[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19030-19033]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Cleland, and Mr. Roth):
  S. 3096. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
increase and modify the exclusion relating to qualified small business; 
to the Committee on Finance.


              encouraging investment in small business act

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Encouraging 
Investment in Small Business Act, legislation intended to stimulate 
private investment in the entrepreneurs who drive our economy. I am 
very pleased to be joined today by my good friend, the Senator from 
Georgia, Mr. Cleland, and by the distinguished chairman of the Finance 
Committee, Senator Roth, in introducing this important legislation. 
Senators Cleland and Roth both understand the importance of small 
businesses to our economy and have been tireless advocates on their 
behalf.
  The bill we are introducing today will encourage long-term investment 
in small and emerging businesses by rewarding individuals who risk 
investment in such firms. According to the U.S. Small Business 
Administration, small firms account for three-quarters of the Nation's 
employment growth and almost all of our net new jobs.
  Small businesses employ more than 50 percent of all private workers, 
provide 51 percent of our private sector output, and are responsible 
for a disproportionate share of innovations. Moreover, small businesses 
are avenues of opportunity for women and minorities, younger and older 
workers, and those making the transition from welfare to work.
  At the same time, small businesses face unique financing challenges. 
I know this from my experience serving as the New England Administrator 
for the Small Business Administration. There are so many small 
entrepreneurs who have a wonderful idea for an innovative product but 
simply have great difficulty in getting the financing they need to get 
that idea off the ground.
  Simply put, entrepreneurs need access to more capital to start and 
expand their businesses. Small businesses that cannot deliver ``dot-
com'' rates of return are particularly having trouble raising needed 
funds. As the Small Business Administration noted earlier this year, 
``Adequate financing for rapidly growing firms will be America's 
greatest economic policy challenge of the new century.''
  A recent report by the National Commission on Entrepreneurship 
presented findings of 18 focus groups with more than 250 entrepreneurs 
from across the country. According to the report, these entrepreneurs 
were ``nearly unanimous in identifying difficulties in obtaining seed 
capital investments.'' That is the early stage financing that helps get 
a business off the ground.
  Moreover, minority-owned small businesses and research-intensive 
businesses that may take many years to develop a product find raising 
sufficient capital to be particularly difficult. Consider that it 
takes, on average, 14 years for a biotechnology company to develop a 
new pharmaceutical. This promising and growing sector of our economy 
requires patient capital--and lots of it.
  Cheryl Timberlake, the executive director of the Biotechnology 
Association in my State, recently wrote to endorse the legislation I am 
introducing today and to reinforce the need to stimulate more 
investment in biotech firms. Cheryl wrote that:

       Many of the Maine biotech companies are still in the 
     research stage and rely on venture capital to fund their 
     innovative drug development. Most research-stage biotech 
     companies do not yet have products on the market. Without a 
     source of revenue, there are no profits to fund their 
     business. These companies are dependent on private investors 
     for most or all of their financial support. [Therefore, the 
     Biotechnology Association of Maine] believes that the changes 
     in . . . the Internal Revenue Code [such as you propose] will 
     enable more small business investment in our member 
     companies.

  I think Cheryl summed up the problem well in Maine. We have a growing 
and diverse biotechnology sector, but they are having difficulty in 
finding the kind of financial support that they need to grow.
  I also received recently a letter of support from the executive 
director of the National Commission on Entrepreneurship. He noted that 
startup companies are ``struggling to find access to equity investments 
[particularly in the range] between $100,000 and $3 million.''
  His letter continues:

       So the question becomes: how can we motivate more 
     individuals with investment capital, who may not have 
     previous experience with entrepreneurial companies, to invest 
     in such companies at the ``seed'' or ``early-stage'' level? 
     The Encouraging investment in Small Business Act, by 
     increasing the incentives provided by Section 1202 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code, may well provide one important part of 
     the answer to this question.

  Similarly, the National Federation of Independent Business, our 
Nation's largest small business group, has also written in support of 
the legislation that the Senator from Georgia and I are introducing 
today.
  Dan Danner wrote:

       Unfortunately, while our nation's current prosperity has 
     brought unprecedented funds to certain sectors of our 
     economy, small business entrepreneurs still lack access to 
     valuable capital needed to start and expand their businesses.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the three letters from 
which I quoted this morning be printed in the Record, in their 
entirety.
  There being no objection, the letter were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Biotechnology Association


                                                     of Maine,

                                     Augusta, ME, August 28, 2000.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the Biotechnology 
     Association of Maine (BAM), a trade organization representing 
     Maine's biotechnology companies, our affiliated educational 
     institutions, and the not for profit research organizations. 
     I am writing to endorse the Encouraging Small Business Act.
       In an industry survey conducted by our sister organization 
     the Center for Innovation in Biotechnology (CIB), the first 
     most critical challenge to the success of biotechnology firms 
     in Maine is financing. The incredible pace of new 
     technological developments create unceasing demands for new 
     and established companies to remain competitive and grow. All 
     efforts to stay competitive require investment. Businesses in 
     Maine involved in biotechnology and life sciences look for 
     any opportunity to increase their financial footing.
       Many of the Maine biotech companies are still in the 
     research stage and rely on venture capital to fund their 
     innovative drug development. Most research-stage biotech 
     companies do not yet have products in the market. Without a 
     source of revenue, there are no profits to fund their 
     business. These companies are dependent on private investors 
     for most or all of their financial support.
       BAM believes the changes in Section 1202 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code, as proposed will enable more small business 
     investment in our member companies. The changes will enable 
     private investors to use the Code, as it was intended and 
     eliminate the duplication and unnecessary provisions that 
     complicate the process. The key is to encourage investment, 
     in whatever means possible. It should be recognized that the 
     Section 1202 has proven useful to small and large companies, 
     but it frequently burdensome, with difficult accounting 
     procedures and other unrelated hurdles.
       On behalf of the Biotechnology Association of Maine, I 
     appreciate your continued leadership and thank you for 
     proposing the Encouraging Investment in Small Business Act. 
     We look forward to working with you on passage of this 
     important piece bill. Thank you.
           Sincerely yours,
                                             Cheryl C. Timberlake,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                               National Commission


                                          on Entrepreneurship,

                               Washington, DC, September 15, 2000.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     Russell Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: I congratulate you on your 
     introduction of The Encouraging Investment in Small Business 
     Act of 2000. The bill represents one way that tax policy can 
     help address the current ``capital gap'' facing emerging 
     high-growth companies throughout the country, especially in 
     regions just beginning to build entrepreneurial economies.
       The National Commission on Entrepreneurship has just 
     completed 18 focus groups

[[Page 19031]]

     with 250 entrepreneurs around the country. We asked these 
     entrepreneurs to tell us what key external constraints face 
     the start-up and growth of their companies. Finding qualified 
     people--from entry level to technical to management 
     employees--was their number one concern. But also very high 
     on their lists was a growing ``seed capital'' or ``early-
     stage capital'' gap. Entrepreneurial companies are struggling 
     to find access to equity investments roughly between $100,000 
     and $3,000,000.
       In brief, the ``early stage capital'' problem is this. 
     Entrepreneurs can cobble together the equity they need up to 
     about $100,000 through the use of credit cards, second 
     mortgages, and cash investments from friends and family. And 
     if they are building a company, say in ``hot'' sectors like 
     the Internet or biotech, where the dynamics of the industry 
     require extraordinary amounts of cash early in a firm's life, 
     they can find venture capital firms to invest a minimum of 
     three to five million dollars. But if they need less than 
     $3,000,000 for the near future, investors at that funding 
     level are very hard to find.
       Highly developed entrepreneurial regions provide this 
     ``early-stage capital'' typically in the form of organized 
     ``angel'' investor networks. ``Angels'' are usually 
     previously successful entrepreneurs and other wealthy 
     investors connected with the entrepreneurial economy in their 
     regions who regularly and systematically review potential 
     investments. They then serve either as board members or 
     mentors to their new investee companies, and prepare them for 
     a round of venture capital investment or acquisition by 
     another company or an initial public offering.
       Unfortunately, regions just beginning to build 
     entrepreneurial economies do not yet have these ``angel 
     networks'' in place. So the question becomes: how can we 
     motivate more individuals with investment capital, who may 
     not have previous experience with entrepreneurial companies, 
     to invest in such companies at the ``seed'' or ``early-
     stage'' level?
       The Encouraging Investment in Small Business Act, by 
     increasing the incentives provided by Section 1202 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code, may well provide one important part of 
     the answer to this question. While we have not reviewed in 
     detail all the provisions of your legislation, your bill 
     takes two important steps in this direction.
       First, the bill accounts for post-1993 changes in tax rates 
     for capital gains of all kinds, by increasing the capital 
     gains exclusion for investments in small businesses from 50% 
     to 75%. And second, the bill excludes the gains from these 
     investments from calculations under the Alternative Minimum 
     Tax (AMT) provisions of the Code. Combined with the other 
     provisions of your bill that simplify the use of Section 
     1202, the tax incentives could well motivate many more 
     investors to allocate more of their investment dollars to 
     high-growth entrepreneurial companies. Typically, the 
     combined investments of several individuals in one such 
     company would amount to meeting the critical ``seed'' or 
     ``early stage'' capital needs of that company.
       We look forward to working with you as your legislation 
     moves forward and would be delighted to provide any 
     additional information about ``angel'' investing and the 
     growing ``early-stage'' capital gap. To that end, I have 
     taken the liberty of attaching a copy of one of our bi-weekly 
     columns that addresses the topic.
           Sincerely,
                                               Patrick Von Bargen,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                             NFIB, The Voice of Small Business

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the 600,000 members of 
     the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), I 
     want to express our support for the Encouraging Investment in 
     Small Business Act, which you will be introducing in 
     September.
       As you are aware, small businesses are the engines driving 
     our economy. They constitute 98 percent of all businesses in 
     America, and they employ almost 60 percent of the workforce. 
     Additionally, small businesses have created roughly two-
     thirds of the net new jobs in the American economy since the 
     early 1970's.
       Unfortunately, while our nation's current prosperity has 
     brought unprecedented funds to certain sectors of our 
     economy, small business entrepreneurs still lack the access 
     to valuable capital needed to start and expand their 
     businesses.
       Your legislation goes along way towards addressing this 
     problem. By reforming and improving Section 1202 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code, investors will now have a true 
     incentive to invest in small businesses. Under current law, 
     Section 1202 is no longer a viable option in many of the 
     circumstances it was originally intended to address. 
     Moreover, Section 1202's impact will continue to be diluted 
     by a scheduled decrease in long-term capital gains rates 
     applicable to most stock purchased after 2000 and the 
     probability that still more taxpayers will be subject to the 
     extremely complicated and cumbersome Alternative Minimum Tax. 
     The Encouraging Investment in Small Business Act would 
     eliminate unnecessary complexity in Section 1202 and make it 
     a more robust engine of capital formation for small 
     businesses.
       Senator Collins, thank you for your continued support of 
     small businesses. We look forward to working with you to get 
     the Encouraging Investment in Small Business Act enacted into 
     law.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Dan Danner,

                                            Senior Vice President,
                                            Federal Public Policy.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if we want to remain the world's most 
entrepreneurial country, which is certainly the strength of this 
Nation, where small businesses generate the ideas and create the jobs 
that fuel our economy, we must continue to create an environment that 
nurtures and supports entrepreneurs. Our bill would help to create such 
an environment, not by establishing a new Federal program or adding a 
complicated new section to our Tax Code but, rather, by simplifying and 
improving a provision that is already there.
  By way of background, section 1202 was added to the Internal Revenue 
Code in 1993 in order to encourage investment in small business. The 
bill that created this section was introduced by senator Dale Bumpers 
and enjoyed widespread bipartisan support. Similarly, the legislation 
we introduce today will improve upon the 1993 legislation.
  In brief, section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code permits 
noncorporate taxpayers to exclude from gross income 50 percent of the 
gain from the sale or exchange of qualified small business stock, known 
as QSB stock, held for more than 5 years. The concept is a sound one. 
In practice, however, this section has proven to be cumbersome to use 
and less advantageous than originally intended.
  As an article in the December 1998 edition of the Tax Adviser noted:

       Section 1202 places numerous and complex requirements on 
     both the qualified small business and the shareholder.

  The article went on to note that the provision ``is no longer the 
deal it seemed to be.''
  The Encouraging investment in Small Business Act would amend section 
1202 to eliminate unnecessary complexity and to make it a more robust 
engine of capital formation for small business. As it stands now, that 
engine needs some fine-tuning. Given the reductions in capital gains 
rates subsequent to section 1202's enactment and the fact that more and 
more taxpayers are now subject to the alternative minimum tax, section 
1202 is no longer a viable option in many circumstances. Moreover, its 
impact will continue to be diluted by a scheduled decrease in long-term 
capital gains rates applicable to most stock purchased after the year 
2000, as well as the probability that still more taxpayers will be 
subject to the AMT.
  The Encouraging Investment in Small Business Act makes a number of 
improvements to this section of the code. First, the bill increases the 
amount of qualified small business stock gain that an individual can 
exclude from gross income from 50 percent to 75 percent. Second, the 
legislation strikes the section of the Tax Code that makes a portion of 
the section 1202 exclusion a preference item under the alternative 
minimum tax. These two changes rejuvenate the section and make it the 
potent generator of small business capital that it was intended to be.
  Currently, an individual who invested in QSB stock, sold it, and 
found her or himself subject to the AMT, would face an effective 
capital gains rate of 19.9 percent or just .1 percent less than the 
existing rate on long-term capital gains. When we consider that the 
number of taxpayers subject to the AMT is predicted to triple over the 
next 5 years, it becomes crystal clear that a fix is needed now. The 
legislation would take additional steps to make section 1202 more 
attractive to small businesses and investors.
  The legislation may sound complicated and, indeed, revising tax law 
is always a challenge, but the bottom line is that our legislation 
makes a number of common sense changes that are all designed to 
encourage more investment in small businesses, the engine of our 
economy.

[[Page 19032]]

  These changes have been endorsed by the leading small business 
organizations. They are changes recommended by a recent Securities and 
Exchange Commission forum on small business capital formation, and they 
are the changes needed to accommodate and, indeed, to foster the 
capital-raising needs of small business, the foundation of our national 
economy.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I applaud the distinguished Senator from 
Maine, Ms. Collins, for her gargantuan effort to tackle the Byzantine 
aspects of the U.S. Tax Code to see if there is some way we can assist 
our venture capitalists to help our small businesses, particularly our 
high-tech small business more.
  It is a pleasure to work with Senator Collins, not only in this 
endeavor but in other endeavors. We serve together on the Government 
Affairs Committee. One of our responsibilities is oversight of the 
Securities and Exchange Commission which looks at the world of 
investments in businesses in this country. I applaud her for her 
insight, for her innovation in this area, she is right on target. I am 
pleased to associate myself with her remarks today and pleased to 
cosponsor the legislation of which she speaks.
  On that point, in terms of being relevant to what is driving the 
American economy, not only in my home State of Georgia, particularly in 
Atlanta, where more and more high-tech businesses are located, but in 
Silicon Valley, where I just got back from a tour in early August, it 
is obvious that we are generating a lot of talented young minds in 
America with great ideas and that those young minds can form together, 
and with the right capital at the right time can generate businesses 
that literally were unknown or unheard of just months ago. We see those 
kind of successes now driving the American economy. Information 
technology economies now provide the leading edge for American economic 
growth and our prosperity. I couldn't agree more with the Senator from 
Maine. We will do everything in our power to assist this legislation 
and move it forward.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN:
  S. 3098. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phase 
in a full estate tax deduction for family-owned business interests; to 
the Committee on Finance.


        estate tax deduction for family-owned business interests

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, one of the things Americans like least 
about Congress is the way we wrangle over things we don't agree about 
instead of acting on things we can agree about.
  The estate tax is a case in point. There is wide agreement in the 
Senate that we should act to eliminate the burden of the estate tax on 
family farms and businesses. We could accomplish that this year--this 
week in fact--with little fuss or ado.
  I propose that we do just that, and save for later the parts of the 
estate tax that we don't agree on. We should not hold the family farms 
and businesses of this nation hostage to the heirs of multi-billion-
dollar investment fortunes. We can address that problem right now so 
let's do it.
  We often forget in this country that a family is an economic unit as 
well as a social unit. This nation was built upon an economy of family-
based farms and businesses. That is why the values of family--a 
commitment to community, a loyalty to place, a sense of tradition 
passing through the generations--were an important part of the economy 
in the formative days of our republic.
  Those values weakened as the economy became national and corporate. 
They have weakened further still as the economy has become global, and 
the cold calculus of the global marketplace has displaced 
considerations of family and community in our economic life.
  In this setting it is crucial that we strive to keep the family farms 
and businesses that we have, and to encourage new ones. Family-based 
enterprise provides a counterweight to the centrifugal forces of the 
global economy. It can help to anchor the market in values and concerns 
that the large impersonal corporation does not share, and we should 
encourage this form of enterprise whenever we can.
  Certainly the Federal Government never should force the sale of such 
an enterprise just to pay an estate tax. That does not happen often 
today. But not often is still too often. It should never happen, and 
that is why I am introducing a bill today to make sure it doesn't.
  Under this bill, the estate tax on farms and businesses under active 
family management would phase out over 6 years, until by 2006 it would 
be gone completely.
  This bill is different from the one that passed this Chamber earlier 
this year in one key respect: It applies onto family farms and 
businesses passed along to the next generation. It does not apply to 
the heirs of multi-billion dollar investment fortunes and the like. 
There was a strange disconnect in the debate over that earlier bill. 
Virtually all the talk from proponents was about family farms and 
businesses. Yet the bulk of the actual belief of their bill would have 
gone to the heirs of investment fortunes instead.
  That is why many of us voted against the bill. The walk didn't match 
the talk. And that is why I am proposing today that, for once, we move 
forward on what we do agree on instead of wrangling continuously, for 
political advantage, over what we don't. Large stock fortunes are not 
the same as family farms and businesses. They raise a different set of 
questions where the estate tax is concerned, and we ought to deal with 
those questions separately and at a later time.
  This is not the place to debate the merits of the estate tax as it 
applies to large fortunes as opposed to operating farms and businesses. 
I will just note briefly a few of the reasons why many of us could not 
support the previous bill.
  For one thing, the tax was enacted out of the conviction that those 
who have benefited most from our democracy in the past ought to 
contribute to its security and well-being in the future. That was true 
back in 1916 and it is equally true today. To repeal the estate tax 
completely would shift the burden of paying for the Federal Government 
even more onto the working men and women of this country. That is not 
fair.
  Second, the estate tax encourages people with large fortunes to make 
significant contributions to charity. If we are going to rely less on 
government in addressing our social problems, and more on the efforts 
of individuals and private nonprofit organizations, then we must not 
dry up a prime source of funding for these efforts.
  Third, the estate tax encourages the work ethic, as it applies to 
estates other than family-based farms and businesses. Those who might 
otherwise be able to live on inherited fortunes occasionally have to 
some useful work instead.
  I know that there is disagreement on these points. They deserve an 
honest debate. But as I said, we should not hold family based farms and 
businesses hostage to that debate. We can agree that help for these 
family based enterprises is the first priority of estate tax reform. We 
can agree that no family farm or family business should have to be sold 
to pay an estate tax.
  So let's do that now and save the rest for another day.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAMS:
  S. 3099. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify 
the exemption from tax for small property and casualty insurance 
companies, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


          Small Property and Casualty Insurance Exemption Act

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to clarify the 
tax exemption status for small property and casualty insurance 
companies. These small companies are vitally important to provide 
needed services for our rural and farming communities.
  Under current law, an insurance company with up to $350,000 in 
premium is tax-exempt. In addition, companies

[[Page 19033]]

with premiums that exceed $350,000 but do not exceed $1,200,000 are 
allowed to elect to be taxed on their net investment income.
  Investment income or assets are not considered when determining 
qualification for either tax-exempt status or investment income 
taxation. These companies are allowed to elect to be taxed on their net 
investment income.
  Early this year, President proposed in his FY 2001 budget to modify 
this calculation to include investment and other types of income. The 
proposal would also change the tax law to allow companies with premiums 
below $350,000 to elect to be taxed on their net investment income.
  By including investment income into the calculation, it is the intent 
of the administration to prohibit foreign companies and other large 
insurers from sheltering income from taxes.
  However, by including investment into the calculation, the intended 
beneficiaries, small property and casualty insurance companies, will 
not be able to qualify for the exemption defeating the intent of 
Congress and purpose for the provision.
  Mr. President, since 1921, small insurance companies have been exempt 
from federal taxation so that all their financial resources could be 
used for claims paying.
  It has been the public policy goal to maintain small, rural, farm-
oriented insurers so that all Americans would have access to coverage 
at a reasonable cost.
  While the administration's goal of closing the loophole is admirable, 
the current proposal would only serve to harm the small U.S. farm 
insurance company that the provision is there to protect.
  My legislation would close the loophole by limiting the provision to 
only those companies that are directly owned by their policyholders and 
the company operates in only one state.
  In addition, the legislation would increase the tax exemption level 
from $350,000 to $531,000, indexed for inflation every year thereafter, 
and it would increase the investment income election from $1.2 million 
to $1.8 million, indexed for inflation every year thereafter.
  The last time these levels were increased was 1986. Inflation has 
eroded the levels to the point of being irrelevant. The increased 
levels were calculated by using the CPI to adjust the levels for 
inflation.
  Mr. President, by making these changes we can ensure that our rural 
and farming communities will continue to receive the needed insurance 
services. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

                          ____________________