[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20016-20022]
[From the U.S. 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:

                                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

[[Page 20017]]

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 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

[[Page 20018]]

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.
  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

[[Page 20019]]

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.
  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

[[Page 20020]]

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, 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

[[Page 20021]]

     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
       ``(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

[[Page 20022]]

     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 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.

                          ____________________