[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 177 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13701-S13713]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. ALLEN:
S. 1848. A bill to provide mortgage payment assistance for employees
who are separated from employment; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Homestead
Preservation Act.
It is a bill to provide displaced workers with access to low-interest
loans to help cover monthly home mortgage payments while they are
looking for a new job. This is commonsense, compassionate legislation
designed to help working families, who through no fault of their own,
are adversely affected by international competition.
During the past months, all Americans have been deluged with grim
news
[[Page S13702]]
of recessions, plummeting consumer confidence and rising unemployment.
Since October of last year, unemployment has jumped 1.8 percent,
bringing the unemployment rate to 5.7 percent, the highest in over 6
years. This is more than just a statistic. The 5.7 percent represents
8.2 million people who are now without a job, a paycheck, and the means
by which to provide their family with a sense of economic security,
knowing that the bills will be paid, food is on the table, gifts will
be under the Christmas tree.
Virginia has not escaped the effects of the recession. While the
unemployment is not as high as the national average, we have seen a 1.4
percent increase in unemployment from October 2000 to October 2001.
There were 20 mass layoffs in October, an increase of 8 from the year
before. And there have been 2,713 new claims for unemployment benefits
in October--almost double from October 2000.
While these are uneasy times for everyone, regions such as Southwest
Virginia and Southside, with heavy concentrations in manufacturing--
especially the textile and apparel industries--have been especially
hard hit. Nationwide, employment in apparel manufacturing lost more
than 10,000 jobs just last month. Factory employment has plummeted in
the past year and a half. One of every three layoffs in Virginia is
from the manufacturing industry, although only one in six jobs
throughout the Commonwealth are in this sector. In Virginia, October
was the 15th consecutive month of factory job losses.
Virginia's Southside and Southwest regions are already suffering from
the economic effects of international competition, such as NAFTA.
Nationwide, an average of 37,500 Americans lose their jobs because of
NAFTA-related competition each year. During the 1990s, Virginians saw
the loss of 15,400 apparel jobs--a decline of 54.3 percent--and 15,300
textile jobs--a decline of 36 percent.
Fair and free trade is necessary if American businesses are to have
the opportunity to promote their goods and services and continue to
expand through growth abroad. NAFTA has created a net increase in
employment. As Governor of Virginia, I led several trade missions
abroad to promote our products. We brought back agreements that
initially meant half a billion dollars in new investment and sales for
Virginia, investments made possible only through fair and free trade.
But, while trade is helping our economy as a whole, there are many
good, hard working families, who have been adversely affected by
international competition--especially in the textile and apparel
industries. Anytime a factory closes, it is a devastating blow to all
of the families and businesses in the community and region.
While I was proud of the outstanding way the close-knit Southside and
Southwest communities in Virginia came together to help those who lost
their jobs, when companies like Pluma and Tultex closed their doors,
they should not be forced to go through these times alone. After the
Tultex plant closing in Martinsville in early December of 1999, people
donated toys to the Salvation Army to make sure that Christmas came to
the homes of the thousands of laid off workers.
I am proposing that the Federal Government do its part to help people
through these tough times. There are already thoughtful programs in
place, such as the NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance program,
that helps workers get additional job skills training and employment
assistance, and, provides extended unemployment benefits during job
training. These programs are the result of the commonsense, logical
conclusion that good, working people can lose their jobs because of
trade--not because they did anything wrong or because they don't want
to work.
We ought to find a way to ease the stress and turmoil for people
whose lives are unexpectedly thrown into transition after years of
steady employment with a company that suddenly disappears. While these
hard-working folks are finding appropriate employment, they should not
fear losing their homes. For most people and families, their home is
the largest investment they make in life. Many have considerable equity
build up.
Government agencies already have low-interest loan programs in place
to help families who have met with unexpected economic disaster, such
as a natural disaster like a hurricane, flood or tornado.
When a factory closes, it is an economic disaster to these families
and their communities. The effects are just as far reaching and
certainly as economically devastating. Like a natural disaster,
families displaced by international competition are not responsible for
the events leading to the factory closings. The Federal Government
ought to make the same disaster loan assistance programs available to
our displaced workers.
This is my rationale for introducing the Homestead Preservation Act.
This legislation will provide temporary home mortgage assistance to
displaced workers, helping them make ends meet during their search for
a new job.
Specifically, the Homestead Preservation Act authorizes the
Department of Labor to administer a low-interest loan program--4
percent--for workers displaced due to international competition. The
loan is for up to the amount of 12 monthly home mortgage payments. The
program is authorized at $10 million per year, for 5 years. It
distributes the loan through an account, providing monthly allocations
to cover the amount of the worker's home mortgage payment. The loans
could be paid off or repaid over a period of 5 years. No payments would
be required until 6 months after the borrower has returned to work
full-time. The loan is available only for the cost of a monthly home
mortgage payment and covers only those workers displaced due to
international competition and those who qualify for benefits under the
NAFTA-TAAP and TAA benefits programs.
Like the NAFTA-TAAP and TAA benefits programs, the Homestead
Preservation Act recognizes that some temporary assistance is needed as
workers take the time to become retrained and reeducated, expand upon
their skills and search for new employment.
As Governor, there was nothing I enjoyed more than being able to
recruit and land investment from new or expanding enterprises in
Virginia. By recruiting businesses, we brought new and better jobs for
the hard-working, caring people of Virginia. One example is Drake
Extrusion from the United Kingdom, which chose Martinsville Industrial
Park for its new carpet and bedding fiber manufacturing plant. It was
announced as a $12 million investment. It doubled in value at the
official opening in 1996. It brought in additional small businesses. As
of last year, Drake employed over 180 people.
Unfortunately, it can take time to bring in new companies and
industries to a region, just as it takes time to learn a new skill or
earn a degree. Displaced families do not have time; they have monthly
bills that must be paid, in full, no excuses. The Homestead
Preservation Act provides the financial assistance necessary to bridge
the time it takes to find employment. Without this bridge, many working
families would not be able to take advantage of the opportunities our
there for them. They would be denied the necessary tools to help them
succeed in the changing economy.
The current recession has made it even more vital that the Federal
Government do what is right by our workers in the textile and apparel
industries--in all industries suffering high rates of job losses due to
international competition. Because of international competition,
textile and apparel workers are even more vulnerable to the current
economic situation making them ill-equipped to weather an economic
downturn. For example, in 1999, the average wage rates in Virginia for
a textile or apparel worker were 77 percent and 57 percent,
respectively, of the overall average wage rate for Virginians. This
provides for less money in the family's ``rainy day'' savings account.
And right now, it is storming for these families. These jobs are not
coming back. Only about 70 percent of displaced factory workers find
reemployment, well below the access-industry average.
Losses are expected to continue accumulating as the industries brace
for worldwide open trade, which is scheduled to begin in 2005. When
these workers are displaced, meager savings and temporary unemployment
benefits are
[[Page S13703]]
frequently not enough to cover expenses that had previously fit within
the family budget. Without immediate help, these families, at the
minimum, risk ruining their credit ratings and, in the worst-case
scenario, could lose their home or car.
The Homestead Preservation Act would provide families vital temporary
financial assistance, enabling them to keep them to keep their homes
and to protect their credit ratings as they work toward strengthening
and updating their skills and continue their search for a new job.
Hard-working Americans, facing such a harrowing situation, ought to
have a response to help them. People need transitional help now.
The Homestead Preservation Act provides the temporary financial tools
necessary for displaced workers to get back on their feet and succeed.
It is a caring, logical and responsible response.
Mr. President, as I said, I rise today to introduce the Homestead
Preservation Act. This is a commonsense, compassionate place of
legislation that is designed to help working families who, through no
fault of their own, lose their jobs as a result of international
competition.
It is a bill to provide displaced workers with access to low-interest
loans to help cover monthly home mortgage payments while they are out
looking for a job.
During the past few months, all Americans have been deluged with grim
news of recessions, plummeting consumer confidence, and rising
unemployment
Clearly, these are uneasy times for everyone in all regions of the
country, whether in the South, the Midwest, the Northeast, and out West
as well, but particularly in the areas where there are heavy
concentrations of manufacturing. The textile and apparel industries
have been especially hard hit. That industry is generally in the South
and, to some extent, in the Midwest.
Nationwide, employment in apparel manufacturing lost more than 10,000
jobs just last month. That is in Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Missouri, and
various other States.
Factory employment has plummeted in the past year and a half. In
Virginia alone, about one out of every six jobs is in manufacturing.
But as far as the layoffs, one out of every three layoffs in Virginia
is from the manufacturing industry.
I am a supporter of fair and free trade. I think trade is good for
American consumers. It is good for our retailers and our farmers. I
think it is necessary for our businesses and farmers to have
opportunities to promote their goods, their products, their services
abroad. That allows them to expand and grow.
I think NAFTA has created a net increase in employment. As Governor
of Virginia, I led several trade missions abroad, whether to Canada,
Mexico, various countries in Western and Central Europe, as well as
East Asia. We brought back agreements that initially meant over a half
a billion dollars in new investment and sales for Virginia products.
These investments and sales in Virginia were only made possible by fair
and free trade.
But while trade is helping our economy as a whole, there are many
good, hard-working people and families who have been adversely affected
by international competition, particularly in the textile and apparel
industries.
Any time a factory closes, it is a devastating blow to all of the
families and, indeed, all of the businesses in the communities in that
region. You can see, with great pride, how communities come together--
close knit communities--and try to help out if a major manufacturer
shuts down.
I remember back in December 2 years ago--in early December, 1999--
when Tultex shut down. Thousands of jobs were lost. People donated toys
to the Salvation Army, though, to make sure Christmas would come to
every family.
What I am proposing is that the Federal Government does its part to
help people through these tough times, so that people and communities
are not alone during these transitions.
There are already thoughtful programs in place. The NAFTA
Transitional Adjustment Assistance Program helps workers get additional
job skills in training and employment assistance, as well as provides
extended unemployment benefits during job training.
These programs are the result of the good, commonsense, logical
conclusion that working people can lose their jobs because of trade,
not because they did anything wrong or because they did not want to
work. They do want to work.
We ought to find a way to help ease the stress and turmoil for people
whose lives are unexpectedly thrown into transition after years of
steady employment with a company that suddenly disappears. Especially
in textile areas, you see folks who have worked there for decades; some
of their parents may have worked at that same mill or facility.
These are hard-working people. They are trying to find employment.
But while they are doing so, they should not have to worry about or
fear losing their homes.
For most people, and most families, their home is the largest
investment they will make in their lives. Many have considerable equity
built up in their homes that could be lost.
Government agencies already have low-interest loan programs in place
to help families who have been hit with unexpected disasters--such as a
natural disaster, such as a hurricane or a tornado or a flood.
Whan a factory closes, it is truly an economic disaster to these
families and communities. The effects are just as far reaching and
certainly as economically devastating. Like a natural disaster,
families displaced by international competition are not responsible for
the events leading to those factory closings.
The Federal Government ought to make similar disaster loan assistance
programs available to our displaced workers. That is the rationale of
my introduction of the Homestead Preservation Act.
This legislation would provide temporary mortgage assistance to
displaced workers, helping them make ends meet during the search for a
new job.
Specifically, the Homestead Preservation Act authorizes the
Department of Labor to administer a low-interest loan program--4
percent--for workers displaced due to international competition.
The loan is for up to the amount of 12 monthly home mortgage
payments. The program is authorized at $10 million per year for 5
years. It distributes the loan through an account providing a monthly
allocation to cover the amount of the worker's home mortgage payment.
The loans would be paid or repaid and paid off over 5 years, but no
payments would be required until 6 months after the worker has gotten
back on his or her feet in gainful employment. The loan would be
available only for the cost of the monthly home mortgage payment and
covers only those workers displaced due to international competition
and who would qualify for the benefits under the NAFTA-TAAP and the
transitional adjustment assistance benefits programs.
Working within the parameters and the certification and
qualifications of the NAFTA-TAAP and the TAA benefits programs, the
Homestead Preservation Act recognizes some temporary assistance is
needed as workers take time to retrain and be reeducated and expand
upon their skills and search for new employment.
This will provide, in effect, a bridge loan assistance to these
displaced workers. If you look at it, the unemployment benefits are
fine, but usually they are not enough to cover the expenses which
previously fit within a family budget.
Without immediate help, these families, at a minimum, risk ruining
their credit ratings and, in the worst case scenario, could lose their
car or even their home. The Homestead Preservation Act would provide
families with vital temporary financial assistance, enabling them to
keep their homes, protect their credit ratings, and, as they work
toward strengthening and improving their skills, to continue to be able
to search for a job without worrying about losing their homes. They are
under a harrowing situation. We ought to have a response to help them.
There are many people who need transitional help right away. As we
move forward to expand trade opportunities, let's also improve the
transitional adjustment assistance programs.
[[Page S13704]]
The Homestead Preservation Act provides the temporary financial tools
necessary for displaced workers to get them back on their feet and to
succeed. In my view, it is a very caring, logical and responsible
response.
I trust my colleagues will agree and support this reasonable,
balanced idea.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the section-by-
section analysis be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1848
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 ``Homestead Preservation
Act''.
SEC. 2. MORTGAGE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE.
(a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary of Labor
(referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') shall
establish a program under which the Secretary shall award
low-interest loans to eligible individuals to enable such
individuals to continue to make mortgage payments with
respect to the primary residences of such individuals.
(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a loan under
the program established under subsection (a), an individual
shall--
(1) be--
(A) an adversely affected worker with respect to whom a
certification of eligibility has been issued by the Secretary
of Labor under chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.); or
(B) an individual who would be an individual described in
subparagraph (A) but who resides in a State that has not
entered into an agreement under section 239 of such Act (19
U.S.C. 2311);
(2) be a borrower under a loan which requires the
individual to make monthly mortgage payments with respect to
the primary place of residence of the individual; and
(3) be enrolled in a job training or job assistance
program.
(c) Loan Requirements.--
(1) In general.--A loan provided to an eligible individual
under this section shall--
(A) be for a period of not to exceed 12 months;
(B) be for an amount that does not exceed the sum of--
(i) the amount of the monthly mortgage payment owed by the
individual; and
(ii) the number of months for which the loan is provided;
(C) have an applicable rate of interest that equals 4
percent;
(D) require repayment as provided for in subsection (d);
and
(E) be subject to such other terms and conditions as the
Secretary determines appropriate.
(2) Account.--A loan awarded to an individual under this
section shall be deposited into an account from which a
monthly mortgage payment will be made in accordance with the
terms and conditions of such loan.
(d) Repayment.--
(1) In general.--An individual to which a loan has been
awarded under this section shall be required to begin making
repayments on the loan on the earlier of--
(A) the date on which the individual has been employed on a
full-time basis for 6 consecutive months; or
(B) the date that is 1 year after the date on which the
loan has been approved under this section.
(2) Repayment period and amount.--
(A) Repayment period.--A loan awarded under this section
shall be repaid on a monthly basis over the 5-year period
beginning on the date determined under paragraph (1).
(B) Amount.--The amount of the monthly payment described in
subparagraph (A) shall be determined by dividing the total
amount provided under the loan (plus interest) by 60.
(C) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph shall
be construed to prohibit an individual from--
(i) paying off a loan awarded under this section in less
than 5 years; or
(ii) from paying a monthly amount under such loan in excess
of the monthly amount determined under subparagraph (B) with
respect to the loan.
(e) Regulations.--Not later than 6 weeks after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate
regulations necessary to carry out this section, including
regulations that permit an individual to certify that the
individual is an eligible individual under subsection (b).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $10,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.
____
The Homestead Preservation Act--Section-by-Section Analysis
A bill to provide mortgage payment assistance for employees
who are separated from employment.
section i. short title
This Act may be cited as the ``Homestead Preservation
Act''.
section ii. mortgage payment assistance
This section establishes the program, sets program
perimeters, and defines eligibility for program
participation.
The Secretary of Labor (Secretary) is authorized to
establish a low-interest loan program to cover the cost of
mortgage payments of the borrower's primary residence.
Eligibility for participation is defined as a displaced
worker who has received a certification of eligibility by the
Secretary under chapter 2, title II of the Trade Act of 1974
(NAFTA-TAAP; TAA) or would be qualified if his or her State
of residence had entered into an agreement allowing for
NAFTA-TAAP and TAA participation. The borrower must be
enrolled in a job training or job assistance program.
The terms of the loan must require the borrower to use the
loan to make monthly payments on the mortgage of his or her
primary residence.
The loan perimeters are established to limit the life of
the loan to a period of one year and to an amount that does
not exceed amount of the mortgage payments due over the
number of months for which the loan is provided. The interest
rate on the loans is capped at 4 percent.
The loan shall be deposited into an account from which the
monthly mortgage payment will be made.
Loan repayment begins one year from the date of loan
approval or the date on which the borrower has been employed
full-time, for six months.
Loan repayment shall be completed within five years with a
monthly payment determined by dividing the total amount of
the loan, plus interest, by 60. Borrowers may pay the loan
early or pay more than the per-month amount required without
penalty.
The Secretary has six weeks to promulgate the regulations
necessary to implement this Act, including regulations that
permit a resident of a non-participating State in NAFTA-TAAP
or TAA, to certify that he or she is qualified for loan
participation as a displaced worker.
There is authorized to be appropriated, $10 million, per
year, for five years.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia. His
proposal sounds very interesting and very important. I look forward to
looking at the specifics of it. I appreciate his words. I appreciate
what he is talking about. It may be legislation that provides people
with that temporary assistance because people want to get the jobs on
which they can support their families. I think it is an important
endeavor. I thank my colleague.
______
By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Carper, Mr. Smith of New
Hampshire, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 1850. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to bring
underground storage tanks into compliance with subtitle I of that Act,
to promote cleanup of leaking underground storage tanks, to provide
sufficient resources for such compliance and cleanup, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Underground Storage
Tank Compliance Act of 2001. This legislation will bring all
underground storage tanks, USTs, into compliance with Federal law and
finish the work begun seventeen years ago with enactment of the UST
provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The legislation will
emphasize leak prevention and compliance with existing statutes. In
addition, this bipartisan bill will assist communities in coping with
the contamination of groundwater and oil by methl tertiary butyl ether,
MTBE.
In 1984, Congress enacted as Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act a comprehensive program to address the problem of leaking
underground storage tanks. With the goal of protecting the Nation's
groundwater from leaking tanks, the 1984 law imposed minimum Federal
requirements for leak detection and prevention standards for USTs. In
1988, owners and operators of existing underground storage tank systems
were given a ten-year window to upgrade, replace, or close tanks that
didn't meet minimum federal requirements for spill, overfill, and
corrosion protection. As the deadline passed on December 22, 1988, many
underground storage tanks failed to meet the federal standards.
To assess the situation, Senator Smith of New Hampshire and I
commissioned the U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO, to examine
compliance of USTs with Federal requirements. GAO concluded in May 2001
that only 89 percent of tanks were meeting Federal equipment standards.
In addition, it also discovered that only 71 percent were being
operated and maintained properly. GAO cited infrequent tank inspections
and limited funding among the contributing factors.
Communities across the Nation have borne the brunt of our failure to
prevent tank releases. Gasoline and fuel
[[Page S13705]]
additives, such as MTBE, have contaminated groundwater and rendered it
undrinkable. The Village of Pascoag, RI is just one community that has
suffered from MTBE contamination that can be traced to leaking
underground storage tanks. For months, residents of Pascoag have been
unable to use the water supply for drinking, bathing, or cooking.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent to dilute the water
with a neighboring communities' supply, to install water filtration
systems, and to bring new wells on-line. Additional money will be spent
to remediate the contamination and to take enforcement action against
the owners of the leaking tanks. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated
incident. A similar story can be told in countless communities from New
Hampshire, to New York, to California.
To address these issues, the legislation that I introduce today,
together with Senators Carper, Smith of New Hampshire, Jeffords, and
Inhofe, requires the inspection of all tanks every two years and
increases Federal emphasis on the training tank operators. It simply
does not make sense to install modern, protective equipment if the
people who operate them do so improperly. Enforcement of existing
requirements, rather than creating new requirements, is an important
element of our bill. In addition, the legislation emphasizes compliance
of tanks owned by Federal, State, and local governments, and provides
$200 million for cleanup of sites contaminated by MTBE. Finally, the
legislation provides increased funding to carry out the program, which
the GAO has identified as critical to the success of the UST program.
Since its inception in 1984, the UST program has been largely
successful. More than one million outdated tanks have successfully been
closed or removed, and countless cleanups have been undertaken. We have
come a long way, but we must go further. Our legislation will build
upon the successes of yesterday, so that we may enjoy the successes of
tomorrow. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to move
this important bipartisan legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1850
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 ``Underground Storage Tank
Compliance Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS.
Section 9004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6991c) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Trust Fund Distribution.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Amount and permitted uses of distribution.--The
Administrator shall distribute to States not less than 80
percent of the funds from the Trust Fund that are made
available to the Administrator under section 9013(2)(A) for
each fiscal year for use in paying the reasonable costs,
incurred under a cooperative agreement with any State, of--
``(i) actions taken by the State under section
9003(h)(7)(A);
``(ii) necessary administrative expenses, as determined by
the Administrator, that are directly related to corrective
action and compensation programs under subsection (c)(1);
``(iii) any corrective action and compensation program
carried out under subsection (c)(1) for a release from an
underground storage tank regulated under this subtitle to the
extent that, as determined by the State in accordance with
guidelines developed jointly by the Administrator and the
State, the financial resources of the owner or operator of
the underground storage tank (including resources provided by
a program in accordance with subsection (c)(1)) are not
adequate to pay the cost of a corrective action without
significantly impairing the ability of the owner or operator
to continue in business;
``(iv) enforcement by the State or a local government of--
``(I) the State program approved under this section; or
``(II) State or local requirements concerning underground
storage tanks that are similar or identical to the
requirements of this subtitle; or
``(v) State or local corrective actions carried out under
regulations promulgated under section 9003(c)(4).
``(B) Use of funds for enforcement.--In addition to the
uses of funds authorized under subparagraph (A), the
Administrator may use funds from the Trust Fund that are not
distributed to States under subparagraph (A) for enforcement
of any regulation promulgated by the Administrator under this
subtitle.
``(C) Prohibited uses.--Except as provided in subparagraph
(A)(iii), under any similar requirement of a State program
approved under this section, or in any similar State or local
provision as determined by the Administrator, funds provided
to a State by the Administrator under subparagraph (A) shall
not be used by the State to provide financial assistance to
an owner or operator to meet any requirement relating to
underground storage tanks under part 280 of title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of
this subsection).
``(2) Allocation.--
``(A) Process.--Subject to subparagraph (B), in the case of
a State with which the Administrator has entered into a
cooperative agreement under section 9003(h)(7)(A), the
Administrator shall distribute funds from the Trust Fund to
the State using the allocation process developed by the
Administrator under the cooperative agreement.
``(B) Revisions to process.--The Administrator may revise
the allocation process referred to in subparagraph (A) with
respect to a State only after--
``(i) consulting with--
``(I) State agencies responsible for overseeing corrective
action for releases from underground storage tanks;
``(II) owners; and
``(III) operators; and
``(ii) taking into consideration, at a minimum--
``(I) the total tax revenue contributed to the Trust Fund
from all sources within the State;
``(II) the number of confirmed releases from leaking
underground storage tanks in the State;
``(III) the number of petroleum storage tanks in the State;
``(IV) the percentage of the population of the State that
uses groundwater for any beneficial purpose;
``(V) the performance of the State in implementing and
enforcing the program;
``(VI) the financial needs of the State; and
``(VII) the ability of the State to use the funds referred
to in subparagraph (A) in any year.
``(3) Distributions to state agencies.--
``(A) In general.--Distributions from the Trust Fund under
this subsection shall be made directly to a State agency
that--
``(i) enters into a cooperative agreement referred to in
paragraph (2)(A); or
``(ii) is enforcing a State program approved under this
section.
``(B) Administrative expenses.--A State agency that
receives funds under this subsection shall limit the
proportion of those funds that are used to pay administrative
expenses to such percentage as the State may establish by
law.
``(4) Cost recovery prohibition.--Funds from the Trust Fund
provided by States to owners or operators for programs under
subsection (c)(1) relating to releases from underground
storage tanks shall not be subject to cost recovery by the
Administrator under section 9003(h)(6).''.
SEC. 3. INSPECTION OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS.
Section 9005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6991d) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (a) and (b) as subsections
(b) and (c), respectively; and
(2) by inserting before subsection (b) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1)) the following:
``(a) Inspection Requirements.--Not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of the Underground Storage Tank
Compliance Act of 2001, and at least once every 2 years
thereafter, the Administrator or a State with a program
approved under section 9004, as appropriate, shall require
that all underground storage tanks regulated under this
subtitle be inspected for compliance with regulations
promulgated under section 9003(c).''.
SEC. 4. OPERATOR TRAINING.
Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991
et seq.) is amended by striking section 9010 and inserting
the following:
``SEC. 9010. OPERATOR TRAINING.
``(a) Guidelines.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date
of enactment of the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act
of 2001, in cooperation with States, owners, and operators,
the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register,
after public notice and opportunity for comment, guidelines
that specify methods for training operators of underground
storage tanks.
``(2) Considerations.--The guidelines described in
paragraph (1) shall take into account--
``(A) State training programs in existence as of the date
of publication of the guidelines;
``(B) training programs that are being employed by owners
and operators as of the date of enactment of this paragraph;
``(C) the high turnover rate of operators;
``(D) the frequency of improvement in underground storage
tank equipment technology;
``(E) the nature of the businesses in which the operators
are engaged; and
``(F) such other factors as the Administrator determines to
be necessary to carry out this section.
``(b) State Programs.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date on
which the Administrator
[[Page S13706]]
publishes the guidelines under subsection (a)(1), each State
shall develop and implement a strategy for the training of
operators of underground storage tanks that is consistent
with paragraph (2).
``(2) Requirements.--A State strategy described in
paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) be consistent with subsection (a);
``(B) be developed in cooperation with owners and
operators; and
``(C) take into consideration training programs implemented
by owners and operators as of the date of enactment of this
subsection.
``(3) Financial incentive.--The Administrator may award to
a State that develops and implements a strategy described in
paragraph (1), in addition to any funds that the State is
entitled to receive under this subtitle, not more than
$50,000, to be used to carry out the strategy.''.
SEC. 5. REMEDIATION OF MTBE CONTAMINATION.
Section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6991b(h)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7)(A)--
(A) by striking ``paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
subsection'' and inserting ``paragraphs (1), (2), and (12)'';
and
(B) by striking ``, and including the authorities of
paragraphs (4), (6), and (8) of this subsection'' and
inserting ``and the authority under section 9011 and
paragraphs (4), (6), and (8),''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(12) Remediation of mtbe contamination.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator and the States may use
funds made available under section 9013(2)(B) to carry out
corrective actions with respect to a release of methyl
tertiary butyl ether that presents a threat to human health
or welfare or the environment.
``(B) Applicable authority.--The Administrator or a State
shall carry out subparagraph (A)--
``(i) in accordance with paragraph (2); and
``(ii) in the case of a State, in accordance with a
cooperative agreement entered into by the Administrator and
the State under paragraph (7).''.
SEC. 6. RELEASE PREVENTION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Release Prevention and Compliance.--Subtitle I of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.) (as amended
by section 4) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 9011. RELEASE PREVENTION AND COMPLIANCE.
``Funds made available under section 9013(2)(D) from the
Trust Fund may be used to conduct inspections, issue orders,
or bring actions under this subtitle--
``(1) by a State, in accordance with section 9003(h)(7),
acting under--
``(A) a program approved under section 9004; or
``(B) any State requirement concerning the regulation of
underground storage tanks that is similar or identical to a
requirement under this subtitle, as determined by the
Administrator; and
``(2) by the Administrator, under this subtitle (including
under a State program approved under section 9004).''.
(b) Government-Owned Tanks.--Section 9003 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991b) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(i) Government-Owned Tanks.--
``(1) Compliance strategy.--Not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of this subsection, each State shall
submit to the Administrator a strategy to ensure compliance
with regulations promulgated under subsection (c) of any
underground storage tank that is--
``(A) regulated under this subtitle; and
``(B) owned or operated by the State government or any
local government.
``(2) Financial incentive.--The Administrator may award to
a State that develops and implements a strategy described in
paragraph (1), in addition to any funds that the State is
entitled to receive under this subtitle, not more than
$50,000, to be used to carry out the strategy.''.
(c) Incentives for Performance.--Section 9006 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991e) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(e) Incentives for Performance.--In determining the terms
of, or whether to issue, a compliance order under subsection
(a), or the amount of, or whether to impose, a civil penalty
under subsection (d), the Administrator, or a State under a
program approved under section 9004, shall take into
consideration whether an owner or operator has--
``(1) a history of operating underground storage tanks of
the owner or operator in accordance with--
``(A) this subtitle; or
``(B) a State program approved under section 9004; or
``(2) implemented a program, consistent with guidelines
published under section 9010, that provides training to
persons responsible for operating any underground storage
tank of the owner or operator.''.
(d) Authority To Prohibit Certain Deliveries.--Section 9006
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991e) (as amended
by subsection (c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) Authority To Prohibit Certain Deliveries.--
``(1) In general.--After the date on which the
Administrator promulgates regulations under paragraph (2),
the Administrator, or a State with a program approved under
section 9004, may prohibit the delivery of regulated
substances to underground storage tanks that are not in
compliance with--
``(A) a requirement or standard promulgated by the
Administrator under section 9003; or
``(B) a requirement or standard of a State program approved
under section 9004.
``(2) Authority.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Administrator, after
consultation with States, shall promulgate regulations that
specify--
``(A) the circumstances under which the authority provided
by paragraph (1) may be used;
``(B) the process by which the authority provided by
paragraph (1) will be used consistently and fairly; and
``(C) such other factors as the Administrator, in
cooperation with States, determines to be necessary to carry
out this subsection.''.
(e) Public Record.--Section 9002 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991a) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(d) Public Record.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall require each
State and Indian tribe that receives funds under this
subtitle to maintain, update at least annually, and make
available to the public, in such manner and form as the
Administrator shall prescribe (after consultation with States
and Indian tribes), a record of underground storage tanks
regulated under this subtitle.
``(2) Considerations.--To the maximum extent practicable,
the public record of a State or Indian tribe, respectively,
shall include, for each year--
``(A) the number, sources, and causes of underground
storage tank releases in the State or on tribal land;
``(B) the record of compliance by underground storage tanks
in the State or on tribal land with--
``(i) this subtitle; or
``(ii) an applicable State program approved under section
9004; and
``(C) data on the number of underground storage tank
equipment failures in the State or on tribal land.
``(3) Availability.--The Administrator shall make the
public record of each State and Indian tribe under this
section available to the public electronically.''.
SEC. 7. FEDERAL FACILITIES.
Section 9007 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6991f) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Review of Federal Underground Storage Tanks.--Not
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
subsection, the Administrator, in cooperation with each
Federal agency that owns or operates 1 or more underground
storage tanks or that manages land on which 1 or more
underground storage tanks are located, shall review the
status of compliance of those underground storage tanks with
this subtitle.
``(d) Compliance Strategies.--Not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of this subsection, each Federal agency
described in subsection (c) shall submit to the Administrator
and to each State in which an underground storage tank
described in subsection (c) is located, a strategy to ensure
the compliance of those underground storage tanks with this
subtitle.''.
SEC. 8. TANKS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF INDIAN TRIBES.
Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991
et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 9011 (as added
by section 6(a)) the following:
``SEC. 9012. TANKS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF INDIAN TRIBES.
``The Administrator, in coordination with Indian tribes,
shall--
``(1) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this section, develop and implement a strategy--
``(A) giving priority to releases that present the greatest
threat to human health or the environment, to take necessary
corrective action in response to releases from leaking
underground storage tanks located wholly within the
boundaries of--
``(i) an Indian reservation; or
``(ii) any other area under the jurisdiction of an Indian
tribe; and
``(B) to implement and enforce requirements concerning
underground storage tanks located wholly within the
boundaries of--
``(i) an Indian reservation; or
``(ii) any other area under the jurisdiction of an Indian
tribe; and
``(2) not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of
this section and every 2 years thereafter, submit to Congress
a report that summarizes the status of implementation and
enforcement of the leaking underground storage tank program
in areas located wholly within--
``(A) the boundaries of Indian reservations; and
``(B) any other areas under the jurisdiction of an Indian
tribe.''.
SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991
et seq.) (as amended by section 8) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 9013. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Administrator--
``(1) to carry out subtitle I (except sections 9003(h),
9005(a), and 9011) $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003
through 2007; and
[[Page S13707]]
``(2) from the Trust Fund, notwithstanding section
9508(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986--
``(A) to carry out section 9003(h) (except section
9003(h)(12)) $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003
through 2007;
``(B) to carry out section 9003(h)(12), $200,000,000 for
fiscal year 2003, to remain available until expended;
``(C) to carry out section 9005(a)--
``(i) $35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 and 2004;
and
``(ii) $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through
2008; and
``(D) to carry out section 9011--
``(i) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
``(ii) $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through
2008.''.
SEC. 10. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 9001 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act (42 U.S.C. 6991) is amended--
(1) by striking ``For the purposes of this subtitle--'' and
inserting ``In this subtitle:'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5),
(6), (7), and (8) as paragraphs (10), (7), (4), (3), (8),
(5), (2), and (6), respectively;
(3) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as redesignated by
paragraph (2)) the following:
``(1) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' has the
meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b).''; and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (8) (as redesignated by
paragraph (2)) the following:
``(9) Trust fund.--The term `Trust Fund' means the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund established by section
9508 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 9003(f) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. 6991b(f)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``9001(2)(B)'' and
inserting ``9001(7)(B)''; and
(B) in paragraphs (2) and (3), by striking ``9001(2)(A)''
each place it appears and inserting ``9001(7)(A)''.
(2) Section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. 6991b(h)) is amended in paragraphs (1), (2)(C),
(7)(A), and (11) by striking ``Leaking Underground Storage
Tank Trust Fund'' each place it appears and inserting ``Trust
Fund''.
(3) Section 9009 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6991h) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``9001(2)(B)'' and
inserting ``9001(7)(B)''; and
(B) in subsection (d), by striking ``section 9001(1) (A)
and (B)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
section 9001(10)''.
SEC. 11. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) Section 9001(4)(A) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. 6991(4)(A)) (as amended by section 9(a)(2)) is amended
by striking ``sustances'' and inserting ``substances''.
(b) Section 9003(f)(1) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. 6991b(f)(1)) is amended by striking ``subsection (c)
and (d) of this section'' and inserting ``subsections (c) and
(d)''.
(c) Section 9004(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. 6991c(a)) is amended by striking ``in 9001(2) (A) or
(B) or both'' and inserting ``in subparagraph (A) or (B) of
section 9001(7)''.
(d) Section 9005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6991d) (as amended by section 3) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``study taking'' and
inserting ``study, taking'';
(2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``relevent'' and
inserting ``relevant''; and
(3) in subsection (c)(4), by striking ``Evironmental'' and
inserting ``Environmental''.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Kerry, and Mr. Kohl):
S. 1851. A bill to amend part C of title XVIII, of the Social
Security Act to provide for continuous open enrollment and
disenrollment in Medicare+Choice plans and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today
with Senators Chafee, Rockefeller, Kennedy, Feingold, Corzine, Reed,
Clinton, Kerry, and Kohl entitled the Medicare+Choice Consumer
Protection Act is designed to ensure protections for Medicare+Choice
beneficiaries that are witnessing increased costs, decreased benefits,
and fewer options to obtain affordable supplemental coverage for
Medicare.
This legislation is a companion bill to H.R. 3267, legislation
introduced by Representative Pete Stark.
The Medicare+Choice program is an important option for many seniors
and the disabled in this country, including 15 percent of seniors in
the State of New Mexico. This option must remain a viable one in the
Medicare program, but due to the recent rounds of plan withdrawals,
benefit reductions, and cost increases that plans have undertaken
within the program, there has been a growing level of insecurity among
Medicare beneficiaries with respect to their health coverage.
Last year, I sponsored legislation, S. 2905, the Medicare+Choice
Program Improvement Act of 2000, to increase payments, including the
minimum payment amount to Medicare+Choice plans. However, despite
payment increases approved by the Congress last year, including some
substantial increases in certain more rural areas of the country, we
have witnessed over 530,000 people recently lose their Medicare+Choice
coverage as a result of HMO pull-outs from the Medicare program,
including some in areas that received these much higher payments.
Many others have also experienced increases in their costs through
the HMO or benefit reductions, including the elimination or substantial
reduction of prescription drug coverage.
Therefore, while we must continue to explore mechanisms to ensure
that the Medicare+Choice program remains a viable one, it is clear that
even if their push for higher payments is met that the plans may still
choose to pull-out of areas, decrease benefits, or increase costs to
seniors. Despite ads being run by some Medicare+Choice plans that they
will provide ``health care for life,'' Medicare beneficiaries are
seeing constant turmoil and change on a yearly basis. Some Medicare
Beneficiaries have been dropped to have seen their benefits reduced or
costs increased by HMO's on yearly basis since the creation of the
Medicare+Choice program in 1997.
In New Mexico, the result of last year's payment increases have
resulted in a mixed outcome. Presbyterian's Medicare+Choice plan has
reported that they are on track to achieve a profit margin of 3 to 4
percent on its M+C product in 2001 compared to a loss of around 15
percent in the prior year. In contrast, St. Joseph's M+C plan received
the substantial increase in its Medicare payment, and yet, eliminated
prescription drug coverage to seniors through its HMO without notice to
some seniors this past March and still reports the system is up for
sale and may completely change this coming year.
Beneficiaries are often left confused and uncertain. As 96 year-old
Beulah Torrez of Espanola, New Mexico, said after the last round of
Medicare+Choice plan changes, ``I just finally gave up. I couldn't
afford anything. I couldn't afford the HMOs.''
As we continue to seek ways to improve Medicare+Choice coverage, we
should take immediate action to extend important consumer protections
to Medicare beneficiaries who find themselves in a plan that no longer
meets their needs. To achieve these goals, the bill we are introducing
today would.
(1) Eliminate the Medicare+Choice lock-in scheduled to go into effect
in January 2002.
(2) Extend the existing Medigap protections that apply to people
whose Medicare+Choice plan withdraws from the program to anyone whose
Medicare+Choice plan changes benefits or whose doctor or hospital
leaves the plan.
(3) Prevent Medicare+Choice plans from charging higher cost-sharing
for a service than Medicare charges in the fee-for-service program.
Eliminating the lock-in would ensure that seniors and people with
disabilities continue to be allowed to leave a health plan that is not
meeting their needs. When St. Joseph's health plan eliminated
prescription drug coverage from its Medicare plan earlier this year,
Medicare beneficiaries were left without drug coverage but were at
least able to change their health plan at the end of the month. This
flexibility will end in January 2002 unless this legislation is passed.
It is important that Medicare beneficiaries, often our nation's most
vulnerable citizens, know that if they test an HMO and do not like its
system, arrangements and rules that they will be able to leave and
choose a Medicare option that better suits their specific needs. Both
advocates and the managed care industry support this provision.
In addition, if a Medicare+Choice plan withdraws from a community or
Medicare entirely, you can under current law move into a select
category of Medigap plans, (A, B, C and F, without any individual
health underwriting. this provision ensures that Medicare beneficiaries
have affordable supplemental Medicare options available to them when,
through no fault of their own, their Medicare+Choice plan withdrawals.
[[Page S13708]]
However, these protections for Medicare beneficiaries currently do
not apply with Medicare+Choice plans that make significant changes,
such as eliminating benefits, increasing cost sharing, or changing
available providers, within the HMO but stop short of completely
withdrawing from the Medicare program. In the St. Joseph's case I
mentioned above, seniors were unable to receive important Medigap or
supplemental Medicare coverage since the plan did not completely
withdraw from the service area.
For Medicare beneficiaries whose needs no longer are met by the HMO
due to such changes, a Medigap supplemental policy and a return to
Medicare fee-for-service may often make better sense. Therefore, it is
critical to extend the current Medigap protections for when a plan
terminates Medicare participation to beneficiaries in plans that have
made important changes to the benefits, cost sharing, or provider
options.
And finally, the third provision of the bill would prevent
Medicare+Choice plans from charging higher cost-sharing for individual
services than occurs in the Medicare fee-for-service program. According
to testimony before the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee by
Thomas Scully, Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services, CMS, on December 4, 2001,
. . . this year we have found that some plans proposed
charging beneficiaries what we believed were unreasonably
high copays for particular services . . . Thus, we have a
new challenge balancing the need for plans to make decisions
about their benefit packages and cost sharing amounts with
the important requirement that plan designs do not discourage
enrollment. The concern is always that high cost sharing
could discourage beneficiaries, who have greater health care
needs, from enrolling in or remaining a member of these
particular plans.
In the case of UnitedHealth Group's Medicare Complete option in
Wisconsin, that plan will begin charging a deductible of $295 a day for
a hospital stay up to a cap of $4,800 compared to a similar stay under
fee-for-service Medicare which has a deductible of $812. While CMS did
require the plan to reduce their proposed deductible from $350 to $295
per day, overall out-of-pocket costs can far exceed those that would
occur in fee-for-service for many beneficiaries.
As Stephanie Sue Stein, Director of the Milwaukee County Department
on Aging, said at the same House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee
hearing on December 4, 2001,
Beneficiaries will still be expected to pay up to $4,800
out-of-pocket in addition to the $55 monthly premium for
United's coverage and the $54 monthly premium for Medicare
Part B. The excessive cost-sharing proposed by United raises
questions about the value of this so-called insurance. It is
now clear that many of the 16,000 seniors who have previously
relied on UnitedHealthcare to provide access to affordable
health care can no longer do so. It looks to us as though the
benefit changes for 2002 are designed to discourage
enrollment to beneficiaries who have health needs.
The question arises why we would allow Medicare+Choice plans to
effectively diminish the value of Medicare benefits in this manner.
While the Secretary has the authority under current law to prohibit or
reduce some of the new cost-sharing arrangements that plans are
preparing to impose, the change proposed by this legislation makes it
clear that Medicare+Choice plans cannot charge patients more for a
service than the patient would face under the Medicare fee-for-service
plan.
In fact, the ability of Medicare+Choice plans to charge higher cost-
sharing for benefits or services than in fee-for-service results in
further risk avoidance, or what is referred to as ``cherry picking,''
as plans seek to avoid or deny services to the chronically or severely
ill. This can have an adverse consequence for the health of people with
disabilities, limit their choices, and result in higher costs for the
Medicare program. For all of these reasons, we should enact this
provision in short order.
While we are undertaking efforts to ensure that Medicare-Choice
remains a viable option for Medicare beneficiaries, we must also ensure
additional protections for beneficiaries.
As Ms. Stein said in her testimony,
These plans now call themselves new things, complete and
secure and healthy, but they are not complete or secure or
healthy. They are radically different. These Medicare+Choice
policies are not the same ones people bought when they took
advantage of what they perceived to be the value-added
benefits sold to them as Medicare+Choice. In fact, they are
left with Medicare minus protection, Medicare minus the
ability to buy a Medigap policy, Medicare minus the ability
to choose different insurance.
In fact, according to a report by the Commonwealth Fund in April
2001, ``31 percent of Medicare+Choice enrollees are in contracts where
the basic plan has a copayment requirement for hospital admissions,
compared with just 13 percent in 2000. Outpatient hospital copayments
are being required of 45 percent of Medicare+Choice enrollees in 2001,
compared with only 29 percent in 2000.'' This will only increase
further in 2002.
Therefore, to improve fundamental financial protections and health
care options for our nation's Medicare seniors and disabled enrollees,
I urge the swift passage of this legislation.
The following organizations have expressed their support for this
legislation: AFSCME Retiree Program, Alliance for Retired Americans,
American Association of Homes and Service for the Aging, American
Association for International Aging, American Federation of Teachers
Program on Retirement and Retirees, American Society of Consultant
Pharmacists, Association for Gerontology and Human Development in
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, B'nai B'rith Center for
Senior Housing and Services, California Health Advocates, Center for
Medicare Advocacy, Congress of California Seniors, Eldercare America,
Families USA, International Union--UAW, National Academy of Elder Law
Attorneys, National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, National
Association of Professional Geriatric Care Managers, National
Association of Retired and Senior Volunteer Program Directors, National
Association of Retired Federal Employees, National Association of
Senior Companion Program Directors, National Association of State Units
on Aging, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare,
National Council on the Aging, National Renal Administrators
Association, National Senior Citizens Law Center, and OWL--Voice for
Midlife and Older Women.
I request unanimous consent that a fact sheet and 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. 1851
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 ``Medicare+Choice Consumer
Protection Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. CONTINUOUS OPEN ENROLLMENT AND DISENROLLMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 1851(e)(2) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-21(e)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Continuous open enrollment and disenrollment.--
Subject to paragraph (5), a Medicare+Choice eligible
individual may change the election under subsection (a)(1) at
any time.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Medicare+choice.--Section 1851(e) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-21(e)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (4)--
(i) by striking ``Effective as of January 1, 2002, an'' and
inserting ``An'';
(ii) by striking ``other than during an annual, coordinated
election period'';
(iii) by inserting ``in a special election period for such
purpose'' after ``make a new election under this section'';
and
(iv) by striking the second sentence; and
(B) in paragraphs (5)(B) and (6)(A), by striking ``the
first sentence of''.
(2) Permitting enrollment in medigap when m+c plans reduce
benefits or when provider leaves a m+c plan.--
(A) In general.--Clause (ii) of section 1882(s)(3)(B) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ss(s)(3)(B)) is amended--
(i) by inserting ``(I)'' after ``(ii)'';
(ii) by striking ``under the first sentence of'' each place
it appears and inserting ``during a special election period
provided for under'';
(iii) by inserting ``the circumstances described in
subclause (II) are present or'' before ``there are
circumstances''; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following new subclause:
``(II) The circumstances described in this subclause are,
with respect to an individual enrolled in a Medicare+Choice
plan, a reduction in benefits (including an increase in cost-
sharing) offered under the Medicare+Choice plan from the
previous year or a provider of services or physician
[[Page S13709]]
who serves the individual no longer participating in the plan
(other than because of good cause relating to quality of care
under the plan).''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Clause (iii) of such section is
amended--
(i) by inserting ``the circumstances described in clause
(ii)(II) are met or'' after ``policy described in subsection
(t), and''; and
(ii) by striking ``under the first sentence of'' and
inserting ``during a special election period provided for
under''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on January 1, 2002, and shall apply to
reductions in benefits and changes in provider participation
occurring on or after such date.
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON MEDICARE+CHOICE COST-SHARING.
(a) In General.--Section 1852(a) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-22(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Limitation on cost-sharing.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), in no case
shall the cost-sharing with respect to an item or service
under a Medicare+Choice plan exceed the cost-sharing
otherwise applicable under parts A and B to an individual who
is not enrolled in a Medicare+Choice plan under this part.
``(B) Permitting flat copayments.--Subparagraph (A) shall
not be construed as preventing the application of flat dollar
copayment amounts (in place of a percentage coinsurance),
such as a fixed copayment for a doctor's visit, so long as
such amounts are reasonable and appropriate and do not
adversely affect access to items and services (as determined
by the Secretary).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply as of January 1, 2003.
____
Medicare+Choice Consumer Protection Act of 2001--Fact Sheet
Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), John
D. Rockefeller, IV (D-WV), Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), Russ
Feingold (D-WI), Jon Corzine (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI),
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), John Kerry (D-MA) and Herb
Kohl (D-WI) are preparing to introduce the ``Medicare+Choice
Consumer Protection Act of 2001.'' This legislation is a
companion bill to H.R. 3267, which was introduced by
Representative Pete Stark (D-CA).
This legislation would improve consumer protections to
Medicare beneficiaries seeking to enroll in Medicare+Choice
plans by:
Eliminating the Medicare+Choice lock-in schedule to go into
effect in January 2002;
Extending the existing Medigap protections that apply to
people whose Medicare+Choice plan withdraws from the program
to anyone whose Medicare+Choice changes benefits or whose
doctor or hospital leaves the plan; and
Preventing Medicare+Choice plans from charging higher cost-
sharing for a service than Medicare charges in the fee-for-
service program.
need for legislation
Medicare+Choice Forthcoming Lock-In: Currently, Medicare
beneficiaries that are dissatisfied with their health plan
are allowed to enroll or disenroll from their health plans at
any time. As of January 2002, Medicare beneficiaries electing
the Medicare+Choice option will be required to ``lock in''
with that plan for much longer periods. In fact, for 2002,
Medicare+Choice enrollees will only be allowed to switch
plans once during the first six months after enrollment. In
2003, the beneficiaries will only be able to switch once
during the first three months after enrollment.
The legislation eliminates the upcoming lock-in to ensure
that Medicare beneficiaries continue to be allowed to leave a
health plan that is not meeting their needs. Medicare
beneficiaries, often our nation's most vulnerable citizens,
need to know that if they test an HMO and do not like the
system, arrangements, and rules that they will be able to
leave to choose a Medicare option that better suits their
specific needs. Both advocates and the managed care industry
support this provision.
Medigap Protections When Medicare+Choice Plans Change
Benefits, Cost Sharing, or Provider Options: In addition, if
a Medicare+Choice plan withdrawals from a community or
Medicare entirely, beneficiaries can under current law move
into a select category of Medigap plans (A, B, C and F)
without any individual health underwriting. This provision
ensures that Medicare beneficiaries have affordable
supplemental Medicare options available to them when, through
no fault of their own, their Medicare+Choice plan
withdrawals.
However, these protections for Medicare beneficiaries
currently do not apply with Medicare+Choice plans that make
significant changes, such as eliminating benefits, increasing
cost sharing, or changing available providers, within the HMO
but stop short of completely withdrawing from the Medicare
program. For example, some plans now cover only generic
prescriptions, in effect eliminating drug coverage for
beneficiaries whose prescriptions have no generic equivalent.
For those Medicare beneficiaries whose needs are no longer
met by the Medicare+Choice plan due to these changes, the
legislation extends the current Medigap protections for
beneficiaries when a plan terminates Medicare
participation to those in plans that have made important
changes to their benefits, cost sharing, or provider
options.
Preventing Higher Cost Sharing in Medicare+Choice Than in
Fee-For-Service: Under current law, cost sharing per enrollee
(including premiums) for covered services cannot be more than
the actuarial value of the deductibles, coinsurance, and
copayments under traditional Medicare fee-for-service.
However, Medicare+Choice plans are increasingly charging
higher cost-sharing for individual services within the health
plan than is allowed in fee-for-service. Higher cost-sharing,
for example, is being required by some Medicare+Choice plans
for dialysis, hospitalization, and other services than in
traditional fee-for-service Medicare.
In addition to creating an adverse consequence for the
health of Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities who have
certain illnesses, charging beneficiaries higher costs for
certain services results in what is referred to as ``cherry
picking,'' as some plans seek to avoid or deny services to
the chronically or severely ill. Again, this can have adverse
health effects for certain beneficiaries, limit their
choices, and resulting in higher costs for the Medicare
payment through ``risk selection.'' Consequently, this
legislation would close this loophole and prohibit
Medicare+Choice plans from imposing higher cost sharing for
certain services than is allowed in Medicare fee-for-service.
Supporting Organizations
AFSCME Retiree Program.
Alliance for Retired Americans.
American Association of Homes and Service for the Aging.
American Association for International Aging.
American Federation of Teachers Program on Retirement and
Retirees.
American Society of Consultant Pharmacists.
Association for Gerontology and Human Development in
Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
B'nai B'rith Center for Senior Housing and Services.
California Health Advocates.
Center for Medicare Advocacy.
Congress of California Seniors.
Eldercare America.
Families USA.
International Union, UAW.
National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys.
National Association of Area Agencies on Aging.
National Association of Professional Geriatric Care
Managers.
National Association of Retired and Senior Volunteer
Program Directors.
National Association of Retired Federal Employees.
National Association of Senior Companion Program Directors.
National Association of State Units on Aging.
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and
Medicare.
National Council on the Aging.
National Renal Administrators Association.
National Senior Citizens Law Center.
OWL, Voice for Midlife and Older Women.
______
By Mr. THOMAS:
S. 1852. A bill to extend the deadline for commencement of
construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Wyoming; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. THOMAS. 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. 1852
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified
in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that
would otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Swift Creek Power Company, Inc. hydroelectric
license, project number 1651, the Commission may, at the
request of the licensee for the project, and after reasonable
notice, in accordance with the requirements of that section
and the Commission's procedures under that section, extend
the time period during which the licensee is required to
commence the construction of the project for 3 consecutive 2-
year periods.
(b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) takes effect on the
date of the expiration of the extension issued by the
Commission before the date of the enactment of this Act under
section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806).
______
By Mr. JOHNSON:
S. 1854. A bill to authorize the President to present congressional
gold medals to the Native American Code Talkers in recognition of their
contributions to the Nation during World War I and World War II; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that will recognize all Native American Code Talkers who served as Code
Talkers during World Wars I and II. Earlier this year, the Navajo Code
Talkers were
[[Page S13710]]
recognized by Congress and the President, and were presented with their
Congressional Gold Medals. I was proud be a cosponsor of legislation
introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman granting the medals and
participating in the ceremony recognizing their great accomplishments.
Today, I am introducing similar legislation recognizing the over 17
other tribes who served our Nation and democracy across the world.
These brave men utilized their language to assist the allied forces,
and subsequently saved the lives of thousands of men and women. Years
ago, the United States government policy towards Native people
attempted to force the assimilation of millions of Native Americans and
Alaskan Natives.
The United States government attempted to strip the culture and
language from the native peoples of this great land. We have learned
the lessons of the past, and I stand here today honoring these
courageous soldiers for preserving part of the very core of their
culture. Their language.
It is tragic that we have waited so many decades for the recognition
of these brave soldiers.
We cannot hope to make up for some of the wrongs that befell the
Native peoples in the United States, or across North and South America.
But, we can continue to ensure that honor is continually bestowed upon
those men and women who fought for and defended our Nation, and the
preservation of democracy on foreign lands.
Native Americans remain the most decorated ethnic group in our
military forces. I am honored that we are one step closer to honoring
those who deserve recognition that is long overdue. This truly marks a
proud moment in our Nation's history.
I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring those Native Americans
who served as code talkers in World Wars I and II. 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. 1854
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL MEDALS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) not fewer than 17 Indian tribes have been identified as
having served as code talkers during World War I and World
War II;
(2) during World War I, 15 members of the Oklahoma Choctaw
served as code talkers in the 36th Infantry Division;
(3) during World War II, many Native Americans served as
code talkers, including--
(A) members of the Lakota-Dakota and Sioux Tribes, many of
whom served in the 3d Battalion and the 302d Reconnaissance
Team, First Cavalry Division;
(B) 17 members of the Commanche Tribe;
(C) members of the Hopi Tribe, many of whom served in the
223d Battalion;
(D) 27 members of the Sac and Fox Tribe of Iowa, 19 of whom
served in the 18th Iowa Infantry;
(E) members of the Choctaw Tribe, many of whom served in
Company K, 180th Infantry Regiment, 45th Division;
(F) 5 members of the Assiniboine Tribe;
(G) members of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, most of whom
served in the 195th Field Artillery Battalion; and
(H) members of the Muscogee Creek Tribe, most of whom
served in the Aleutian Islands campaign;
(4) in December 2000, Congress recognized the Navajo Code
Talkers by authorizing the presentation of gold and silver
medals to the Navajo Code Talkers and posthumously to their
surviving family members;
(5) all Native American Code Talkers have performed an
important service to the preservation of democracy, and
deserve proper recognition, which is long overdue;
(6) because the code was so successful, the Native American
Code Talkers are credited with saving the lives of countless
American and Allied Forces during World War II; and
(7) Native Americans continue to be one of the most
represented and decorated ethnic groups in the United States
Armed Forces.
(b) Congressional Medals Authorized.--
(1) Presentation authorized.--To express recognition by the
United States and its citizens of the achievements of the
Native American Code Talkers, the President is authorized to
award to each of the Native American Code Talkers, or a
surviving family member, on behalf of Congress, a gold medal
of appropriate design.
(2) Design and striking.--For purposes of the awards
authorized by paragraph (1), the Secretary of the Treasury
(in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall
strike gold medals with suitable emblems, devices, and
inscriptions, to be determined by the Secretary.
(c) Duplicate Medals.--The Secretary may strike and sell
duplicates in bronze of the medals struck pursuant to this
section, under such regulations as the Secretary may
prescribe, and at a price sufficient to cover the costs
thereof, including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery,
and overhead expenses, and the cost of the medals.
(d) Status as National Medals.--The medals struck pursuant
to this section are national medals for purposes of chapter
51, of title 31, United States Code.
(e) Funding.--
(1) Authority to use fund amounts.--There is authorized to
be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise
Fund, such sums as may be necessary to pay for the costs of
the medals authorized by this section.
(2) Proceeds of sale.--Amounts received from the sale of
duplicate medals under this section shall be deposited in the
United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.
______
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Burns, Mr. Corzine, and Mr.
Baucus):
S. 1856. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to promote
employer and employee participation in telework arrangements, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, along with my colleagues Senator Burns,
Senator Corzine, and Senator Baucus, I wish to introduce legislation of
critical importance to our Nation's workforce and economy.
The rapid spread of new telecommunications technologies has
generated opportunities for firms across the country to improve upon
the traditional work environment. Today, millions of American workers
participate in ``telework'' arrangements, otherwise known as
telecommuting, which allow them to work outside of their normal work
location. Telework arrangements carry several advantages: the ability
to spend more time with the children, less time wasted in traffic,
enhanced productivity, and the environmental benefits of reduced carbon
dioxide emissions. While teleworking grew substantially during the
1990s, the number of teleworkers has reached a plateau, with little
increase in the last year. The social, economic, and environmental
gains of teleworking are indisputable. Our legislation combines tax
incentives and an employer awareness campaign to stimulate further
growth in telework arrangements.
The term ``telework'' means to perform normal and regular work
functions at locations other than the traditional workplace of the
employer, thereby eliminating or substantially reducing the physical
commute to and from the workplace. Given the opportunity, workers
choose overwhelmingly to participate in telework arrangements.
Employees who telework report an enhanced quality of life. 71 percent
of teleworkers report being more satisfied with their job than before
they were permitted to telework. Working from home allows parents more
time with their children and reduces child care expenses. Teleworkers
also stay in their communities, providing enhanced security and
presence.
If teleworking is implemented broadly in a community, the need for
construction of additional automobile infrastructure, which is often
driven by peak period commuting demand, may be reduced. Even workers
who do not telework benefit since traffic congestion is lessened for
them as well.
There are also economic benefits. Data indicate that teleworking
enhances productivity, both because teleworkers report being more
productive per unit time, and because the teleworker has available the
previously nonproductive commute time, an average of 62 minutes per day
spent on an average 44 mile round-trip commute. Because teleworkers are
able to mix work and personal needs, the number of occasions when they
need to be absent from work altogether diminishes. One study suggests
that the productivity improvement of home-based teleworkers averages 15
percent. Firms also benefit from eliminating unnecessary office space
and reducing associated overhead costs. For example, one large national
employer reports that in 2000, their telework program resulted in $100
million in increased productivity, $18 million in reduced turnover, and
$25 million in reduced real estate costs. Because of the enhanced
quality of life and personal freedom that teleworking fosters, firms
are better able to retain valued employees.
Telework arrangements are critical to keeping our economy and
workforce
[[Page S13711]]
on the leading edge of technological developments. Teleworking
contributes to the residential deployment of broadband technology,
which has otherwise stagnated. Teleworkers have a disproportionate need
for high-speed Internet access. Encouraging telework is a means of
inducing greater demand for broadband technology.
Allowing employees to work from home saves energy and reduces carbon
dioxide emissions associated with commuting. It also reduces vehicular
contributions to local and regional tropospheric pollution both
directly and, by reducing congestion in general, indirectly. To the
extent telework reduces demands for additional infrastructure, it also
leads to less material use in construction and less land-use impact.
The Teleworking Advancement Act creates two tax-based incentives to
promote the continued spread of employer-sponsored telework
arrangements and a pilot program to raise awareness about telecommuting
among small business employers.
The employer telework tax credit would allow employers to claim a
credit of up to $500 for each employee who participates in an employer-
sponsored telework arrangement during the taxable year. For employees
who telework on a partial basis, the credit would be prorated.
Employees of small businesses, those with 100 or fewer employees, and
disabled employees, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act,
would be eligible for a maximum credit of $1,000. An employer-sponsored
telework arrangement is defined as an arrangement established by an
employer that enables employees of the employer to telework for a
minimum of 25 days per year. The arrangement must be supported by a
written agreement between the employer and each teleworking employee
that describes the terms of the arrangement.
The telework equipment tax credit would allow individuals or
businesses to claim a credit equal to 10 percent of qualified telework
expenses paid, pursuant to an employer-sponsored telework arrangement.
Either the employer or the employee, depending on who incurred the
expense, would be eligible for the credit. The maximum credit would be
$500. For employees of small businesses (those with 100 or fewer
employees) and disabled employees, as defined by the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the credit would be 20 percent of eligible expenses,
with a maximum credit of $1,000. Qualified telework expenses includes
expenses paid or incurred for computers, software, modems,
telecommunications equipment, and access to Internet or broadband
technologies, including applicable taxes and other expenses for the
delivery, installation, or maintenance of such equipment.
Finally, the legislation authorizes $5 million for the Administrator
of the Small Business Administration to conduct a pilot program to
raise awareness about telecommuting among small business employers and
to encourage employers to offer telecommuting options to employees.
Activities would include producing educational materials, conducting
outreach, and acquiring telecommuting technologies and equipment to be
used for demonstration purposes. Special efforts would be made to
conduct outreach to businesses owned by or employing individuals with
disabilities.
The Teleworking Advancement Act will induce more employers to offer
teleworking opportunities to their employees, creating broad-based
benefits for the American workforce and helping ensure that our economy
remains at the forefront of 21st century workplace practices. Through a
combination of tax incentives and an employer awareness campaign, our
legislation will stimulate the spread of flexible, innovative, and
productivity-enhancing labor arrangements. I urge my colleagues to
support passage of the legislation, and 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. 1856
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 ``Teleworking Advancement
Act''.
SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR TELEWORKING.
(a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
foreign tax credit, etc.) is amended by inserting after
section 30A the following new section:
``SEC. 30B. TELEWORK CREDIT.
``(a) General Rule.--There shall be allowed as a credit
against the tax imposed by this chapter for any taxable year
an amount equal to the sum of--
``(1) the employer telework tax credit, plus
``(2) the telework equipment tax credit.
``(b) Employer Telework Tax Credit; Telework Equipment Tax
Credit.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Employer telework tax credit.--Except as provided for
in subsection (c)(1), the employer telework tax credit for
any taxable year is equal to $500 for each employee who
participates in an employer sponsored telework arrangement
during the taxable year.
``(2) Telework equipment tax credit.--Except as provided
for in subsection (c)(2), the telework equipment tax credit
for any taxable year is equal to 10 percent of qualified
telework expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year by
either the employer on behalf of the employee, or directly by
the employee, pursuant to an employer sponsored telework
arrangement.
``(c) Special Rule for Disabled Employees and Employees of
Small Businesses.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) For each employee who is covered under the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1201), or for each
employee of a small business, the employer telework tax
credit for any taxable year is equal to $1,000 for each
employee who participates in an employer sponsored telework
arrangement during the taxable year.
``(2) For each employee who is covered under the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1201), or for each
employee of a small businesses, the telework equipment tax
credit for any taxable year is equal to 20 percent of
qualified telework expenses paid or incurred during the
taxable year by either the employer on behalf of the
employee, or directly by the employee, pursuant to an
employer sponsored telework arrangement.
``(d) Credit Adjustments and Limitations.--
``(1) Credit adjustments.--In computing the credit allowed
under subsection (b)(1) or (c)(1) for any taxable year, the
following adjustments shall apply:
``(A) In the case of an employee who participates in an
employer sponsored telework arrangement for less than the
full taxable year, the credit amount identified in subsection
(b)(1) or (c)(1), whichever is applicable, shall be
multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the total
number of months in the taxable year that the employee
participates in an employer sponsored telework arrangement
and the denominator of which is 12. For purposes of the
preceding sentence, an employee is considered to be
participating in an employer sponsored telework arrangement
for a month if the employee teleworks for at least one full
day of such month.
``(B) In the case of an employee who participates in an
employer sponsored telework arrangement but does not telework
every day of the taxable year that the employee is required
by his or her employer to work, the credit amount identified
in subsection (b)(1) or (c)(1), whichever is applicable,
shall be multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is
the total number of full days in the taxable year that the
employee teleworks and the denominator of which is the total
number of days in the taxable year that the employee is
required by his or her employer to work.
``(2) Telework equipment credit limitations.--
``(A) In computing the credit allowed under subsection
(b)(2) for any taxable year, the following limitations shall
apply:
``(i) The maximum credit claimed by any employer with
respect to qualified telework expenses paid or incurred on
behalf of an employee shall not exceed $500 for each employee
who participates in an employer sponsored telework
arrangement.
``(ii) The maximum credit claimed by any employee with
respect to qualified telework expenses paid or incurred
directly by the employee pursuant to an employer sponsored
telework arrangement shall not exceed $500.
``(B) In computing the credit allowed under subsection
(c)(2) for any taxable year with respect to employees who are
covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 1201), or for each employee of a small business, the
following limitations shall apply:
``(i) The maximum credit claimed by any employer with
respect to qualified telework expenses paid or incurred on
behalf of an employee shall not exceed $1,000 for each
employee who participates in an employer sponsored telework
arrangement.
``(ii) The maximum credit claimed by any employee with
respect to qualified telework expenses paid or incurred
directly by the employee pursuant to an employer sponsored
telework arrangement shall not exceed $1,000.
``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Employer sponsored telework arrangement.--The term
`employer sponsored telework arrangement' means an
arrangement established by an employer that enables employees
of the employer to telework for a minimum of 25 full days per
taxable
[[Page S13712]]
year. Such an arrangement shall be supported by a written
agreement between the employer and each teleworking employee
that describes the terms of the employer sponsored telework
arrangement.
``(2) Qualified telework expenses.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified telework expenses'
shall include expenses paid or incurred for computers,
computer-related hardware and software, modems, data
processing equipment, telecommunications equipment, and
access to Internet or broadband technologies, including
applicable taxes and other expenses for the delivery,
installation, or maintenance of such equipment.
``(B) Only certain expenses taken into account.--Expenses
shall be taken into account under subparagraph (A) only to
the extent they are authorized by the employer pursuant to an
employer sponsored telework arrangement and are necessary to
enable the employee to telework.
``(3) Small business.--The term `small business' means a
business with an average of 100 or fewer employees during the
taxable year.
``(4) Telework.--An employee shall be treated as engaged in
telework if--
``(A) the employee's normal and regular work functions are
performed at a fixed location provided by the employer,
``(B)(i) the employee, under an employer sponsored telework
arrangement, performs such functions at the employee's
residence or at a location specifically designed to allow
employees to perform such functions closer to their
residence, and
``(ii) the performance of such functions at such residence
or location eliminates or substantially reduces the physical
commute of the employee to the fixed location described in
subparagraph (A), and
``(C) the employee transmits by electronic or other
communications medium the employee's work product from such
residence or location to the fixed location where such
functions would otherwise have been performed.
``(f) Special Rules.--
``(1) Limitation based on amount of tax.--
``(A) Liability for tax.--The credit allowable under
subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed the
excess (if any) of--
``(i) the regular tax for the taxable year, reduced by the
sum of the credits allowable under subpart A and the
preceding sections of this subpart, over
``(ii) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year.
``(B) Carryforward of unused credit.--If the amount of the
credit allowable under subsection (a) for any taxable year
exceeds the limitation under paragraph (1)(A) for the taxable
year, the excess shall be carried to the succeeding taxable
year and added to the amount allowable as a credit under
subsection (a) for such succeeding taxable year.
``(2) Basis reduction.--The basis of any property for which
a credit is allowable under subsection (a) shall be reduced
by the amount of such credit (determined without regard to
paragraph (1)).
``(3) Recapture.--The Secretary shall, by regulations,
provide for recapturing the benefit of any credit allowable
under subsection (a) with respect to any property which
ceases to be property eligible for such credit.
``(4) Property used outside united states, etc., not
qualified.--No credit shall be allowed under subsection (a)
with respect to any property referred to in section 50(b) or
with respect to the portion of the cost of any property taken
into account under section 179.
``(5) Election not to take credits.--No credits shall be
allowed under subsection (a) for any expense if the taxpayer
elects to not have this section apply with respect to such
expense.
``(6) Denial of double benefit.--No deduction or credit
(other than under this section) shall be allowed under this
chapter with respect to any expense which is taken into
account in determining the credit under this section.
``(7) Documentation.--Employers and employees are
responsible for maintaining adequate documentation to support
any credits claimed under this section.''
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (a) of section 1016
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to general
rule for adjustments to basis) is amended by striking ``and''
at the end of paragraph (27), by striking the period at the
end of paragraph (28) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding
at the end the following:
``(29) in the case of property with respect to which a
credit was allowed under section 30B, to the extent provided
in section 30B(f)(2).''
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
B of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 30A the following new item:
``Sec. 30B. Telework credit.''
(d) Regulatory Matters.--
(1) Prohibition.--No Federal or State agency or
instrumentality shall adopt regulations or ratemaking
procedures that would have the effect of confiscating any
credit or portion thereof allowed under sections 30B of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this Act) or
otherwise subverting the purpose of this Act.
(2) Treasury regulatory authority.--It is the intent of
Congress in providing the telework tax credit under section
30B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this
Act) to promote broad participation in employer sponsored
telework arrangements by providing incentives to both
employers and employees. Accordingly, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary
or appropriate to carry out the purposes of section 30B of
such Code, including regulations describing the information,
records, and data that employers and employees are required
to provide the Secretary to substantiate compliance with the
requirements of this section and section 30B of such Code.
Until the Secretary prescribes such regulations, employers
and employees may base such determinations on any reasonable
method that is consistent with the purposes of section 30B of
such Code.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.
SEC. 3. SMALL BUSINESS TELECOMMUTING PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--In accordance with this section, the
Administrator shall conduct, in not more than 5 of the Small
Business Administration's regions, a pilot program to raise
awareness about telecommuting among small business employers
and to encourage such employers to offer telecommuting
options to employees.
(b) Special Outreach to Individuals With Disabilities.--In
carrying out subsection (a), the Administrator shall make
special efforts to do outreach to--
(1) businesses owned by or employing individuals with
disabilities, and disabled American veterans in particular;
(2) Federal, State, and local agencies having knowledge and
expertise in assisting individuals with disabilities or
disabled American veterans; and
(3) any group or organization, the primary purpose of which
is to aid individuals with disabilities or disabled American
veterans.
(c) Permissible Activities.--In carrying out the pilot
program, the Administrator may only--
(1) produce educational materials and conduct presentations
designed to raise awareness in the small business community
of the benefits and the ease of telecommuting;
(2) conduct outreach--
(A) to small business concerns that are considering
offering telecommuting options; and
(B) as provided in subsection (b); and
(3) acquire telecommuting technologies and equipment to be
used for demonstration purposes.
(d) Selection of Regions.--In determining which regions
will participate in the pilot program, the Administrator
shall give priority consideration to regions in which Federal
agencies and private-sector employers have demonstrated a
strong regional commitment to telecommuting.
(e) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the
first date on which funds are appropriated to carry out this
section, the Administrator shall transmit to the Committee on
Small Business of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Small Business of the Senate a report containing
the results of an evaluation of the pilot program and any
recommendations as to whether the pilot program, with or
without modification, should be extended to include the
participation of all Small Business Administration regions.
(f) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of
the Small Business Administration;
(2) the term ``disability'' has the same meaning as in
section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12102);
(3) the term ``pilot program'' means the program
established under this section; and
(4) the term ``telecommuting'' means the use of
telecommunications to perform work functions under
circumstances which reduce or eliminate the need to commute.
(g) Termination.--The pilot program shall terminate 2 years
after the first date on which funds are appropriated to carry
out this section.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Small Business Administration
$5,000,000 to carry out this section.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
S. 1857. A bill to Encourage the Negotiated Settlement of Tribal
Claims; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. CAMPBELL. 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. 1857
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SETTLEMENT OF TRIBAL CLAIMS.
(a) In General.--Solely for purposes of providing an
opportunity to explore the settlement of tribal claims,
during fiscal year 2002, the statute of limitations shall be
deemed not to have run for any claim concerning losses to or
mismanagement of tribal trust funds.
(b) No Preclusion of Findings.--Nothing in this section
precludes a court or other adjudicatory entity from
adjudicating a statute of limitations defense either:
[[Page S13713]]
(1) in an action filed on or after October 1, 2002; or
(2) in any case, controversy, or other proceeding pending
on the date of enactment of this section against the United
States in which a court or adjudicatory entity is called on
to determine whether the statute of limitations on such a
claim has run.
____________________