption, an amount which has not been increased in a decade, the marginal rates that effectively apply for estate tax purposes range from 37 to 55 percent, higher than any other generally applicable Federal tax rates. Adding insult to injury, some of what we leave to our children has already been subject to income taxation, and the combined effect of income and estate taxes can be a tax bite as high as 73 percent. It should come as no surprise that when a family business or farm is left to the sons and daughters of the owner, the estate often lacks the cash to pay the tax. A 1995 Gallup survey found that one-third of the owners of family businesses expect that some or all of the company will have to be sold to satisfy estate tax liabilities. That this actually comes about is reflected in the experience of the inheritors of such businesses, 37 percent of whom reported that they had to shrink or restructure the enterprises solely to meet estate tax obligations. Mr. President, behind these statistics are the stories of hard- working Americans whose life's work is dismantled by a confiscatory tax. One of those stories was recently told to me by Judy Vallee of Cumberland, ME. In 1933, her father opened a restaurant in Portland and worked hard over time to expand the business into a chain of 25 restaurants along the east coast. When the father died in 1977, the family was left with a staggering estate tax bill of about $1 million. Lacking the cash to pay the tax, they had to take on partners outside the family, totally restructure the company, and arrange to pay the tax in installments. Unfortunately, even these measures were not enough, and they ultimately had to liquidate the business at fire-sale prices. Ironically, Judy Vallee now finds herself in the very same situation, but this time as a business owner and not a potential heir. When the original business was liquidated, she managed to purchase one of the restaurants in her own name, which she has now developed into a prosperous enterprise. Eager to leave the restaurant to her son and desperate to ensure that history does not repeat itself, she has spent a small fortune on life insurance to enable her son to enjoy the fruits of her own hard work. Mr. President, jobs are the primary worry of Maine people, and often overlooked in this debate is the negative effect of the estate tax on employment. Let me give you an example. A potato bag manufacturer in northern Maine, the area I'm originally from, has told me that he would be able to expand his operation and hire more people were it not for the money he has to spend on estate planning and life insurance. In another instance, the owner of a Maine trucking company made the painful decision to sell the business to a large, out-of-state corporation rather than leaving it to his children and forcing them to assume a large debt to pay the estate tax. Not only was he compelled to abandon what he and his father before him had spent their lives building, but making matters worse, the new corporate owner moved the administrative operations out of State, costing Maine 50 good jobs. Maine's experience is common throughout our Nation. The Gallup survey found that 60 percent of business owners reported that they would add to their work forces were it not for the estate tax. Two studies mentioned in a Wall Street Journal editorial last month quantified the job losses caused by this levy--one put it at 150,000 and the other at 228,000. In a word, the harm is widespread. My bill would give relief to small businesses. It would raise the amount effectively excluded from the tax from $600,000 to $1,000,000, which probably does little more than compensate for inflation during the past decade. While $600,000 understandably seems like a considerable sum, the fact is that many small businesses require investment in complex or heavy equipment which easily exceeds that threshold. Referring to a machine essential to his business, the owner of a Maine sawmill recently asked me, ``What are my sons supposed to do? Sell the debarker to pay the tax?'' There is no justification for this legal Catch 22, under which the second- or third-generation business owner can only pay the tax by selling assets essential to running the business. My legislation would also lower the effective tax rate for the next $1.5 million from 55 to 27.5 percent and would increase from 10 to 20 years the time during which family businesses could pay the tax on an installment basis. These measures are not designed to provide relief to large enterprises. Rather, the beneficiaries, Mr. President, will be enterprising Americans, many of whom risk their life savings and work at their factories, mills, offices, and farms 7 days a week to build a small business, with the reasonable expectation that their Government will let them pass it along to their children. Prior to becoming a Member of the Senate, I ran Husson College's Family Business Center in Bangor, ME. I would share with you two lessons I learned from that experience. First, those family business owners who understand the estate tax cannot comprehend why the Federal Government imposes a tax that undermines the very type of activity it says it wishes to encourage. Second, many small business owners do not take the extreme measures required to prepare for the estate tax, often with devastating and totally unexpected consequences for their families. Why do I call these measures extreme? In the Gallup survey, the respondents estimated spending an average of more than $33,000 over 6\1/2\ years on lawyers, accountants, and financial experts to help plan and prepare for the estate tax. The cost is not only monetary, for the average number of hours spent in the planning process was 167. As currently designed, the estate tax represents bad public policy. In my State, it is the 30,000 small businesses, many of them family owned, which provide most of the new employment opportunities, and it is these businesses which will account for two- thirds of the new jobs in the future. By discouraging the development and expansion of family enterprises, the estate tax stands as the enemy of job creation and economic growth. Mr. President, it is time for our actions to match our rhetoric. If we believe in promoting family businesses, as we say we do, and if we believe in promoting family farms, as we say we do, we must change a tax policy which takes the family out of the family business and family farm. Mine is not a call for Government assistance or for special treatment. Mine is a call to reform an unfair, destructive, and confiscatory tax.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Finance Committee Subcommittee on Health Care requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Thursday, March 6, 1997, beginning at 2 p.m. in room SD-215.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 6, 1997, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Thursday, March 6, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing on Federal tax policy for the District of Columbia.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Committee on the Judiciary asks unanimous consent to hold an executive business meeting on Thursday, March 6, 1997, at 10 a.m., in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on health care quality and consumer protection during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 6, 1997, at 10 a.m.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs would like to request unanimous consent to hold a joint hearing with the House Committee on Veterans' affairs to receive the legislative presentation of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, Jewish War Veterans, the Retired Officers Association, Association of the U.S. Army, Non- Commissioned Officers Association, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and the Blinded Veterans Association. The hearing will be held on March 6, 1997, at 9:30 a.m., in room 345 of the Cannon House Office Building.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Operations of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 6, 1997, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Thursday, March 6, 1997, at 10 a.m. in open session, to consider the nomination of Keith R. Hall to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Space.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 6, 1997, to conduct a hearing of the following nominees: Yolanda T. Wheat, of Maryland, to be a member of the National Credit Union Administration Board; Charles A. Gueli, of Maryland, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the National Institute of Building Sciences; Niranjan S. Shah, of Illinois, to be a member of the National Institute of Building Sciences; and Jeffery A. Frankel, of California, to be a member of the Council of Economic Advisers.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Thursday, March 6, 1997, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 213, Dirksen.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Consumer Affairs and Foreign Commerce and Tourism Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on March 6, 1997, at 2:30 p.m. on product liability reform: Success of the General Aviation Revitalization Act.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday March 6, 1997, at 2 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting on intelligence matters.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure be granted permission to conduct a hearing Thursday, March 6, at 9:30 a.m., hearing room SD- 406, on the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and innovative transportation financing, technology, construction, and design practices.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Oceans and Fisheries and Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on March 6, 1997, at 10 a.m. on review of NOAA's fiscal year 1998 budget request.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to the consideration of Senate Resolution 60, which was reported by the Judiciary Committee today.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks on the sense- of-the-Senate resolution before us today, I would like to express my appreciation to my colleagues, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Senator Wyden of Oregon, who joined me in introducing this measure earlier this week. I am also very grateful for the fact that a number of Senators from both sides of the aisle have subsequently expressed their support for this effort by cosponsoring this resolution. I would like to finally thank Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy, the chairman and ranking minority members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who have very graciously allowed us to bring this resolution to the Senate floor quickly while the 1997 U.S. Senate Youth Program delegates are still here in Washington visiting. Senate Resolution 60 pays tribute to the 3,600 students who have participated in the U.S. Senate Youth Program over the last 35 years. Under this program, which has been very successfully administered by the William Randolph Hearst Foundation, two students from every State of the Nation, the District of Columbia, and the Department of Defense schools abroad are selected to spend a week right here in Washington learning about their Federal Government. Typically, each year the delegates meet with Senators, Representatives, Supreme Court Justices, Cabinet members, White House personnel, and other officials, and have the opportunity to ask them questions directly and to offer comments or concerns on current events. Earlier this week, I had the pleasure of addressing the 1997 delegates. It was a very enjoyable and memorable event for me for two reasons. First, the questions and the comments raised by the delegates were both timely and insightful. Their knowledge was impressive and their enthusiasm contagious. Second, I have the honor and the privilege of being the first Senate youth delegate who has gone on to actually serve in the Senate. I still remember vividly when I visited Washington, DC, in the spring of 1971, more than 25 years ago. We met with various Representatives and Senators, including my colleagues, Senator Robert Byrd and Senator Strom Thurmond, both of whom I am now privileged to serve with in this body. In fact, I brought out my journal and I read my notes on both Senators' speeches to us, and it was a wonderful experience to reread and relive that week. The high point of my visit, however, was the time that I was fortunate to spend with Maine's Senator Margaret Chase Smith. She was very much an inspiration and a role model for me and countless other girls growing up in Maine and young women throughout the Nation who aspire to public service. While I am the first Senate youth delegate to serve in the Senate, I fully expect that there will be other delegates who will serve one day in the House, the Senate, on the Supreme Court, in the Cabinet, and even as President of the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution, which recognizes the value of this program, salutes the individual students who have participated in it, and commends the William Randolph Hearst Foundation for its generous sponsorship over the years. At this point, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, that the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at this point in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

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