[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 26925-26937]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 26926]]

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

[[Page 26927]]

worldwide open trade, which is scheduled to begin in 2005. When these 
workers are displaced, meager savings and temporary unemployment 
benefits are 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,

[[Page 26928]]

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. 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

[[Page 26929]]

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 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 was 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:

[[Page 26930]]



     ``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 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:

[[Page 26931]]



     ``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
       ``(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

[[Page 26932]]

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.
  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

[[Page 26933]]

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 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.

[[Page 26934]]

       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 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

[[Page 26935]]

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 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:

[[Page 26936]]

       ``(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 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

[[Page 26937]]

     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:
       (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.

                          ____________________