[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18781-18784]
[From the U.S. 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.--
       ``(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:

[[Page 18782]]

       ``(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 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

[[Page 18783]]

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 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,

[[Page 18784]]

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.

                          ____________________