[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 47 (Tuesday, April 3, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3341-S3353]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 678. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
establish a program for fisheries habitat protection, restoration, and 
enhancement, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fishable 
Waters Act with my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln. I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Lincoln be listed as a cosponsor. This 
is consensus legislation from a uniquely diverse spectrum of interests 
to establish a comprehensive, voluntary, incentive-based, locally-led 
program to improve and restore our fisheries.
  Put simply, this legislation enables local stakeholders to get 
together to design water quality projects in their own areas that will 
be eligible for some $350 million in federal assistance to implement 
for the benefit of our fisheries and water quality. It does not change 
any existing provisions, regulatory or otherwise, of the Clean Water 
Act.
  The Fishable Waters Act complements existing clean water programs 
that are designed to encourage, rather than coerce the participation of 
landowners. This legislation will work because it will empower people 
at the local level who have a stake in its success and who will have 
hands-on involvement in its implementation.
  It is supported by members of the Fishable Waters Coalition which 
includes the American Sportfishing Association, Trout Unlimited, the 
Izaak Walton League of America, the National Corn Growers Association, 
the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the Bass Anglers Sportsman 
Society, the American Fisheries Society, the International Association 
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and the Pacific Rivers Council. These 
groups have labored quietly but with great determination for several 
years to produce this consensus proposal to build on the success of the 
Clean Water Act.
  As my colleagues understand, it is at great peril that anyone in this 
town undertakes to address clean water-related issues but the need is 
too great and this approach too practical to not embrace it, introduce 
it, and work to achieve the wide-spread support it merits.
  A companion bill, H.R. 325, has been introduced by Congressman John 
Tanner in the House. That bipartisan measure is cosponsored by 
Representatives Abercrombie, Blunt, Boehlert, Allen, Clement, Nathan, 
Dingell, English, Christopher, Johnson, Leach, Pallone, Saxton, 
Stenholm, and Whitfield.
  Joining us last year for the kickoff were representatives of the 
Fishable Waters Coalition and a special guest, a fishing enthusiast who 
some may know otherwise as a top-ranked U.S. golfer, David Duval. ``Why 
am I here? I like to fish. I've done it as long as I can remember,'' 
Duval said. ``I want my kids to be able to have healthy habitats for 
fish. I want my grandkids and my great-grandkids to be able to do what 
I enjoy so much, and I think this could make a big difference.''
  This bipartisan and consensus legislation is intended to capture 
opportunities to build on the success of the Clean Water Act. It 
enables local stakeholders to get together with farmers who own 70 
percent of our nation's land to design local water quality projects 
that will be eligible for some $350 million in federal assistance for 
the benefit of our fisheries and water quality.
  Instead of Washington saying, ``you do this and you pay for it'' and 
instead of Washington saying, ``you do this but we'll help you pay for 
it'', this legislation lets local citizens design projects that can be 
eligible for federal assistance. For farmers, the idea of protecting 
land for future generations is not an abstract notion because the 
farmers in my State know that good stewardship is good for them and 
their families. Their challenge is that while they feed this nation and 
provide some $50 billion in exports, they do not have the ability to 
pass additional costs onto consumers like corporations do. For the 2 
million people who farm to provide environmental benefits for 
themselves and the rest of the nation's 270 million people, they need 
partners because they cannot afford to do it by themselves. This 
legislation recognizes that reality.

[[Page S3342]]

  While one can expect a great deal of controversy surrounding any 
comprehensive Clean Water effort, the consensus that has built around 
this approach is cause for great optimism that this legislation will be 
the vehicle to make significant additional progress in improving water 
quality.
  I am pleased to continue work on the Fishable Waters Act with the 
broad coalition to move the legislation forward to passage and I thank 
my colleagues Senator Lincoln and Congressman Tanner. This new 
generation approach empowers people at the local level who have the 
greatest understanding and the most at stake in the success of 
environmental protection. I will be working with new members of the 
Bush Administration aggressively because I believe that this is 
philosophically consistent with their modern approach to environmental 
protection.
  I congratulate members of the Coalition for producing and supporting 
this consensus legislation and I look forward to working with Senator 
Lincoln and my other Senate colleagues to move this legislation 
forward.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the text of a one-page summary of 
the bill in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               Fishable Waters Act Bill Summary in Brief


                                PURPOSE

       This legislation begins with the premise the while great 
     progress has been made in improving water quality under the 
     Clean Water Act, more opportunities remain. The particular 
     emphasis on this legislation is on opportunities to address 
     fisheries habitat and water quality needs.
       The findings include that it shall be the policy of the 
     United States to protect, restore, and enhance fisheries 
     habitat and related uses through voluntary watershed planning 
     at the state and local level that leads to sound fisheries 
     conservation on an overall watershed basis.
       To carry out this objective, a new section is added to the 
     Clean Water Act.


                                PROGRAM

       The legislation authorizes the establishment of voluntary 
     and local Watershed Councils to consider the best available 
     science to plan and implement a program to protect and 
     restore fisheries habitat with the consent of affected 
     landowners.
       Each comprehensive plan must consider the following 
     elements: characterization of the watershed in terms of 
     fisheries habitat; objectives both near- and long-term; 
     ongoing factors affecting habitat and access; specific 
     projects that need to be undertaken to improve fisheries 
     habitat; and any necessary incentives, financial or 
     otherwise, to facilitate implementation of best management 
     practices to better deal with non-point source pollution 
     including sediments impairing waterways.
       Projects and measures that can be implemented or 
     strengthened with the consent of affected landowners to 
     improve fisheries habitat including stream side vegetation, 
     instream modifications and structures, modifications to flood 
     control measures and structures that would improve the 
     connection of rivers to low-lying backwaters, oxbows, and 
     tributary mouths.
       With the consent of affected landowners, those projects, 
     initiatives, and restoration measures identified in the 
     approved plan become eligible for funding through a Fisheries 
     Habitat Account.
       Funds from the Fisheries Habitat Account may be used to 
     provide up to 15 percent for the non-federal matching 
     requirement under including the following conservation 
     programs:-The Wetlands Reserve Program; The Environmental 
     Quality Incentives Program; The National Estuary Program; The 
     Emergency Conservation Program; The Farmland Protection 
     Program; The Conservation Reserve Program; The Wildlife 
     Habitat Incentives Program; The North American Wetlands 
     Conservation Program; The Federal Aid in Sportfish 
     Restoration Program; The Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine 
     Ecosystem Restoration Program; The Environmental Management 
     Program; and The Missouri and Middle Mississippi Enhancement 
     Project.
       The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to develop an 
     urban waters revitalization program ($25m/yr) to improve 
     fisheries and related recreational activities in urban waters 
     with priority given to funding projects located in and 
     benefitting low-income or economically depressed areas
       $250 million is authorized annually through Agriculture for 
     the planning and implementation of projects contained in 
     approved plans.
       States with approved programs may, if they choose, transfer 
     up to 20 percent of the funds provided to each state through 
     the Clean Water Act's $200 million Section 319 non-point 
     source program to implement planned projects.
       Up to $25 million is authorized annually through Interior 
     for measures to restrict livestock access to streams and 
     provide alternative watering opportunities and $50 million is 
     authorized annually to provide, with the cooperation of 
     landowners, minimum instream flows and water quantities.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my neighbor and 
colleague from Missouri, Kit Bond, in introducing the Fishable Waters 
Act. This bill is aimed at restoring and maintaining clean water in our 
Nation's rivers, lakes, and streams. This bill will provide much needed 
funding for programs with a proven track record of conserving land, 
cleaning up the environment, and promoting clean and fishable waters. 
This legislation takes the right approach to reducing non-point source 
pollution. It's voluntary. Its incentive-based. And it encourages 
public-private partnerships.
  Our State Motto, ``The Natural State,'' reflects our dedication to 
preserving the unique natural landscape that we cherish in Arkansas. We 
have towering mountains, rolling foothills, an expansive Delta, 
countless pristine rivers and lakes, and a multitude of timber 
varieties across our state. From expansive evergreen forests in the 
South, to the nation's largest bottomland hardwood forest in the East, 
as well as one of this nation's largest remaining hardwood forests 
across the Northern one-half of the state, Arkansas has one of the most 
diverse ecosystems in the Untied States. Most streams and rivers in 
Arkansas originate or run through our timberlands and are sources for 
water supplies, prime recreation, and countless other sues. We also 
have numerous outdoor recreational opportunities and it is vital that 
we take steps to protect the environment.
  This bill utilizes current programs within the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture that have a proven track record of reducing non-point 
sources of pollution and promoting clean and fishable waters through 
voluntary conservation measures. Existing USDA programs like the 
Wetlands Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, 
Conservation Reserve Program, and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, 
assist farmers in taking steps towards preserving a quality 
environment.
  CRP and WRP are so popular with farmers that they will likely reach 
their authorized enrollment cap by the end of 2001. Farmers wouldn't 
flock to these programs unless there was an inherent desire to ensure 
that they conserved and preserved our Nation's water resources.
  Arkansas ranks second in the number of enrolled acres in USDA's 
Wetlands Reserve Program because our farmers have recognized the vital 
role that wetlands play in preserving a sound ecology and efficient 
production.
  WRP is so popular in AR that we have over 200 currently pending 
applications that we cannot fill because of lack of funding. That's 
over 200 farmers that want to voluntarily conserve wetland areas around 
rivers, lakes, and streams. We need to fill that void in funding for 
these beneficial programs. This bill will help farmers in Arkansas and 
across the nation to voluntarily conserve sensitive land areas and 
provide buffer strips for runoff areas.
  Farmers makes their living from the soil and water. They have a 
vested interest in ensuring that these resources are protected. I don't 
believe that our nation's farmer shave been given enough credit for 
their dedicated efforts to preserve a sound environment for future 
generations.
  As many of you know, farming has a special place in my heart because 
I was raised on a seventh generation farm family. I know first hand 
that farmers want to protect the viability of their land so they can 
pass it on to the next generation. This bill is about more than 
agriculture through. It strikes the right balance between our 
agricultural industry and another pastime that I feel very strongly 
about, hunting and fishing.
  Over the years many people have been surprised when they learn that I 
am an avid outdoorsman. I grew up in the South where hunting and 
fishing are not just hobbies, they're a way of life. My father never 
differentiated between taking his son or daughters hunting or fishing, 
it was just assumed that we would all take part. For this, I will be 
forever grateful because I truly enjoy the outdoors, and the time I 
spent hunting and fishing is a big part of who I am today. We are 
blessed in

[[Page S3343]]

Arkansas to have such bountiful outdoor opportunities. For these 
opportunities to continue to exist we must take steps to ensure that 
our nation's waters are protected. Trout in Arkansas' Little Red River 
and mallards in the riverbottoms of the Mississippi Delta both share a 
common need of clean water. And that is what we are ultimately striving 
for with this legislation: an effective, voluntary, incentive based 
plan to provide funding for programs that promote clean water.
  I want to again stress the importance of voluntary programs.
  We cannot expect to have success by using a heavy-handed, top-down 
approach to regulate our farmers, ranchers, and foresters into 
environmental compliance. Trying to force people into a permitting 
program to reduce the potential for non-point runoff may actually 
discourage responsible environmental practices.
  I agree with the EPA's objective of cleaning up our nation's impaired 
rivers, lakes, and streams, but firmly believe that a permitting 
program is not the best solution to the problem of maintaining clean 
water. Placing another unnecessary layer of regulation upon our 
nation's local foresters will only slow down the process of responsible 
farming and forestry and implementation of voluntary Best Management 
Practices.
  This legislation takes the right approach to clean and fishable 
waters. It's voluntary. It's incentive-based. And it encourages public-
private partnerships to clean up our Nation's rivers, lakes, and 
streams.
  I encourage my colleagues to join us in the fight for clean and 
fishable waters.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CLELAND:
  S. 679. A bill to establish the Arabia Mountain National Heritage 
Area in the State of Georgia, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
establish the Arabia Mountain National heritage Area in the State of 
Georgia. The significance of this area and the need to act now is 
underscored by Metro Atlanta's unprecedented rate of growth. In fact, 
it has been said that Atlanta is the fastest growing city in 
civilization.
  The area surrounding Arabia Mountain is located only 20 minutes east 
of Atlanta, near my home town of Lithonia. I speak from personal 
experience when I say that this area has seen the effects of Metro 
Atlanta's unbridled expansion, particularly in the past decade. As a 
result, vital open spaces and farmlands have all but disappeared.
  I believe it is essential to preserve what remains of significant 
natural, cultural, and historic resources in this region. The terrain 
surrounding Arabia Mountain contains a diverse ecosystem consisting of 
rare plant species, wetlands, pine and oak forests, streams and a lake. 
Additionally, this area is home to many historic sites, structure, and 
cultural landscapes, including the last remaining farm in DeKalb 
County. On a personal note, I can remember when this town was known as 
the dairy belt of Georgia. Now, we are down to a single working farm.
  My legislation reflects what has been a real grass roots effort to 
preserve this vital landscape. Over the past several years, local 
citizens have been working in conjunction with city, county, and State 
officials to move forward with plans to preserve these resources. In 
fact, this project has already benefited from significant private 
contributions of land, money, and professional services which have 
enabled the Arabia Mountain Heritage Area Alliance to produce a 
detailed feasibility study which was released on February 28, 2001. 
However, local efforts to protect and preserve the resources of the 
area will not fully materialize without the technical assistance of 
Federal agencies.
  Under my bill, the National Park Service, NPS, will be authorized to 
provide essential technical support in order to develop and implement a 
plan to manage the natural, cultural, historical, scenic, and 
recreational resources of the heritage area. Taking into account the 
diverse interests of the governmental, business, and nonprofit groups 
within the area, the management plan will assist the local governments 
in adopting land use policies which maximize the many resources of the 
region.
  I have personally visited this area, and I must reiterate my strong 
interest in this important preservation effort. I ask unanimous consent 
that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, and urge my 
colleagues to join me in enacting this legislation.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 679

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Arabia Mountain National 
     Heritage Area Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Arabia Mountain area contains a variety of natural, 
     cultural, historical, scenic, and recreational resources that 
     together represent distinctive aspects of the heritage of the 
     United States that are worthy of recognition, conservation, 
     interpretation, and continuing use;
       (2) the best methods for managing the resources of the 
     Arabia Mountain area would be through partnerships between 
     public and private entities that combine diverse resources 
     and active communities;
       (3) Davidson-Arabia Mountain Nature Preserve, a 535-acre 
     park in DeKalb County, Georgia--
       (A) protects granite outcrop ecosystems, wetland, and pine 
     and oak forests; and
       (B) includes federally-protected plant species;
       (4) Panola Mountain, a national natural landmark, located 
     in the 860-acre Panola Mountain State Conservation Park, is a 
     rare example of a pristine granite outcrop;
       (5) the archeological site at Miners Creek Preserve along 
     the South River contains documented evidence of early human 
     activity;
       (6) the city of Lithonia, Georgia, and related sites of 
     Arabia Mountain and Stone Mountain possess sites that display 
     the history of granite mining as an industry and culture in 
     Georgia, and the impact of that industry on the United 
     States;
       (7) the community of Klondike is eligible for designation 
     as a National Historic District; and
       (8) the city of Lithonia has 2 structures listed on the 
     National Register of Historic Places.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to recognize, preserve, promote, interpret, and make 
     available for the benefit of the public the natural, 
     cultural, historical, scenic, and recreational resources in 
     the area that includes Arabia Mountain, Panola Mountain, 
     Miners Creek, and other significant sites and communities; 
     and
       (2) to assist the State of Georgia and the counties of 
     DeKalb, Rockdale, and Henry in the State in developing and 
     implementing an integrated cultural, historical, and land 
     resource management program to protect, enhance, and 
     interpret the significant resources within the heritage area.

      SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Heritage area.--The term ``heritage area'' means the 
     Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area established by section 
     4.
       (2) Management entity.--The term ``management entity'' 
     means the Arabia Mountain Heritage Area Alliance or a 
     successor of the Arabia Mountain Heritage Area Alliance.
       (3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means 
     the management plan for the heritage area developed under 
     section 6.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Georgia.

      SEC. 4. ARABIA MOUNTAIN NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Arabia 
     Mountain National Heritage Area in the State.
       (b) Boundaries.--The heritage area shall consist of certain 
     parcels of land in the counties of DeKalb, Rockdale, and 
     Henry in the State, as generally depicted on the map entitled 
     ``The Preferred Concept'' contained in the document entitled 
     ``Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area Feasibility Study'', 
     dated February 28, 2001.
       (c) Availability of Map.--The map shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of 
     the National Park Service.
       (d) Management Entity.--The Arabia Mountain Heritage Area 
     Alliance shall be the management entity for the heritage 
     area.

      SEC. 5. AUTHORITIES AND DUTIES OF THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY.

       (a) Authorities.--For purposes of developing and 
     implementing the management plan, the management entity may--
       (1) make grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements 
     with, the State, political subdivisions of the State, and 
     private organizations;
       (2) hire and compensate staff; and
       (3) enter into contracts for goods and services.
       (b) Duties.--
       (1) Management plan.--

[[Page S3344]]

       (A) In general.--The management entity shall develop and 
     submit to the Secretary the management plan.
       (B) Considerations.--In developing and implementing the 
     management plan, the management entity shall consider the 
     interests of diverse governmental, business, and nonprofit 
     groups within the heritage area.
       (2) Priorities.--The management entity shall give priority 
     to implementing actions described in the management plan, 
     including--
       (A) assisting units of government and nonprofit 
     organizations in preserving resources within the heritage 
     area; and
       (B) encouraging local governments to adopt land use 
     policies consistent with the management of the heritage area 
     and the goals of the management plan.
       (3) Public meetings.--The management entity shall conduct 
     public meetings at least quarterly on the implementation of 
     the management plan.
       (4) Annual report.--For any year in which Federal funds 
     have been made available under this Act, the management 
     entity shall submit to the Secretary an annual report that 
     describes--
       (A) the accomplishments of the management entity; and
       (B) the expenses and income of the management entity.
       (5) Audit.--The management entity shall--
       (A) make available to the Secretary for audit all records 
     relating to the expenditure of Federal funds and any matching 
     funds; and
       (B) require, with respect to all agreements authorizing 
     expenditure of Federal funds by other organizations, that the 
     receiving organizations make available to the Secretary for 
     audit all records concerning the expenditure of those funds.
       (c) Use of Federal Funds.--
       (1) In general.--The management entity shall not use 
     Federal funds made available under this Act to acquire real 
     property or an interest in real property.
       (2) Other sources.--Nothing in this Act precludes the 
     management entity from using Federal funds made available 
     under other Federal laws for any purpose for which the funds 
     are authorized to be used.

      SEC. 6. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

       (a) In General.--The management entity shall develop a 
     management plan for the heritage area that incorporates an 
     integrated and cooperative approach to protect, interpret, 
     and enhance the natural, cultural, historical, scenic, and 
     recreational resources of the heritage area.
       (b) Basis.--The management plan shall be based on the 
     preferred concept in the document entitled ``Arabia Mountain 
     National Heritage Area Feasibility Study'', dated February 
     28, 2001.
       (c) Consideration of Other Plans and Actions.--The 
     management plan shall--
       (1) take into consideration State and local plans; and
       (2) involve residents, public agencies, and private 
     organizations in the heritage area.
       (d) Requirements.--The management plan shall include--
       (1) an inventory of the resources in the heritage area, 
     including--
       (A) a list of property in the heritage area that--
       (i) relates to the purposes of the heritage area; and
       (ii) should be preserved, restored, managed, or maintained 
     because of the significance of the property; and
       (B) an assessment of cultural landscapes within the 
     heritage area;
       (2) provisions for the protection, interpretation, and 
     enjoyment of the resources of the heritage area consistent 
     with the purposes of this Act;
       (3) an interpretation plan for the heritage area;
       (4) a program for implementation of the management plan 
     that includes--
       (A) actions to be carried out by units of government, 
     private organizations, and public-private partnerships to 
     protect the resources of the heritage area; and
       (B) the identification of existing and potential sources of 
     funding for implementing the plan; and
       (5) a description and evaluation of the management entity, 
     including the membership and organizational structure of the 
     management entity.
       (e) Submission to Secretary for Approval.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the management entity shall submit the 
     management plan to the Secretary for approval.
       (2) Effect of failure to submit.--If a management plan is 
     not submitted to the Secretary by the date specified in 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall not provide any additional 
     funding under this Act until such date as a management plan 
     for the heritage area is submitted to the Secretary.
       (f) Approval and Disapproval of Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after receiving the 
     management plan submitted under subsection (e), the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the State, shall approve or 
     disapprove the management plan.
       (2) Action following disapproval.--
       (A) Revision.--If the Secretary disapproves a management 
     plan submitted under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
       (i) advise the management entity in writing of the reasons 
     for the disapproval;
       (ii) make recommendations for revisions to the management 
     plan; and
       (iii) allow the management entity to submit to the 
     Secretary revisions to the management plan.
       (B) Deadline for approval of revision.--Not later than 90 
     days after the date on which a revision is submitted under 
     subparagraph (A)(iii), the Secretary shall approve or 
     disapprove the revision.
       (g) Revision of Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--After approval by the Secretary of a 
     management plan, the management entity shall periodically--
       (A) review the management plan; and
       (B) submit to the Secretary, for review and approval by the 
     Secretary, the recommendations of the management entity for 
     any revisions to the management plan that the management 
     entity considers to be appropriate.
       (2) Expenditure of funds.--No funds made available under 
     this Act shall be used to implement any revision proposed by 
     the management entity under paragraph (1)(B) until the 
     Secretary approves the revision.

      SEC. 7. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--At the request of the management entity, 
     the Secretary may provide technical and financial assistance 
     to the heritage area to develop and implement the management 
     plan.
       (b) Priority.--In providing assistance under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall give priority to actions that 
     facilitate--
       (1) the conservation of the significant natural, cultural, 
     historical, scenic, and recreational resources that support 
     the purposes of the heritage area; and
       (2) the provision of educational, interpretive, and 
     recreational opportunities that are consistent with the 
     resources and associated values of the heritage area.

      SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.-- There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this Act $10,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which not more than $1,000,000 may be used in 
     any fiscal year; and
       (b) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of any 
     project or activity carried out using funds made available 
     under this Act shall not exceed 50 percent.

      SEC. 9. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

       The authority of the Secretary to make any grant or provide 
     any assistance under this Act terminates on September 30, 
     2016.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
  S. 680. A bill to amend the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1974 to authorize communities to use community development block grant 
funds for construction of tornado-safe shelters in manufactured home 
parks; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of 
the Tornado Shelters Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 680

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Tornado Shelters Act''.

     SEC. 2. CDBG ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 105(a) of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (22), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (23), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (23) the following:
       ``(24) the construction or improvement of tornado- or 
     storm-safe shelters for manufactured housing parks and 
     residents of other manufactured housing, the acquisition of 
     real property for sites for such shelters, and the provision 
     of assistance (including loans and grants) to nonprofit or 
     for-profit entities (including owners of such parks) for such 
     construction, improvement, or acquisition, except that a 
     shelter assisted with amounts made available pursuant to this 
     paragraph--
       ``(A) shall be located in a neighborhood consisting 
     predominantly of persons of low- and moderate-income; and
       ``(B) may not be made available exclusively for use of the 
     residents of a particular manufactured housing park or of 
     other manufactured housing, but shall generally serve the 
     residents of the area in which it is located; and''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to any 
     amounts otherwise made available for grants under title I of 
     the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
     5301 et seq.), there is authorized to be appropriated for 
     assistance only for activities pursuant to section 105(a)(24) 
     of that Act, $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.

     SEC. 3. USE OF AMERICAN PRODUCTS.

       (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--It 
     is the sense of the Congress that, to the greatest extent 
     practicable, all equipment and products purchased with funds 
     made available for the activities authorized under the 
     amendments made by this Act should be American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made

[[Page S3345]]

     available for the activities authorized under the amendments 
     made by this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development, to the greatest extent practicable, shall 
     provide to that entity a notice describing the statement made 
     in subsection (a) by the Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Craig, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
        Murkowski, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Burns):
  S. 681. A bill to help ensure general aviation aircraft access to 
Federal land and to the airspace over that land; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the 
Backcountry Landing Strip Access Act of 2001. Last year, Senators Craig 
and Burns, and I introduced similar legislation. Although the 
legislation did not pass, we were able to successfully attach a 
modified one-year version of our bill to the Interior Appropriations 
Conference Report for FY 2001, prohibiting federal funds from being 
used to close any airstrips on lands administered by the Department of 
the Interior. The legislation I introduce today represents a 
comprehensive, long-term solution to the problem of backcountry 
airstrips being temporarily or permanently closed. This bill will 
preserve our nation's backcountry airstrips and require a public review 
and comment period before closure of these airstrips.
  Idaho is home to more than fifty backcountry airstrips and the state 
is known nationwide for its air access to wilderness and primitive 
areas. Unfortunately, many backcountry airstrips have been closed or 
rendered unserviceable through neglect by federal agencies responsible 
for land management. These closures occur without providing the public 
with a justification for such action or an opportunity to comment on 
them.
  Our bill would address this situation by preventing the Secretary of 
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from permanently closing 
airstrips without first consulting with state aviation agencies and 
users. The legislation would also require that proposed closures would 
be published in the Federal Register with a ninety-day public comment 
period. The bill directs the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of 
Agriculture, after consultation with the FAA, to adopt a nationwide 
policy governing backcountry aviation. I would like to mention that 
Congressmen C.L. ``Butch'' Otter and Jim Hansen are also promoting 
backcountry aviation access in the other body.
  This bill and its House companion include a finding of fact that 
acknowledges the role of backcountry airstrips in supporting aerial 
firefighters. This finding was not included in the versions introduced 
last year but it pays tribute to those who joined in last summer's 
firefighting and disaster relief efforts.
  For aerial firefighters backcountry airstrips are analogous to fire 
engines in a firehouse. In addition, other general aviation craft 
depend on backcountry strips to provide a safe haven in the case of 
emergency. Without the airstrips, these pilots would have little chance 
of survival while attempting an emergency landing. Furthermore, access 
to the strips ensures a fundamental American service--universal postal 
delivery. Without access to backcountry airstrips, citizens who live 
and work in remote areas would not receive their mail.
  Pilots often discover that an airstrip has been closed only when they 
attempt to use it. This represents a grave danger to those who have not 
been made aware of an airstrip's closure. This bill would ensure that 
everyone with an interest in backcountry aviation remains informed of a 
proposed closure and is allowed to comment on it.
  This bill is simply about safety and general aviation access. It does 
not reopen airstrips that have already been closed, nor does it burden 
federal officials with the responsibility to operate and maintain these 
sites. In fact, pilots themselves regularly maintain backcountry 
strips.
  The Backcountry Landing Strip Access Act does not harm our forests or 
our wilderness areas. In fact, backcountry airstrips are regularly used 
by forest officials to maintain forests and trails, conduct ecological 
management projects, and produce aerial mapping. Airstrips are located 
in remote, rugged areas of the west where there are few visitors. Many 
landing strips have no more than 3-6 takeoffs and landings in a year, 
and are mainly used for emergency landings.
  When the Frank Church Wilderness Act was established in Idaho, it 
incorporated a provision that existing landing strips cannot be closed 
permanently or rendered unserviceable without the written consent of 
the State of Idaho. This bill extends the success of the Frank Church 
Wilderness Act provision nationwide to preserve airstrips in Idaho as 
well as other states. In Idaho, we have evolved into a cooperative 
relationship with federal land managers. I believe the rest of the 
country can benefit from this philosophy of cooperation.
  I urge my colleagues to join with us in our efforts to preserve the 
remaining backcountry strips.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 681

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Backcountry Landing Strip 
     Access Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Aircraft landing strips serve an essential safety role 
     as emergency landing areas.
       (2) Aircraft landing strips provide access to people who 
     would otherwise be physically unable to enjoy national parks, 
     national forests, and other Federal lands.
       (3) Aircraft landing strips serve an essential purpose in 
     search and rescue, forest and ecological management, 
     research, and aerial mapping.
       (4) Aircraft landing strips serve an essential role in 
     firefighting and disaster relief.
       (5) The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture should adopt a nationwide policy for governing 
     backcountry aviation issues related to the management of 
     Federal land under the jurisdiction of those Secretaries and 
     should require regional managers to adhere to that policy.

     SEC. 3. PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERATION OF ACTIONS AFFECTING 
                   AIRCRAFT LANDING STRIPS.

       (a) In General.--Neither the Secretary of the Interior nor 
     the Secretary of Agriculture shall take any action which 
     would permanently close or render or declare as unserviceable 
     any aircraft landing strip located on Federal land under the 
     administrative jurisdiction of either Secretary unless--
       (1) the head of the aviation department of each State in 
     which the aircraft landing strip is located has approved the 
     action;
       (2) notice of the proposed action and the fact that the 
     action would permanently close or render or declare as 
     unserviceable the aircraft landing strip has been published 
     in the Federal Register;
       (3) a 90-day public comment period on the action has been 
     provided after the publication under paragraph (2); and
       (4) any comments received during the comment period 
     provided under paragraph (3) have been taken into 
     consideration by the Secretary of the Interior or the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, as the case may be, and the head of 
     the aviation department of each State in which the affected 
     aircraft landing strip is located.
       (b) National Policy.--Not later than 2 years after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
     and the Secretary of Agriculture shall--
       (1) adopt a nationwide policy that is in accordance with 
     this Act for governing backcountry aviation issues related to 
     the management of Federal land under the jurisdiction of 
     those Secretaries; and
       (2) require regional managers to adhere to that policy.
       (c) Requirements for Policies.--A policy affecting air 
     access to an aircraft landing strip located on Federal land 
     under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or 
     the Secretary of Agriculture, including the policy required 
     by subsection (b), shall not take effect unless the policy--
       (1) states that the Federal Aviation Administration has the 
     sole authority to control aviation and airspace over the 
     United States; and
       (2) seeks and considers comments from State governments and 
     the public.
       (d) Maintenance of Airstrips.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior and the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall consult with--
       (A) the head of the aviation department of each State in 
     which an aircraft landing strip on Federal land under the 
     jurisdiction of that Secretary is located; and
       (B) other interested parties,
     to ensure that such aircraft landing strips are maintained in 
     a manner that is consistent with the resource values of the 
     adjacent area.
       (2) Cooperative agreements.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     and the Secretary of Agriculture may enter into cooperative 
     agreements with interested parties for the

[[Page S3346]]

     maintenance of aircraft landing strips located on Federal 
     land.
       (e) Exchanges or Acquisitions.--Closure or purposeful 
     neglect of any aircraft landing strip, or any other action 
     which would render any aircraft landing strip unserviceable, 
     shall not be a condition of any Federal acquisition of or 
     exchange involving private property upon which the aircraft 
     landing strip is located.
       (f) New Aircraft Landing Strips Not Created.--Nothing in 
     this Act shall be construed to create or authorize additional 
     aircraft landing strips.
       (g) Permanently Close.--For the purposes of this Act, the 
     term ``permanently close'' means any closure the duration of 
     which is more than 180 days in any calendar year.
       (h) Applicability.--
       (1) Aircraft landing strips.--This Act shall apply only to 
     established aircraft landing strips on Federal lands 
     administered by the Secretary of the Interior or the 
     Secretary of Agriculture that are commonly known and have 
     been or are consistently used for aircraft landing and 
     departure activities.
       (2) Actions, policies, exchanges, and acquisitions.--
     Subsections (a), (c), and (e) shall apply to any action, 
     policy, exchange, or acquisition, respectively, that is not 
     final on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (i) FAA Authority Not Affected.--Nothing in this Act shall 
     be construed to affect the authority of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration over aviation or airspace.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Warner, 
        Mr. DeWine, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Helms, 
        Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reid, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. 
        Hollings, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Smith, of Oregon, Mr. 
        Cochran, Mr. Reed, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Thurmond, Ms. 
        Snowe, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Cleland, 
        Mr. Brownback, and Mrs. Collins):
  S. 682. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to 
restore the link between the maximum amount of earnings by blind 
individuals permitted without demonstrating ability to engage in 
substantial gainful activity and the exempt amount permitted in 
determining excess earnings under the earnings test; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important 
piece of legislation which would have a tremendous impact on the lives 
of many blind people. This bill restores the 20-year link between blind 
people and senior citizens in regards to the Social Security earnings 
limit which has helped many blind people become self-sufficient and 
productive.
  When the Congress passed the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act in 
1996, we unfortunately broke the longstanding linkage in the treatment 
of blind people and seniors under Social Security, which resulted in 
allowing the earnings limit to be raised for seniors only and did not 
give blind people the same opportunity to increase their earnings 
without penalizing their Social Security benefits.
  My intent when I sponsored the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act 
was not to break the link between blind people and the senior 
population. In 1996, time constraints and fiscal considerations forced 
me to focus solely on raising the unfair and burdensome earnings limit 
for seniors. I am pleased that H.R. 5, the Social Security Earnings 
Test Elimination bill, finally eliminated this unfair tax on earnings 
for seniors 65 to 69 years of age. This law is allowing millions of 
seniors to continue contributing to society as productive workers.
  Now we should work together in the spirit of fairness to ensure that 
this same opportunity is given to the blind population. We should 
provide blind people the opportunity to be productive and ``make it'' 
on their own. We should not continue policies which discourage these 
individuals from working and contributing to society.
  The bill I am introducing today is identical to one I sponsored in 
the last two Congresses. If we do not reinstate the link between the 
blind and the seniors, blind people will be restricted to earning 
$14,800 in the year 2002 in order to protect their Social Security 
benefits.
  There are very strong and convincing arguments in favor of 
reestablishing the link between these two groups and increasing the 
earnings limit for blind people.
  First, the earnings test treatment of our blind and senior 
populations has historically been identical. Since 1977, blind people 
and senior citizens have shared the identical earnings exemption 
threshold under Title II of the Social Security Act.
  Now, senior citizens will be given greater opportunity to increase 
their earnings without losing a portion of their Social Security 
benefits; the blind, however, will not have the same opportunity.
  The Social Security earnings test imposes a work disincentive for 
blind people. In fact, the earnings test probably provides a greater 
aggregate disincentive for blind individuals since many blind 
beneficiaries are of working age, 18-65, and are capable of productive 
work.
  Blindness is often associated with adverse social and economic 
consequences. It is often tremendously difficult for blind individuals 
to find sustained employment or any employment at all, but they do want 
to work. They take great pride in being able to work and becoming 
productive members of society. By linking the blind with seniors in 
1977, Congress provided a great deal of hope and incentive for blind 
people in this country to enter the work force. Now, we are taking that 
hope away from them by not allowing them the same opportunity to 
increase their earnings as senior citizens.
  Blind people are likely to respond favorably to an increase in the 
earnings test by working more, which will increase their tax payments 
and their purchasing power and allow the blind to make a greater 
contribution to the general economy. In addition, encouraging the blind 
to work and allowing them to work more without being penalized would 
bring additional revenue into the Social Security trust funds as well 
as the Federal Treasury. In short, restoring the link between blind 
people and senior citizens for treatment of Social Security benefits 
would help many blind people become self-sufficient, productive members 
of society.
  I am pleased that this Congress will be focusing on the overall 
structure of the Social Security system and working together for 
solutions which would strengthen the system for seniors of today and 
tomorrow without placing an unfair burden on working Americans. It is 
absolutely crucial that we include raising the earnings test for blind 
individuals as a part of any Social Security bill we enact this year.
  I urge each of my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this important 
measure to restore fair and equitable treatment for our blind citizens 
and to give the blind community increased financial independence. Our 
nation would be better served if we restore equality for the blind and 
provide them with the same freedom, opportunities and fairness as our 
nation's seniors.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 682

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Blind Persons Earnings 
     Equity Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF LINK BETWEEN RULES RELATING TO 
                   SUBSTANTIAL GAINFUL ACTIVITY FOR BLIND 
                   INDIVIDUALS AND RULES RELATING TO EXCESS 
                   EARNINGS UNDER THE EARNINGS TEST.

       Section 223(d)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     432(d)(4)) is amended, in the second sentence, by striking 
     ``, if section 102 of the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act 
     of 1996 had not been enacted''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendment made by section 2 shall apply to 
     determinations of an ability to engage in substantial gainful 
     activity made on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. Smith of 
        New Hampshire):
  S. 683. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
individuals a refundable credit against income tax for the purchase of 
private health insurance, and to establish State health insurance 
safety-net programs; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues, Senators 
Bob Torricelli of New Jersey and Bob Smith of New Hampshire, in 
introducing the bipartisan Fair Care for the Uninsured Act of 2001, 
legislation

[[Page S3347]]

aimed at ensuring that all Americans, regardless of income, have a 
basic level of resources to purchase health insurance. I am pleased 
that House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas and Representative Bill 
Lipinski of Illinois have joined in introducing companion legislation 
in the House of Representatives.
  As we all know, the growing ranks of uninsured Americans, currently 
43 million, remains a major national problem that must be addressed as 
Congress considers improvements to our healthcare delivery system. The 
uninsured are three times as likely not to receive needed medical care, 
at least twice as more likely to need hospitalization for avoidable 
conditions like pneumonia and diabetes, and four times more likely to 
rely on an emergency room or have no regular source of care as compared 
to Americans who are privately insured.
  The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act represents a major step toward 
helping the uninsured obtain health insurance coverage through the 
creation of a new refundable tax credit for the purchase of private 
health insurance, a concept which enjoys bipartisan support.
  This legislation directly addresses one of the main barriers which 
now inhibits access to health insurance for millions of Americans: 
discrimination in the tax code. Most Americans obtain health insurance 
through their place of work, and for good reason: workers receive their 
employer's contribution toward health insurance completely free from 
federal taxation, including payroll taxes. This is effectively a $120 
billion per year federal subsidy for employer-provided health 
insurance. By contrast, individuals who purchase their own health 
insurance get virtually no tax relief. They must buy insurance with 
after-tax dollars, forcing many to earn twice as much income before 
taxes in order to purchase the same insurance. This hidden health tax 
penalty effectively punishes people who try to buy their insurance 
outside the workplace.
  The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act would remedy this situation by 
creating a parallel system for working families who do not have access 
to health insurance through the workplace. Specifically, this 
legislation creates a refundable tax credit of $1,000 per adult and up 
to $3,000 per family, indexed for inflation, for the purchase of 
private health insurance; would be available to individuals and 
families who don't have access to coverage through the workplace or a 
federal government program; enables individuals to use their credit to 
shop for a basic plan that best suits their needs which would be 
portable from job to job; and allows individuals to buy more generous 
coverage with after-tax dollars. And of course the states could 
supplement the credit.
  This legislation complements a bipartisan consensus which is emerging 
around this means for addressing the serious problem of uninsured 
Americans: Instead of creating new government entitlements to medical 
services, tax credits provide public financing to help uninsured 
Americans buy private health insurance. President Bush has proposed a 
similar tax credit for health insurance coverage, and Senators Jeffords 
and Breaux have introduced their own health insurance tax credit 
proposal here in the Senate. I applaud their efforts for advancing this 
important public policy initiative, and look forward to working with 
them to develop a clear mandate for helping America's uninsured.
  I would like to apprize our colleagues of a couple of improvements 
which we have added to last session's bill that I believe will help 
bring about an even more positive impact on America's uninsured 
population. First, in an effort to keep premiums affordable for older, 
sicker Americans, our Fair Care legislation calls for the creation of 
safety-net arrangements administered at the state level and funded by 
assessments on insurers. Often called high-risk pools, such 
arrangements currently exist in 28 states and would be expanded to all 
50. In addition, our Fair Care legislation this session would further 
reduce premiums by permitting the creation of Individual Membership 
Associations, through which individuals can obtain basic coverage free 
of costly state benefit mandates.
  In reducing the amount of uncompensated care that is offset through 
cost shifting to private insurance plans, and in substantially 
increasing the insurance base, a health insurance tax credit will help 
relieve some of the spiraling costs of our health care delivery system. 
It would also encourage insurance companies to write policies geared to 
the size of the credit, thus offering more options and making it 
possible for low income families to obtain coverage without paying much 
more than the available credits.
  It is time that we reduced the tax bias against families who do not 
have access to coverage through their place of work or existing 
government programs, and to encourage the creation of an effective 
market for family-selected and family-owned plans, where Americans have 
more choice and control over their health care dollars. The Fair Care 
for the Uninsured Act would create tax fairness where currently none 
exists by requiring that all Americans receive the same tax 
encouragement to purchase health insurance, regardless of employment.
  It is my hope that our colleagues will join Senators Torricelli, 
Smith and me in endorsing this bipartisan legislation to provide people 
who purchase health insurance on their own similar tax treatment as 
those who have access to insurance through their employer.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 683

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Care for the Uninsured 
     Act of 2001''.

        TITLE I--REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE

     SEC. 101. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.

       (a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     refundable credits) is amended by redesignating section 35 as 
     section 36 and by inserting after section 34 the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 35. HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of an individual, there 
     shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this 
     subtitle an amount equal to the amount paid during the 
     taxable year for qualified health insurance for the taxpayer, 
     his spouse, and dependents.
       ``(b) Limitations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount allowed as a credit under 
     subsection (a) to the taxpayer for the taxable year shall not 
     exceed the sum of the monthly limitations for coverage months 
     during such taxable year for each individual referred to in 
     subsection (a) for whom the taxpayer paid during the taxable 
     year any amount for coverage under qualified health 
     insurance.
       ``(2) Monthly limitation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The monthly limitation for an individual 
     for each coverage month of such individual during the taxable 
     year is the amount equal to 1/12 of--
       ``(i) $1,000 if such individual is the taxpayer,
       ``(ii) $1,000 if--

       ``(I) such individual is the spouse of the taxpayer,
       ``(II) the taxpayer and such spouse are married as of the 
     first day of such month, and
       ``(III) the taxpayer files a joint return for the taxable 
     year, and

       ``(iii) $500 if such individual is an individual for whom a 
     deduction under section 151(c) is allowable to the taxpayer 
     for such taxable year.
       ``(B) Limitation to 2 dependents.--Not more than 2 
     individuals may be taken into account by the taxpayer under 
     subparagraph (A)(iii).
       ``(C) Special rule for married individuals.--In the case of 
     an individual--
       ``(i) who is married (within the meaning of section 7703) 
     as of the close of the taxable year but does not file a joint 
     return for such year, and
       ``(ii) who does not live apart from such individual's 
     spouse at all times during the taxable year,
     the limitation imposed by subparagraph (B) shall be divided 
     equally between the individual and the individual's spouse 
     unless they agree on a different division.
       ``(3) Coverage month.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `coverage month' means, with 
     respect to an individual, any month if--
       ``(i) as of the first day of such month such individual is 
     covered by qualified health insurance, and
       ``(ii) the premium for coverage under such insurance for 
     such month is paid by the taxpayer.
       ``(B) Employer-subsidized coverage.--
       ``(i) In general.--Such term shall not include any month 
     for which such individual is eligible to participate in any 
     subsidized health plan (within the meaning of section 
     162(l)(2)) maintained by any employer of the taxpayer or of 
     the spouse of the taxpayer.

[[Page S3348]]

       ``(ii) Premiums to nonsubsidized plans.--If an employer of 
     the taxpayer or the spouse of the taxpayer maintains a health 
     plan which is not a subsidized health plan (as so defined) 
     and which constitutes qualified health insurance, employee 
     contributions to the plan shall be treated as amounts paid 
     for qualified health insurance.
       ``(C) Cafeteria plan and flexible spending account 
     beneficiaries.--Such term shall not include any month during 
     a taxable year if any amount is not includible in the gross 
     income of the taxpayer for such year under section 106 with 
     respect to--
       ``(i) a benefit chosen under a cafeteria plan (as defined 
     in section 125(d)), or
       ``(ii) a benefit provided under a flexible spending or 
     similar arrangement.
       ``(D) Medicare and medicaid.--Such term shall not include 
     any month with respect to an individual if, as of the first 
     day of such month, such individual--
       ``(i) is entitled to any benefits under title XVIII of the 
     Social Security Act, or
       ``(ii) is a participant in the program under title XIX or 
     XXI of such Act.
       ``(E) Certain other coverage.--Such term shall not include 
     any month during a taxable year with respect to an individual 
     if, at any time during such year, any benefit is provided to 
     such individual under--
       ``(i) chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code,
       ``(ii) chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code,
       ``(iii) chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, or
       ``(iv) any medical care program under the Indian Health 
     Care Improvement Act.
       ``(F) Prisoners.--Such term shall not include any month 
     with respect to an individual if, as of the first day of such 
     month, such individual is imprisoned under Federal, State, or 
     local authority.
       ``(G) Insufficient presence in united states.--Such term 
     shall not include any month during a taxable year with 
     respect to an individual if such individual is present in the 
     United States on fewer than 183 days during such year 
     (determined in accordance with section 7701(b)(7)).
       ``(4) Coordination with deduction for health insurance 
     costs of self-employed individuals.--In the case of a 
     taxpayer who is eligible to deduct any amount under section 
     162(l) for the taxable year, this section shall apply only if 
     the taxpayer elects not to claim any amount as a deduction 
     under such section for such year.
       ``(c) Qualified Health Insurance.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified health insurance' 
     means insurance which constitutes medical care as defined in 
     section 213(d) without regard to--
       ``(A) paragraph (1)(C) thereof, and
       ``(B) so much of paragraph (1)(D) thereof as relates to 
     qualified long-term care insurance contracts.
       ``(2) Exclusion of certain other contracts.--Such term 
     shall not include insurance if a substantial portion of its 
     benefits are excepted benefits (as defined in section 
     9832(c)).
       ``(d) Medical Savings Account Contributions.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a deduction would (but for paragraph 
     (2)) be allowed under section 220 to the taxpayer for a 
     payment for the taxable year to the medical savings account 
     of an individual, subsection (a) shall be applied by treating 
     such payment as a payment for qualified health insurance for 
     such individual.
       ``(2) Denial of double benefit.--No deduction shall be 
     allowed under section 220 for that portion of the payments 
     otherwise allowable as a deduction under section 220 for the 
     taxable year which is equal to the amount of credit allowed 
     for such taxable year by reason of this subsection.
       ``(e) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Coordination with medical expense deduction.--The 
     amount which would (but for this paragraph) be taken into 
     account by the taxpayer under section 213 for the taxable 
     year shall be reduced by the credit (if any) allowed by this 
     section to the taxpayer for such year.
       ``(2) Denial of credit to dependents.--No credit shall be 
     allowed under this section to any individual with respect to 
     whom a deduction under section 151 is allowable to another 
     taxpayer for a taxable year beginning in the calendar year in 
     which such individual's taxable year begins.
       ``(3) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any taxable 
     year beginning in a calendar year after 2002, each dollar 
     amount contained in subsection (b)(2)(A) shall be increased 
     by an amount equal to--
       ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2001' 
     for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
     Any increase determined under the preceding sentence shall be 
     rounded to the nearest multiple of $50 ($25 in the case of 
     the dollar amount in subsection (b)(2)(A)(iii)).''
       (b) Maintenance of Effort Requirement.--Section 162 of such 
     Code (relating to trade or business expenses) is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (p) as subsection (q) and by 
     inserting after subsection (o) the following new subsection:
       ``(p) Group Health Plan Maintenance of Effort.--No 
     deduction shall be allowed under this chapter to an employer 
     for any amount paid or incurred in connection with a group 
     health plan (as defined in subsection (n)(3)) for any taxable 
     year in which occurs the date of introduction of the Fair 
     Care for the Uninsured Act of 2001 unless such plan remains 
     in effect for at least 60 months after the date of the 
     enactment of such Act.''.
       (c) Information Reporting.--
       (1) In general.--Subpart B of part III of subchapter A of 
     chapter 61 of such Code (relating to information concerning 
     transactions with other persons) is amended by inserting 
     after section 6050S the following new section:

     ``SEC. 6050T. RETURNS RELATING TO PAYMENTS FOR QUALIFIED 
                   HEALTH INSURANCE.

       ``(a) In General.--Any person who, in connection with a 
     trade or business conducted by such person, receives payments 
     during any calendar year from any individual for coverage of 
     such individual or any other individual under creditable 
     health insurance, shall make the return described in 
     subsection (b) (at such time as the Secretary may by 
     regulations prescribe) with respect to each individual from 
     whom such payments were received.
       ``(b) Form and Manner of Returns.--A return is described in 
     this subsection if such return--
       ``(1) is in such form as the Secretary may prescribe, and
       ``(2) contains--
       ``(A) the name, address, and TIN of the individual from 
     whom payments described in subsection (a) were received,
       ``(B) the name, address, and TIN of each individual who was 
     provided by such person with coverage under creditable health 
     insurance by reason of such payments and the period of such 
     coverage, and
       ``(C) such other information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably prescribe.
       ``(c) Creditable Health Insurance.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `creditable health insurance' means 
     qualified health insurance (as defined in section 35(c)) 
     other than--
       ``(1) insurance under a subsidized group health plan 
     maintained by an employer, or
       ``(2) to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by 
     the Secretary, any other insurance covering an individual if 
     no credit is allowable under section 35 with respect to such 
     coverage.
       ``(d) Statements To Be Furnished to Individuals With 
     Respect to Whom Information Is Required.--Every person 
     required to make a return under subsection (a) shall furnish 
     to each individual whose name is required under subsection 
     (b)(2)(A) to be set forth in such return a written statement 
     showing--
       ``(1) the name and address of the person required to make 
     such return and the phone number of the information contact 
     for such person,
       ``(2) the aggregate amount of payments described in 
     subsection (a) received by the person required to make such 
     return from the individual to whom the statement is required 
     to be furnished, and
       ``(3) the information required under subsection (b)(2)(B) 
     with respect to such payments.
     The written statement required under the preceding sentence 
     shall be furnished on or before January 31 of the year 
     following the calendar year for which the return under 
     subsection (a) is required to be made.
       ``(e) Returns Which Would Be Required To Be Made by 2 or 
     More Persons.--Except to the extent provided in regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary, in the case of any amount 
     received by any person on behalf of another person, only the 
     person first receiving such amount shall be required to make 
     the return under subsection (a).''.
       (2) Assessable penalties.--
       (A) Subparagraph (B) of section 6724(d)(1) of such Code 
     (relating to definitions) is amended by redesignating clauses 
     (xi) through (xvii) as clauses (xii) through (xviii), 
     respectively, and by inserting after clause (x) the following 
     new clause:
       ``(xi) section 6050T (relating to returns relating to 
     payments for qualified health insurance),''.
       (B) Paragraph (2) of section 6724(d) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``or'' at the end of the next to last 
     subparagraph, by striking the period at the end of the last 
     subparagraph and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the end 
     the following new subparagraph:
       ``(BB) section 6050T(d) (relating to returns relating to 
     payments for qualified health insurance).''.
       (3) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     B of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6050S 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 6050T. Returns relating to payments for qualified health 
              insurance.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting before the period ``, or 
     from section 35 of such Code''.
       (2) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking 
     the last item and inserting the following new items:

``Sec. 35. Health insurance costs.
``Sec. 36. Overpayments of tax.''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.

[[Page S3349]]

     SEC. 102. ADVANCE PAYMENT OF CREDIT FOR PURCHASERS OF 
                   QUALIFIED HEALTH INSURANCE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 77 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to miscellaneous provisions) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 7527. ADVANCE PAYMENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE CREDIT FOR 
                   PURCHASERS OF QUALIFIED HEALTH INSURANCE.

       ``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an eligible individual, 
     the Secretary shall make payments to the provider of such 
     individual's qualified health insurance equal to such 
     individual's qualified health insurance credit advance amount 
     with respect to such provider.
       ``(b) Eligible Individual.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `eligible individual' means any individual--
       ``(1) who purchases qualified health insurance (as defined 
     in section 35(c)), and
       ``(2) for whom a qualified health insurance credit 
     eligibility certificate is in effect.
       ``(c) Qualified Health Insurance Credit Eligibility 
     Certificate.--For purposes of this section, a qualified 
     health insurance credit eligibility certificate is a 
     statement furnished by an individual to the Secretary which--
       ``(1) certifies that the individual will be eligible to 
     receive the credit provided by section 35 for the taxable 
     year,
       ``(2) estimates the amount of such credit for such taxable 
     year, and
       ``(3) provides such other information as the Secretary may 
     require for purposes of this section.
       ``(d) Qualified Health Insurance Credit Advance Amount.--
     For purposes of this section, the term `qualified health 
     insurance credit advance amount' means, with respect to any 
     provider of qualified health insurance, the Secretary's 
     estimate of the amount of credit allowable under section 35 
     to the individual for the taxable year which is attributable 
     to the insurance provided to the individual by such provider.
       ``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of 
     this section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     77 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:

``Sec. 7527. Advance payment of health insurance credit for purchasers 
              of qualified health insurance.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on January 1, 2002.

     TITLE II--ASSURING HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR UNINSURABLE 
                              INDIVIDUALS

     SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE SAFETY NETS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Requirement.--For years beginning with 2002, each 
     health insurer, health maintenance organization, and health 
     service organization shall be a participant in a health 
     insurance safety net (in this title referred to as a ``safety 
     net'') established by the State in which it operates.
       (2) Functions.--Any safety net shall assure, in accordance 
     with this title, the availability of qualified health 
     insurance coverage to uninsurable individuals.
       (3) Funding.--Any safety net shall be funded by an 
     assessment against health insurers, health service 
     organizations, and health maintenance organizations on a pro 
     rata basis of premiums collected in the State in which the 
     safety net operates. The costs of the assessment may be added 
     by a health insurer, health service organization, or health 
     maintenance organization to the costs of its health insurance 
     or health coverage provided in the State.
       (4) Guaranteed renewable.--Coverage under a safety net 
     shall be guaranteed renewable except for nonpayment of 
     premiums, material misrepresentation, fraud, medicare 
     eligibility under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395 et seq.), loss of dependent status, or 
     eligibility for other health insurance coverage.
       (5) Compliance with naic model act.--In the case of a State 
     that has not established, as of the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, a high risk pool or other comprehensive health 
     insurance program that assures the availability of qualified 
     health insurance coverage to all eligible individuals 
     residing in the State, a safety net shall be established in 
     accordance with the requirements of the ``Model Health Plan 
     For Uninsurable Individuals Act'' (or the successor model 
     Act), as adopted by the National Association of Insurance 
     Commissioners and as in effect on the date of the safety 
     net's establishment.
       (b) Deadline.--Safety nets required under subsection (a) 
     shall be established not later than January 1, 2002.
       (c) Waiver.--This title shall not apply in the case of 
     insurers and organizations operating in a State if the State 
     has established a similar comprehensive health insurance 
     program that assures the availability of qualified health 
     insurance coverage to all eligible individuals residing in 
     the State.
       (d) Recommendation for Compliance Requirement.--Not later 
     than January 1, 2003, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall submit to Congress a recommendation on 
     appropriate sanctions for States that fail to meet the 
     requirement of subsection (a).

     SEC. 202. UNINSURABLE INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE FOR COVERAGE.

       (a) Uninsurable and Eligible Individual Defined.--In this 
     title:
       (1) Uninsurable individual.--The term ``uninsurable 
     individual'' means, with respect to a State, an eligible 
     individual who presents proof of uninsurability by a private 
     insurer in accordance with subsection (b) or proof of a 
     condition previously recognized as uninsurable by the State.
       (2) Eligible individual.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``eligible individual'' means, 
     with respect to a State, a citizen or national of the United 
     States (or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 
     residence) who is a resident of the State for at least 90 
     days and includes any dependent (as defined for purposes of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) of such a citizen, 
     national, or alien who also is such a resident.
       (B) Exception.--An individual is not an ``eligible 
     individual'' if the individual--
       (i) is covered by or eligible for benefits under a State 
     medicaid plan approved under title XIX of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.),
       (ii) has voluntarily terminated safety net coverage within 
     the past 6 months,
       (iii) has received the maximum benefit payable under the 
     safety net,
       (iv) is an inmate in a public institution, or
       (v) is eligible for other public or private health care 
     programs (including programs that pay for directly, or 
     reimburse, otherwise eligible individuals with premiums 
     charged for safety net coverage).
       (b) Proof of Uninsurability.--
       (1) In general.--The proof of uninsurability for an 
     individual shall be in the form of--
       (A) a notice of rejection or refusal to issue substantially 
     similar health insurance for health reasons by one insurer; 
     or
       (B) a notice of refusal by an insurer to issue 
     substantially similar health insurance except at a rate in 
     excess of the rate applicable to the individual under the 
     safety net plan.
     For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``health insurance'' 
     does not include insurance consisting only of stoploss, 
     excess of loss, or reinsurance coverage.
       (2) Exception for individuals with uninsurable 
     conditions.--The State shall promulgate a list of medical or 
     health conditions for which an individual shall be eligible 
     for safety net plan coverage without applying for health 
     insurance or establishing proof of uninsurability under 
     paragraph (1). Individuals who can demonstrate the existence 
     or history of any medical or health conditions on such list 
     shall not be required to provide the proof described in 
     paragraph (1). The list shall be effective on the first day 
     of the operation of the safety net plan and may be amended 
     from time to time as may be appropriate.

     SEC. 203. QUALIFIED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE UNDER SAFETY 
                   NET.

       In this title, the term ``qualified health insurance 
     coverage'' means, with respect to a State, health insurance 
     coverage that provides benefits typical of major medical 
     insurance available in the individual health insurance market 
     in such State.

     SEC. 204. FUNDING OF SAFETY NET.

       (a) Limitations on Premiums.--
       (1) In general.--The premium established under a safety net 
     may not exceed 125 percent of the applicable standard risk 
     rate, except as provided in paragraph (2).
       (2) Surcharge for avoidable health risks.--A safety net may 
     impose a surcharge on premiums for individuals with avoidable 
     high risks, such as smoking.
       (b) Additional Funding.--A safety net shall provide for 
     additional funding through an assessment on all health 
     insurers, health service organizations, and health 
     maintenance organizations in the State through a nonprofit 
     association consisting of all such insurers and organizations 
     doing business in the State on an equitable and pro rata 
     basis consistent with section 201.

     SEC. 205. ADMINISTRATION.

       A safety net in a State shall be administered through a 
     contract with 1 or more insurers or third party 
     administrators operating in the State.

     SEC. 206. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to reimburse States for their costs in 
     administering this title.

             TITLE III--INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP ASSOCIATIONS

     SEC. 301. EXPANSION OF ACCESS AND CHOICE THROUGH INDIVIDUAL 
                   MEMBERSHIP ASSOCIATIONS (IMAS).

       The Public Health Service Act is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new title:

           ``TITLE XXVIII--INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP ASSOCIATIONS

     ``SEC. 2801. DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP ASSOCIATION 
                   (IMA).

       ``(a) In General.--For purposes of this title, the terms 
     `individual membership association' and `IMA' mean a legal 
     entity that meets the following requirements:
       ``(1) Organization.--The IMA is an organization operated 
     under the direction of an association (as defined in section 
     2804(1)).
       ``(2) Offering health benefits coverage.--
       ``(A) Different groups.--The IMA, in conjunction with those 
     health insurance issuers that offer health benefits coverage 
     through the IMA, makes available health benefits coverage in 
     the manner described in subsection (b) to all members of the 
     IMA and the dependents of such members in the manner 
     described in subsection (c)(2) at rates

[[Page S3350]]

     that are established by the health insurance issuer on a 
     policy or product specific basis and that may vary only as 
     permissible under State law.
       ``(B) Nondiscrimination in coverage offered.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the IMA may not 
     offer health benefits coverage to a member of an IMA unless 
     the same coverage is offered to all such members of the IMA.
       ``(ii) Construction.--Nothing in this title shall be 
     construed as requiring or permitting a health insurance 
     issuer to provide coverage outside the service area of the 
     issuer, as approved under State law, or preventing a health 
     insurance issuer from excluding or limiting the coverage on 
     any individual, subject to the requirement of section 2741.
       ``(C) No financial underwriting.--The IMA provides health 
     benefits coverage only through contracts with health 
     insurance issuers and does not assume insurance risk with 
     respect to such coverage.
       ``(3) Geographic areas.--Nothing in this title shall be 
     construed as preventing the establishment and operation of 
     more than one IMA in a geographic area or as limiting the 
     number of IMAs that may operate in any area.
       ``(4) Provision of administrative services to purchasers.--
       ``(A) In general.--The IMA may provide administrative 
     services for members. Such services may include accounting, 
     billing, and enrollment information.
       ``(B) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed as preventing an IMA from serving as an 
     administrative service organization to any entity.
       ``(5) Filing information.--The IMA files with the Secretary 
     information that demonstrates the IMA's compliance with the 
     applicable requirements of this title.
       ``(b) Health Benefits Coverage Requirements.--
       ``(1) Compliance with consumer protection requirements.--
     Any health benefits coverage offered through an IMA shall--
       ``(A) be underwritten by a health insurance issuer that--
       ``(i) is licensed (or otherwise regulated) under State law,
       ``(ii) meets all applicable State standards relating to 
     consumer protection, subject to section 2802(2), and
       ``(iii) offers the coverage under a contract with the IMA; 
     and
       ``(B) subject to paragraph (2) and section 2902(2), be 
     approved or otherwise permitted to be offered under State 
     law.
       ``(2) Examples of types of coverage.--The benefits coverage 
     made available through an IMA may include, but is not limited 
     to, any of the following if it meets the other applicable 
     requirements of this title:
       ``(A) Coverage through a health maintenance organization.
       ``(B) Coverage in connection with a preferred provider 
     organization.
       ``(C) Coverage in connection with a licensed provider-
     sponsored organization.
       ``(D) Indemnity coverage through an insurance company.
       ``(E) Coverage offered in connection with a contribution 
     into a medical savings account or flexible spending account.
       ``(F) Coverage that includes a point-of-service option.
       ``(G) Any combination of such types of coverage.
       ``(3) Health insurance coverage options.--An IMA shall 
     include a minimum of 2 health insurance coverage options. At 
     least 1 option shall meet all applicable State benefit 
     mandates.
       ``(4) Wellness bonuses for health promotion.--Nothing in 
     this title shall be construed as precluding a health 
     insurance issuer offering health benefits coverage through an 
     IMA from establishing premium discounts or rebates for 
     members or from modifying otherwise applicable copayments or 
     deductibles in return for adherence to programs of health 
     promotion and disease prevention so long as such programs are 
     agreed to in advance by the IMA and comply with all other 
     provisions of this title and do not discriminate among 
     similarly situated members.
       ``(c) Members; Health Insurance Issuers.--
       ``(1) Members.--
       ``(A) In general.--Under rules established to carry out 
     this title, with respect to an individual who is a member of 
     an IMA, the individual may apply for health benefits coverage 
     (including coverage for dependents of such individual) 
     offered by a health insurance issuer through the IMA.
       ``(B) Rules for enrollment.--Nothing in this paragraph 
     shall preclude an IMA from establishing rules of enrollment 
     and reenrollment of members. Such rules shall be applied 
     consistently to all members within the IMA and shall not be 
     based in any manner on health status-related factors.
       ``(2) Health insurance issuers.--The contract between an 
     IMA and a health insurance issuer shall provide, with respect 
     to a member enrolled with health benefits coverage offered by 
     the issuer through the IMA, for the payment of the premiums 
     collected by the issuer.

     ``SEC. 2802. APPLICATION OF CERTAIN LAWS AND REQUIREMENTS.

       ``State laws insofar as they relate to any of the following 
     are superseded and shall not apply to health benefits 
     coverage made available through an IMA:
       ``(1) Benefit requirements for health benefits coverage 
     offered through an IMA, including (but not limited to) 
     requirements relating to coverage of specific providers, 
     specific services or conditions, or the amount, duration, or 
     scope of benefits, but not including requirements to the 
     extent required to implement title XXVII or other Federal law 
     and to the extent the requirement prohibits an exclusion of a 
     specific disease from such coverage.
       ``(2) Any other requirements (including limitations on 
     compensation arrangements) that, directly or indirectly, 
     preclude (or have the effect of precluding) the offering of 
     such coverage through an IMA, if the IMA meets the 
     requirements of this title.
     Any State law or regulation relating to the composition or 
     organization of an IMA is preempted to the extent the law or 
     regulation is inconsistent with the provisions of this title.

     ``SEC. 2803. ADMINISTRATION.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer this 
     title and is authorized to issue such regulations as may be 
     required to carry out this title. Such regulations shall be 
     subject to Congressional review under the provisions of 
     chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code. The Secretary shall 
     incorporate the process of `deemed file and use' with respect 
     to the information filed under section 2801(a)(5)(A) and 
     shall determine whether information filed by an IMA 
     demonstrates compliance with the applicable requirements of 
     this title. The Secretary shall exercise authority under this 
     title in a manner that fosters and promotes the development 
     of IMAs in order to improve access to health care coverage 
     and services.
       ``(b) Periodic Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report every 30 months, during the 10-year period 
     beginning on the effective date of the rules promulgated by 
     the Secretary to carry out this title, on the effectiveness 
     of this title in promoting coverage of uninsured individuals. 
     The Secretary may provide for the production of such reports 
     through one or more contracts with appropriate private 
     entities.

     ``SEC. 2804. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For purposes of this title:
       ``(1) Association.--The term `association' means, with 
     respect to health insurance coverage offered in a State, an 
     association which--
       ``(A) has been actively in existence for at least 5 years;
       ``(B) has been formed and maintained in good faith for 
     purposes other than obtaining insurance;
       ``(C) does not condition membership in the association on 
     any health status-related factor relating to an individual 
     (including an employee of an employer or a dependent of an 
     employee); and
       ``(D) does not make health insurance coverage offered 
     through the association available other than in connection 
     with a member of the association.
       ``(2) Dependent.--The term `dependent', as applied to 
     health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance 
     issuer licensed (or otherwise regulated) in a State, shall 
     have the meaning applied to such term with respect to such 
     coverage under the laws of the State relating to such 
     coverage and such an issuer. Such term may include the spouse 
     and children of the individual involved.
       ``(3) Health benefits coverage.--The term `health benefits 
     coverage' has the meaning given the term health insurance 
     coverage in section 2791(b)(1).
       ``(4) Health insurance issuer.--The term `health insurance 
     issuer' has the meaning given such term in section 
     2791(b)(2).
       ``(5) Health status-related factor.--The term `health 
     status-related factor' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 2791(d)(9).
       ``(6) IMA; individual membership association.--The terms 
     `IMA' and `individual membership association' are defined in 
     section 2801(a).
       ``(7) Member.--The term `member' means, with respect to an 
     IMA, an individual who is a member of the association to 
     which the IMA is offering coverage.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Durbin, 
        Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mrs. Murray, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Wellstone, and 
        Mr. Feingold):
  S. 684. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
prohibit discrimination in the payment of wages on account of sex, 
race, or national original, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by 
Senators Murray, Mikulski, Boxer, Stabenow, Kennedy, Durbin, 
Torricelli, Leahy, Inouye, Akaka, Kerry, Wellstone and Feingold to 
reintroduce the Fair Pay Act, a bill to combat pay discrimination 
against women.
  You might think since Congress passed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, the 
wage gap wouldn't exist. Unfortunately, however, women continue to be 
paid only 76-cents for every dollar a white man earns according to the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Women of color experience the most severe 
pay

[[Page S3351]]

inequities: African American women earn only 62-cents on the dollar, 
Hispanic women only 54 cents.
  Earlier today, I released a draft report by the Department of Labor's 
Women's Bureau that helps to explain the wage gap and gives us insight 
into fixing it.
  This report was done based on my request in the FY 2000 Labor-HHS 
Appropriations bill. I asked the Women's Bureau to analyze wage data 
from federal contractors collected over the last two years, focusing on 
the causes of the wage gap between men and women. This is the first 
time in at least a decade that such a comprehensive review and analysis 
of wage data was conducted.
  This three-part draft report, finalized by the Department of Labor in 
January, used updated wage data, including detailed data gathered from 
a sample of nearly 5,000 of our nation's federal contractors.
  This report confirms that the wage gap is real, it's caused in large 
part by discrimination and women in female-dominated jobs suffer the 
most. Specifically, the report found that at least one-third, or about 
11 cents on the dollar, of the pay gap is caused by pay discrimination 
against women.
  How'd we get there? The study found if you compare women and men, in 
the same jobs, in the same firm, with the same experience and skills, 
they are still only paid 89 cents for every dollar a man earns. That 
11-cent gap is unexplained, and is what we believe is pay 
discrimination.
  But if you look at women's overall pay against men, when you take 
into account all of the women who are segregated into what's considered 
``women's work'' and receive lower wages, the pay gap becomes 28 cents.
  If this kind of occupational segregation were eliminated, the wage 
gap would close between 10 and 40 percent, according to this report.
  It doesn't have to be this way. We can start closing the pay gap 
right now by simply paying women what they're worth. That's where the 
Fair Pay Act comes in.
  The Fair Pay Act would require that employers pay their workers based 
on skills, effort, responsibility and effort, regardless if the job is 
considered so-called ``women's work.''
  Millions of women today work in so-called ``women's jobs,'' as 
secretaries, child care workers, social workers and nurses. These jobs 
are often ``equivalent'' in skills, effort, responsibility and working 
conditions to similar jobs dominated by men. But these women aren't 
paid the same as the men. Work that women have traditionally done 
continues to be undervalued and underpaid.
  That's what the Fair Pay Act would address.
  Our bill says that pay discrimination based on the number of women in 
a job is not only un-American, but it is also illegal.
  It doesn't make sense that a nurse practitioner earns less than a 
physician's assistant. Or that a lead administrative assistant makes 
less than a city bus driver. Or that a social worker earns less than a 
parole officer.
  I've heard the argument that we don't need the Fair Pay Act, that 
``market forces'' will eventually take care of it. The market can't and 
isn't supposed to take care of everything. You can't fix discrimination 
with the ``invisible hand.''
  Take a look at this chart of the wage gap over the last 20 years. If 
we continue to rely on ``market forces,'' it will be another century 
before there's true pay equity for women.
  In fact, this study accounts for market forces, and it says that pay 
in women's jobs has increased, but not nearly enough.
  If we had relied on market forces in the past, our country never 
would have set a minimum wage and we wouldn't be taking Family Medical 
Leave to care for our newborns or loved ones. We never would have had 
the Equal Pay Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  Some argue that its impossible to compare the wages of different 
jobs. But, it's done all the time by labor consultants who use ``point 
systems'' based on skills, responsibility and effort required to 
determine the value of a job. Jobs that are different may still receive 
the same total score, meaning, the jobs should be paid about the same. 
Companies would also develop their own evaluation systems and set their 
own wages.
  My state and 19 others have ``fair pay'' laws and policies in place 
for their public employees, and my state has never been stronger.
  Fair pay is not just a women's issue. It's a working family issue. 
It's a retirement issue. When women aren't paid what they're worth, we 
all get cheated. And national polls show that fair pay is a top 
priority for women.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the Fair Pay Act, we owe it to 
America's working women and their families.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of 
the Fair Pay Act. I hope that this is the Congress that will see this 
important piece of legislation enacted. I fear the consequences if we 
do not.
  For thirty-eight years, since enactment of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, 
we have been striving to close the pay gap between men and women. We 
have made some progress, but not nearly enough.
  Today, despite all efforts, women on average earn only 77 cents for 
each dollar that men earn. That's simply not acceptable. As Susan 
Dailey, U.S. President of the National Business and Professional Women 
said, ``Is it acceptable then for women to leave at 1:48 on Thursday 
afternoon because that's three quarters of a work week?'' No, these 
differentials are simply not acceptable.
  Due to the wage gap, it is estimated that the average 25-year-old 
woman will lose approximately $500,000 over her working lifetime.
  That's unfair, it's unjust. And for that reason alone, we need to 
support legislation that will address the root causes of this pay 
inequity.
  But not only is it unjust to women, it's unfair to the whole family. 
It is estimated that the wage gap annually costs America's working 
families $200 billion. Over ten years that's $2 trillion in lost income 
to families as a result of wage disparities. That's more than the 
entire tax cut the Bush Administration is anxious to give back to the 
wealthiest 1 percent of the population!
  This bill can lift families out of poverty. If married women were 
paid the same as men, their families' rate of poverty would fall by 
more than 60 percent. If single working mothers earned as much as their 
male counterparts, their poverty rates would be cut in half.
  That's what this bill is about, paying everyone a decent wage, the 
wage they deserve, so that they can support their families with 
dignity.
  I'm proud that my home state of Minnesota is a leader on this issue. 
Our state comparable worth law is one of the strongest on the books and 
serves as a model for other states. In Minnesota, under our law, both 
state and municipal employees get the benefits of this important 
protection.
  I hope we can follow suit on the federal level. I urge my colleagues 
to act swiftly on this important measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAYH (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Graham, Mr. Lieberman, 
        Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Breaux, 
        Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Carper):
  S. 685. A bill to amend title IV of the Social Security Act to 
strengthen working families, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
will increase a working family's chances to remain self-sufficient and 
off of Welfare. Given the dramatic decline in the welfare caseload 
since 1996, the question remains whether individuals leaving welfare 
will remain off welfare. In order to fortify the successful welfare 
reform efforts of the last five years, I along with a bipartisan group 
of Senators have brought together a legislative package designed to 
honor work, personal responsibility and strengthen a family's chance to 
stay self-sufficient.
  The Strengthening Working Families Act includes six initiatives 
designed to support the efforts of families who have made it off 
welfare, but are at risk of falling backward--especially in a weak 
economy. The provisions of the package include: (1) Promotion of 
Responsible Fatherhood; (2) Distribution of Child Support Directly to 
Families;

[[Page S3352]]

(3) Expansion of the EITC for Larger Families; (4) Restoration of the 
Social Services Block Grant; (5) Encouragement of Employer-sponsored 
Child Care; and (6) Reauthorization of The Safe and Stable Families 
Act.
  The Strengthening Working Families Act provides those who are trying 
to be responsible with a hand-up, not a hand-out. It honors our values, 
in this case the values of work and self-sufficiency, and strengthens 
families who take responsibility for their children emotionally and 
financially.
  This proposal to support continued personal responsibility comes as 
the first stage of welfare reform ends and Congress prepares to tackle 
welfare's hardest cases in the 2002 reauthorization of Temporary Aid to 
Needy Families, TANF. Since the welfare system was reformed to require 
that individuals take responsibility for themselves and their families, 
caseloads have declined. After peaking at 5.1 million families in March 
of 1994, the number of families on welfare has declined by more than 
half, to 2.2 million families in June of 2000. The employment rate for 
single mothers has increased from 57 percent in 1992 to almost 73 
percent in 2000. Even among those remaining on the welfare rolls, work 
has increased sharply, from about 8 percent of adults in 1994 to 28 
percent in 1999.
  This is a fiscally responsible approach that will be good for 
families and good for American taxpayers. As Governor, I reformed 
welfare in Indiana. In 1994, we spent $247.8 million in Indiana on 
direct welfare payments to families. By the year 2000, we reduced that 
number by sixty-six percent, to $83.8 million. If you help people find 
work and dignity, they become self-sufficient.
  A number of recent studies show that between 18 percent and 35 
percent of those who leave welfare return to the rolls, however. While 
these rates are reflective of a good economy with ample employment 
opportunities, the next few months will indicate what will happen to 
the welfare rolls during a slowing economy. Many of those who left the 
rolls are in jobs sensitive to economic downturns: 46 percent are in 
the service industry and 24 percent work in retail.
  The total cost of the package is estimated at $11.5 billion; 80 
percent or $8.5 billion of which is directed in tax cuts for working 
families and small businesses. The administration's budget blueprint 
includes funding for two titles of this bill: Title I, the fatherhood 
programs, were included at $64 million a year, $315 million over five 
years; as well as Title VI, the child welfare program, in its entirety.
  In particular, Title I of the bill which promotes responsible 
fatherhood mirrors S. 653, The Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2001, a 
bill I introduced earlier this Congress with Senator Domenici. Many of 
America's mothers, including single moms, are heroic in their efforts 
to make ends meet while raising good, responsible children. Many dads 
are too. But an increasing number of men are not doing their part, or 
are absent entirely. The decline in the involvement of fathers in the 
lives of their children over the last forty years is a troubling trend 
that affects us all. Fathers can help teach their children about 
respect, honor, duty and so many of the values that make our 
communities strong.
  The number of children living in households without fathers has 
tripled over the last forty years, from just over 5 million in 1960 to 
more than 17 million today. Today, the United States leads the world in 
fatherless families, and too many children spend their lives without 
any contact with their fathers. The consequences are severe, a study by 
the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency found that the best 
predictor of violent crime and burglary in a community is not the rate 
of poverty, but the rate of fatherless homes.
  The Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2001, does three primary things to 
help combat fatherlessness in America. First, it creates a grant 
program for state media campaigns to encourage fathers to act 
responsibly. Second, it funds community efforts that provide fathers 
with the tools necessary to be responsible fathers. Finally, the bill 
creates a National Clearinghouse to assist states with their media 
campaigns and with the dissemination of materials to promote 
responsible fatherhood.
  I want to thank Senator Snowe for her leadership on this bill. With 
her support not only does each individual piece of this legislation 
enjoy bipartisan support, the entire package is bipartisan. In 
addition, I want to thank Senators Bob Graham, Joseph Lieberman, 
Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Herb Kohl, Tim Johnson, John Breaux, 
Hillary Clinton, John Rockefeller and Thomas Carper for their support.
  This bipartisan package to promote personal responsibility will allow 
us to continue to discuss the successes of welfare reform. I urge my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the 
Strengthening Working Families Act of 2001. I would like to thank 
Senators Bayh and Snowe for working so diligently to put this package 
together. I am pleased that my Child Care Infrastructure Act is 
included, and I believe it will go a long way towards providing working 
families the tools they need to succeed.
  That's because this bill is based on a simple premise: that working 
couples who decide to have a family should not be penalized because 
they both must keep working.
  Unfortunately today, many working parents today do not have access to 
an essential tool for success at work: quality child care. According to 
the Children's Defense Fund, the average annual cost of child care can 
be more than the average annual cost of public college tuition. And 
nothing adds more to these high costs than the dramatic shortage of 
quality child care in this country.
  Increasing the supply of child care has clear benefits, for children, 
their parents and businesses. Research on the brain has proven the 
importance of early childhood programs to a child's chances of long-
term success in school and in adult life. I have visited many employer-
sponsored child care centers in Wisconsin, and they are so often state-
of-the-art facilities that significantly enhance early childhood 
education. And just as importantly, parents are more productive at work 
when they know that their children have safe, reliable child care.
  This bill is aimed at increasing the supply of child care for working 
families. We provide a 25 percent tax credit to businesses who are 
willing to take actions to increase the supply of quality child care, 
including the construction and operation of an on-site or near-site 
child care center, or providing child care subsidies for their 
employees.
  Increasing the supply of affordable child care is just one part of 
the fight to help working families succeed, and this bill makes 
businesses a true partner in that effort.
  I am also pleased that the Strengthening Working Families bill also 
includes ``The Child Support Distribution Act,'' which is similar to 
legislation I've been working on since 1998, the ``Children First Child 
Support Reform Act''.
  This bill takes significant steps toward ensuring that children 
receive the child support money they are owed and deserve. In Fiscal 
Year 1999, the public child support system collected child support 
payments for only 37 percent of its caseload, up from 23 percent in 
1998. Obviously, we still need to improve, but States are making real 
progress. It's time for Congress to take the next step and help States 
overcome a major obstacle to collecting child support for families.
  There are many reasons why non-custodial parents may not be paying 
support for their children. Some are not able to pay because they don't 
have jobs or have fallen on hard times. Others may not pay because they 
are unfairly prevented from spending time with their children.
  But other fathers don't pay because the public system actually 
discourages them from paying. Under current law, over $2 billion in 
child support is retained every year by the State and Federal 
governments as repayment for welfare benefits, rather than delivered to 
the children to whom it is owed. Since the money doesn't benefit their 
kids, fathers are discouraged from paying support. And mothers have no 
incentive to push for payment since the support doesn't go to them.

[[Page S3353]]

  It's time for Congress to change this system and encourage States to 
distribute more child support to families. My home State of Wisconsin 
has already been doing this for several years and is seeing great 
results. In 1997, I worked with my State to institute an innovative 
program of passing through child support payments directly to families. 
Preliminary results show that when child support payments are delivered 
to families, non-custodial parents are more apt to pay, and to pay 
more. In addition, Wisconsin has found that, overall, this policy does 
not increase government costs. That makes sense because ``passing 
through'' support payments to families means they have more of their 
own resources, and are less apt to depend on public help to meet other 
needs such as food, transportation or child care.
  We now have a key opportunity to encourage all States to follow 
Wisconsin's example. Title II of the Strengthening Working Families 
bill gives States options and strong incentives to send more child 
support directly to families who are working their way off, or are 
already off, public assistance. Not only will this create the right 
incentives for non-custodial parents to pay, but it will also simplify 
the job for States, who currently face an administrative nightmare in 
following the complicated rules of the current system.
  We know that creating the right incentives for non-custodial parents 
to pay support and increasing collections has long-term benefits. 
People who can count on child support are more likely to stay in jobs 
and stay off public assistance.
  This legislation finally brings the Child Support Enforcement program 
into the post-welfare reform era, shifting its focus from recovering 
welfare costs to increasing child support to families so they can 
sustain work and maintain self-sufficiency. After all, it's only fair 
that if we are asking parents to move off welfare and take financial 
responsibility for their families, then we in Congress must make sure 
that child support payments actually go to the families to whom they 
are owed and who are working so hard to succeed.
  Last year, a House version of this bill passed by an overwhelming 
bipartisan vote for 405 to 18. We must keep the momentum going in this 
Congress, and finally make child support meaningful for families. 
Again, I want to thank Senators Snowe and Bayh for working with me on 
this issue and for including it in this package.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues in 
supporting the Working Families package to invest in a series of 
bipartisan initiatives to support and encourage families that are 
``playing by the rules,'' but struggling to make ends meet as they 
raise their children.
  This legislation combines key legislative proposals to help working 
families, including a targeted expansion of the Earned Income Tax 
Credit, EITC, for families with three or more children. It is simple 
common sense that parents with more children need more help in making 
ends meet. This bill would give the most needy families up to $496 more 
in the EITC to help working families live with dignity. Our legislation 
also includes key provisions to streamline and improve the EITC, which 
is one of our most effective programs to combat child poverty.
  Another key component of this package would reauthorize and expand 
the Safe and Stable Families Act with an additional $200 million a 
year, as proposed by President Bush. I helped to create this program in 
1993 with Senator Bond, and it was expanded and improved in 1997 as 
part of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Since this act became law, 
we have dramatically increased the number of adoptions from foster 
care. Therefore, we need to increase funding for adoption services and 
to help the children and their new families overcome the years of abuse 
and neglect. Further, the bill would improve the Chafee Independent 
Living program by offering a $5000 scholarship to teens from foster 
care to encourage them to attend college or pursue vocational training. 
Abused and neglected children are among the most vulnerable in our 
society and they deserve our support and care.
  For many years, I have worked closely with Senator Graham and a 
bipartisan coalition to restore funding to the Social Service Block 
Grant, a flexible program to enable states to provide support for needy 
children, families, seniors and the disabled. During the welfare reform 
debates, we promised flexibility to the states and full funding of the 
Social Services Block Grant at $2.38 billion, and we should keep that 
promise and restore funding.
  Providing provisions to improve our child support system to get 
payments to the families first has been a longstanding priority for me. 
Fatherhood is a major issue for our families, and from my work on the 
National Commission on Children over a decade ago, I know that children 
do best in families with committed, caring parents. Investing in 
quality child care is an obvious concern as we continue our efforts on 
welfare reform and face the challenges of our new economy in which most 
mothers work.
  We should be working together to help our children and our families, 
so I hope that we will be able to promote this package of bipartisan 
initiatives that are targeted to some of our most vulnerable families, 
who are working hard but need help to raise their children with 
dignity.

                          ____________________