Freedom to Fish Act

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide relief to small businesses struggling with the high cost of health care.

Rising health care costs are a serious problem for most Americans. The average premium offered by an employer rose last year by 13.9 percent, 4 times faster than wages. This was the third straight year of double-digit increases.

The cost of health care for small businesses is even higher. Health care costs for businesses with 25 to 50 employees rose by 14.3 percent. For firms with 10 to 24 employees, premiums rose by 15.2 percent, and for firms with 3 to 9 workers, they increased by 16.6 percent. In many cases, the increases faced by individual small businesses is significantly larger. I've heard from businesses in my State about premium increases as high as 40 percent in one year.

For many small business owners, increases of this size force them to make tough decisions regarding whether to continue offering coverage, whether to scale back coverage, and whether they can improve wages and make other improvements to their business. At a time when the number of uninsured Americans is growing, our economy is struggling, jobs are scarce, and financial uncertainty affects many too many Americans, the cost of health care is a tremendous problem. Skyrocketing health care costs could pose the single greatest obstacle to entrepreneurship and growth in our economy today.

And many small businesses don't offer coverage at all, not because they don't want to, but because they simply cannot afford it. Both nationally and in South Dakota, only about 55 percent of businesses with 3 to 9 employees offer coverage to their employees, as compared to almost all large businesses--those with over 50 employees.

Why don't small businesses offer coverage? The number one reason they cite is cost. A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that about 72 percent of small businesses cite the high cost of insurance premiums as a major reason they don't offer coverage. And a study of South Dakota business owners found that 79 percent said they would be more likely to offer coverage if the costs weren't so high.

Clearly small business owners are desperate for relief. The stories I hear from South Dakota business owners underscore the need.

Last summer, Kathleen Perkins, the owner of Great Plains Coffee Roasting Company in Sioux Falls, wrote to me about the cost of health insurance. In her letter, she wrote, ``I recently lost two great employees because as a small business, I cannot afford to offer comprehensive health care to my full time employees.''

Earlier this year, I heard from the owner of South Dakota Magazine, in Yankton. He shared with me the notification from his insurer informing him that premiums would rise 27 percent. The owner expressed his frustration that he faces these increases, even after experiencing past double-digit increases and benefit reductions.

Yet another small business owner in Mitchell wrote to me about yearly rate increases of 10 to 30 percent. She used to pay 100 percent of her employees' cost, but she has had to shift more of the cost onto her employees. And still

she struggles. She said, ``I'm not sure how many more increases we can tolerate before we will discontinue this company benefit.''

Small employers need relief. That's why the bill I'm introducing today would provide up to a 50-percent tax credit to help small employers pay for insurance for their employees. The legislation would provide a 50-percent credit for businesses with 25 or fewer employees, a 40-percent credit for businesses with between 26 and 35 employees, and a 30-percent credit for businesses with between 36 and 50 employees.

We must take additional steps to address the high cost of health care, the administrative waste in the system, and the growing number of uninsured. This tax credit is a first, important step in that process.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Freedom to Fish Act. This legislation, cosponsored by Senator Breaux, addresses an unsettling situation arising over access to our Nation's public coastal resources. There is a growing movement to limit the use and enjoyment of America's coastal and ocean waters. This restriction of public access is occurring under the guise of the establishment of marine protected areas. The bill I am introducing today aims to correct a system that would unfairly penalize our Nation's marine recreational anglers. I support the goal of healthy marine fisheries, but I disagree strongly with any method that unnecessarily limits our citizens' access to public waters.

I believe that my record clearly indicates my dedication to defending and improving the health of our oceans and coasts. Recreational anglers are among America's most proactive conservationists and their contributions need to be recognized.

The Act would establish guidelines and safeguards by which the public's right to use and enjoy these resources are preserved in all but the most serious cases. It provides assurances that the public who enjoy recreational fishing will have a place at the table when decisions are made regarding their use of the resource. Secondly, the Freedom to Fish Act will ensure that measurable scientific criteria is used to determine the cause and impact of damage to fishery resources.

Restricting public access to our coastal waters should not be our first course of action, but rather our last resort. Open access to fishing is the single most important element of recreational fishing. We must defend public access against those that would try to restrict it under the cloak of marine resource protection.

I am proud to offer this legislation to bring attention to this important issue and I urge my colleagues to support the Freedom to Fish Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Freedom to Fish Act. This legislation, cosponsored by Senator Breaux, addresses an unsettling situation arising over access to our Nation's public coastal resources. There is a growing movement to limit the use and enjoyment of America's coastal and ocean waters. This restriction of public access is occurring under the guise of the establishment of marine protected areas. The bill I am introducing today aims to correct a system that would unfairly penalize our Nation's marine recreational anglers. I support the goal of healthy marine fisheries, but I disagree strongly with any method that unnecessarily limits our citizens' access to public waters.

I believe that my record clearly indicates my dedication to defending and improving the health of our oceans and coasts. Recreational anglers are among America's most proactive conservationists and their contributions need to be recognized.

The Act would establish guidelines and safeguards by which the public's right to use and enjoy these resources are preserved in all but the most serious cases. It provides assurances that the public who enjoy recreational fishing will have a place at the table when decisions are made regarding their use of the resource. Secondly, the Freedom to Fish Act will ensure that measurable scientific criteria is used to determine the cause and impact of damage to fishery resources.

Restricting public access to our coastal waters should not be our first course of action, but rather our last resort. Open access to fishing is the single most important element of recreational fishing. We must defend public access against those that would try to restrict it under the cloak of marine resource protection.

I am proud to offer this legislation to bring attention to this important issue and I urge my colleagues to support the Freedom to Fish Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.