[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 185 (Monday, December 5, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8184-S8187]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 1942. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to improve
transportation for seniors, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. KOHL. Mr President, 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. 1942
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 ``Senior Transportation and
Mobility Improvement Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) According to projections from the 2010 decennial
census, the number of individuals in the United States who
are 65 years of age or older will increase from 40,000,000 in
2010 to 72,000,000 in 2030. Yet, a 2004 report by the Surface
Transportation Policy Project found that more than 1 in 5 (or
21 percent) of individuals who are 65 years of age or older
do not drive.
(2) According to a 2011 report by the National Association
of Area Agencies on Aging, inadequate transportation options
for older adults has emerged as the second greatest challenge
identified by communities during the 5-year period ending in
2011.
(3) According to a 2004 report by the Surface
Transportation Policy Project, more than \1/2\ of seniors who
are 65 years of age and older (numbering 3,600,000
individuals) who no longer drive due to a decline in health,
stay at home on any given day partially because they lack
transportation options. Alternatives to driving are
particularly sparse in some regions and in rural and small
town communities.
(4) According to a 2004 report by the Surface
Transportation Policy Project, compared with older drivers,
older non-drivers in the United States make 15 percent fewer
trips to the doctor, 59 percent fewer shopping trips, and 65
percent fewer trips for social, family, and religious
activities.
(5) In 2009, the program under section 5310 of title 49,
United States Code, provided more than 43,000,000 rides to
older adults and people with disabilities.
(6) Access to mobility management services help transit and
human services systems meet the needs of older adults and
people with disabilities. This person-centered strategy helps
individuals and families review available transportation
options and support their decisions regarding the
transportation options that are best suited to their
circumstances, preferences and mobility needs.
SEC. 3. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR ELDERLY
INDIVIDUALS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES.
(a) Elderly Individuals and Individuals With
Disabilities.--
(1) Use of funds.--Section 5310 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Operating Costs.--
[[Page S8185]]
``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `covered
amounts' means, for a fiscal year, any amounts apportioned to
a State under this section in excess of the amounts
apportioned to the State under this section for fiscal year
2010.
``(2) Use of funds.--A State may use not more than 33
percent of any covered amounts for costs relating to the
operation and maintenance of vehicles and other capital
assets acquired by the State using funds under this section,
including insurance, fuel, and driver compensation.
``(3) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
operation and maintenance carried out using funds under this
subsection may not exceed 50 percent.''.
(2) Additional requirements for grant recipients.--Section
5310(d) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(3) Reporting requirements.--Each recipient of funding
under this section shall submit to the Administrator of the
Federal Transit Administration an annual report that
describes how the recipient will coordinate, or is
coordinating, the activities carried out by the recipient
using a grant under this section with the activities, if any,
carried out by the recipient using a grant under title III of
the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3021 et seq.).''.
(3) Federal share.--Section 5310(c)(1)(B) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``(B) Exception.--A State'' and inserting
the following:
``(B) Exceptions.--
``(i) Certain states.--A State''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Mobility management.--A grant under this section for
a capital project described in section 5302(a)(1)(L) shall be
for 90 percent of the capital costs of the project, as
determined by the Secretary.''.
(b) National Transit Database.--Section 5335 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``section 5307 or 5311''
and inserting ``section 5307, 5310, or 5311''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Data Relating to Sections 5310 and 5311.--The
reporting and uniform systems established under subsection
(a) shall include information with respect to activities
carried out using a grant under section 5310 or 5311,
including, for each recipient of a grant under section 5310
or 5311 and for each State--
``(1) the number of vehicles purchased; and
``(2) the number of rides provided.''.
SEC. 4. METROPOLITAN AND STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING.
(a) Metropolitan Transportation Planning.--Section 5303(i)
of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(8) Participation by older individuals and people with
disabilities.--
``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph, the terms
`disability' and `older individual' have the same meanings as
in section 102 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
3002).
``(B) Participation required.--In developing a
transportation plan under this section, a metropolitan
planning organization shall--
``(i) ensure that organizations that represent older
individuals and individuals with disabilities (including
community action agencies, area agencies on aging, aging and
disability resource centers, and other representatives of the
aging and disability networks) have a reasonable opportunity
to comment on the transportation plan and document the
efforts of the metropolitan planning organization to solicit
such comments;
``(ii) take into consideration any comments received under
clause (i) and document how any such comments were taken into
consideration in the development of the transportation plan;
and
``(iii) give organizations that represent older individuals
and individuals with disabilities (including community action
agencies, area agencies on aging, aging and disability
resource centers, and other representatives of the aging and
disability networks) an opportunity to review and comment on
the transportation plan before the transportation plan
becomes final.''.
(b) Statewide Transportation Planning.--Section 5304 of
title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(k) Participation by Older Individuals and People With
Disabilities.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection, the terms
`disability' and `older individual' have the same meanings as
in section 102 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
3002).
``(2) Participation required.--In developing a statewide
transportation plan or a statewide transportation improvement
program under this section, a State shall--
``(A) ensure that organizations that represent older
individuals and individuals with disabilities have a
reasonable opportunity to comment on the plan or program and
document the efforts of the State to solicit such comments;
``(B) take into consideration any comments received under
subparagraph (A) and document how any such comments were
taken into consideration in the development of the plan or
program; and
``(C) give organizations that represent older individuals
and individuals with disabilities an opportunity to review
and comment on the plan or program before the plan or program
becomes final.''.
SEC. 5. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND MOBILITY MANAGEMENT.
(a) Technical Assistance.--
(1) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection--
(A) the term ``eligible entity'' means a nonprofit
organization that provides transportation services to older
individuals;
(B) the term ``older individual'' has the same meaning as
in section 102 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
3002); and
(C) the term ``urbanized area'' has the same meaning as in
section 5302 of title 49, United States Code.
(2) In general.--The Administrator of the Federal Transit
Administration shall enter into a cooperative agreement with
the National Center on Senior Transportation--
(A) to provide technical assistance to transit and human
services organizations;
(B) to disseminate best practices with respect to
transportation for older individuals to consumers, Federal,
State, and local transportation and aging services providers,
and researchers; and
(C) to make grants to eligible entities to test innovative
and replicable approaches for addressing the mobility needs
of older individuals, including individuals in other than
urbanized areas.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection--
(A) $5,500,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
(B) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.
(b) Mobility Management Program.--
(1) In general.--The Federal Transit Administration shall
make grants to nonprofit aging services organizations--
(A) to offer mobility management services, including
mobility management activities and projects described in
section 5302(a)(1)(L) of title 49, United States Code; and
(B) to develop and implement enhanced technology to support
mobility management services.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection--
(A) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
(B) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.
______
By Mr. CASEY:
S. 1944. A bill to create jobs by providing payroll tax relief for
middle class families and businesses, and for other purposes; read the
first time.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I am here to speak about legislation I am
introducing today that will prevent a huge tax hike from hitting
working families across America and in Pennsylvania.
As the clock continues to tick down, it is imperative we come
together--Democrats and Republicans, Members of both parties, in both
Chambers--and pass legislation to provide more take-home pay by cutting
the payroll tax, as we did in 2010.
The legislation I am introducing is a compromise offer designed to
bridge the gap and to get at least 60 votes in the Senate.
The legislation is fully paid for and includes measures that have
received bipartisan support in the past. We can no longer afford to
jeopardize middle-income Americans in order to protect the wealthiest
few across our country.
This legislation will help working families by extending the current
payroll tax cut and expanding that cut to a 3.1-percent level--a 3.1-
percent reduction in the payroll tax. In essence, what we are talking
about is cutting the payroll tax in half as it relates to employees.
Small businesses will benefit from this legislation by benefiting
directly from the additional money in the pockets of Americans across
the country.
Those with incomes above $1 million should help in carrying a portion
of this burden, and that is why the surtax is still in this
legislation, but the surtax will now be only 1.9 percent, compared to
the 3.25-percent in an earlier version of my legislation.
In addition, I have offered a few more offsets that have received
bipartisan support.
The bottom line is--just as the first bill was that I offered--this
legislation is indeed paid for.
The tax cut is key and an essential ingredient to job creation and
economic growth in 2012. Economists and forecasters--from Moody's
Analytics to RBC Capital Markets, to Barclay's Capital, to
Macroeconomic Advisers--have all emphasized that the tax cut will
accelerate growth in 2012. Without it, economic growth will slow and
job creation will take a hit.
Mark Zandi, of Moody's Analytics, has said that without the payroll
tax cut for 2012, ``we'll likely go into recession.''
Congress should act quickly to expand tax relief and remove the
uncertainty for working families in this holiday season about whether
their taxes
[[Page S8186]]
will go up in the new year. More take-home pay to keep the economy
growing is what we need right now--and especially in the year ahead.
I encourage all our colleagues in the Senate, as well as those in the
House, to pass this legislation to continue and to expand a cut in the
payroll tax.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr.
Cornyn, and Mr. Blumenthal):
S. 1945. A bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court
proceedings; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 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. 1945
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28.
(a) In General.--Chapter 45 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:
``Sec. 678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings
``The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage of all
open sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, by a
vote of the majority of justices, that allowing such coverage
in a particular case would constitute a violation of the due
process rights of 1 or more of the parties before the
Court.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
45 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting
at the end the following:
``678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings.''.
______
By Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Graham, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Nelson, of Florida, Mr.
Bennet, Mrs. McCaskill, and Mr. Pryor):
S. 1946. A bill to require foreign manufacturers of products imported
into the United States to establish registered agents in the United
States who are authorized to accept service of process against such
manufacturers; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the
Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2011, which I am
introducing today with Senator Sessions, Senator Durbin, Senator
Graham, Senator Leahy, Senator Feinstein, Senator Nelson of Florida,
Senator Bennet, Senator McCaskill, and Senator Pryor.
This bipartisan bill is an important step in protecting American
consumers and businesses from injuries caused by defective products
manufactured outside the United States. Those products hurt American
consumers--they lead to serious injuries, and even death--and they hurt
the American businesses that must deal with angry customers, product
recalls, and unusable inventory.
The list of recent examples of Americans injured by defective foreign
products is shocking. Sadly, the situation is no better than when we
first introduced this legislation in 2009. A recent rash of cases
involving children's toys is particularly chilling because children are
so susceptible to the effects of defective products, and because there
is no worse nightmare as a parent than seeing harm befall your child,
particularly when that harm is preventable.
The following are just a few of the many examples of defective and
dangerous toys and children's products that are being sold to unknowing
parents:
On October 27, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a
settlement with a foreign toy maker because a line of its craft kits
contained beads that were, unbelievably, coated with the chemical GHB,
also known as ``the date-rape drug.'' Children who swallowed the beads
became comatose, developed respiratory depression, or had seizures.
Over 4.2 million of these toys were sold.
A week earlier, a line of wooden peg toys made by a foreign
manufacturer were recalled for having small parts that could choke
toddlers.
Earlier this year, there was a recall of jewelry marketed to children
12 years old and under because it contained cadmium, which can cause
cancer. The cadmium levels in these products were as high as 2,300
times the legal limit in California, where the jewelry was distributed.
Foreign toys have been found to contain dangerous levels of lead. In
2007, a major toy company was forced to recall 18.6 million foreign-
made toys for containing lead or dangerous magnets. The same year,
another major company had to recall more than 1.6 million foreign-made
toys for containing lead. In 2006, a foreign-made, lead-tainted charm
bracelet claimed the life of a 4-year-old. The autopsy demonstrated
that the charm was 99 percent lead, 1,650 times more than the 0.06
percent lead limit specified in enforcement guidelines for children's
jewelry.
However, it is not just toys and other children's products that pose
risks. In 2008, a contaminated blood thinner from a foreign
manufacturer caused severe medical reactions and contributed to
numerous deaths. Imported food products from seafood to honey have been
contaminated with unthinkable chemicals, including veterinary drugs
banned in domestic production, potentially harmful antibiotics, and
unapproved food additives. Tens of millions of packages of pet food
contaminated with tainted wheat gluten have been recalled. Substandard
tires have failed, leading to fatalities. Defective drywall imported
from China has been found to contain excessively high levels of sulfur,
causing houses to smell like rotten eggs, corroding copper wiring,
making expensive appliances fail, causing respiratory an other health
problems, and making homes unlivable. Thousands of homes have been
affected. I am very pleased that tomorrow Senator Pryor will chair an
important hearing of the Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Consumer
Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance, focusing on this
contaminated drywall, and its awful consequences.
At a hearing that I chaired in 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts explored the
legal hurdles facing consumers who are injured by defective foreign
products and by businesses that find that their foreign partners refuse
to honor their contracts. These hurdles allow foreign manufacturers to
injure American businesses and consumers with impunity. They also put
American manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage since they allow
foreign manufacturers to offer cheaper products that do not comply with
American safety requirements.
Two major hurdles to proper accountability are the inability to serve
process on the foreign manufacturer and the ability of that foreign
manufacturer, even if served, to evade the jurisdiction of American
courts. Legislation to address these issues is both necessary and
appropriate. The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act
addresses both concerns.
The first problem, the inability to serve process on a manufacturer,
essentially means that it is difficult for an American to give a
foreign manufacturer the legally required notice that it is the subject
of a lawsuit. This sounds like a simple step, and it should be.
Unfortunately, however, it is very hard to serve process on foreign
companies abroad. Service abroad is complicated by the Hague Convention
on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil
and Commercial Matters, to which the United States is a signatory.
Under that convention, a complaint must be translated into the foreign
language, transmitted to the Central Authority in the foreign country,
and then delivered according to the rules of service in the home
country of the defendant. This can cause months and even years of
delay, not to mention great expense for Americans.
The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act will allow
Americans to overcome that procedural hurdle by serving legal papers
inside the United States on registered agents of foreign manufacturers.
The bill requires the heads of Federal Government agencies such as the
Food and Drug Administration to pass regulations requiring that foreign
manufacturers of products regulated by their agencies register an agent
who will accept service of process. It allows regulators to exclude
manufacturers who only import a minimal amount of products into the
United States. It imposes a minimal burden on foreign manufacturers,
since they would only have to appoint one agent to accept service of
process for all State and Federal regulatory and civil actions anywhere
in the United
[[Page S8187]]
States. The bill allows the manufacturer to choose any location for
that agent with a ``substantial connection to the importation,
distribution, or sale'' of their products. This clear and
straightforward system will allow Americans to commence their lawsuits
fairly and promptly, and ensure that foreign manufacturers have proper
and fair notice of the proceedings brought against them. It will not
conflict with American obligations under the Hague convention, since
that convention applies to service of process on foreign manufacturers
in their home countries, not in the United States.
The second hurdle, the inability to establish personal jurisdiction
over foreign manufacturers, can end a lawsuit against a foreign
manufacturer before it even begins. Think about how unfair this is. A
foreign manufacturer sells its defective products in the United States,
injures American consumers and businesses, and then argues that it is
not subject to the courts in the state where the American was injured--
in legal parlance, that the courts do not have personal jurisdiction
over it. Foreign manufacturers raise this technical legal defense to
avoid liability even when serious injuries or even death have been
caused by their products--their defective tires, fireworks, exercise
equipment, bikes, and toys.
The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act will enable
injured Americans to surmount this hurdle. It will make clear to
foreign manufacturers that by importing their products into the United
States and by registering an agent in the United States, they are
consenting to the jurisdiction of the courts in the state where their
agent is located. By consenting to jurisdiction, the manufacturers will
be unable to engage in unnecessary and expensive legislation about
technical legal issues and allow courts to settle the merits of
disputes. This approach is fair to foreign manufacturers since all
American manufacturers are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of
at least one state. This bill therefore complies with the trade
principle that we should not subject foreign manufacturers to burdens
not already imposed on domestic manufacturers.
Indeed, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act is
ultimately about fairness. We all know American manufacturers comply
with regulations that ensure the safety of American consumers and
businesses. When they fail to do so, they must answer to regulators and
are held accountable through the American tort system. Unfortunately,
foreign manufacturers are not being held to the same standards--
injuring American consumers and businesses, and putting American
manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage. We must level the playing
field for all manufacturers and provide justice for American consumers
and businesses. The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act will
allow us to make a major step in that direction. It covers major
product categories including consumer goods, drugs, cosmetics, and
chemicals, and it requires relevant agencies to study workable
approaches to ensure that foreign food producers also are brought
within the ambit of the American legal system.
Because of its benefits to consumers, this legislation has the
support of several leading consumer groups, including Consumers Union,
Consumer Federation of America, U.S. PIRG, and the National Association
of Consumer Advocates.
Protecting Americans and holding foreign manufacturers accountable
when their products harm American consumers and businesses is a
bipartisan issue. Everyone agrees that we should do what we can to keep
Americans safe from defective products. So too, I think, do we all
agree that American companies should not be at a competitive
disadvantage to their foreign counterparts. The Foreign Manufacturers
Legal Accountability Act builds on those fundamental agreements. I am
grateful to my colleague Senator Sessions, and the bill's other
cosponsors, for their hard work on this bill. I know that they all feel
the impacts of harmful, defective foreign products in their home
states, just as we feel it in Rhode Island.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to see this important legislation passed into law.
____________________