[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 118 (Monday, July 23, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9775-S9782]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Nelson of Florida):
S. 1847. A bill to reauthorize the Consumer Produce Safety Act, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
[[Page S9776]]
S. 1847
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 ``Consumer Product Safety
Modernization Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY ACT.
(a) In General.--Section 32(a) of the Consumer Product
Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2081) is amended by striking paragraphs
(1) and (2), and inserting the following:
``(1) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
``(2) $77,500,000 for fiscal year 2009.
``(3) $85,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
``(4) $92,500,000 for fiscal year 2011.
``(5) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.''.
(b) Repeal of Quorum Requirement for Transaction of
Business.--Section 4(d) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2053(d)) is
amended by striking ``, but three'' and all that follows
through ``to decline to two''.
(c) Reduced Period of Notice to Manufacturers and Private
Labelers With Respect to Disclosure of Information.--Section
6(b)(1) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2055(b)(1)) is amended by
striking ``not less than 30 days'' and inserting ``not fewer
than 10 days''.
(d) Expedition of Release of Information in Case of
Noncooperation by Manufacturer or Private Labeler.--Section
6(b) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2055(b)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(9)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
subsection and paragraphs (5) and (6) of subsection (a), if
the Commission makes an affirmative determination under
subparagraph (B) with respect to information obtained under
this Act pertaining to a consumer product of a manufacturer
or private labeler, the Commission may immediately disclose
such information to the public.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Coleman,
Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Salazar, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Bingaman, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Obama):
S. 1848. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to address the impact
of globalization, to reauthorize trade adjustment assistance, to extend
trade adjustment assistance to service workers, communities, firms, and
farmers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, I am proud to join with my good
friend and colleague Senator Snowe to introduce the Trade and
Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2007. This legislation would
invest in America's workers and firms, farmer, and communities. It
would help them to compete in the global marketplace.
The open trade system that has evolved over the past 50 years has
created new markets for American ingenuity. It has delivered more
affordable goods to American consumers. In Montana alone, trade
supports nearly one in five jobs.
But for some Americans, trade-related economic change has not always
been smooth. In 2005, the Owens and Hurst sawmill in Eureka, Mt, closed
its doors. That mill fell victim to an onslaught of unfairly dumped and
subsidized Canadian lumber. Jerry Ross, a supervisor at the mill, lost
the job that she had held for over a decade.
Jerry's prospects for reeployment looked dim. Luckily for Jerry, she
qualified for Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA. With a diligent,
caring job service caseworker by her side, Jerry charted a new course
in life.
Jerry has been training intensively the Building Trades program at
the Flathead Valley Community College in Kalispell, Mt. She is also
taking accounting coursework. When she finishes her training in
December, she will be qualified as a construction superintendent. She
hopes to start her own business.
Trade Adjustment Assistance helps tens of thousands of American
workers like Jerry retrain for and fill jobs, right here at home. But
the program is set to expire on September 30. It is up to this Congress
to reauthorize and expand the program.
I have consulted closely with workers in Montana. I have sought
advice from not just Montana's Department of Labor I have also
consulted with officials from Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, and
Pennsylvania. I have sat down with unions, businesses, economists, and
other experts.
Everyone agrees. TAA is a lifeline to American workers reentering an
increasingly global labor market.
But for all the good that Trade Adjustment Assistance does, the
current program is a complicated maze of hurdles and exceptions. For
instance, workers can qualify for benefits if their jobs move offshore
to Canada, Mexico, or another free trade agreement partner. But they
will not qualify if their jobs move to China or India. Trade-displaced
manufacturing workers can qualify for TAA if they lose their jobs. But
accountants or any other service providers cannot. Workers can qualify
for wage insurance, but only if they give up their right to retraining.
It does not have to be this way. The Trade and Globalization
Adjustment Assistance Act authorizes a more fair, flexible, and
relevant program.
Today's TAA overlooks the 80 percent of America's workforce employed
in the services sector. Tens of thousands of workers who applied for
TAA last year were shut out, simply because current law covers workers
who produce ``an article.'' This technicality is a holdover from a
different era. That was an era when only the manufacturing sector
experienced strong foreign competition. We must extend the same
protections to services sector workers.
Equally confounding is why workers whose firms move to Canada deserve
any less protection than workers whose firms move to India.
Globalization does not adhere to any trade agreement. My bill will end
this discrimination, by covering any workers whose jobs move offshore,
regardless of whether our nations have a trade agreement in force.
Losing health care coverage can be nearly as devastating as losing a
job. In 2002, Congress passed legislation to provide TAA-certified
workers and certain retirees with an advanceable, refundable healthcare
tax credit to cover 65 percent of their insurance premiums. But few
have used this credit to replace a portion of their former employer's
contribution to their health care premiums. Since folks who are out of
work cannot afford to pay more for health coverage, that means most are
going without. Our bill would increase the Government share of
participants' premiums to 85 percent. That could give workers a real
shot at keeping their healthcare coverage. Our bill also would fix the
glitches that have made it difficult for workers to access this tax
credit.
Our bill would also ensure that States have enough funds to pay for
the 2 years of training to which TAA-certified workers are entitled.
Today, the law caps the amount of available funds. That leads some
States either to run out of or to ration training funds. The Baucus-
Snowe bill would double the cap on training funds. That would ensure
that all workers, including newly eligible ones, get training. Our bill
also includes a trigger to automatically raise the cap to respond to
unanticipated training demands.
Our bill also would make important improvements to the pilot wage
insurance program that Congress created in 2002. Wage insurance helps
older workers supplement lost wages when they get a new job. While
older workers suffer worse wage loss, they are certainly not alone. Our
bill would allow younger workers to participate in the pilot program.
It also would eliminate the requirement that workers forfeit training
if they opt for wage insurance. Instead, our bill would allow workers
to choose what income assistance is right for them. They could choose
this assistance either with training, without training, or after
successfully completing training. Wage insurance should supplement, not
supplant, TAA benefits.
Our bill also would make important changes in the Commerce
Department's TAA for firms program. This program helps workers and
employers avoid painful layoffs in the first place. TAA for firms gives
small businesses the technical assistance that they need to compete in
the global economy. But the program runs a substantial backlog of
approved but unfunded adjustment projects for participating firms. Our
bill would extend coverage to services firms and triples funding to $50
million annually.
Likewise, our bill would improve the Department of Agriculture's TAA
for Farmers program. It would ease the overly strict eligibility
criteria that have kept many farmers and fishermen legitimately
affected by trade from receiving assistance.
But we can do more than that. Many communities in which workers,
firms, or farmers have been certified for TAA are struggling to
redefine their place in
[[Page S9777]]
the global market. This bill would create a new TAA for Communities
program to help communities uniquely challenged by trade to plan for
the future and to access grant funding to implement that future.
Jerry Ross faced long odds when she lost her job. But because of
Trade Adjustment Assistance, she has a bright career. ahead of her.
Jerry believes in TAA. She traveled all the way to Washington, DC to
urge its renewal and improvement at a Finance Committee hearing in
June. I look forward to working with my Colleagues on the Finance
Committee and in this chamber to ensure that this Congress does not
disappoint Jerry and the tens of thousands of American workers just
like her.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as we know, this administration has sought
closer trade ties to a growing number of nations throughout the world.
It asked the last Congress to consider four free trade agreements, and
is currently negotiating at least that number of new agreements, in
addition to the Doha round of the World Trade Organization. Yet, in its
march to lower our tariffs on imported goods, we must be sure we are
not selling our domestic businesses and their works short or-worse
still--out.
Last year saw a record U.S. trade deficit of $764 billion with the
rest of the world. This includes bilateral imbalances with each of
China, the European Union, and Japan. These are the latest figures
demonstrating a steady slide of U.S. producers' market share in both
the domestic and global markets.
One of the most troubling features of the decline of America's trade
profile is the dramatic reduction in the number of manufacturing jobs
in recent years. Since 2000, America has lost approximately 3 million,
or 17 percent of its manufacturing jobs. Maine has lost over 21,000
jobs, representing over 26 percent of our manufacturing workforce.
Other States have also found it difficult to retain these high-wage,
high-benefit jobs as manufacturing operations move overseas and our
demand for foreign-made goods surges.
Unlike job losses due to technological advances, which are the
initiative of private enterprise, trade liberalization that sacrifices
foundational domestic industries is the chosen policy of government. We
therefore have an obligation to ensure that the costs are not borne by
these most vulnerable workers alone.
That is why Senator Baucus and I--along with Senators Wyden, Coleman,
and Stabenow--are today introducing the Trade and Globalization
Adjustment Assistance Act of 2007, which will reauthorize and expand
the TAA program to cover new groups of Americans disfranchised by trade
liberalization, as I had proposed in previous Congresses.
First among these are service workers and firms. While TAA currently
aids U.S. citizens who lost their manufacturing jobs to trade, it fails
to address the growing problem of those finding themselves unemployed
as a result of foreign outsourcing, also known as offshoring. It is
already bad enough that Americans who had careers in the service
sector--which proponents of free trade argue should benefit from trade
liberalization--are finding themselves out of work. But it is simply
Kafkaesque that such service workers, now unemployed due to policies
that were supposed to benefit them, would not be eligible for aid under
TAA. That is why the legislation we are proposing today critically
extends TAA to cover service workers and firms.
It is similarly illogical for workers to be excluded from the TAA
program simply because they lost their job due to multilateral trade
liberalization carried out under the auspices of the World Trade
Organization, as opposed to a bilateral trade agreement, such as a free
trade agreement. Yet, thousands of workers remain ineligible for TAA
benefits under current law because they happened to lose their job to
trade competition from a WTO member such as China or India rather than
an FTA partner country. Accordingly, our legislation extends TAA to
cover Americans who have been adversely affected by trade
liberalization with WTO member, such as China, who are often the worst
offenders of international trade rules.
Of critical importance to Maine and other coastal States is TAA's
failure to cover fishermen who have suffered from the adverse effects
of trade liberalization. U.S. fishermen have seen their livelihoods
dissolve due to the reduction of duties on foreign fish and seafood
imports. Yet, TAA benefits remain unavailable to these hard-working
Americans under the current program. That is why I am pleased to
cosponsor this legislation which will make such fisherman eligible for
TAA.
An additional concern with the present TAA program is its failure to
address the inability of displaced workers in communities that have few
jobs to offer. In small towns, including many in Maine, where the
livelihood of the local economy often depends on one industry, one
plant, or one company that is suffering under trade liberalization, the
closure of that business is sure to cause economic ruin and devastation
of individual lives.
Accordingly, the legislation we are introducing today would create a
program to address economic dislocation in entire communities
negatively affected by international trade and provide readjustment
assistance to such communities. As we approach the expiry of
authorization for both the TAA program and trade promotion authority, I
view inclusion of relief for trade-affected communities as a necessary
component of any comprehensive trade package.
______
By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Akaka, and Mr.
Stevens):
S. 1852. A bill to designate the Friday after Thanksgiving of each
year as ``Native American Heritage Day'' in honor of the achievements
and contributions of Native Americans to the United States; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that
would designate the Friday following Thanksgiving of each year as
Native American Heritage Day.
I believe that it is well known to most Members of this body that the
original inhabitants of the lands that now constitute the U.S.--the
aboriginal, indigenous, native people of America--occupied and
exercised sovereignty over more than 550 million acres of land prior to
the first European contact.
In the early days of our history, well before our Nation was formed,
the native people fought alongside our soldiers in the Revolutionary
War. The Indian tribes enabled the survival of General George
Washington and his troops during the harsh winter at Valley Forge by
providing food to the troops.
A few years later, as our Founding Fathers were engaged in the
challenge of forming a new Nation, they drew upon the democratic model
of government that they learned from the Six Nations of the Iroquois
Confederacy. There they found the well-institutionalized practice of
the fundamental principles of freedom of speech and a system of
governmental checks and balances provided through the separation of
governmental powers.
In our early days as a Nation, we entered into treaties with Native
Americans pursuant to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution that
recognize them as sovereigns. But later, we abandoned the path of an
honorable course of dealings, and turned to war. Thousands lost their
lives through these battles and horrific massacres. The native
population everywhere was decimated.
Forced marches to relocate the native people from their traditional
homelands to areas west of the Mississippi in the dead of winter cost
thousands of more lives. Few Americans know that there was not one
Trail of Tears, but many.
The Treaties could have signaled a return to a course of honorable
dealings with the native people had the U.S. not proceeded to break
provisions in every single one of the treaties that were ratified by
the U.S. Senate.
Amazingly, notwithstanding these appalling deeds, the native people
of the U.S. have always been and continue to be staunchly patriotic and
loyal to this country. They have volunteered to serve in the defense of
our nation in every military action and war in which we have been
engaged, and on a per capita basis, more Native Americans have put
themselves in harm's way and given their lives to protect the U.S. than
any other group of Americans. They have made the greatest sacrifice,
but their contributions do not end there.
[[Page S9778]]
We have only to look to the history that is sadly not found in the
public school textbooks of America's schools, but has been recorded by
historians and anthropologists and through direct, eye-witness
accounts, we know that the native people of the U.S. have made
significant contributions to our society in every walk of life, in
every profession, in medicine and agriculture and as stewards of the
lands and resources we all hold dear.
There have been great men and women who have led their native nations
out of war, poverty, and despair. Throughout the generations, they have
shown us the true meaning of courage in the face of the greatest odds,
and the quiet strength to persevere.
A recent nationwide poll of Americans conducted in March of this year
reveals that 85 percent of those polled strongly support the setting
aside of a day each year to honor the contributions that native people
of this land have made to the fabric of American society. Such a day
would provide an opportunity for all Americans to learn more about the
rich cultural legacy that this Nation's native people have given to us.
I believe the time has come to honor the first Americans of the
country in this manner, and I urge my colleagues to join me in this
endeavor.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Kerry, Mr. McCain,
Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Inouye):
S. 1853. A bill to promote competition, to preserve the ability of
local governments to provide broadband capability and services, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Community
Broadband Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by
Senator Smith of Oregon, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator McCain
of Arizona, Senator McCaskill of Missouri, and Senator Snowe of Maine.
Far too many U.S. residents live in areas of the country where there
is no broadband access. Too many others live in areas where there may
as well be no access because broadband is so expensive. This
legislation will promote economic development, enhance public safety,
increase educational opportunities, and improve the lives of the people
who live in those areas.
In 2004, President Bush called for universal and affordable broadband
in the U.S. by the year 2007. We are now more than halfway through
2007, and the U.S. is far from reaching this goal. Not only has the
U.S. failed to provide universal, affordable broadband, but we are
lagging far behind other countries. A recent study by the International
Telecommunication Union shows that the U.S. ranks 15th worldwide in the
percentage of people with broadband connections. If you take into
account the availability of affordable broadband, the U.S. ranks 21st
in the world. The U.S. should be a leader in providing fast and
affordable broadband to its citizens.
Many of the countries ahead of the U.S. have successfully combined
public and private efforts to deploy municipal networks that connect
their residents and businesses with high-speed Internet services. The
U.S. should be encouraging these innovative networks. We should not be
creating obstacles for municipalities that want to provide affordable
broadband access. Unfortunately, 14 States have passed legislation to
prohibit or significantly restrict the ability of local municipalities
and communities to offer advanced communications services and
capabilities to their citizens. More States are considering such
legislation. The Community Broadband Act is in response to efforts by
States to tell local communities that they cannot establish networks
for their residents, even in communities that have no access to
broadband, in communities where access is not affordable to all
residents, and in communities that want to build high-capacity networks
that are comparable to those being built in the leading cities in the
world.
The Community Broadband Act is a simple bill. It says that no State
can prohibit a municipality from offering high-speed Internet to its
residents; and when a municipality is a provider, it cannot abuse its
governmental authority as regulator to discriminate against private
competitors. Furthermore, a municipality must comply with Federal
telecommunications laws. It also contains provisions to ensure
transparency by making sure the public is aware of its town's or city's
effort and intention to provide broadband either itself or in
partnership with a private entity, and provides those in the community
with an opportunity to be heard on the costs and benefits of the
project and potential alternatives.
This bill will allow communities to make broadband decisions that
would: improve their economy and create jobs by serving as a medium for
development, particularly in rural and underserved urban areas; aid
public safety and first responders by ensuring access to network
services while on the road and in the community; strengthen our
country's international competitiveness by giving businesses the means
to compete more effectively locally, nationally, and internationally;
encourage long-distance education through video conferencing and other
means of sharing knowledge and enhancing learning via the Internet; and
create incentives for public-private partnerships.
A century ago, there were efforts to prevent local governments from
offering electricity. Opponents argued that local governments didn't
have the expertise to offer something as complex as electricity. They
also argued that businesses would suffer if they faced competition from
cities and towns. But local community leaders recognized that their
economic survival depended on electrifying their communities. They knew
that it would take both private investment and public investment to
bring electricity to all Americans.
We face a similar situation today. Municipal networks can play an
essential role in making broadband access universal and affordable. We
must not put up barriers to this possibility.
Some local governments will decide to do this; others will not. Let
me be clear, this is not going to be the right decision for every
municipality. But there are plenty of examples of municipalities that
need to provide broadband, and those municipalities should have the
power to do so.
A few months ago, the Parish Council of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana
voted unanimously to create a wireless network. Jefferson Parish, like
New Orleans, was plagued with communications problems following
Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans has already created a wireless network.
Now, Jefferson Parish plans to establish its own network to make sure
that, should another disaster strike, emergency officials and family
members will be able to communicate with one another. During
nonemergency times, the network will foster communication between
public workers and stimulate economic development.
These stories come from all across the country, from small towns to
underserved urban areas. The small town of Granbury, TX, population
6,400, initiated a wireless network after waiting years for private
industry to take an interest. In Scottsburg, IN, a city and its 6000
residents and businesses north of Louisville, KY, could not get
broadband service from their local phone company. When two important
businesses threatened to leave unless they could obtain broadband
connectivity, municipal officials stepped forward to provide wireless
broadband throughout the town. The town retained the two businesses and
gained much more. There are many Granburys and Scottsburgs across the
country.
There are also underserved urban areas, where private providers may
exist, but many in the community simply cannot afford the high prices.
For example, the City of Philadelphia reports that 90 percent of the
residents of its affluent neighborhoods have broadband, whereas only 25
percent of residents in its low-income areas have broadband. For that
reason, Philadelphia is now creating a city-wide wireless network.
Community broadband networks have the potential to create jobs, spur
economic development, and bring the full benefits of the Information
Age to everyone. I hope my colleagues will join Senators Smith, Kerry,
McCain, McCaskill, Snowe and me in our effort to enact the Community
Broadband Act of 2007.
[[Page S9779]]
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1853
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Community Broadband Act of
2007''.
SEC. 2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISION OF ADVANCED
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY AND SERVICES.
No State or local government statute, regulation, or other
State or local government legal requirement may prohibit, or
have the effect of prohibiting, any public provider from
providing advanced telecommunications capability, or services
using advanced telecommunications capability, to any person
or any public or private entity.
SEC. 3. SAFEGUARDS.
(a) Administration.--To the extent any public provider
regulates competing providers of advanced telecommunications
capability or services, such public provider shall apply its
ordinances and rules and policies, including those relating
to the use of public rights-of-way, permitting, performance
bonding, and reporting, without discrimination in favor of
itself or any other provider of advanced telecommunications
capability or service that such provider owns or with which
such provider is affiliated.
(b) Application of General Laws.--Nothing in this Act
exempts a public provider that offers advanced
telecommunications capability or services to the public from
any Federal communications law or regulation that applies to
all providers of advanced telecommunications capability or
services to the public.
SEC. 4. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS ENCOURAGED.
Each public provider that intends to provide advanced
telecommunications capability or services to the public is
encouraged to consider the potential benefits of a public-
private partnership prior to providing such capability or
services.
SEC. 5. PUBLIC INPUT.
(a) Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard.--Before a public
provider may provide advanced telecommunications capability
or services to the public, either directly or through a
public-private partnership, such public provider shall--
(1) publish notice of its intention to do so;
(2) generally describe the capability or services to be
provided and the proposed coverage area for such capability
or services;
(3) identify any special capabilities or services to be
provided in low-income areas or other demographically or
geographically defined areas; and
(4) provide local citizens and private-sector entities with
an opportunity to be heard on the costs and benefits of the
project and potential alternatives to the project.
(b) Application to Existing Projects and Pending
Proposals.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to--
(1) any contract or other arrangement under which a public
provider is providing advanced telecommunications capability
or services to the public as of the date of enactment of this
Act; and
(2) any public provider proposal to provide advanced
telecommunications capability or services to the public that,
as of the date of enactment of this Act--
(A) is in the request-for-proposals process;
(B) is in the process of being built; or
(C) has been approved by referendum.
SEC. 6. EXEMPTIONS.
The requirements of sections 3 and 5 shall not apply--
(1) when a public provider provides advanced
telecommunications capabilities or services other than to the
public or to such classes of users as to be effectively
available to the public; or
(2) during an emergency declared by the President, the
Governor of the State in which the public provider is
located, or any other elected local official authorized by
law to declare a state of emergency in the jurisdiction in
which the public provider is located.
SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Advanced telecommunications capability.--The term
``advanced telecommunications capability'' has the meaning
given that term by section 706(c)(1) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 157 note).
(2) Public provider.--The term ``public provider'' means a
State or political subdivision thereof, any agency,
authority, or instrumentality of a State or political
subdivision thereof, or an Indian tribe (as defined in
section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)), or any entity that is
owned, controlled, or otherwise affiliated with a State,
political subdivision thereof, agency, authority, or
instrumentality, or Indian tribe.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Dodd):
S. 1854. A bill to amend the Social Security Act and the Public
Health Service Act to improve elderly suicide early intervention and
prevention strategies, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Stop Senior
Suicide Act.
As many of you know, suicide prevention is an issue close to my heart
for personal reasons. In 1972, I lost my own father to suicide. Over
the years that followed, my family did not talk about it and instead
carried the pain in a very private and lonely way.
Sadly, this continued until I was contacted by Jerry and Elsie
Weyrauch from the Suicide Prevention Action Network USA, a national
advocacy organization focused on suicide prevention. Knowing that I had
lost my dad to suicide, they asked if I would speak at their second
annual suicide awareness event. I was also asked to sponsor a suicide
resolution to focus much needed attention on the issue of suicide in
America. On May 6, 1997, I introduced such a resolution and saw it pass
the Senate that same day with unanimous support. I was heartened that
my work on suicide prevention had begun on this auspicious note, but it
was also clear that much more work remained to be done.
Today, 10 years later, I rise to address one of those challenges
before us: the unacceptably high suicide rates among the elderly. While
the public is increasingly aware of suicide as a leading cause of death
in America, what is less well-known is the vulnerability of older
adults. Suicide is disproportionately a killer of seniors, with the
risk climbing steadily with age. In fact, the suicide rate for men 85
years of age and older is the highest of all. Moreover, older adults
who attempt suicide are much more likely than younger people to carry
it out to completion.
As shocks to the national conscience, these statistics point us to
the despair, hopelessness, and desperation that predispose so many
seniors to suicide. They also lead to the question: Why are older
Americans more vulnerable? Compared to other age groups, they often
must deal with social isolation, financial hardship, and debilitating
illnesses. We also know that far too many have mental health care needs
that go unrecognized and unmet. Tragically, one-third of older adults
who die from suicide had seen their primary care physician in the week
before their deaths, and 70 percent during the prior month.
These findings do not just constitute a serious public health
problem. They also conflict with America's belief in living our golden
years in dignity. The ``bankruptcy of hope and resources'' affecting
those at risk ultimately affect us all as a nation.
I am introducing the Stop Senior Suicide Act to take action on this
issue. As a start, this legislation would create an Interagency
Geriatric Mental Health Planning Council to improve the geriatric
mental health and social services delivery system. Composed of
representatives from the health Federal agencies and the community of
older adults, the council will make recommendations and foster the
integration of mental health, suicide prevention, health, and aging
services. In doing so, the council will ensure that senior suicide and
geriatric mental health receive the attention befitting a national
priority.
As another step, my legislation would authorize a grant program for
suicide prevention and early intervention programs focused on seniors.
Many of the risk factors and challenges facing the elderly, after all,
are unique. Through these grants, public and private nonprofit entities
would be able to build innovative approaches and implement them in
settings that serve seniors, such as Older Americans Act delivery
sites. To help grantees achieve their goals, the bill also would
authorize additional funding for the Suicide Prevention Technical
Assistance Center to offer guidance and training.
Finally, the Stop Senior Suicide Act would eliminate a major barrier
to receiving and affording mental health care. Clinical depression and
suicidal feelings are not a normal part of aging, yet these treatable
conditions are often misdiagnosed, untreated, or ignored in far too
many seniors. Out-of-pocket expenses under Medicare, the health
insurance program for 37 million Americans aged 65 years and older, is
a key reason. Medicare currently imposes a 50 percent coinsurance
payment for outpatient mental health services,
[[Page S9780]]
even though it charges just a 20 percent coinsurance for all other
outpatient care. The resulting coverage inequity discourages
beneficiaries, especially low-income and fixed-income retirees, from
seeking mental health treatment. It keeps some from getting treatment
altogether. The Stop Senior Suicide Act would thus adjust the 50
percent coinsurance to 20 percent.
Together, the provisions in the legislation I am introducing today
are designed to take an important step forward in our efforts to
prevent senior suicides. That is why the Stop Senior Suicide Act is
endorsed by the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, the
American Geriatrics Society, the American Psychiatric Association, the
American Public Health Association, Mental Health America, the National
Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Association of Social Workers,
the National Council on Aging, and the Older Women's League. I would
like to thank the Suicide Prevention Action Network USA in particular
for all its hard work on this issue.
Anyone, regardless of age, can be at risk of suicide, but older
Americans are especially vulnerable. The resulting call to action will
only grow in importance and urgency as more of America's 77 million
baby boomers enter their 60s in the coming years. As such, I hope that
my Senate colleagues will join me in supporting the Stop Senior Suicide
Act.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of 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. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Senior Suicide Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The rate of suicide among older adults is higher than
that for any other age group, and the suicide rate for
individuals 85 years of age and older is the highest of all.
In 2004, 6,860 older Americans (age 60 and older) died by
suicide (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007).
(2) In 2004, the elderly (age 65 and older) made up only
12.4 percent of the population but accounted for 16 percent
of all suicides.
(3) According to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, from 1980 to 1992, the suicide rate rose 9
percent for Americans 65 years of age and above, and rose 35
percent for men and women ages 80 to 84.
(4) Older adults have a considerably higher rate of
completed suicide than other groups. While for all age groups
combined there is one suicide for every 20 attempts, there is
one suicide for every 4 attempts among those 65 years of age
and older.
(5) Of the nearly 35,000,000 Americans age 65 and older, it
is estimated that 2,000,000 have a depressive illness and
another 5,000,000 suffer from depressive symptoms and
syndromes that fall short of meeting full diagnostic criteria
for a disorder (Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon
General, 1999).
(6) Seniors covered by Medicare are required to pay a 50
percent co-pay for outpatient mental health services while
they are only required to pay a 20 percent co-pay for
physical health services.
(7) It is estimated that 20 percent of older adults who
complete suicide visited a physician within the prior 24
hours, 41 percent within the past week, and 75 percent within
the past month (Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent
Suicide, 1999).
(8) A substantial proportion of older patients receive no
treatment or inadequate treatment for their depression in
primary care settings (National Institutes of Health
Consensus Development Panel on Depression in Late Life, 1992;
Lebowitz et al., 1997).
(9) Suicide in older adults is most associated with late-
onset depression. Among patients 75 years of age and older,
60 to 75 percent of suicides have diagnosable depression
(Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General, 1999).
(10) Research suggests that many seniors receive mental
health assistance from their primary care providers or other
helping professionals versus specialty mental health
professionals (Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon
General, 1999).
(11) Objective 4.6 of the National Strategy for Suicide
Prevention calls for increasing the proportion of State Aging
Networks that have evidence-based suicide prevention programs
designed to identify and refer for treatment of elderly
people at risk for suicidal behavior.
(12) Objective 1.1 of the President's New Freedom
Commission on Mental Health calls for advancing and
implementing a national campaign to reduce the stigma of
seeking care and a national strategy for suicide prevention.
The report addresses targeting to distinct and often hard-to-
reach populations, such as ethnic and racial minorities,
older men, and adolescents (NFC Report, 2003).
(13) One of the top 10 resolutions at the 2005 White House
Conference on Aging called for improving the recognition,
assessment, and treatment of mental illness and depression
among older Americans.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF A FEDERAL INTERAGENCY GERIATRIC
MENTAL HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall establish an Interagency Geriatric Mental Health
Planning Council (referred to in this section as the
``Council'') to coordinate and collaborate on the planning
for the delivery of mental health services, to include
suicide prevention, to older adults.
(b) Members.--The members of the Council shall include
representatives of--
(1) the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration;
(2) the Indian Health Service;
(3) the Health Resources and Services Administration;
(4) the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services;
(5) the National Institute of Mental Health;
(6) the National Institute on Aging;
(7) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
(8) the Department of Veterans Affairs; and
(9) older adults, family members of older adults with
mental illness, and geriatric mental health experts or
advocates for elderly mental health concerns, to be appointed
by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation
with a national advocacy organization focused on suicide
prevention, including senior suicide prevention.
(c) Co-Chairs.--The Assistant Secretary for Health and the
Assistant Secretary for Aging of the Department of Health and
Human Services shall serve as the co-chairs of the Council.
(d) Activities.--The Council shall--
(1) carry out an interagency planning process to foster the
integration of mental health, suicide prevention, health, and
aging services, which is critical for effective service
delivery for older adults;
(2) make recommendations to the heads of relevant Federal
agencies to improve the delivery of mental health and suicide
prevention services for older adults; and
(3) submit an annual report to the President and Congress
concerning the activities of the Council.
SEC. 4. ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATORY COPAYMENT RATES FOR
MEDICARE OUTPATIENT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Section 1833 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395l) is amended by striking subsection (c).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to items and services furnished on or after
January 1, 2008.
SEC. 5. ELDERLY SUICIDE EARLY INTERVENTION AND PREVENTION
STRATEGIES.
Title V of the Public Health Service Act is amended by
inserting after section 520E-2 (42 U.S.C. 290bb-36b) the
following:
``SEC. 520E-3. ELDERLY SUICIDE EARLY INTERVENTION AND
PREVENTION STRATEGIES.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award grants or
cooperative agreements to eligible entities to develop
strategies for addressing suicide among the elderly.
``(b) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible for a grant or
cooperative agreement under subsection (a) and entity shall--
``(1) be a--
``(A) State or local government agency, a territory, or a
federally recognized Indian tribe, tribal organization (as
defined in the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act), or an urban Indian organization (as defined
in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act); or
``(B) a public or private nonprofit organization; and
``(2) submit to the Secretary an application at such time,
in such manner, and containing such information as the
Secretary may require.
``(c) Use of Funds.--An entity shall use amounts received
under a grant or cooperative agreement under this section
to--
``(1) develop and implement elderly suicide early
intervention and prevention strategies in 1 or more settings
that serve seniors, including senior centers, nutrition
sites, primary care settings, veterans' facilities, nursing
facilities, assisted living facilities, and aging information
and referral sites, such as those operated by area agencies
on aging or Aging and Disability Resource Centers (as those
terms are defined in section 102 of the Older Americans Act
of 1965);
``(2) collect and analyze data on elderly suicide early
intervention and prevention services for purposes of
monitoring, research and policy development; and
``(3) assess the outcomes and effectiveness of such
services.
``(d) Requirements.--An applicant for a grant or
cooperative agreement under this section shall demonstrate
how such applicant will--
``(1) collaborate with other State and local public and
private nonprofit organizations;
``(2) offer immediate support, information, and referral to
seniors or their families who are at risk for suicide, and
appropriate postsuicide intervention services care, and
information to families and friends of seniors who recently
completed suicide and other interested individuals; and
[[Page S9781]]
``(3) conduct annual self-evaluations concerning the goals,
outcomes, and effectiveness of the activities carried out
under the grant or agreement, in consultation with interested
families and national advocacy organizations focused on
suicide prevention, including senior suicide prevention.
``(e) Preference.--In awarding a grant or cooperative
agreement under this section, the Secretary shall give
preference to applicants with demonstrated expertise and
capability in providing--
``(1) early intervention and assessment services, including
voluntary screening programs, education, and outreach to
elderly who are at risk for mental or emotional disorders
that may lead to a suicide attempt and that are integrated
with aging services support organizations;
``(2) early intervention and prevention practices and
strategies adapted to the community it will serve, with equal
preference given to applicants that are already serving the
same community, and applicants that will serve a new
community under a grant or agreement under this section, if
the applicant has already demonstrated expertise and
capability in providing early intervention and prevention
practices and strategies adapted to the community or
communities it currently serves;
``(3) access to services and care for seniors with diverse
linguistic and cultural backgrounds; and
``(4) services in States or geographic regions with rates
of elder suicide that exceed the national average as
determined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
``(f) Requirement for Direct Services.--Not less than 85
percent of amounts received under a grant or cooperative
agreement under this section shall be used to provide direct
services.
``(g) Coordination and Collaboration.--
``(1) In general.--In carrying out this section (including
awarding grants and cooperative agreements under subsection
(a)), the Secretary shall collaborate with the Interagency
Geriatric Mental Health Planning Council.
``(2) Consultation.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
in developing and implementing Federal policy to carry out
this section, the Secretary shall consult with--
``(i) State and local agencies, including agencies
comprising the aging network;
``(ii) national advocacy organizations focused on suicide
prevention, including senior suicide prevention;
``(iii) relevant national medical and other health
specialty organizations;
``(iv) seniors who are at risk for suicide, who have
survived suicide attempts, or who are currently receiving
care from early intervention and prevention services;
``(v) families and friends of seniors who are at risk for
suicide, who have survived attempts, who are currently
receiving care from early intervention and prevention
services, or who have completed suicide;
``(vi) qualified professionals who possess the specialized
knowledge, skills, experience, and relevant attributes needed
to serve seniors at risk for suicide and their families; and
``(vii) other entities as determined by the Secretary.
``(B) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not consult with the
entities described in subparagraph (A) for the purpose of
awarding grants and cooperative agreements under subsection
(a).
``(h) Evaluations and Reports.--
``(1) Evaluations by grantees.--
``(A) Evaluation design.--Not later than 1 year after
receiving a grant or cooperative agreement under this
section, an eligible entity shall submit to the Secretary a
plan on the design of an evaluation strategy to assess the
effectiveness of results of the activities carried out under
the grant or agreement.
``(B) Evaluation of effectiveness.--Not later than 2 years
after receiving a grant or cooperative agreement under this
section, an eligible entity shall submit to the Secretary an
effectiveness evaluation on the implementation and results of
the activities carried out by the eligible entity under the
grant or agreement.
``(2) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date that
the initial grants or cooperative agreements are awarded to
eligible entities under this section, the Secretary shall
submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report
describing the projects funded under this section and include
an evaluation plan for future activities. The report shall--
``(A) be a coordinated response by all representatives on
the Interagency Geriatric Mental Health Advisory Council; and
``(B) include input from consumers and family members of
consumers on progress being made and actions that need to be
taken.
``(i) Definition.--In this section:
``(1) Aging network.--The term `aging network' has the
meaning given such term in section 102(5) of the Older
Americans Act of 1965.
``(2) Early intervention.--The term `early intervention'
means a strategy or approach that is intended to prevent an
outcome or to alter the course of an existing condition.
``(3) Prevention.--The term `prevention' means a strategy
or approach that reduces the likelihood of risk or onset, or
delays the onset, of adverse health problems that have been
known to lead to suicide.
``(4) Senior.--The term `senior' means--
``(A) an individual who is 60 years of age or older and
being served by aging network programs; or
``(B) an individual who is 65 years of age or older and
covered under Medicare.
``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.---
``(1) In general.--For the purpose of carrying out this
section there is authorized to be appropriated $4,000,000 for
fiscal year 2008, $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2009 and
$8,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
``(2) Preference.--If less than $3,500,000 is appropriated
for any fiscal year to carry out this section, in awarding
grants and cooperative agreements under this section during
such fiscal year, the Secretary shall give preference to
applicants in States that have rates of elderly suicide that
significantly exceed the national average as determined by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.''.
SEC. 6. INTERAGENCY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER.
(a) Interagency Research, Training, and Technical
Assistance Centers.--Section 520C(d) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb-34(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``youth suicide early
intervention and prevention strategies'' and inserting
``suicide early intervention and prevention strategies for
all ages, particularly for groups that are at a high risk for
suicide'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``youth suicide early
intervention and prevention strategies'' and inserting
``suicide early intervention and prevention strategies for
all ages, particularly for groups that are at a high risk for
suicide'';
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``youth''; and
(B) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``for
all ages, particularly for groups that are at a high risk for
suicide'';
(4) in paragraph (4), by striking ``youth suicide'' and
inserting ``suicide for all ages, particularly among groups
that are at a high risk for suicide'';
(5) in paragraph (5), by striking ``youth suicide early
intervention techniques and technology'' and inserting
``suicide early intervention techniques and technology for
all ages, particularly for groups that are at a high risk for
suicide'';
(6) in paragraph (7)--
(A) by striking ``youth''; and
(B) by inserting ``for all ages, particularly for groups
that are at a high risk for suicide,'' after ``strategies'';
and
(7) in paragraph (8)--
(A) by striking ``youth suicide'' each place that such
appears and inserting ``suicide''; and
(B) by striking ``in youth'' and inserting ``among all
ages, particularly among groups that are at a high risk for
suicide''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 520C of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb-34) is amended in the
heading by striking ``youth''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--In addition to any other funds made
available, there are authorized to be appropriated for each
of fiscal years 2008 through 2010, such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the amendments made by subsection (a).
(2) Supplement not supplant.--Any funds appropriated under
paragraph (1) shall be used to supplement and not supplant
other Federal, State, and local public funds expended to
carry out other activities under section 520C(d) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb-34(d)) (as amended
by subsection (a)).
(3) Result of increase in funding.--If, as a result of the
enactment of this Act, a recipient of a grant under
subsection (a)(2) of section 520C of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb-34) receives an increase in
funding to carry out activities under subsection (d) of such
section related to suicide prevention and intervention among
groups that are at a high risk for suicide, then,
notwithstanding any other provision of such section, such
recipient shall provide technical assistance to all grantees
receiving funding under such section or section 520E-3 of
such Act (as added by section 5).
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Allard, and Mr. Brownback):
S. 1855. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
relief to individuals from the penalty for failure to pay estimated
taxes on amounts attributable to the alternative minimum tax in cases
where the taxpayer was not subject to the alternative minimum tax in
the preceding year; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, right now millions of Americans don't
know whether they should be paying an estimated tax because Congress
hasn't passed AMT relief. In other words, there are many taxpayers who
will be facing a big tax bill if we don't pass AMT relief. By law, many
of these taxpayers should be paying estimated tax right now based on
the fact that as the law is today, they are subject to the AMT. In
order to these taxpayers, I am introducing the AMT Penalty Protection
Act of 2007.
Under this legislation, in computing tax for purpose of the penalties
in the
[[Page S9782]]
tax code dealing with estimated tax, a taxpayer would be permitted to
disregard the alternative minimum tax if the individual was not liable
for the alternative minimum tax for the preceding tax year.
So if you didn't have to pay AMT last year we aren't going to
penalize you if you don't file estimated taxes for AMT this year.
Just because Congress can't do its job, doesn't mean the taxpayer
should be punished.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1855
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 ``AMT Penalty Protection Act
of 2007''.
SEC. 2. ESTIMATED TAX SAFE HARBOR FOR ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX
LIABILITY.
(a) In General.--Section 6654 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to failure by individual to pay estimated
income tax) is amended by redesignating subsection (m) as
subsection (n) and by inserting after subsection (l) the
following new subsection:
``(m) Safe Harbor for Certain Alternative Minimum Tax
Payers.--In the case of any individual with respect to whom
there was no liability for the tax imposed under section 55
for the preceding taxable year--
``(1) any required payment calculated under subsection
(d)(1)(B)(i) shall be determined without regard to any tax
imposed under section 55,
``(2) any annualized income installment calculated under
subsection (d)(2)(B) shall determined without regard to
alternative minimum taxable income, and
``(3) the determination of the amount of the tax for the
taxable year for purposes of subsection (e)(1) shall not
include the amount of any tax imposed under section 55.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
____________________