AMT Penalty Protection Act of 2007

Madam President, I am here to follow through on a promise I made back on June 13. At that time, after several speeches on the alternative minimum tax, I said I was going to continue talking about the alternative minimum tax until Congress took action to protect the roughly 19 million families and individuals who will be hit by it in 2007 who did not have to pay it in 2006--19 million families now affected who weren't affected last year.

I am also here to talk about a promise Congress needs to follow through on, which is to protect these 19 million families and individuals from the alternative minimum tax for the tax year we are in right now, 2007.

In 2006, 4.2 million families and individuals were captured by the AMT. For taxable year 2006, the legislation that temporarily increased the amount of income exempt from the alternative minimum tax expired. So, right now, and for the last 9 months, under current law, we expect around 23 million families and individuals to fall victim to the alternative minimum tax if Congress doesn't act.

This chart illustrates the current situation, using the figures I have already referred to: 4.2 million people were paying the alternative minimum tax last year. But what is submerged underneath the surface there is the 19 million people who are affected because Congress has not taken action yet. Tax year 2007, then, is represented by the boat and is rapidly approaching the AMT iceberg. Right now, most of the iceberg--the part that represents the 19 million additional taxpayers who will be caught by the alternative minimum tax this year-- is under water.

The full magnitude of this imminent disaster will become apparent when those 19 million families and individuals start working on their 2007 tax returns starting January 2 of next year. Actually, the situation is worse than I implied--if you can imagine that it can be any worse than that. I wish to say that many families have already fallen victim to the alternative minimum tax. Of course, I am referring to those taxpayers who have to file quarterly returns, quarterly estimated returns.

The last time I spoke to you here on the Senate floor was on the occasion of the estimated tax payments for the second quarter due. I wish to say I am also speaking to my fellow Senators, but I am not sure how many of them might be listening because between June, when I spoke last, and the 3 months since, estimated tax payments for the third quarter were due this past Monday, September 17.

Before I go further, I want to specifically address the size of the population that makes estimated tax payments. In case anyone is thinking this is a very small group of people, the statistics of the income division of the IRS state that for tax year 2004, almost 11 million families and individuals made estimated tax payments. I am not saying each of those filers would be captured this year by the alternative minimum tax, but I surely want to remind everybody of the possibility that the number of people making estimated tax payments is very large, and that those among them hit by the AMT--we have already failed them by not taking care of this before the first payments were made in January.

As I have said, I last addressed the AMT on the Senate floor 3 months ago. In that time, no progress has been made on taking care of the problem of the AMT.

The next chart actually portrays what the Senate leadership has accomplished in the past 3 months in regard to this issue. It shows a giant goose egg. I have served the people in Iowa in Congress for many years. In that time, I have learned that generally things do not happen overnight. It takes time to formulate ideas, and it takes time to build enough support to take action. That is why I am particularly unhappy with this giant goose egg.

The current leadership has indicated that they have much they wish to accomplish this year. Time is rapidly running out and a plan for dealing with the AMT has not been proposed, much less a specific solution. The prospects of the AMT swallowing huge swaths of taxpayers is not a new problem. But until now, we have been able to keep it in check and not be 3 months away from 19 million more taxpayers being hit by it.

Since 2001, the Finance Committee has produced bipartisan packages--I emphasize bipartisan--that have continually increased the amount of income that is exempt from the alternative minimum tax. This was possible thanks to the help of Senator Baucus, currently chairman of the Finance Committee. Together, Senator Baucus and I were able to minimize the damage caused by the AMT. These increases in exemptions, designed to keep pace with inflation and slow the spread of the alternative minimum tax, were never what I envisioned as a permanent solution. Rather, I consider a permanent solution to be the policies represented in a bill with the number S. 55, called the Individual Alternative Minimum Tax Repeal Act.

Once again, I have to credit Chairman Baucus for his advocacy on behalf of tax fairness, as he introduced this bill with me, with Senators Crapo, Kyl, and Schumer signing on as cosponsors, and Senators Lautenberg, Roberts, and Smith also signed on as cosponsors.

In case any of our friends in the House of Representatives are paying attention, a companion bill exists in H.R. 1366, called the Individual AMT Repeal Act. It was introduced by Congressman Phil English of Pennsylvania. What these bills--the ones I introduced in the Senate and Phil English's bill--accomplish is to completely repeal the AMT without offsetting it. That is, these bills do not replace taxes no longer collected from the AMT by raising taxes someplace else. I think it is very important to ensure that revenues that the Federal Government does not collect as a result of the alternative minimum tax reform are not collected someplace else.

The alternative minimum tax was never meant to raise revenue from the middle class of America and was certainly not meant to bring in the amount of money under existing budget law and, oddly, that the Congressional Budget Office has to count. In other words, it should not be counted in the first place if you weren't intended to tax these middle-income taxpayers, but it happens because the AMT was not indexed. The AMT, then, was conceived as a way to promote basic tax fairness in response to concern about a very small number of wealthy taxpayers who were able to eliminate their entire income tax liability through legal means.

The tax created to deal with this--the AMT--was originally, back in 1969, created with the impact at that time of affecting about 1 person out of 500,000. Now, over the course of 38 years, this small salute to tax fairness has grown into a monstrosity of a revenue raiser.

The next chart is taken from the Long-Term Budget Outlook, a Congressional Budget Office publication. It was last published in December 2005. These are the latest figures I have. This illustrates how the alternative minimum tax will swallow more taxpayers as revenue is collected from the alternative minimum tax, being the green line on the chart, over a period of the next 45 years almost, or any time between now and the next 45 years. You can see how it continually grows.

That is what the CBO, through the present budget laws, has to count. But they count it from people--remember, the middle-income people who were never supposed to pay it as opposed to the superrich, a very small number of people, who would take advantage of every legal loophole--I emphasize ``legal'' loophole--and not pay a regular income tax but pay the AMT. I suppose that is out of the theory that everybody living in this country, particularly the wealthy, ought to pay a little bit of tax as a matter of fairness. You can argue whether that is a good rationale, but that was the rationale back in 1969.

So you can see that there is a massive amount of revenue projected to come in from people who were never supposed to pay it that somehow you are supposed to offset, so that that revenue that was never supposed to come in is not lost. I know that doesn't sound reasonable to the average commonsense American listening to me out there, but that is the way our budget laws are, and that is the way Congress has to respond to it, whether it makes sense or not.

Left alone, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that more than 60 percent of the families and individuals in America will fall prey to the alternative minimum tax as it absorbs more than 15 percent of the total tax liability by the year 2050.

This next chart, which is taken from the same congressional office publication, illustrates how under current law revenues collected by the Government are projected to push above their historical average and keep growing as the AMT brings in more and more money. We can see the historical average into the future for 40 years, but it

follows a historical average going back 40 years before now, and because of the alternative minimum tax mostly but also for other law changes, current law, we are going to see the revenue coming in to the Federal Government growing to almost 25 percent of gross national product.

From a philosophical point of view and economic point of view, what is wrong with that? Philosophically, there is less freedom for the Americans. As we spend more of their money, they have less economic freedom. But more importantly, the economic harm that comes from 535 Members of Congress spending 25 percent of the gross national product instead of using the historical average of about 18 percent, that 7 percent difference means we are going to make decisions on how to spend it instead of the 137 million taxpayers in this country deciding how to spend it, where it will turn over the economy more times than if we spend it and do more economic good and create more jobs and have more economic freedom.

That is what is at stake in this whole debate if we do not do anything about the alternative minimum tax and it continues to grow to 15 percent of the total tax liability by the year 2050. This chart points out the increasing power of Congress through taking more money from the taxpayers without even changing the law if we do not do something about this alternative minimum tax.

Anyone who maintains that the alternative minimum tax reform or repeal needs to be offset is not actually doing anything about the problem these charts illustrate. The problems the alternative minimum tax is responsible for are the ballooning Federal revenues above historical levels and a burden on middle-class taxpayers that keeps increasing over time. Offsetting the alternative minimum tax revenue does absolutely nothing to address these issues, and it seems to me to be an attempt to pretend to solve a real problem by actually trying to hide that problem.

Aside from the long-term problems with the alternative minimum tax that we can solve by repealing it, the alternative minimum tax poses a short-term problem to the taxpayers who will fall into its clutches this year if Congress does not act.

Putting aside the legitimacy of keeping this tax, it is not doing what it was intended to do. Putting aside the long-term solution, we are going to end up right now with 19 million more families and individuals being caught by the AMT this year. That 19 million will probably include many taxpayers making estimated tax payments. Some of these families and individuals may not be taking the AMT into account as they make their quarterly payments simply because they do not realize they ought to take this into consideration.

Additionally, there may be some taxpayers who are required to make estimated tax payments when subject to the alternative minimum tax but are not required to make the estimated payments under the regular income tax system. At the end of this tax year, not only could those well-meaning filers find themselves subject to the alternative minimum tax, but they could also face the increased insult of being fined by the IRS for unintentionally miscalculating their estimated tax payments.

I do not believe these well-intentioned taxpayers ought to be penalized because Congress has not come through on its promise to at least keep the AMT from running wild--in other words, going beyond those 4.5 million taxpayers who are already hit by it and not including the 19 million who are otherwise being hit because of inaction so far.

That is why, on July 23, I dealt with this penalty issue by introducing S. 1855, called the AMT Penalty Protection Act. This legislation protects individuals from a penalty for failing to pay estimated taxes on amounts attributable to the AMT in cases where the taxpayers were not subject to the AMT last year. This is not a giveaway meant to compensate for the AMT, as it does not protect taxpayers who paid the AMT last year. Rather, this bill protects the families and individuals who do not yet appreciate the horrible impact our failure to act is going to have on them.

I am not the only one who thinks this legislation is a good idea. We have these Senators--Senators Allard, Brownback, Collins, Hutchison, Smith, and Snowe--agreeing to cosponsor the legislation.

In addition, I have received letters from the Committee on Personal Income Taxation, the New York City Bar, as well as the National Association of Enrolled Agents in support of the provisions of this safe harbor bill so that the IRS cannot apply interest and penalties resulting from the failure to pay estimated taxes on amounts resulting from the AMT in cases where the taxpayers were not liable for the AMT last year.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these letters to which I just referred.

Mr. President, I would like to believe this legislation is not necessary because we are going to prevent the AMT from swallowing 19 million taxpayers in 2000, but I am not optimistic considering the fact we have not acted yet.

In closing, I encourage--and it is meant to encourage--the Democratic leadership to keep our promise with the American taxpayers and at least modify the exemption amounts for 2007. Of course, the best option is to completely repeal the AMT, and I am going to raise this issue with the Finance Committee members, and I am going to raise the issue with Members outside the committee. We ought to just get rid of it. It is stupid to be saying we are going to collect revenue from people who were never intended to pay, but we are counting that revenue. It is a big shell game. So I will be talking with my colleagues about the sensibility of just getting rid of something.

I will tell my colleagues another reason for getting rid of the AMT. It is supposed to hit the super-rich. We are told by the IRS right now that there are about 2,500 of these super-rich who ought to be paying the alternative minimum tax--we would expect them to pay the alternative minimum tax--but they have found ways legally of even avoiding the alternative minimum tax. So we ought to just get rid of it. But for the time being, the only thing the taxpayers can rely on is the same goose egg we have been sitting on all year.

Mr. President, I also wish to use my time to address another issue. I would like to continue, Mr. President.

Mr. President, today, I am proud to join with my good friend and colleague Senator Snowe to introduce the Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2007. This legislation would invest in America's workers and firms, farmer, and communities. It would help them to compete in the global marketplace.

The open trade system that has evolved over the past 50 years has created new markets for American ingenuity. It has delivered more affordable goods to American consumers. In Montana alone, trade supports nearly one in five jobs.

But for some Americans, trade-related economic change has not always been smooth. In 2005, the Owens and Hurst sawmill in Eureka, Mt, closed its doors. That mill fell victim to an onslaught of unfairly dumped and subsidized Canadian lumber. Jerry Ross, a supervisor at the mill, lost the job that she had held for over a decade.

Jerry's prospects for reeployment looked dim. Luckily for Jerry, she qualified for Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA. With a diligent, caring job service caseworker by her side, Jerry charted a new course in life.

Jerry has been training intensively the Building Trades program at the Flathead Valley Community College in Kalispell, Mt. She is also taking accounting coursework. When she finishes her training in December, she will be qualified as a construction superintendent. She hopes to start her own business.

Trade Adjustment Assistance helps tens of thousands of American workers like Jerry retrain for and fill jobs, right here at home. But the program is set to expire on September 30. It is up to this Congress to reauthorize and expand the program.

I have consulted closely with workers in Montana. I have sought advice from not just Montana's Department of Labor I have also consulted with officials from Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. I have sat down with unions, businesses, economists, and other experts.

Everyone agrees. TAA is a lifeline to American workers reentering an increasingly global labor market.

But for all the good that Trade Adjustment Assistance does, the current program is a complicated maze of hurdles and exceptions. For instance, workers can qualify for benefits if their jobs move offshore to Canada, Mexico, or another free trade agreement partner. But they will not qualify if their jobs move to China or India. Trade-displaced manufacturing workers can qualify for TAA if they lose their jobs. But accountants or any other service providers cannot. Workers can qualify for wage insurance, but only if they give up their right to retraining.

It does not have to be this way. The Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act authorizes a more fair, flexible, and relevant program.

Today's TAA overlooks the 80 percent of America's workforce employed in the services sector. Tens of thousands of workers who applied for TAA last year were shut out, simply because current law covers workers who produce ``an article.'' This technicality is a holdover from a different era. That was an era when only the manufacturing sector experienced strong foreign competition. We must extend the same protections to services sector workers.

Equally confounding is why workers whose firms move to Canada deserve any less protection than workers whose firms move to India. Globalization does not adhere to any trade agreement. My bill will end this discrimination, by covering any workers whose jobs move offshore, regardless of whether our nations have a trade agreement in force.

Losing health care coverage can be nearly as devastating as losing a job. In 2002, Congress passed legislation to provide TAA-certified workers and certain retirees with an advanceable, refundable healthcare tax credit to cover 65 percent of their insurance premiums. But few have used this credit to replace a portion of their former employer's contribution to their health care premiums. Since folks who are out of work cannot afford to pay more for health coverage, that means most are going without. Our bill would increase the Government share of participants' premiums to 85 percent. That could give workers a real shot at keeping their healthcare coverage. Our bill also would fix the glitches that have made it difficult for workers to access this tax credit.

Our bill would also ensure that States have enough funds to pay for the 2 years of training to which TAA-certified workers are entitled. Today, the law caps the amount of available funds. That leads some States either to run out of or to ration training funds. The Baucus- Snowe bill would double the cap on training funds. That would ensure that all workers, including newly eligible ones, get training. Our bill also includes a trigger to automatically raise the cap to respond to unanticipated training demands.

Our bill also would make important improvements to the pilot wage insurance program that Congress created in 2002. Wage insurance helps older workers supplement lost wages when they get a new job. While older workers suffer worse wage loss, they are certainly not alone. Our bill would allow younger workers to participate in the pilot program. It also would eliminate the requirement that workers forfeit training if they opt for wage insurance. Instead, our bill would allow workers to choose what income assistance is right for them. They could choose this assistance either with training, without training, or after successfully completing training. Wage insurance should supplement, not supplant, TAA benefits.

Our bill also would make important changes in the Commerce Department's TAA for firms program. This program helps workers and employers avoid painful layoffs in the first place. TAA for firms gives small businesses the technical assistance that they need to compete in the global economy. But the program runs a substantial backlog of approved but unfunded adjustment projects for participating firms. Our bill would extend coverage to services firms and triples funding to $50 million annually.

Likewise, our bill would improve the Department of Agriculture's TAA for Farmers program. It would ease the overly strict eligibility criteria that have kept many farmers and fishermen legitimately affected by trade from receiving assistance.

But we can do more than that. Many communities in which workers, firms, or farmers have been certified for TAA are struggling to redefine their place in

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.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Community Broadband Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Smith of Oregon, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator McCain of Arizona, Senator McCaskill of Missouri, and Senator Snowe of Maine.

Far too many U.S. residents live in areas of the country where there is no broadband access. Too many others live in areas where there may as well be no access because broadband is so expensive. This legislation will promote economic development, enhance public safety, increase educational opportunities, and improve the lives of the people who live in those areas.

In 2004, President Bush called for universal and affordable broadband in the U.S. by the year 2007. We are now more than halfway through 2007, and the U.S. is far from reaching this goal. Not only has the U.S. failed to provide universal, affordable broadband, but we are lagging far behind other countries. A recent study by the International Telecommunication Union shows that the U.S. ranks 15th worldwide in the percentage of people with broadband connections. If you take into account the availability of affordable broadband, the U.S. ranks 21st in the world. The U.S. should be a leader in providing fast and affordable broadband to its citizens.

Many of the countries ahead of the U.S. have successfully combined public and private efforts to deploy municipal networks that connect their residents and businesses with high-speed Internet services. The U.S. should be encouraging these innovative networks. We should not be creating obstacles for municipalities that want to provide affordable broadband access. Unfortunately, 14 States have passed legislation to prohibit or significantly restrict the ability of local municipalities and communities to offer advanced communications services and capabilities to their citizens. More States are considering such legislation. The Community Broadband Act is in response to efforts by States to tell local communities that they cannot establish networks for their residents, even in communities that have no access to broadband, in communities where access is not affordable to all residents, and in communities that want to build high-capacity networks that are comparable to those being built in the leading cities in the world.

The Community Broadband Act is a simple bill. It says that no State can prohibit a municipality from offering high-speed Internet to its residents; and when a municipality is a provider, it cannot abuse its governmental authority as regulator to discriminate against private competitors. Furthermore, a municipality must comply with Federal telecommunications laws. It also contains provisions to ensure transparency by making sure the public is aware of its town's or city's effort and intention to provide broadband either itself or in partnership with a private entity, and provides those in the community with an opportunity to be heard on the costs and benefits of the project and potential alternatives.

This bill will allow communities to make broadband decisions that would: improve their economy and create jobs by serving as a medium for development, particularly in rural and underserved urban areas; aid public safety and first responders by ensuring access to network services while on the road and in the community; strengthen our country's international competitiveness by giving businesses the means to compete more effectively locally, nationally, and internationally; encourage long-distance education through video conferencing and other means of sharing knowledge and enhancing learning via the Internet; and create incentives for public-private partnerships.

A century ago, there were efforts to prevent local governments from offering electricity. Opponents argued that local governments didn't have the expertise to offer something as complex as electricity. They also argued that businesses would suffer if they faced competition from cities and towns. But local community leaders recognized that their economic survival depended on electrifying their communities. They knew that it would take both private investment and public investment to bring electricity to all Americans.

We face a similar situation today. Municipal networks can play an essential role in making broadband access universal and affordable. We must not put up barriers to this possibility.

Some local governments will decide to do this; others will not. Let me be clear, this is not going to be the right decision for every municipality. But there are plenty of examples of municipalities that need to provide broadband, and those municipalities should have the power to do so.

A few months ago, the Parish Council of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana voted unanimously to create a wireless network. Jefferson Parish, like New Orleans, was plagued with communications problems following Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans has already created a wireless network. Now, Jefferson Parish plans to establish its own network to make sure that, should another disaster strike, emergency officials and family members will be able to communicate with one another. During nonemergency times, the network will foster communication between public workers and stimulate economic development.

These stories come from all across the country, from small towns to underserved urban areas. The small town of Granbury, TX, population 6,400, initiated a wireless network after waiting years for private industry to take an interest. In Scottsburg, IN, a city and its 6000 residents and businesses north of Louisville, KY, could not get broadband service from their local phone company. When two important businesses threatened to leave unless they could obtain broadband connectivity, municipal officials stepped forward to provide wireless broadband throughout the town. The town retained the two businesses and gained much more. There are many Granburys and Scottsburgs across the country.

There are also underserved urban areas, where private providers may exist, but many in the community simply cannot afford the high prices. For example, the City of Philadelphia reports that 90 percent of the residents of its affluent neighborhoods have broadband, whereas only 25 percent of residents in its low-income areas have broadband. For that reason, Philadelphia is now creating a city-wide wireless network.

Community broadband networks have the potential to create jobs, spur economic development, and bring the full benefits of the Information Age to everyone. I hope my colleagues will join Senators Smith, Kerry, McCain, McCaskill, Snowe and me in our effort to enact the Community Broadband Act of 2007.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Stop Senior Suicide Act.

As many of you know, suicide prevention is an issue close to my heart for personal reasons. In 1972, I lost my own father to suicide. Over the years that followed, my family did not talk about it and instead carried the pain in a very private and lonely way.

Sadly, this continued until I was contacted by Jerry and Elsie Weyrauch from the Suicide Prevention Action Network USA, a national advocacy organization focused on suicide prevention. Knowing that I had lost my dad to suicide, they asked if I would speak at their second annual suicide awareness event. I was also asked to sponsor a suicide resolution to focus much needed attention on the issue of suicide in America. On May 6, 1997, I introduced such a resolution and saw it pass the Senate that same day with unanimous support. I was heartened that my work on suicide prevention had begun on this auspicious note, but it was also clear that much more work remained to be done.

Today, 10 years later, I rise to address one of those challenges before us: the unacceptably high suicide rates among the elderly. While the public is increasingly aware of suicide as a leading cause of death in America, what is less well-known is the vulnerability of older adults. Suicide is disproportionately a killer of seniors, with the risk climbing steadily with age. In fact, the suicide rate for men 85 years of age and older is the highest of all. Moreover, older adults who attempt suicide are much more likely than younger people to carry it out to completion.

As shocks to the national conscience, these statistics point us to the despair, hopelessness, and desperation that predispose so many seniors to suicide. They also lead to the question: Why are older Americans more vulnerable? Compared to other age groups, they often must deal with social isolation, financial hardship, and debilitating illnesses. We also know that far too many have mental health care needs that go unrecognized and unmet. Tragically, one-third of older adults who die from suicide had seen their primary care physician in the week before their deaths, and 70 percent during the prior month.

These findings do not just constitute a serious public health problem. They also conflict with America's belief in living our golden years in dignity. The ``bankruptcy of hope and resources'' affecting those at risk ultimately affect us all as a nation.

I am introducing the Stop Senior Suicide Act to take action on this issue. As a start, this legislation would create an Interagency Geriatric Mental Health Planning Council to improve the geriatric mental health and social services delivery system. Composed of representatives from the health Federal agencies and the community of older adults, the council will make recommendations and foster the integration of mental health, suicide prevention, health, and aging services. In doing so, the council will ensure that senior suicide and geriatric mental health receive the attention befitting a national priority.

As another step, my legislation would authorize a grant program for suicide prevention and early intervention programs focused on seniors. Many of the risk factors and challenges facing the elderly, after all, are unique. Through these grants, public and private nonprofit entities would be able to build innovative approaches and implement them in settings that serve seniors, such as Older Americans Act delivery sites. To help grantees achieve their goals, the bill also would authorize additional funding for the Suicide Prevention Technical Assistance Center to offer guidance and training.

Finally, the Stop Senior Suicide Act would eliminate a major barrier to receiving and affording mental health care. Clinical depression and suicidal feelings are not a normal part of aging, yet these treatable conditions are often misdiagnosed, untreated, or ignored in far too many seniors. Out-of-pocket expenses under Medicare, the health insurance program for 37 million Americans aged 65 years and older, is a key reason. Medicare currently imposes a 50 percent coinsurance payment for outpatient mental health services,

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.

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