[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 176 (Tuesday, December 18, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13465-S13469]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Corzine):

[[Page S13466]]

  S. 1838. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that individual 
account plans protect workers by limiting the amount of empoloyer stock 
each worker may hold and encouraging diversification of investment of 
plan assets, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today Senator Corzine and I are 
introducing the Pension Protection and Diversification Act of 2001, 
(PPDA).
  I authored and Congress passed a bill in 1997 amending ERISA. That 
law bars employers from forcing employees to invest employee voluntary 
contributions to their 401(k) in the employer's real estate or equities 
with a couple of exceptions. I believe that what Enron did violated the 
law I authored. Enron ``locked down'' its pension fund for a period of 
time during which the company's stock plummeted. That lockdown 
effectively forced Enron employees to have their voluntary 
contributions and earnings on those contributions invested in Enron's 
plunging stock. That said, we are introducing the PPDA today in order 
to protect employees from losing their retirement savings in the future 
the way that Enron employees lost theirs.
  Enron employees were naturally drawn to Enron stock because of its 
meteoric rise. But when the stock crashed, it took many Enron 
employees' savings down with it. There are two lessons we should learn 
from this situation. First, Enron workers had far too much of their 
individual 401(k) account plans invested in Enron stock. And second, 
Enron forced its employees to hold its matching contribution in Enron 
stock to the employee's 401(k) account for far too long.
  Unfortunately, Enron employees are not alone in their 401(k) 
investment habits. There are far too many workers in far too many 
companies disproportionately investing their retirement savings in 
employer stock.
  The ``Pension Protection and Diversification Act of 2001'', PPDA, 
will encourage workers to diversify their retirement savings and to 
encourage employers to give workers the power to diversify their 
retirement plans.
  Toward that end, the bill limits to 20 percent the investment an 
employee can have in any one stock across their individual account 
plans with an employer. Studies show that employees do not diversify 
their investments sufficiently even when they have the power to 
diversify. In the Enron case, too many workers followed their 
employer's lead and invested too much of their own money in Enron 
stock. This provision, based on the opinions that financial management 
experts have expressed in numerous articles over the last few years, is 
designed to discourage that gamble.
  The PPDA also limits to 90 days the time that an employer can force 
an employee to hold a matching employer stock contribution. Too often, 
the current holding period on stock ownership in a retirement plan is 
prohibitive because it requires participants to keep their shares far 
longer than might suit their needs.
  There are typically two types of structures. Either the participant 
is required to hold the stock until a certain age, for example, at 
Enron they had to hold it until they were at least 50 years old or 
older, or the participant is required to hold the stock for a certain 
period of time, for example, for 5 years or longer. These mandatory 
holding periods require investors to hang on to their company stock for 
5 to 25 years or more before they can properly divest themselves to a 
more diversified portfolio. This bill will put an end to that practice.

  To encourage cash matching contributions rather than matching 
contributions in stock, the PPDA limits to 50 percent, instead of 100 
percent, the tax deduction that an employer can take on a matching 
contribution if that contribution is made in stock. Employees often 
report that the employer match in employer stock to their 401(k) plans 
is seen as a tacit recommendation to put their voluntary contributions 
in employer stock as well. By encouraging cash over stock 
contributions, this bill gives employees the power to determine where 
their funds are invested.
  And, last, the PPDA lowers to 35 years of age and 5 years of service 
the triggers that allow an employee to diversify his or her investments 
in an Employee Stock Ownership Plan, ESOP. The current diversification 
rules are too restrictive and leave employees too exposed.
  ESOPs currently are required to allow employees to diversify only a 
portion of their employer stock; they can diversify only during limited 
window periods; and they can diversify only after they reach age 55 
with 10 years of plan participation. So, most employees most of the 
time don't have current diversification rights in ESOPs. By the time 
they are eligible to diversify, it may be too late.
  There is another factor to bear in mind. A 401(k) or other defined 
contribution plan that holds enough employer stock can readily be 
converted to an ESOP. New worker protections enacted to apply to 401(k) 
plans could be circumvented by converting the portion of the 401(k) 
plan that is investing in company stock to an ESOP or by setting up an 
ESOP from the outset. Allowing divestiture at an earlier date will help 
avoid the situation.
  We exempt ESOPs from the rest of this bill because there are other 
factors at play, such as the basic purpose of ESOPs. I think there is 
justification for having 401(k) diversification rights that are far 
broader then ESOP diversification rights; but I am including ESOP 
diversification requirements in this bill because in their current 
form, those requirements are too narrow.
  Whether or not Enron broke the law in the management of its pension 
plan is being determined in the courts. I believe that they did, but we 
must make sure all workers are protected from losing their savings 
before an employer's stock collapses.
  I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. 
        Feingold):
  S. 1839. A bill to amend the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, and 
the Revised Statutes of the United States to prohibit financial holding 
companies and national banks from engaging, directly or indirectly, in 
real estate brokerage or real estate management activities, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, 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. 1839

       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 ``Community Choice in Real 
     Estate Act''.

     SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION THAT REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE AND 
                   MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ARE NOT BANKING OR 
                   FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.--Section 4(k) of the 
     Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1843(k)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Real estate brokerage and real estate management 
     activities.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Board may not determine that real 
     estate brokerage activity or real estate management activity 
     is an activity that is financial in nature, is incidental to 
     any financial activity, or is complementary to a financial 
     activity.
       ``(B) Real estate brokerage activity defined.--For purposes 
     of this paragraph, the term `real estate brokerage activity' 
     means any activity that involves offering or providing real 
     estate brokerage services to the public, including--
       ``(i) acting as an agent for a buyer, seller, lessor, or 
     lessee of real property;
       ``(ii) listing or advertising real property for sale, 
     purchase, lease, rental, or exchange;
       ``(iii) providing advice in connection with sale, purchase, 
     lease, rental, or exchange of real property;
       ``(iv) bringing together parties interested in the sale, 
     purchase, lease, rental, or exchange of real property;
       ``(v) negotiating, on behalf of any party, any portion of a 
     contract relating to the sale, purchase, lease, rental, or 
     exchange of real property (other than in connection with 
     providing financing with respect to any such transaction);
       ``(vi) engaging in any activity for which a person engaged 
     in the activity is required to be registered or licensed as a 
     real estate agent or broker under any applicable law; and
       ``(vii) offering to engage in any activity, or act in any 
     capacity, described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), or 
     (vi).
       ``(C) Real estate management activity defined.--For 
     purposes of this paragraph,

[[Page S13467]]

     the term `real estate management activity' means any activity 
     that involves offering or providing real estate management 
     services to the public, including--
       ``(i) procuring any tenant or lessee for any real property;
       ``(ii) negotiating leases of real property;
       ``(iii) maintaining security deposits on behalf of any 
     tenant or lessor of real property (other than as a depository 
     institution for any person providing real estate management 
     services for any tenant or lessor of real property);
       ``(iv) billing and collecting rental payments with respect 
     to real property or providing periodic accounting for such 
     payments;
       ``(v) making principal, interest, insurance, tax, or 
     utility payments with respect to real property (other than as 
     a depository institution or other financial institution on 
     behalf of, and at the direction of, an account holder at the 
     institution);
       ``(vi) overseeing the inspection, maintenance, and upkeep 
     of real property, generally; and
       ``(vii) offering to engage in any activity, or act in any 
     capacity, described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), or 
     (vi).
       ``(D) Exception for company property.--This paragraph shall 
     not apply to an activity of a bank holding company or any 
     affiliate of such company that directly relates to managing 
     any real property owned by such company or affiliate, or the 
     purchase, sale, or lease of property owned, or to be used or 
     occupied, by such company or affiliate.''.
       (b) Revised Statutes of the United States.--Section 
     5136A(b) of the Revised Statutes of the United States (12 
     U.S.C. 24a(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(4) Real estate brokerage and real estate management 
     activities.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may not determine that 
     real estate brokerage activity or real estate management 
     activity is an activity that is financial in nature, is 
     incidental to any financial activity, or is complementary to 
     a financial activity.
       ``(B) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     terms `real estate brokerage activity' and `real estate 
     management activity' have the same meanings as in section 
     4(k)(8) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.
       ``(C) Exception for company property.--This paragraph shall 
     not apply to an activity of a national bank, or a subsidiary 
     of a national bank, that directly relates to managing any 
     real property owned by such bank or subsidiary, or the 
     purchase, sale, or lease of property owned, or to be owned, 
     by such bank or subsidiary.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COCHRAN:
  S. 1840. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
remove the 20 percent inpatient limitation under the medicare program 
on the proportion of hospice care that certain rural hospice programs 
may provide; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 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. 1840

       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 ``Rural Communities Hospice 
     Care Access Improvement Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO MEDICARE 20 PERCENT INPATIENT CARE 
                   LIMITATION FOR CERTAIN RURAL HOSPICE PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1861(dd) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(A)(iii), by inserting ``subject to 
     paragraph (6),'' after ``(iii)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) The requirement of paragraph (2)(A)(iii) (relating to 
     a limitation on the proportion of hospice care provided in an 
     inpatient setting) shall not apply in the case of a hospice 
     program that meets the following requirements:
       ``(A) The hospice program is a non-profit organization, 
     provides a residence for individuals who do not have a 
     primary caregiver available at home, is located in a rural 
     area (as defined in section 1886(d)(2)(D)), is not certified 
     for purposes of this title to provide other than hospice 
     care, and is not affiliated with any organization that 
     provides a type of care other than hospice care.
       ``(B) The residence has not more than 20 beds.
       ``(C) The residence offers all other categories of hospice 
     care, including continuous home care, respite care, and 
     general patient care, for individuals who qualify to receive 
     such care.''.
       (b) Maintaining Payment Rates for Routine Care.--Section 
     1814(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(a)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3)(A) With respect to a care provided under a hospice 
     program described in section 1861(dd)(6) that meets the 
     requirements of that section, payment for routine care and 
     other services included in hospice care furnished under such 
     program shall be made at the rate applicable under this 
     subsection for routine home care and other services included 
     in hospice care.
       ``(B) For purposes of determining payment amounts under 
     subparagraph (A) with respect to routine and continuous care, 
     the residence described in section 1861(dd)(6) is deemed to 
     be the home of the individual receiving hospice care.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to hospice care provided on or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CLELAND:
  S. 1842. A bill to modify the project for beach erosion control, 
Tybee Island, Georgia; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
expand the existing Federal shoreline protection project on Tybee 
Island, GA to include the North Beach area of the island. This project, 
which originally began as an effort to protect the oceanfront beach, 
has previously been expanded to include the southern tip of the island 
as well as a portion of the Back River. On November 8, 2001, at my 
request, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works passed a 
Study Resolution asking the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a 
reconnaissance study to determine whether it is advisable to expand the 
project to include North Beach. The legislation I am introducing today 
will provide the necessary authorization to expand the project once the 
required studies are completed. Erosion of the dunes on North Beach is 
endangering one of my State's natural treasurers and this legislation 
will help to preserve a truly beautiful beachfront for those who reside 
on and visit Tybee Island.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 1844. A bill to authorize a pilot program for purchasing buses by 
public transit authorities that are recipients of assistance or grants 
from the Federal Transit Administration; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will benefit every public transit agency in America by 
streamlining their purchasing of buses with Federal funding. I am 
pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by my colleague, Senator 
DOMENICI, who has worked with me on developing this important 
legislation.
  Our bill is very simple. It authorizes a 5-year pilot program to 
allow State and local transit authorities that receive Federal transit 
assistance the option to purchase transit buses through the General 
Services Administration.
  Allowing public transit agencies the option to purchase buses through 
the GSA could result in substantial cost savings to the Federal 
Government. In addition, GSA's standardized options and prices would 
help streamline the procurement process for buses, which could be 
especially valuable to smaller communities. I do believe our bill will 
help stretch each dollar of Federal transit funding a little bit 
farther.
  Currently only the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has 
the option to purchase buses through the General Services 
Administration. WMATA is today using this authority to purchase buses. 
The pilot program authorized in our bill would open up the option to 
all public transit agencies around the country that receive Federal 
transit assistance. However, as a pilot program, it is limited only to 
heavy-duty transit buses and intercity coaches. Because of GSA's 
limited experience with transit buses, the bill provides for the pilot 
program to be managed by the Federal Transit Administration.
  The General Services Administration currently offers three heavy-duty 
transit buses and two intercity coaches. GSA selected these suppliers 
in full and open competitive solicitations, and the companies had to 
bid attractive terms and prices in order to win those 5-year contracts. 
However, to ensure that all bus suppliers have an equal opportunity to 
provide buses through the GSA, our bill requires GSA to reopen 
immediately the original solicitation to provide a full and open 
competition

[[Page S13468]]

for all bus manufacturers interested in selling buses through GSA 
contracts. In addition, bus suppliers that already have GSA contracts 
would be permitted to modify their proposals.
  Finally, to ensure future fairness to all bus suppliers, the GSA will 
expand the bus program to a full multiple-award schedule with a larger 
variety of vehicles and choices of optional equipment. GSA indicates 
this process will take 12 to 18 months. Therefore, our bill directs GSA 
to complete the multiple-award schedule by December 31, 2003, and 
authorizes state and local transit authorities that receive Federal 
transit assistance to purchase heavy-duty transit buses and intercity 
coaches off these new GSA schedules. The pilot program ends after 5 
years on December 31, 2006.
  I believe it is very important to point out that as a pilot program, 
our bill is limited only to transit buses and intercity coaches. It has 
no effect on companies that supply other types of vehicles, 
pharmaceuticals, or any other product that currently can be purchased 
through the General Services Administration.
  I believe transit buses are a unique situation. Public transit 
agencies should be allowed to use their Federal funding to purchase 
buses through the GSA. There are only a few bus manufacturers in 
America today and most buses are purchased using Federal funds provided 
by the Federal Transit Administration. In fact, our bill requires that 
a majority of the cost of all buses purchased through the GSA be from 
Federal funds. We also believe that the pilot program authorized in our 
bill could provide valuable information on bus purchasing that Congress 
may want to consider when the 6-year transportation bill is 
reauthorized in 2003.
  Our bus manufacturers are not having an easy time in this recession. 
Our bill will help expedite bus companies by eliminating the cost of 
responding to myriad requests for proposals from public transit 
agencies. That's why bus manufacturers, through the American Public 
Transportation Association, support our proposal. Our bill will also 
help the public transit agencies by reducing the cost of preparing the 
requests for proposals and assessing the responses.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for our bill from 
the American Public Transportation Association be included in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  I do believe this is a meritorious proposal and hope it will be 
enacted as soon as possible. I look forward to working with Senator 
Sarbanes, chairman of the Banking Committee, and the members of his 
committee to see if prompt action can be taken on this bill.
  The pilot program has the support of the Federal Transit 
Administration, bus manufacturers, and public transit agencies across 
the Nation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1844

       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 ``Public Transit Authority 
     Pilot Procurement Authorization Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Heavy-Duty Transit Bus.--The term ``heavy-duty transit 
     bus'' has the same meaning given that term in the American 
     Public Transportation Association Standard Procurement 
     Guideline Specifications, dated March 25, 1999 and July 3, 
     2001, and as contained in the General Services Administration 
     Solicitation FFAH-B1-002272-N.
       (b) Intercity Coach.--The term ``intercity coach'' has the 
     meaning given that term in the General Services 
     Administration Solicitation FFAH-B1-002272-N, section 1-4B, 
     Amendment number 2, dated June 6, 2000.

     SEC. 3. PILOT PROGRAM FOR SALE TO PUBLIC TRANSIT AUTHORITIES.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Transit Administration of the 
     Department of Transportation shall carry out a pilot program 
     to facilitate and accelerate the procurement of heavy-duty 
     transit buses and intercity coaches by State, local, and 
     regional transportation authorities that are recipients of 
     Federal Transit Administration assistance or grants where 
     Federal funds provide the majority of the funding for the bus 
     procurement, through existing or new or modified contracts 
     with the General Services Administration. The transit 
     authorities shall obtain Federal Transit Administration 
     approval prior to placement of orders.
       (b) Reopening of Solicitation for Heavy-Duty Transit and 
     Intercity Coaches.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law or Federal regulation, the General Services 
     Administration Solicitation FFAH-B1-002272-N shall be 
     reopened to all qualified heavy-duty transit bus and 
     intercity coach manufacturing companies to bid for contracts 
     to sell such buses and coaches to State, local, and regional 
     transportation authorities that are recipients of Federal 
     Transit Administration assistance or grants where Federal 
     funds provide the majority of the funding for the bus 
     procurement.
       (c) Modifications of Existing GSA Contracts.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law or Federal 
     regulation, heavy-duty transit bus manufacturing companies 
     and intercity coach manufacturing companies who have existing 
     contracts awarded by the General Services Administration 
     under Solicitation FFAH-B1-002272-N prior to the date of 
     enactment of this Act, shall be allowed to modify or 
     restructure their bids incorporated in such contracts to 
     respond to prospective sales of heavy-duty transit buses and 
     intercity coaches to State, local, and regional 
     transportation authorities that are recipients of Federal 
     Transit Administration assistance or grants where Federal 
     funds provide the majority of the funding for the bus 
     procurement.
       (d) Authority To Purchase From Existing and New 
     Contracts.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     Federal regulation, State, local, and regional transportation 
     authorities that are recipients of Federal Transit 
     Administration assistance or grants where Federal funds 
     provide the majority of the funding for the bus procurement 
     are authorized to purchase heavy-duty transit buses and 
     intercity coaches from--
       (1) existing contracts;
       (2) existing contracts as modified pursuant to subsection 
     (c); and
       (3) new contracts awarded by the General Services 
     Administration under the original or reopened Solicitation 
     FFAH-B1-002272-N.
       (e) Termination.--The pilot program carried out under this 
     Act shall terminate on December 31, 2006.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF MULTIPLE AWARD SCHEDULE BY GSA.

       Not later than December 31, 2003, the General Services 
     Administration, with assistance from and consultation with, 
     the Federal Transit Administration, shall establish and 
     publish a multiple award schedule for heavy-duty transit 
     buses and intercity coaches which shall permit Federal 
     agencies and State, regional, or local transportation 
     authorities that are recipients of Federal Transit 
     Administration assistance or grants where Federal funds 
     provide the majority of the funding for the bus procurement, 
     or other ordering entities, to acquire heavy-duty transit 
     buses and intercity motor coaches under those schedules.

     SEC. 5. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of the Federal Transit 
     Administration and the Administrator of General Services 
     shall submit a joint report quarterly, in writing, to the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate, and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.
       (b) Contents.--The report required to be submitted under 
     subsection (a) shall describe, with specificity--
       (1) all measures being taken to accelerate the processes 
     authorized under this Act, including estimates on the effect 
     of this Act on job retention in the bus and intercity coach 
     manufacturing industry;
       (2) job creation in the bus and intercity coach 
     manufacturing industry as a result of the authorities 
     provided under this Act; and
       (3) bus and intercity coach manufacturing economic growth 
     in those States and localities that have participated in the 
     pilot program to be carried out under this Act.

     SEC. 6. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAW.

       Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Act, this 
     Act shall be carried out in accordance with all applicable 
     Federal transit laws and requirements.
                                  ____

                                    American Public Transportation


                                                  Association,

                                Washington, DC, December 18, 2001.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write regarding a bill I understand 
     you intend to introduce this session, the ``Public Transit 
     Authority Pilot Procurement Authorization Act of 2001'', that 
     would allow recipients of funds under the federal transit 
     program to purchase heavy-duty and intercity buses from the 
     General Services Administration schedule of contracts.
       The Business Member Board of Governors of the American 
     Public Transportation Association (APTA) considered a similar 
     provision in a meeting on Sunday, September 30, 2001. They 
     voted in support of the measure.
       Further, on December 7, 2001, APTA's Legislative Committee 
     considered a proposal similar to the provisions of your bill 
     and unanimously agreed to support it. While APTA's governing 
     body has not had an opportunity formally to consider your 
     bill, our public transit members are supportive of measures 
     that would simplify and standardize the federal procurement 
     process, as this provision would do. We are particularly

[[Page S13469]]

     pleased to note that under the provision GSA, with assistance 
     from the Federal Transit Administration, would be required to 
     establish and publish a multiple award schedule for heavy-
     duty buses, which means that any heavy-duty or intercity bus 
     manufacturer would be provided an opportunity to participate 
     in the program.
       Please have your staff contact Daniel Duff, APTA's Chief 
     Counsel & Vice President, Government Affairs, should you have 
     any questions about this matter. He may be reached at (202) 
     496-4860 or internet e-mail [email protected].
           Sincerely yours,
                                                William W. Millar,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 1845. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to create a 
presumption that disability of a Federal employee in fire protection 
activities caused by certain conditions is presumed to result from the 
performance of such employee's duty; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on 
behalf of thousands of Federal fire fighters and emergency response 
personnel worldwide who, at great risk to their own personal health and 
safety, protect America's defense, our veterans, Federal wildlands, and 
national treasures. Although the majority of these important Federal 
employees work for the Department of Defense, Federal fire fighters are 
also employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the United 
States Park Service. From first-response emergency care services on 
military installations around the world to front-line defense against 
raging forest fires here at home, we call on these brave men and women 
to protect our national interests.
  Yet under Federal law, compensation and retirement benefits are not 
provided to Federal employees who suffer from occupational illnesses 
unless they can specify the conditions of employment which caused their 
disease. This onerous requirement makes it nearly impossible for 
Federal fire fighters, who suffer from occupational diseases, to 
receive fair and just compensation or retirement benefits. The 
bureaucratic nightmare they must endure is burdensome, unnecessary, and 
in many cases, overwhelming. It is ironic and unjust that the very 
people we call on to protect our Federal interests are not afforded the 
very best health care and retirement benefits our Federal Government 
has to offer.
  Today, I introduced legislation, the Federal Fire Fighters Fairness 
Act of 2001, which amends the Federal Employees Compensation Act to 
create a presumptive disability for fire fighters who become disabled 
by heart and lung disease, cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma, and 
infectious diseases like tuberculosis and hepatitis. Disabilities 
related to the cancers, heart, lung, and infectious diseases enumerated 
in this important legislation would be considered job related for 
purposes of workers compensation and disability retirement, entitling 
those affected to the health care coverage and retirement benefits that 
they deserve.
  Too frequently, the poisonous gases, toxic byproducts, asbestos, and 
other hazardous substances with which Federal fire fighters and 
emergency response personnel come in contact, rob them of their health 
livelihood, and professional careers. The Federal Government should not 
rob them of necessary benefits. Thirty-eight States have already 
enacted a similar disability presumption law for Federal fire fighters' 
counterparts working in similar capacities on the State and local 
levels.
  The effort behind the Federal Fire Fighters Fairness Act of 2001 
marks a significant advancement for fire fighter health and safety. 
Since September 11, there has been an enhanced appreciation for the 
risks that fire fighters and emergency response personnel face 
everyday. Federal fire fighters deserve our highest commendation and it 
is time to do the right thing for these important Federal employees.
  The job of fire fighting continues to be complex and dangerous. The 
nationwide increase in the use of hazardous materials, the recent rise 
in both natural and manmade disasters, and the threat of terrorism pose 
new threats to fire fighter health and safety. The Federal Fire 
Fighters Fairness Act of 2001 will help protect the lives of our fire 
fighters and it will provide them with a vehicle to secure their health 
and safety.
  I urge my colleagues to embrace this bipartisan effort and support 
the Federal Fire Fighters Fairness Act of 2001 on behalf of our 
Nation's Federal fire fighters and emergency response personnel.

                          ____________________