[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.
____________________