[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 100 (Wednesday, July 26, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8271-S8282]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 3731. A bill to regulate the judicial use of presidential signing 
statements in the interpretation of Acts of Congress; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the 
Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006. This bill achieves three 
important goals.
  First, it prevents the President from issuing a signing statement 
that alters the meaning of a statute by instructing Federal and State 
courts not to rely on Presidential signing statements in interpreting a 
statute.
  Second, it permits the Congress to seek what amounts to a declaratory 
judgment on the legality of Presidential signing statements that seek 
to modify--or even to nullify--a duly enacted statute.
  Third, it grants Congress the power to intervene in any case in the 
Supreme Court where the construction or constitutionality of any act of 
Congress is in question and a presidential signing statement for that 
act was issued.
  Presidential signing statements are nothing new. Since the days of 
President James Monroe, Presidents have issued statements when signing 
bills. It is widely agreed that there are legitimate uses for signing 
statements. For example, Presidents may use signing statements to 
instruct executive branch officials how to administer a law. They may 
also use them to explain to the public the likely effect of a law. And, 
there may be a host of other legitimate uses.
  However, the use of signing statements has risen dramatically in 
recent years. As of June 26, 2006, President Bush had issued 130 
signing statements. President Clinton issued 105 signing statements 
during his two terms. While the mere numbers may not be significant, 
the reality is that the way the President has used those statements 
renders the legislative process a virtual nullity.
  The President cannot use a signing statement to rewrite the words of 
a statute nor can the President use a signing statement to selectively 
nullify those provisions he does not like. This much is clear from our 
Constitution. The Constitution grants the President a specific, 
narrowly defined role in enacting legislation. Article I, section 1 of 
the Constitution vests ``all legislative powers . . . in a Congress.'' 
Article I, section 7 of the Constitution provides that when a bill is 
presented to the President, he may either sign it or veto it with his 
objections. He may also choose to do nothing, thus rendering a so-
called pocket veto. The President cannot veto part of bill, however; he 
cannot veto certain provisions he does not like.

  The Founders had good reason for constructing the legislative process 
as it is: by creating a bicameral legislature and then granting the 
President the veto power. According to The Records of the 
Constitutional Convention, the veto power was designed by our Framers 
to protect citizens from a particular Congress that might enact 
oppressive legislation. However, the Framers did not want the veto 
power to be unchecked, and so, in article I, section 7, they balanced 
it by allowing Congress to override a veto by two-thirds vote.
  As you can see, this is a finely structured constitutional procedure 
that goes straight to the heart of our system of check and balances. 
Any action by the President that circumvents this finely structured 
procedure is an unconstitutional attempt to usurp legislative 
authority. If the President is permitted to rewrite the bills that 
Congress passes and cherry pick which provisions he likes and does not 
like, he subverts the constitutional process designed by our Framers.
  The Supreme Court has affirmed that the constitutional process for 
enacting legislation must be safe guarded. As the Supreme Court 
explained in INS v. Chahda, ``It emerges clearly that the prescription 
for legislative action in Article I, Section 1, clause 7 represents the 
Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal government 
be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively 
considered, procedure.''
  So, while signing statements have been commonplace since our 
country's founding, we must make sure that they are not being used in 
an unconstitutional manner; a manner that seeks to rewrite legislation, 
and exercise line item vetoes.
  President Bush has used signing statements in ways that have raised 
some eyebrows. For example, Congress passed the PATRIOT Act after 
months of deliberation. We debated nearly every provision--often 
redrafting and revising. Moreover, we worked very closely with the 
President because we wanted to get it right. We wanted to make sure 
that we were passing legislation that the executive branch would find 
workable. In fact, in many ways, the process was an excellent example 
of the legislative branch and the executive branch working together 
towards a common goal.
  In the end, the bill that was passed by the Senate and the House 
contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI 
did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and 
secretly seize papers. It also required Justice Department officials to 
keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what 
type of situations.
  The President signed the PATRIOT Act into law, but afterwards, he 
wrote a signing statement that said he could withhold any information 
from Congress provided in the oversight provisions if he decided that 
disclosure would impair foreign relations, national security, the 
deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the 
executive's constitutional duties.
  Now, during the entire process of working with the President to draft

[[Page S8272]]

the PATRIOT Act, he never asked the Congress to include this language 
in the Act. At a hearing we held on signing statements, I asked an 
executive branch official, Michelle Boardman from the Office of Legal 
Counsel, why the President did not ask the Congress to put the signing 
statement language into the bill. She simply didn't have an answer. I 
asked her to get back to me with the answer and I still have not gotten 
a response.
  Take another example, the McCain amendment. In that legislation, 
Congress voted by an overwhelming margin--90 to 9--to ban all U.S. 
personnel from inflicting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment on any 
prisoner held anywhere by the United States. President Bush, who had 
threatened to veto the legislation, instead invited its prime sponsor, 
Senator John McCain, to the White House for a public reconciliation and 
declared they had a common objective: to make it clear to the world 
that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the 
international convention of torture.
  Now from that, you might conclude that by signing the McCain 
amendment into law, the Bush administration has fully committed to not 
using torture. But you would be wrong. After the public ceremony of 
signing the bill into law, the President issued a signing statement 
saying his administration would interpret the new law ``in a manner 
consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to 
supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and 
consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.'' 
This vague language may mean that--despite the McCain amendment--the 
administration may still be preserving a right to inflict torture on 
prisoners and to evade the International Convention Against Torture.
  The constitutional structure of enacting legislation must be 
safeguarded. That is why I am here today to introduce the Presidential 
Signing Statements Act of 2006. This bill does not seek to limit the 
President's power--and this bill does not seek to expand Congress's 
power. Rather, this bill simply seeks to safeguard our constitution.
  First, the bill instructs courts not to rely on Presidential signing 
statements in construing an act. This will provide courts with much-
needed guidance on how legislation should be interpreted. The Supreme 
Court's reliance on Presidential signing statements has been sporadic 
and unpredictable. In some cases--such as United States v. Lopez, where 
the Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act--the Supreme Court 
has relied on Presidential signing statements as a source of authority, 
while in other cases, such as the recent military tribunals case, 
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, it has conspicuously declined to do so. This 
inconsistency has the unfortunate effect of rendering the 
interpretation of Federal law unpredictable.
  It is well within Congress's power to resolve judicial disputes such 
as this by enacting rules of statutory interpretation. This power flows 
from article I, section 8, clause 18 of the Constitution, which gives 
Congress the power ``To make all laws which shall be necessary and 
proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other 
powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United 
States, or in any department or officer thereof.'' Rules of statutory 
interpretation are necessary and proper to execute the legislative 
power. Moreover, any legislation that sets out rules for interpreting 
an act makes legislation more clear and precise which is exactly what 
we aim to achieve here in Congress. Congress can and should exercise 
this power over the interpretation of Federal statutes in a systematic 
and comprehensive manner.
  Second, this bill permits the Congress to seek a declaratory judgment 
on the legality of Presidential signing statements that seek to 
modify--or even to nullify--a duly enacted statute. Again, this simply 
ensures that signing statements are not used in an unconstitutional 
manner.
  Third, it grants Congress the power to intervene in any case in the 
Supreme Court where the construction or constitutionality of any act of 
Congress is in question and a Presidential signing statement for that 
act was issued. That way, if the court is trying to determine the 
meaning or the constitutionality of an act, the Congress gets a voice 
in the debate.
  Take for example United States v. Lopez. In that case, the Supreme 
Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act as beyond Congress's 
power to regulate commerce. Chief Justice Rehnquist relied, in part, on 
President George Bush's signing statement to support the Court's 
conclusion that the plain language of the statute does not suggest that 
it affects interstate commerce. Now, I do not see, in a case like this, 
why Congress should not get to explain its side. This bill would allow 
Congress to intervene and present evidence as to the meaning of an act 
in question.
  This bill does not seek to limit the President's power and it does 
not seek to expand Congress's power. It simply seeks to put measures in 
place that will safeguard the constitutional structure of enacting 
legislation. In preserving this structure, this bill reinforces our 
system of checks and balances and separation of powers set out in our 
Constitution and I urge my colleagues to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Sessions):
  S. 3734. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to allow a 
judge to whom a case is transferred to retain jurisdiction over certain 
multidistrict litigation cases for trial, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Multidistrict 
Litigation Restoration Act of 2006.
  The word ``Lexecon'' is well known in the Federal judiciary. It 
refers to the 1998 Supreme Court decision holding that statutory 
authority does not exist for transferee courts handling cases 
centralized by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel, or the MDL Panel, to 
retain these cases for trial. For approximately 30 years, courts 
receiving cases for pretrial proceedings from the MDL Panel invoked the 
general venue statute to transfer cases to themselves for trial. The 
process worked well because the court that had handled the pretrial 
phase was well-versed in the case's facts and was in the best position 
to encourage all parties to reach a settlement, or--barring 
settlement--make a final determination by adjudicating the dispute. But 
with the Lexecon decision that practice ended, and ever since we have 
been left with a multidistrict, multiparty, multiforum system that is 
costly, time-consuming, repetitive, inefficient, and often 
inconsistent.
  As many of my colleagues know, the MDL Panel is an entity comprising 
seven judges, authorized to transfer civil actions pending in more than 
one district and involving one or more common questions of fact to any 
district court for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The MDL Panel 
authorizes the transfer upon determining that it will be for the 
convenience of the parties and witnesses, and promote the just and 
efficient conduct of such actions. Congress established this 
centralization mechanism in 1968 to avoid duplication of discovery, 
prevent inconsistent rulings, and conserve the resources of the 
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
  Typically, cases centralized by the MDL Panel are numerous and 
complex. About 150,000 cases with millions of claims have been resolved 
through the process since its creation. They have included such matters 
as mass torts, antitrust price fixing, securities fraud, and unfair 
employment practices. The transferee judge becomes highly knowledgeable 
about the litigation during his or her consideration of voluminous 
pretrial proceedings. When all of the cases are remanded to the various 
transferor courts following completion of pretrial proceedings, those 
courts know little or nothing about the litigation. Even when all the 
parties agree to keep the matter that has been transferred in the court 
it was transferred to, it cannot be done under the current law. In some 
instances, judges have followed cases to courts outside their judicial 
circuit to conduct trial, at considerable inconvenience and expense, in 
order to spare other judges from the nightmare of having such mammoth 
cases so suddenly thrust upon them.
  Let me give you an example of what this means in real terms. In my 
own State of Utah, there have been nearly 1,000 cases that have been 
transferred

[[Page S8273]]

either in or out of Utah's judicial district by the MDL Panel since 
1968. In fiscal year 2005, there were nearly 50 cases transferred out 
of Utah through the MDL process. That is 50 cases that could be dumped 
back onto our judges in Utah without any warning or preparation. At the 
same time, there were six MDL cases pending in Utah at the end of 2005. 
Under the post-Lexecon system, one or more of our judges could be 
required to follow these cases to other districts throughout the United 
States for trial. Both of these scenarios would prove to be a serious 
burden for a small judicial district like Utah, and could hamper or 
delay justice for the people of my State. This is the same challenge 
our courts face nationwide as a result of the Lexecon decision.
  Congress is the only entity that can solve these problems. Writing 
for the Court in Lexecon, Justice Souter stated that ``the proper venue 
for resolving the issue remains the floor of Congress.'' That is why I 
am introducing the Multidistrict Litigation Restoration Act of 2006 
today, to give the Federal judiciary the necessary statutory authority 
to transfer multidistrict litigation cases for the purposes of trial. 
This legislation will return the law to what was in effect for almost 
three decades prior to the Lexecon decision. It will provide the MDL 
Panel with the most efficient option for resolving complex issues, the 
best means to encourage universal settlements, and the most consistent 
approach for rendering decisions.
  This legislation is supported by the Judicial Conference of the 
United States, the policy arm of the Federal judicial branch, as well 
as the U.S. Department of Justice. The legislation is also supported by 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform.
  Moreover, this is not a partisan effort. Proposals to reform 
multidistrict, multiparty litigation were first advanced by the Carter 
administration. I introduced similar legislation in the 106th Congress 
with Senators Leahy, Kohl, and Schumer. That bill passed the Senate by 
unanimous consent.
  This legislation is long overdue. Lexecon was decided 8 years ago. 
The House has passed a Lexecon fix four times since 1999. In a letter 
to the chairman of the MDL Panel, Judge Thomas W. Thrash, a Federal 
district court judge for the Northern District of Georgia, reporting on 
the disposition of a multidistrict litigation case that he was required 
to try in Texas because he could not transfer the case to Georgia, 
summed up the situation well. Judge Thrash wrote, ``Needless to say, 
resolution of this case has been prolonged and involved greater expense 
to the judiciary . . . because of my inability to transfer the Northern 
District of Texas case to myself for trial here in the Northern 
District of Georgia. On the other hand, it would have been almost 
criminal to dump this case on a new Northern District of Texas judge 
for trial. . . . I hope that this problem will be fixed by Congress 
soon.''
  Mr. President, I share that hope. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support the Multidistrict Litigation Restoration Act of 2006 and 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. 3734

       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 ``Multidistrict Litigation 
     Restoration Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) under section 1407 of title 28, United States Code 
     (enacted April 29, 1968), the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict 
     Litigation (in this section referred to as the ``Judicial 
     Panel''), a group of 7 Federal judges selected by the Chief 
     Justice of the United States, assists in the centralization 
     of civil actions which share common questions of fact filed 
     in more than 1 Federal judicial district nationwide;
       (2) civil actions described under paragraph (1)--
       (A) often arise from mass single-action torts that cause 
     death and destruction in which the plaintiffs are from many 
     different States; and
       (B) often involve issues of critical importance to the 
     Nation, including information technology, intellectual 
     property, antitrust, contracts, and products liability cases;
       (3) the Judicial Panel--
       (A) identifies the 1 United States district court (referred 
     to in this section as the ``transferee court'') best equipped 
     at adjudicating pretrial matters; and
       (B) after pretrial, remands individual civil actions back 
     to the district where the civil action was originally filed 
     unless that action has been previously terminated;
       (4)(A) for approximately 3 decades, the transferee court 
     often invoked a general venue statute that authorizes a 
     district court to transfer a civil action in the interest of 
     justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses;
       (B) in effect, the transferee court simply transferred all 
     of the civil actions for trial to itself; and
       (C) this process worked well because the transferee court 
     was well-versed in the facts and law of the centralized 
     litigation and the court could assist all parties to settle 
     when appropriate;
       (5) in 1998, the United States Supreme Court held that the 
     plain language of section 1407 of title 28, United States 
     Code, requires the Judicial Panel to remand all civil actions 
     for trial back to the respective districts from which such 
     actions were originally referred;
       (6) the absence of authority to transfer a centralized 
     civil action for trial hampers the Judicial Panel and 
     transferee judges in their ability to achieve the important 
     goals of section 1407 of that title promoting the just and 
     efficient conduct of multidistrict litigation;
       (7) the Judicial Panel has inherent rulemaking authority to 
     promulgate procedural rules pertaining to multidistrict 
     litigation which the Judicial Panel has already exercised to 
     ensure that when a centralization occurs all civil actions of 
     a similar nature then filed and all later civil actions that 
     may be filed are sent to 1 district court;
       (8) Congress has statutorily conferred the Judicial Panel 
     with rulemaking authority for the conduct of its business not 
     inconsistent with the United States Constitution, Acts of 
     Congress, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and
       (9) in civil actions in which punitive damages are to be 
     imposed, individual courts, including transferee courts, must 
     ensure that the measure of punishment is both reasonable and 
     proportionate to the amount of harm to plaintiffs and to the 
     amount of compensatory damages received.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to improve the 
     litigation system in the Nation to allow a Federal judge to 
     whom a civil action is transferred under section 1407 of 
     title 28, United States Code, to retain jurisdiction over 
     certain civil actions for trial to determine liability and 
     compensatory and punitive damages, if appropriate, in 
     compliance with due process requirements.

     SEC. 3. MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION.

       Section 1407 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the third sentence of subsection (a), by inserting 
     ``or ordered transferred to the transferee or other district 
     under subsection (i)'' after ``terminated''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i)(I) Subject to paragraph (2) and except as provided in 
     subsection (j), any action transferred under this section by 
     the panel may be transferred for trial purposes, by the judge 
     or judges of the transferee district to whom the action was 
     assigned, to the transferee or other district in the interest 
     of justice and for the convenience of the parties and 
     witnesses.
       ``(2) Any action transferred for trial purposes under 
     paragraph (1) shall be remanded by the panel for the 
     determination of compensatory damages to the district court 
     from which it was transferred, unless the court to which the 
     action has been transferred for trial purposes also finds, 
     for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the 
     interests of justice, that the action should be retained for 
     the determination of compensatory damages.''.

     SEC. 4. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO MULTIPARTY, MULTI FORM TRIAL 
                   JURISDICTION ACT OF 2002.

       Section 1407 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by 
     section 3 of this Act, is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(j)(1) In actions transferred under this section when 
     jurisdiction is or could have been based, in whole or in 
     part, on section 1369 of this title, the transferee district 
     court may, notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     section, retain actions so transferred for the determination 
     of liability and punitive damages. An action retained for the 
     determination of liability shall be remanded to the district 
     court from which the action was transferred, or to the State 
     court from which the action was removed, for the 
     determination of damages, other than punitive damages, unless 
     the court finds, for the convenience of parties and witnesses 
     and in the interest of justice, that the action should be 
     retained for the determination of damages.
       ``(2) Any remand under paragraph (1) shall not be effective 
     until 60 days after the transferee court has issued an order 
     determining liability and has certified its intention to 
     remand some or all of the transferred actions for the 
     determination of damages. An appeal with respect to the 
     liability determination and the choice of law determination 
     of the transferee court may be taken during that 60-day 
     period to the court of appeals with appellate jurisdiction 
     over the transferee court. In the event a party files such an 
     appeal, the remand shall not be effective until the appeal 
     has been finally disposed of. Once the remand has become 
     effective, the liability determination and the choice of law 
     determination shall not be subject to further review by 
     appeal or otherwise.

[[Page S8274]]

       ``(3) An appeal with respect to determination of punitive 
     damages by the transferee court may be taken, during the 60-
     day period beginning on the date the order making the 
     determination is issued, to the court of appeals with 
     jurisdiction over the transferee court.
       ``( 4) Any decision under this subsection concerning remand 
     for the determination of damages, other than punitive 
     damages, shall not be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.
       ``(5) Nothing in this subsection shall restrict the 
     authority of the transferee court to transfer or dismiss an 
     action on the ground of inconvenient forum.''.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) Multidistrict Litigation.--The amendments made by 
     section 3 shall apply to any civil action pending on or 
     brought on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The amendment made by section 4 
     shall be effective as if enacted in section 11020(b) of the 
     Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2002 (Public 
     Law 107-273; 116 Stat. 1826 et seq.).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COLEMAN (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. 
        Martinez):
  S. 3739. A bill to establish a Consortium on the Impact of Technology 
in Aging Health Services; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. REED. I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Coleman, 
Senator Kohl, Senator Martinez, Congressman Ramstad, and Congresswoman 
Eshoo, today to introduce the Consortium on the Impact of Technology in 
Health Services Act.
  We face a challenging and exciting time in the evolution of America's 
health care system. Today, roughly 40 million men and women are over 
age 65. A full doubling of the elderly population is predicted to occur 
by the year 2030--with the first of the baby boom generation turning 65 
in the year 2011--only 5 years from now.
  Nowhere is the aging of the population more apparent than in my home 
State of Rhode Island. We exceed the national average in terms of 
citizens over the age of 65 as well as those over the age of 85. In a 
State of slightly more than a million people, almost 15 percent of the 
population is over the age of 65 today. According to Census Bureau 
estimates, the number of elderly is expected to increase to 18.8 
percent of Rhode Island's population by 2025. Rhode Island also has one 
of the highest concentrations of persons age 85 and over in the 
country.
  Dramatic increases in life expectancy over the last century can be 
attributed to tremendous advances in public health and medical 
research. These demographic changes also pose new challenges to our 
health care system that require creative and innovative solutions.
  In addition to Americans living longer, keeping up with advancements 
in medical science poses unique burdens and challenges for our health 
care system. We are facing shortages in a number of critical health 
care fields--nurses, primary care physicians, and geriatricians--to 
name a few. These workforce issues further hinder our ability to keep 
up with the health care needs of aging Americans.
  Greater use of technology has the potential to enhance the quality of 
care to our aging population and enable seniors to remain healthy and 
live independently longer.
  The application of technology in the aging health care services field 
would also help mitigate the burden on providers by allowing 
physicians, home health care workers, and family members to keep in 
regular contact with patients and loved ones. Better monitoring of 
elderly patients would also serve to identify changes in their health 
condition before a serious problem arises.
  Smarter applications of technology in caring for the aged could also 
address some of the growing concerns with skyrocketing budget deficits. 
As we grapple with Medicare and Medicaid taking up a growing proportion 
of overall Federal spending, we need to carefully balance health care 
expenditures while also improving the quality of care. We need to be 
thoughtful and wiser with our health care dollars as well as creative 
in the provision of services to the elderly.
  The Consortium on the Impact of Technology in Health Services Act 
will bring together experts from the medical, aging, and technology 
fields to build a vision and a framework for the development and 
implementation of a 21st century health care system able to meet the 
needs of our burgeoning aging population.
  We need to change the way we think about health care for our Nation's 
seniors. We need a model that is oriented toward health promotion and 
disease prevention. This legislation gives us a jumpstart on developing 
and implementing the tools and strategies needed to serve the senior 
population of America more effectively and with greater cost savings.
  I am pleased to join with my colleagues in introducing this important 
initiative and hope the Senate will give it careful consideration.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 3740. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reform 
the system of public financing for Presidential elections, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will introduce a bill to repair 
and strengthen the Presidential public financing system. The 
Presidential Funding Act of 2006 will ensure that this system that has 
served our country so well for over a generation will continue to 
fulfill its promise in the 21st century.
  The Presidential public financing system was put into place in the 
wake of the Watergate scandals as part of the Federal Election Campaign 
Act of 1974. It was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in 
Buckley v. Valeo. The system, of course, is voluntary, as the Supreme 
Court required. Every major party nominee for President since 1976 has 
participated in the system for the general election and, prior to 2000, 
every major party nominee had participated in the system for the 
primary election, too. In the last election, President Bush and two 
Democratic candidates, Howard Dean and the eventual nominee John Kerry, 
opted out of the system for the Presidential primaries. President Bush 
and Senator Kerry elected to take the taxpayer-funded grant in the 
general election. President Bush also opted out of the system for the 
Republican primaries in 2000 but took the general election grant.
  It is unfortunate that the matching funds system for the primaries is 
becoming less viable. The system protects the integrity of the 
electoral process by allowing candidates to run viable campaigns 
without becoming overly dependent on private donors. The system has 
worked well in the past, and it is worth repairing so that it can work 
in the future. If we don't repair it, the pressures on candidates to 
opt out because their opponents are opting out will increase until the 
system collapses from disuse.
  This bill makes changes to both the primary and general election 
public financing system to address the weaknesses and problems that 
have been identified by both participants in the system and experts on 
the presidential election financing process. First and most important, 
it eliminates the State-by-State spending limits in the current law and 
substantially increases the overall spending limit from the current 
limit of approximately $45 million to $150 million, of which up to $100 
million can be spent before April 1 of the election year. This should 
make the system much more viable for serious candidates facing 
opponents who are capable of raising significant sums outside the 
system. The bill also makes available substantially more public money 
for participating candidates by increasing the match of small 
contributions from 1:1 to 4:1.
  One very important provision of this bill ties the primary and 
general election systems together and requires candidates to make a 
single decision on whether to participate. Candidates who opt out of 
the primary system and decide to rely solely on private money cannot 
return to the system for the general election. And candidates must 
commit to participate in the system in the general election if they 
want to receive Federal matching funds in the primaries. The bill also 
increases the spending limits for participating candidates in the 
primaries who face a nonparticipating opponent if that opponent raises 
more than 20 percent more than the spending limit. This provides some 
protection against being far outspent by a nonparticipating opponent. 
Additional grants of public

[[Page S8275]]

money are also available to participating candidates who face a 
nonparticipating candidate spending substantially more than the 
spending limit.
  The bill also sets the general election spending limit at $100 
million, indexed for inflation. And if a general election candidate 
does not participate in the system and spends more than 20 percent more 
than the combined primary and general election spending limits, a 
participating candidate will receive a grant equal to twice the general 
election spending limit.
  This bill also addresses what some have called the ``gap'' between 
the primary and general election seasons. Presumptive Presidential 
nominees have emerged earlier in the election year over the life of the 
public financing system. This had led to some nominees being 
essentially out of money between the time that they nail down the 
nomination and the convention where they are formally nominated and 
become eligible for the general election grant. For a few cycles, soft 
money raised by the parties filled in that gap, but the Bipartisan 
Campaign Reform Act of 2002 fortunately has now closed that loophole. 
This bill allows candidates who are still in the primary race as of 
April 1 to spend an additional $50 million. In addition, the bill 
allows the political parties to spend up to $25 million between April 1 
and the date that a candidate is nominated and an additional $25 
million after the nomination. The total amount of $50 million is over 
three times the amount allowed under current law. This should allow any 
gap to be more than adequately filled.
  Obviously, these changes make this a more generous system. So the 
bill also makes the requirement for qualifying more difficult. To be 
eligible for matching funds, a candidate must raise $25,000 in 
matchable contributions--up to $200 for each donor--in at least 20 
States. That is five times the threshold under current law.
  The bill also makes a number of changes in the system to reflect the 
changes in our Presidential races over the past several decades. For 
one thing, it makes matching funds available starting on July 1 of the 
year preceding the election, 6 months earlier than is currently the 
case. For another, it sets a single date for release of the public 
grant for the general election--the Friday before Labor Day. This 
addresses an inequity in the current system, under which the general 
election grant is released after each nominating convention, which can 
be several weeks apart.
  The bill will also end the political parties' use of soft money for 
their conventions and requires presidential candidates to disclose 
bundled contributions. Additional provisions, and those I have 
discussed in summary form here, are explained in a section-by-section 
analysis of the bill that I will ask to be printed in the Record, 
following my statement. I will also ask that a copy of the bill itself 
be printed in the Record, following my statement.
  Mr. President, the purpose of this bill is to improve the campaign 
finance system, not to advance one party's interests. In fact, with the 
country looking forward to the first Presidential election since 1952 
where both the incumbent President and the sitting Vice-President are 
not running, this is a perfect time to make changes in the Presidential 
public funding system. Each party will have numerous candidates in the 
primaries, and no party can claim it will be helped or hurt by these 
changes.
  Fixing the Presidential public financing system will cost money, but 
our best calculations at the present time indicate that the changes to 
the system in this bill can be paid for by raising the income tax 
check-off on an individual return from $3 to just $10. The total cost 
of the changes to the system, based on data from the 2004 elections, is 
projected to be around $360 million over the 4-year election cycle. To 
offset that increased cost, this bill caps taxpayer subsidies for 
promotion of agricultural products, including some brand-name goods, by 
limiting the Market Access Program to $100 million per year.
  Though the numbers are large, this is actually a very small 
investment to make to protect the health of our democracy and integrity 
of our Presidential elections. The American people do not want to see a 
return to the pre-Watergate days of unlimited spending on presidential 
elections and candidates entirely beholden to private donors. We must 
act now to preserve the crown jewel of the Watergate reforms and ensure 
the fairness of our elections and the confidence of our citizens in the 
process.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
additional materials 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. 3740

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Presidential Funding Act of 2006''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Revisions to system of Presidential primary matching payments.
Sec. 3. Requiring participation in primary payment system as condition 
              of eligibility for general election payments.
Sec. 4. Revisions to expenditure limits.
Sec. 5. Additional payments and increased expenditure limits for 
              candidates participating in public financing who face 
              certain nonparticipating opponents.
Sec. 6. Establishment of uniform date for release of payments from 
              Presidential Election Campaign Fund to eligible 
              candidates.
Sec. 7. Revisions to designation of income tax payments by individual 
              taxpayers.
Sec. 8. Amounts in Presidential Election Campaign Fund.
Sec. 9. Repeal of priority in use of funds for political conventions.
Sec. 10. Regulation of convention financing.
Sec. 11. Disclosure of bundled contributions.
Sec. 12. Offset.
Sec. 13. Effective date.

     SEC. 2. REVISIONS TO SYSTEM OF PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY MATCHING 
                   PAYMENTS.

       (a) Increase in Matching Payments.--
       (1) In general.--Section 9034(a) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``an amount equal to the amount'' and 
     inserting ``an amount equal to 400 percent of the amount''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``$250'' and inserting ``$200''.
       (2) Additional matching payments for candidates after march 
     31 of the election year.--Section 9034(b) of such Code is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Additional Payments for Candidates After March 31 of 
     the Election Year.--In addition to any payment under 
     subsection (a), an individual who is a candidate after March 
     31 of the calendar year in which the presidential election is 
     held and who is eligible to receive payments under section 
     9033 shall be entitled to payments under section 9037 in an 
     amount equal to the amount of each contribution received by 
     such individual after March 31 of the calendar year in which 
     such presidential election is held, disregarding any amount 
     of contributions from any person to the extent that the total 
     of the amounts contributed by such person after such date 
     exceeds $200.''.
       (3) Conforming amendments.--Section 9034 of such Code, as 
     amended by paragraph (2), is amended--
       (A) by striking the last sentence of subsection (a); and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Contribution Defined.--For purposes of this section 
     and section 9033(b), the term `contribution' means a gift of 
     money made by a written instrument which identifies the 
     person making the contribution by full name and mailing 
     address, but does not include a subscription, loan, advance, 
     or deposit of money, or anything of value or anything 
     described in subparagraph (B), (C), or (D) of section 
     9032(4).''.
       (b) Eligibility Requirements.--
       (1) Amount of aggregate contributions per state.--Section 
     9033(b)(3) of such Code is amended by striking ``$5,000'' and 
     inserting ``$25,000''.
       (2) Amount of individual contributions.--Section 9033(b)(4) 
     of such Code is amended by striking ``$250'' and inserting 
     ``$200''.
       (3) Participation in system for payments for general 
     election.--Section 9033(b) of such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and 
     inserting ``, and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) if the candidate is nominated by a political party 
     for election to the office of President, the candidate will 
     apply for and accept payments with respect to the general 
     election for such office in accordance with chapter 95, 
     including the requirement that the candidate and the 
     candidate's authorized committees will not incur qualified 
     campaign expenses in excess of the aggregate payments to 
     which they will be entitled under section 9004.''.
       (c) Period of Availability of Payments.--
       (1) In general.--Section 9032(6) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``the beginning

[[Page S8276]]

     of the calendar year'' and inserting ``July 1 of the calendar 
     year preceding the calendar year''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 9034(a) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``the beginning of the calendar year'' 
     and inserting ``July 1 of the calendar year preceding the 
     calendar year''.

     SEC. 3. REQUIRING PARTICIPATION IN PRIMARY PAYMENT SYSTEM AS 
                   CONDITION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR GENERAL ELECTION 
                   PAYMENTS.

       (a) Major Party Candidates.--Section 9003(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs 
     (2) and (3); and
       (2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated) 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(1) the candidate received payments under chapter 96 for 
     the campaign for nomination;''.
       (b) Minor Party Candidates.--Section 9003(c) of such Code 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs 
     (2) and (3); and
       (2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated) 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(1) the candidate received payments under chapter 96 for 
     the campaign for nomination;''.

     SEC. 4. REVISIONS TO EXPENDITURE LIMITS.

       (a) Increase in Expenditure Limits for Participating 
     Candidates; Elimination of State-Specific Limits.--
       (1) In general.--Section 315(b)(1) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(b)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``may make expenditures in excess of'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``may make expenditures--
       ``(A) with respect to a campaign for nomination for 
     election to such office--
       ``(i) in excess of $100,000,000 before April 1 of the 
     calendar year in which the presidential election is held; and
       ``(ii) in excess of $150,000,000 before the date described 
     in section 9006(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
       ``(B) with respect to a campaign for election to such 
     office, in excess of $100,000,000.''.
       (2) Clerical correction.--Section 9004(a)(1) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``section 320(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971'' and inserting ``section 315(b)(1)(B) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971''.
       (b) Increase in Limit on Coordinated Party Expenditures.--
     Section 315(d)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2)(A) The national committee of a political party may 
     not make any expenditure in connection with the general 
     election campaign of any candidate for President of the 
     United States who is affiliated with such party which exceeds 
     $25,000,000.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding the limitation under subparagraph 
     (A), during the period beginning on April 1 of the year in 
     which a presidential election is held and ending on the date 
     described in section 9006(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986, the national committee of a political party may make 
     additional expenditures in connection with the general 
     election campaign of a candidate for President of the United 
     States who is affiliated with such party in an amount not to 
     exceed $25,000,000.
       ``(C)(i) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B) or the limitation 
     under subparagraph (A), if any nonparticipating primary 
     candidate (within the meaning of subsection (b)(3)) 
     affiliated with the national committee of a political party 
     receives contributions or makes expenditures with respect to 
     such candidate's campaign in an aggregate amount greater than 
     120 percent of the expenditure limitation in effect under 
     subsection (b)(1)(A)(ii), then, during the period described 
     in clause (ii), the national committee of any other political 
     party may make expenditures in connection with the general 
     election campaign of a candidate for President of the United 
     States who is affiliated with such other party without 
     limitation.
       ``(ii) The period described in this clause is the period--
       ``(I) beginning on the later of April 1 of the year in 
     which a presidential election is held or the date on which 
     such nonparticipating primary candidate first receives 
     contributions or makes expenditures in the aggregate amount 
     described in clause (i); and
       ``(II) ending on the earlier of the date such 
     nonparticipating primary candidate ceases to be a candidate 
     for nomination to the office of President of the United 
     States and is not a candidate for such office or the date 
     described in section 9006(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
       ``(iii) If the nonparticipating primary candidate described 
     in clause (i) ceases to be a candidate for nomination to the 
     office of President of the United States and is not a 
     candidate for such office, clause (i) shall not apply and the 
     limitations under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall apply. It 
     shall not be considered to be a violation of this Act if the 
     application of the preceding sentence results in the national 
     committee of a political party violating the limitations 
     under subparagraphs (A) and (B) solely by reason of 
     expenditures made by such national committee during the 
     period in which clause (i) applied.
       ``(D) For purposes of this paragraph--
       ``(i) any expenditure made by or on behalf of a national 
     committee of a political party and in connection with a 
     presidential election shall be considered to be made in 
     connection with the general election campaign of a candidate 
     for President of the United States who is affiliated with 
     such party; and
       ``(ii) any communication made by or on behalf of such party 
     shall be considered to be made in connection with the general 
     election campaign of a candidate for President of the United 
     States who is affiliated with such party if any portion of 
     the communication is in connection with such election.
       ``(E) Any expenditure under this paragraph shall be in 
     addition to any expenditure by a national committee of a 
     political party serving as the principal campaign committee 
     of a candidate for the office of President of the United 
     States.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments Relating to Timing of Cost-of-
     Living Adjustment.--
       (1) In general.--Section 315(c)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     441(c)(1)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``(b), (d),'' and 
     inserting ``(d)(3)''; and
       (B) by inserting at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) In any calendar year after 2008--
       ``(i) a limitation established by subsection (b) or (d)(2) 
     shall be increased by the percent difference determined under 
     subparagraph (A);
       ``(ii) each amount so increased shall remain in effect for 
     the calendar year; and
       ``(iii) if any amount after adjustment under clause (i) is 
     not a multiple of $100, such amount shall be rounded to the 
     nearest multiple of $100.''.
       (2) Base year.--Section 315(c)(2)(B) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     441a(c)(2)(B)) is amended--
       (A) in clause (i)--
       (i) by striking ``subsections (b) and (d)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (d)(3)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iii) for purposes of subsection (b) and (d)(2), calendar 
     year 2007.''.
       (d) Repeal of Exclusion of Fundraising Costs From Treatment 
     as Expenditures.--Section 301(9)(B)(vi) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(9)(B)(vi)) is 
     amended by striking ``in excess of an amount equal to 20 
     percent of the expenditure limitation applicable to such 
     candidate under section 315(b)'' and inserting the following: 
     ``who is seeking nomination for election or election to the 
     office of President or Vice President of the United States''.

     SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS AND INCREASED EXPENDITURE LIMITS 
                   FOR CANDIDATES PARTICIPATING IN PUBLIC 
                   FINANCING WHO FACE CERTAIN NONPARTICIPATING 
                   OPPONENTS.

       (a) Candidates in Primary Elections.--
       (1) Additional payments.--
       (A) In general.--Section 9034 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986, as amended by section 2, is amended by redesignating 
     subsection (c) as subsection (d) and by inserting after 
     subsection (b) the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Additional Payments for Candidates Facing 
     Nonparticipating Opponents.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to any payments provided 
     under subsections (a) and (b), each candidate described in 
     paragraph (2) shall be entitled to--
       ``(A) a payment under section 9037 in an amount equal to 
     the amount of each contribution received by such candidate on 
     or after July 1 of the calendar year preceding the calendar 
     year of the presidential election with respect to which such 
     candidate is seeking nomination and before the qualifying 
     date, disregarding any amount of contributions from any 
     person to the extent that the total of the amounts 
     contributed by such person exceeds $200, and
       ``(B) payments under section 9037 in an amount equal to the 
     amount of each contribution received by such candidate on or 
     after the qualifying date, disregarding any amount of 
     contributions from any person to the extent that the total of 
     the amounts contributed by such person exceeds $200.
       ``(2) Candidates to whom this subsection applies.--A 
     candidate is described in this paragraph if such candidate--
       ``(A) is eligible to receive payments under section 9033, 
     and
       ``(B) is opposed by a nonparticipating primary candidate of 
     the same political party who receives contributions or makes 
     expenditures with respect to the campaign--
       ``(i) before April 1 of the year in which the presidential 
     election is held, in an aggregate amount greater than 120 
     percent of the expenditure limitation under section 
     315(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 
     or
       ``(ii) before the date described in section 9006(b), in an 
     aggregate amount greater than 120 percent of the expenditure 
     limitation under section 315(b)(1)(A)(ii) of such Act.
       ``(3) Nonparticipating primary candidate.--In this 
     subsection, the term `nonparticipating primary candidate' 
     means a candidate for nomination for election for the office 
     of President who is not eligible under section 9033 to 
     receive payments from the Secretary under this chapter.
       ``(4) Qualifying date.--In this subsection, the term 
     `qualifying date' means the first date on which the 
     contributions received or expenditures made by the 
     nonparticipating primary candidate described in paragraph 
     (2)(B) exceed the amount described under either clause (i) or 
     clause (ii) of such paragraph.''.

[[Page S8277]]

       (B) Conforming amendment.--Section 9034(b)(2) of such Code, 
     as amended by section 2, is amended by striking ``subsection 
     (a)'' and inserting ``subsections (a) and (c)''.
       (2) Increase in expenditure limit.--Section 315(b) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(b)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3)(A) In the case of an eligible candidate, each of the 
     limitations under clause (i) and (ii) of paragraph (1)(A) 
     shall be increased--
       ``(i) by $50,000,000, if any nonparticipating primary 
     candidate of the same political party as such candidate 
     receives contributions or makes expenditures with respect to 
     the campaign in an aggregate amount greater than 120 percent 
     of the expenditure limitation applicable to eligible 
     candidates under clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph (1)(A) 
     (before the application of this clause), and
       ``(ii) by $100,000,000, if such nonparticipating primary 
     candidate receives contributions or makes expenditures with 
     respect to the campaign in an aggregate amount greater than 
     120 percent of the expenditure limitation applicable to 
     eligible candidates under clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph 
     (1)(A) after the application of clause (i).
       ``(B) Each dollar amount under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     considered a limitation under this subsection for purposes of 
     subsection (c).
       ``(C) In this paragraph, the term `eligible candidate' 
     means, with respect to any period, a candidate--
       ``(i) who is eligible to receive payments under section 
     9033 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       ``(ii) who is opposed by a nonparticipating primary 
     candidate; and
       ``(iii) with respect to whom the Commission has given 
     notice under section 304(i)(1)(B)(i).
       ``(D) In this paragraph, the term `nonparticipating primary 
     candidate' means, with respect to any eligible candidate, a 
     candidate for nomination for election for the office of 
     President who is not eligible under section 9033 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to receive payments from the 
     Secretary of the Treasury under chapter 96 of such Code.''.
       (b) Candidates in General Elections.--
       (1) Additional payments.--
       (A) In general.--Section 9004(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended--
       (i) by striking ``(1) The eligible candidates'' and 
     inserting ``(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the eligible candidates''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) In addition to the payments described in subparagraph 
     (A), each eligible candidate of a major party in a 
     presidential election with an opponent in the election who is 
     not eligible to receive payments under section 9006 and who 
     receives contributions or makes expenditures with respect to 
     the primary and general elections in an aggregate amount 
     greater than 120 percent of the combined expenditure 
     limitations applicable to eligible candidates under section 
     315(b)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 shall 
     be entitled to an equal payment under section 9006 in an 
     amount equal to 100 percent of the expenditure limitation 
     applicable under such section with respect to a campaign for 
     election to the office of President.''.
       (B) Special rule for minor party candidates.--Section 
     9004(a)(2)(A) of such Code is amended--
       (i) by striking ``(A) The eligible candidates'' and 
     inserting ``(A)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     eligible candidates''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(ii) In addition to the payments described in clause (i), 
     each eligible candidate of a minor party in a presidential 
     election with an opponent in the election who is not eligible 
     to receive payments under section 9006 and who receives 
     contributions or makes expenditures with respect to the 
     primary and general elections in an aggregate amount greater 
     than 120 percent of the combined expenditure limitations 
     applicable to eligible candidates under section 315(b)(1) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 shall be entitled 
     to an equal payment under section 9006 in an amount equal to 
     100 percent of the payment to which such candidate is 
     entitled under clause (i).''.
       (2) Exclusion of additional payment from determination of 
     expenditure limits.--Section 315(b) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(b)), as amended by 
     subsection (a), is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(4) In the case of a candidate who is eligible to receive 
     payments under section 9004(a)(1)(B) or 9004(a)(2)(A)(ii) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the limitation under 
     paragraph (1)(B) shall be increased by the amount of such 
     payments received by the candidate.''.
       (c) Process for Determination of Eligibility for Additional 
     Payment and Increased Expenditure Limits.--Section 304 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Reporting and Certification for Additional Public 
     Financing Payments for Candidates.--
       ``(1) Primary candidates.--
       ``(A) Notification of expenditures by ineligible 
     candidates.--
       ``(i) Expenditures in excess of 120 percent of limit.--If a 
     candidate for a nomination for election for the office of 
     President who is not eligible to receive payments under 
     section 9033 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 receives 
     contributions or makes expenditures with respect to the 
     primary election in an aggregate amount greater than 120 
     percent of the expenditure limitation applicable to eligible 
     candidates under clause (i) or (ii) of section 315(b)(1)(A), 
     the candidate shall notify the Commission in writing that the 
     candidate has received aggregate contributions or made 
     aggregate expenditures in such an amount not later than 24 
     hours after first receiving aggregate contributions or making 
     aggregate expenditures in such an amount.
       ``(ii) Expenditures in excess of 120 percent of increased 
     limit.--If a candidate for a nomination for election for the 
     office of President who is not eligible to receive payments 
     under section 9033 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     receives contributions or makes expenditures with respect to 
     the primary election in an aggregate amount greater than 120 
     percent of the expenditure limitation applicable to eligible 
     candidates under section 315(b) after the application of 
     paragraph (3)(A)(i) thereof, the candidate shall notify the 
     Commission in writing that the candidate has received 
     aggregate contributions or made aggregate expenditures in 
     such an amount not later than 24 hours after first receiving 
     aggregate contributions or making aggregate expenditures in 
     such an amount.
       ``(B) Certification.--Not later than 24 hours after 
     receiving any written notice under subparagraph (A) from a 
     candidate, the Commission shall--
       ``(i) certify to the Secretary of the Treasury that 
     opponents of the candidate are eligible for additional 
     payments under section 9034(c) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986;
       ``(ii) notify each opponent of the candidate who is 
     eligible to receive payments under section 9033 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 of the amount of the increased 
     limitation on expenditures which applies pursuant to section 
     315(b)(3); and
       ``(iii) in the case of a notice under subparagraph (A)(i), 
     notify the national committee of each political party (other 
     than the political party with which the candidate is 
     affiliated) of the inapplicability of expenditure limits 
     under section 315(d)(2) pursuant to subparagraph (C) thereof.
       ``(2) General election candidates.--
       ``(A) Notification of expenditures by ineligible 
     candidates.--If a candidate in a presidential election who is 
     not eligible to receive payments under section 9006 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 receives contributions or makes 
     expenditures with respect to the primary and general 
     elections in an aggregate amount greater than 120 percent of 
     the combined expenditure limitations applicable to eligible 
     candidates under section 315(b)(1), the candidate shall 
     notify the Commission in writing that the candidate has 
     received aggregate contributions or made aggregate 
     expenditures in such an amount not later than 24 hours after 
     first receiving aggregate contributions or making aggregate 
     expenditures in such an amount.
       ``(B) Certification.--Not later than 24 hours after 
     receiving a written notice under subparagraph (A), the 
     Commission shall certify to the Secretary of the Treasury for 
     payment to any eligible candidate who is entitled to an 
     additional payment under paragraph (1)(B) or (2)(A)(ii) of 
     section 9004(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that the 
     candidate is entitled to payment in full of the additional 
     payment under such section.''.

     SEC. 6. ESTABLISHMENT OF UNIFORM DATE FOR RELEASE OF PAYMENTS 
                   FROM PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND TO 
                   ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES.

       (a) In General.--The first sentence of section 9006(b) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as 
     follows: ``If the Secretary of the Treasury receives a 
     certification from the Commission under section 9005 for 
     payment to the eligible candidates of a political party, the 
     Secretary shall, on the last Friday occurring before the 
     first Monday in September, pay to such candidates of the fund 
     the amount certified by the Commission.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The first sentence of section 
     9006(c) of such Code is amended by striking ``the time of a 
     certification by the Comptroller General under section 9005 
     for payment'' and inserting ``the time of making a payment 
     under subsection (b)''.

     SEC. 7. REVISIONS TO DESIGNATION OF INCOME TAX PAYMENTS BY 
                   INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS.

       (a) Increase in Amount Designated.--Section 6096(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``$3'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``$10''; and
       (2) in the second sentence--
       (A) by striking ``$6'' and inserting ``$20''; and
       (B) by striking ``$3'' and inserting ``$10''.
       (b) Indexing.--Section 6096 of such Code is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Indexing of Amount Designated.--
       ``(1) In general.--With respect to each taxable year after 
     2006, each amount referred to in subsection (a) shall be 
     increased by the percent difference described in paragraph 
     (2), except that if any such amount after such an increase is 
     not a multiple of $1, such amount shall be rounded to the 
     nearest multiple of $1.

[[Page S8278]]

       ``(2) Percent difference described.--The percent difference 
     described in this paragraph with respect to a taxable year is 
     the percent difference determined under section 315(c)(1)(A) 
     of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 with respect to 
     the calendar year during which the taxable year begins, 
     except that the base year involved shall be 2006.''.
       (c) Ensuring Tax Preparation Software Does Not Provide 
     Automatic Response to Designation Question.--Section 6096 of 
     such Code, as amended by subsection (b), is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Ensuring Tax Preparation Software Does Not Provide 
     Automatic Response to Designation Question.--The Secretary 
     shall promulgate regulations to ensure that electronic 
     software used in the preparation or filing of individual 
     income tax returns does not automatically accept or decline a 
     designation of a payment under this section.''.
       (d) Public Information Program on Designation.--Section 
     6096 of such Code, as amended by subsections (b) and (c), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Public Information Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Federal Election Commission shall 
     conduct a program to inform and educate the public regarding 
     the purposes of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, the 
     procedures for the designation of payments under this 
     section, and the effect of such a designation on the income 
     tax liability of taxpayers.
       ``(2) Use of funds for program.--Amounts in the 
     Presidential Election Campaign Fund shall be made available 
     to the Federal Election Commission to carry out the program 
     under this subsection, except that the amount made available 
     for this purpose may not exceed $10,000,000 with respect to 
     any Presidential election cycle. In this paragraph, a 
     `Presidential election cycle' is the 4-year period beginning 
     with January of the year following a Presidential 
     election.''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 8. AMOUNTS IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND.

       (a) Determination of Amounts in Fund.--Section 9006(c) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new sentence: ``In making a determination 
     of whether there are insufficient moneys in the fund for 
     purposes of the previous sentence, the Secretary shall take 
     into account in determining the balance of the fund for a 
     Presidential election year the Secretary's best estimate of 
     the amount of moneys which will be deposited into the fund 
     during the year, except that the amount of the estimate may 
     not exceed the average of the annual amounts deposited in the 
     fund during the previous 3 years.''.
       (b) Special Rule for First Campaign Cycle Under This Act.--
       (1) In general.--Section 9006 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Special Authority to Borrow.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (c), there 
     are authorized to be appropriated to the fund, as repayable 
     advances, such sums as are necessary to carry out the 
     purposes of the fund during the period ending on the first 
     presidential election occurring after the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection.
       ``(2) Repayment of advances.--
       ``(A) In general.--Advances made to the fund shall be 
     repaid, and interest on such advances shall be paid, to the 
     general fund of the Treasury when the Secretary determines 
     that moneys are available for such purposes in the fund.
       ``(B) Rate of interest.--Interest on advances made to the 
     fund shall be at a rate determined by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury (as of the close of the calendar month preceding the 
     month in which the advance is made) to be equal to the 
     current average market yield on outstanding marketable 
     obligations of the United States with remaining periods to 
     maturity comparable to the anticipated period during which 
     the advance will be outstanding and shall be compounded 
     annually.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 9. REPEAL OF PRIORITY IN USE OF FUNDS FOR POLITICAL 
                   CONVENTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 9008(a) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by striking the period at the end of 
     the second sentence and all that follows and inserting the 
     following: ``, except that the amount deposited may not 
     exceed the amount available after the Secretary determines 
     that amounts for payments under section 9006 and section 9037 
     are available for such payments.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The second sentence of section 
     9037(a) of such Code is amended by striking ``section 9006(c) 
     and for payments under section 9008(b)(3)'' and inserting 
     ``section 9006''.

     SEC. 10. REGULATION OF CONVENTION FINANCING.

       (a)  In General.--Section 323 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441i) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) National Conventions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any person described in subsection (a) 
     or (e) shall not solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend 
     any funds in connection with a presidential nominating 
     convention of any political party, including funds for a host 
     committee, civic committee, municipality, or any other person 
     or entity spending funds in connection with such a 
     convention, unless such funds--
       ``(A) are not in excess of the amounts permitted with 
     respect to contributions to the political committee 
     established and maintained by a national political party 
     committee under section 315; and
       ``(B) are not from sources prohibited by this Act from 
     making contributions in connection with an election for 
     Federal office.
       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
       ``(A) payments by a Federal, State, or local government if 
     the funds used for the payments are from the general public 
     tax revenues of such government and are not derived from 
     donations made to a State or local government for purposes of 
     any convention; and
       ``(B) payments by any person for the purpose of promoting 
     the suitability of a city as a convention site in advance of 
     its selection, welcoming convention attendees to the city, or 
     providing shopping or entertainment guides to convention 
     attendees.''.
       (b) Public Financing.--Subsection (d) of section 9008 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(d) Expenditures for Conventions.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall not certify any 
     major party or minor party under subsection (g) unless such 
     party agrees that--
       ``(A) expenses incurred with respect to a presidential 
     nominating convention will only be paid with payments 
     received under subsection (a) or with funds that are subject 
     to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements 
     of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and
       ``(B) the committee will not accept or use any goods or 
     services related to or in connection with any presidential 
     nominating convention that are paid for or provided by any 
     other person.
       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
       ``(A) payments by a Federal, State, or local government if 
     the funds used for the payments are from the general public 
     tax revenues of such government and are not derived from 
     donations made to a State or local government for purposes of 
     any convention, and
       ``(B) payments by any person for the purpose of promoting 
     the suitability of a city as a convention site in advance of 
     its selection, welcoming convention attendees to the city, or 
     providing shopping or entertainment guides to convention 
     attendees.''.

     SEC. 11. DISCLOSURE OF BUNDLED CONTRIBUTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 304(b) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) in the case of an authorized committee of a candidate 
     for President, the name, address, occupation, and employer of 
     each person who makes a bundled contribution, and the 
     aggregate amount of the bundled contributions made by such 
     person during the reporting period.''.
       (b) Bundled Contribution.--Section 301 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(27) Bundled contribution.--The term `bundled 
     contribution' means a series of contributions that are, in 
     the aggregate, $10,000 or more and--
       ``(A) are transferred to the candidate or the authorized 
     committee of the candidate by one person; or
       ``(B) include a written or oral notification that the 
     contribution was solicited, arranged, or directed by a person 
     other than the donor.''.

     SEC. 12. OFFSET.

       (a) In General.--Section 211(c)(1)(A) of the Agricultural 
     Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5641(c)(1)(A)) is amended by 
     striking ``and $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 
     2007'' and inserting ``$200,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and 
     $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2007''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 13. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the amendments 
     made by this Act shall apply with respect to elections 
     occurring after January 1, 2006.
                                  ____

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Presidential Funding Act of 2006--Section-by-Section Analysis


                         Section 1: Short Title

    Section 2: Revisions to System of Presidential Primary Matching 
                                Payments

       (a) Matching Funds: Current law provides for a 1-to-1 
     match, where up to $250 of each individual's contributions 
     for the primaries is matched with $250 in public funds. Under 
     the new matching system, individual contributions of up to 
     $200 from each individual will be matched at a 4-to-1 ratio, 
     so $200 in individual contribution can be matched with $800 
     from public funds.
       Candidates who remain in the primary race can also receive 
     an additional 1-to-1 match of up to $200 of contributions 
     received after

[[Page S8279]]

     March 31 of a presidential election year. This additional 
     match applies both to an initial contribution made after 
     March 31 and to contributions from individuals who already 
     gave $200 or more prior to April 1.
       The bill defines ``contribution'' as ``a gift of money made 
     by a written instrument which identifies the person making 
     the contribution by full name and mailing address.''
       (b) Eligibility for matching funds: Current law requires 
     candidates to raise $5,000 in matchable contributions 
     (currently $250 or less) in 20 states. To be eligible for 
     matching funds under this bill, a candidate must raise 
     $25,000 of matchable contributions (up to $200 per individual 
     donor) in at least 20 states.
       In addition, to receive matching funds in the primary, 
     candidates must pledge to apply for public money in the 
     general election if nominated and to not exceed the general 
     election spending limits.
       (c) Timing of payments: Current law makes matching funds 
     available on January 1 of a presidential election year. The 
     bill makes such funds available beginning on July 1 of the 
     previous year.


    Section 3: Requiring Participation in Primary Payment System as 
        Condition of Eligibility for General Elections Payments

       Currently, candidates can participate in either the primary 
     or the general election public financing system, or both. 
     Under the bill, a candidate must participate in the primary 
     matching system in order to be eligible to receive public 
     funds in the general election.


               Section 4: Revisions to Expenditure Limits

       (a) Spending limits for candidates: In 2004, under current 
     law, candidates participating in the public funding system 
     had to abide by a primary election spending limit of about 
     $45 million and a general election spending limit of about 
     $75 million (all of which was public money). The bill sets a 
     total primary spending ceiling for participating candidates 
     in 2008 of $150 million, of which only $100 million can be 
     spent before April 1. State by state spending limits are 
     eliminated. The general election limit, which the major party 
     candidates will receive in public funds, will be $100 
     million.
       (b) Spending limit for parties: Current law provides a 
     single coordinated spending limit for national party 
     committees based on population. In 2004 that limit was about 
     $15 million. The bill provides two limits of $25 million. The 
     first applies after April 1 until a candidate is nominated. 
     The second limit kicks in after the nomination. Any part of 
     the limit not spent before the nomination can be spent after. 
     In addition, the party coordinated spending limit is 
     eliminated entirely until the general election public funds 
     are released if there is an active candidate from the 
     opposing party who has exceeded the primary spending limits 
     by more than 20%.
       This will allow the party to support the presumptive 
     nominee during the so-called ``gap'' between the end of the 
     primaries and the conventions. The entire cost of a 
     coordinated party communication is subject to the limit if 
     any portion of that communication has to do with the 
     presidential election.
       (c) Inflation adjustment: Party and candidate spending 
     limits will be indexed for inflation, with 2008 as the base 
     year.
       (d) Fundraising expenses: Under the bill, all the costs of 
     fundraising by candidates are subject to their spending 
     limits.


 Section 5: Additional Payments and Increased Expenditures Limits for 
     Candidates Participating in Public Financing Who Face Certain 
                       Nonparticipating Opponents

       (a) Primary candidates: When a participating candidate is 
     opposed in a primary by a nonparticipating candidate who 
     spends more than 120 percent of the primary spending limit 
     ($100 million prior to April 1 and $150 million after April 
     1), the participating candidate will receive a 5-to-1 match, 
     instead of a 4-to-1 match for contributions of less than $200 
     per donor. That additional match applies to all contributions 
     received by the participating candidate both before and after 
     the nonparticipating candidate crosses the 120 percent 
     threshold. In addition, the participating candidate's primary 
     spending limit is raised by $50 million when a 
     nonparticipating candidate raise spends more than the 120 
     percent of either the $100 million (before April 1) or $150 
     million (after April 1) limit. The limit is raised by another 
     $50 million if the nonparticipating candidate spends more 
     than 120 percent of the increased limit. Thus, the maximum 
     spending limit in the primary would be $250 million if an 
     opposing candidate has spent more than $240 million.
       (b) General election candidates: When a participating 
     candidate is opposed in a general election by a 
     nonparticipating candidate who spends more than 120 percent 
     of the combined primary and general election spending limits, 
     the participating candidate shall receive an additional 
     grant of public money equal to the amount provided for 
     that election--$100 million in 2008. Minor party 
     candidates are also eligible for an additional grant equal 
     to the amount they otherwise receive (which is based on 
     the performance of that party in the previous presidential 
     election).
       (c) Reporting and Certification: In order to provide for 
     timely determination of a participating candidate's 
     eligibility for increased spending limits, matching funds, 
     and/or general election grants, non-participating candidates 
     must notify the FEC within 24 hours after receiving 
     contributions or making expenditures of greater than the 
     applicable 120 percent threshold. Within 24 hours of 
     receiving such a notice, the FEC will inform candidates 
     participating in the system of their increased expenditure 
     limits and will certify to the Secretary of the Treasury that 
     participating candidates are eligible to receive additional 
     payments.


 Section 6: Establishment of Uniform Date for Release of Payments from 
      Presidential Elections Campaign Funds to Eligible Candidates

       Under current law, candidates participating in the system 
     for the general election receive their grants of public money 
     immediately after receiving the nomination of their party, 
     meaning that the two major parties receive their grants on 
     different dates. Under the bill, all candidates eligible to 
     receive public money in the general election would receive 
     that money on the Friday before Labor Day, unless a 
     candidate's formal nomination occurs later.


     Section 7: Revisions to Designation of Income Tax Payments by 
                          Individual Taxpayers

       The tax check-off is increased from $3 (individual) and $6 
     (couple) to $10 and $20. This amount will be adjusted during 
     each tax year after 2006. The amount will be adjusted for 
     inflation, and rounded to the nearest dollar, beginning in 
     2007.
       The IRS shall require by regulation that electronic tax 
     preparation software does not automatically accept or decline 
     the tax checkoff. The FEC is required to inform and educate 
     the public about the purpose of the Presidential Election 
     Campaign Fund (``PECF'') and how to make a contribution. 
     Funding for this program of up to $10 million in a four year 
     presidential election cycle, will come from the PECF.


       Section 8: Amounts in Presidential Election Campaign Fund

       Under current law, in January of an election year if the 
     Treasury Department determines that there are insufficient 
     funds in the PECF to make the required payments to 
     participating primary candidates, the party conventions, and 
     the general election candidates, it must reduce the payments 
     available to participating primary candidates and it cannot 
     make up the shortfall from any other source until those funds 
     come in. Under the bill, in making that determination the 
     Department can include an estimate of the amount that will be 
     received by the PECF during that election year, but the 
     estimate cannot exceed the past three years' average 
     contribution to the fund. This will allow primary candidates 
     to receive their full payments as long as a reasonable 
     estimate of the funds that will come into the PECF that year 
     will cover the general election candidate payments. The bill 
     allows the Secretary of the Treasury to borrow the funds 
     necessary to carry out the purposes of the fund during the 
     first campaign cycle in which the bill is in effect.


Section 9: Repeal of Priority in Use of Funds for Political Conventions

       Current law gives the political parties priority on 
     receiving the funds they are entitled to from the PECF. This 
     means that parties get money for their conventions even if 
     adequate funds are not available for participating 
     candidates. This section would make funds available for the 
     conventions only if all participating candidates have 
     received the funds to which they are entitled.


             Section 10: Regulation of Convention Financing

       (a) Soft money ban: National political parties and federal 
     candidates and officeholders are prohibited from raising or 
     spending soft money in connection with a nominating 
     convention of any political party, including funds for a host 
     committee, civic committee, or municipality.
       (b) Agreement not to spend soft money: To receive public 
     money for its nominating convention, a political party must 
     agree not to spend soft money on that convention and that it 
     will not accept any goods or services donated by any person 
     in connection with the convention.
       These soft money prohibitions do not apply to payments by 
     Federal, state or local governments from general tax revenues 
     or payments from any person for the purpose of promoting a 
     particular city as the site for a future convention or to 
     welcome or provide shopping or entertainment guides to 
     convention attendees.


            Section 11: Disclosure of Bundled Contributions

       (a) Disclosure requirement: The authorized committees of 
     presidential candidate committee must report the name, 
     address, and occupation of each person making a bundled 
     contribution and the aggregate amount of bundled 
     contributions made by that person.
       (b) Definition of bundled contribution. A bundled 
     contribution is a series of contributions totaling $10,000 or 
     more that are (1) collected by one person and transferred to 
     the candidate; or (2) delivered directly to the candidate 
     from the donor but include a written or oral communication 
     that the funds were ``solicited, arranged, or directed'' by 
     someone other than the donor. This covers the two most common 
     bundling arrangements where fundraisers get ``credit'' for 
     collecting contributions for a candidate.


                       Section 12: Effective Date

       Provides that the amendments will apply to presidential 
     elections occurring after January 1, 2006.

[[Page S8280]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself and Mr. Allen):
  S. 3743. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve 
newborn screening activities, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
SHINE Act of 2006 with my colleague Senator George Allen. This 
legislation is critical for the health of newborns and children.
  Each year in our Nation at least 4 million newborns are screened and 
severe disorders are detected in 5,000 of them. Although these numbers 
may seem small, these disorders are often life threatening and can 
cause mental and physical disabilities if left untreated. Early 
detection by newborn screening can lessen side effects or completely 
prevent progression of many of these disorders if medical intervention 
is started early enough.
  I am proud to say that New York has been a leader in newborn 
screening since 1960 when Dr. Robert Guthrie developed the first 
newborn screening test. Since then, more than 10 million babies have 
been tested. In 2004, New York expanded their newborn screening panel 
from 11 to 44 conditions. These improvements were a concerted effort by 
State officials and parent advocacy groups like the Newborn Screening 
Saves Lives and Hunter's Hope Foundation. They share a common goal that 
every child born with a treatable disease should receive early 
diagnosis and lifesaving treatment so that they can grow up happy and 
healthy. Today, we want to ensure that the great strides made by New 
York can be a model for all States and that New York can continue to 
make advancements that will benefit the children of New York and around 
the Nation.
  Newborn screening experts suggest States should test for a minimum of 
29 treatable core conditions. However, as of today, some States only 
screen for seven conditions. Every child should have access to tests 
that may prevent them from a life-threatening disease. Parents should 
not have to drive across State lines to improve the health of their 
baby. This bill establishes grant programs so that States can increase 
their capacity to screen for all the core conditions. Grant funds are 
also available for States like New York to expand newborn screening 
panels above and beyond the core conditions by developing additional 
newborn screening tests.
  We should expect equity within newborn screening so that it does not 
matter where your baby is born. This legislation will establish 
recommended guidelines for States for newborn screening tests, 
reporting, and data standards. Our goal should be that affected babies 
be identified quickly, babies who have the diseases should not be 
missed, and the number of newborns falsely identified as sick should be 
minimized. By tracking the prevalence of diseases identified by newborn 
screening within States, we will be able to meet these goals and 
improve the long-term health of our children.
  I hear from many parents how scary it is to have a sick child and to 
not have a diagnosis. Many parents spend years trying to find out what 
is wrong with their child and feel helpless. This legislation will make 
sure that current information on newborn screening is available and 
accessible to health providers and parents. The SHINE Act will provide 
interactive formats so that parents and providers can ask questions and 
receive answers about the newborn screening test, diagnosis, follow-up 
and treatment.
  Early treatment can prevent negative and irreversible health outcomes 
for affected newborns. We should be doing all we can to give every 
child born in our country the opportunity for a happy and healthy life.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following letters in support of this 
legislation from the March of Dimes, Hunter's Hope Foundation, Save 
Babies Through Screening Foundation, and Blythedale Children's Hospital 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      Save Babies Though Screening


                                             Foundation, Inc.,

                                     Scarsdale, NY, July 24, 2006.
     Hon. Hillary Clinton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Clinton: I am writing on behalf of the Save 
     Babies Through Screening Foundation to show our support for 
     the Screening for Health of Infants and NEwborns (SHINE Act). 
     As you know, our organization's mission is to improve the 
     lives of babies by working to prevent disabilities and early 
     death resulting from disorders detectable through newborn 
     screening. Our organization was founded in 1998 and is the 
     only organization solely dedicated to raising awareness in 
     regard to newborn screening.
       We believe that this bill will greatly enhance the 
     expansion of newborn screening throughout the United States 
     and will save the lives of thousands of babies--our tiniest 
     citizens. Additionally, this will spare Parents the agonizing 
     pain of watching their children suffer as I can attest to 
     first-hand. With the great expansion of newborn screening, 
     children will be able to live healthy and productive lives.
       We thank you for your vision and hard work. Nobody should 
     suffer the loss or impairment of a child when there are tests 
     and treatment available and this bill will put an end to 
     future suffering. Please feel free to contact me if we can be 
     of any assistance.
           Regards,
                                                  Jill Levy-Fisch,
     President.
                                  ____



                                                Hunter's Hope,

                                  Orchard Park, NY, July 21, 2006.
     Hon. Hillary Clinton,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Clinton: On behalf of the Hunter's Hope 
     Foundation, I respectively submit this letter as our full and 
     complete support for the bill titled ``Screening for Health 
     of Infants and NEwborns (SHINE Act)''.
       The Hunter's Hope Foundation was established in 1997 by Pro 
     Football Hall of Fame member and former Buffalo Bills 
     Quarterback, Jim Kelly, and his wife, Jill, after their 
     infant son, Hunter, was diagnosed with Krabbe (Crab a) 
     Leukodystrophy, an inherited, fatal, nervous system disease.
       The Foundation's mission is to: Increase public awareness 
     of Krabbe disease and other leukodystrophies, support those 
     afflicted and their families, identify new treatments, and 
     ultimately find a cure.
       Since 1997, Cord Blood Transplant (CBT) has become a viable 
     treatment for Krabbe disease as well as a few other 
     leukodystrophies. But, CBT is only effective if the child is 
     treated before the disease inflicts irreversible damage to 
     the brain and nervous system. There are many other treatable 
     diseases that if not treated early will cause irreversible 
     damage. And, the number of such diseases continues to 
     increase with advancements in science and technology. We must 
     establish an infrastructure in our country that not only 
     addresses the immediate need, but also creates a system for 
     expansion. The SHINE Act will accomplish this.
       Hunter passed away August 5, 2005. Like thousands of other 
     children, if he had been screened at birth, he may be living 
     a healthy life today. Please help these children and their 
     families and pass this bill. We implore you to expedite the 
     passing and implementing of this bill. With each day that 
     passes, children are suffering and dying needlessly.
       Thank you from the bottom of our hearts.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Jacque Waggoner,
     Board of Directors, Chair.
                                  ____



                               Blythedale Children's Hospital,

                                      Valhalla, NY, July 25, 2006.
      Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Clinton: We are pleased to write this letter 
     of support for the Screening for Health of Infants and 
     Newborns Act of 2006. We commend you for your leadership in 
     calling for a uniform and comprehensive national approach to 
     screening newborns for the full panel of core conditions 
     recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and 
     endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. If diagnosed 
     early, these disorders, including metabolic and hearing 
     deficiency, can be managed or treated to prevent severe 
     consequences.
       As a hospital which provides a wide array of services to 
     children with special health care needs, we know how 
     important early detection and treatment of conditions can be. 
     We were particularly pleased to see the provisions of this 
     legislation which provide for a Central Clearinghouse of 
     current educational and family support information, critical 
     to assuring a national standard of care.
       According to the latest March of Dimes Newborn Screening 
     Report Card, nearly two-thirds of all babies born in the 
     United States this year will be screened for more than 20 
     life-threatening disorders. However, disparities in state 
     newborn screening programs mean some babies will die or 
     develop brain damage or other severe complications from these 
     disorders because they are not identified in time for 
     effective treatment.
       At present, the United States lacks consistent national 
     guidelines for newborn screening, and each state decides how 
     many and which screening tests are required for every baby. 
     As a result, only 9 percent of all

[[Page S8281]]

     babies are screened for all of the 29 recommended conditions. 
     Clearly it is a wise investment to take full advantage of the 
     information available to detect treatable conditions in 
     children.
       We commend you for your leadership on this most important 
     issue and look forward to working with you and your 
     colleagues to secure passage of this legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Larry Levine,
       President.
     Judith Wiener Goodhue,
       Vice Chair, Board of Trustees, Chair, Government Relations 
     Committee.
                                  ____



                                               March of Dimes,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2006.
     Hon. Hillary Clinton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Clinton: On behalf of more than 3 million 
     volunteers and 1,400 staff members of the March of Dimes, I 
     am writing to thank you for introducing the ``Screening for 
     Health of Infants and Newborns (SHINE) Act.'' If enacted, 
     this legislation would authorize grant programs to assist 
     states in expanding the number of conditions screened for at 
     birth and improve the dissemination of educational resources 
     to the public and healthcare providers.
       As you know, disparities among states in health screening 
     at birth mean too many babies with serious birth defects are 
     not being diagnosed and treated in time to avoid long term 
     disability or even death. The March of Dimes has endorsed the 
     recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics 
     that calls for every baby born in the United States to be 
     screened for twenty-nine disorders, including certain 
     metabolic conditions and hearing deficiency. The July 2006 
     March of Dimes newborn screening report card made clear the 
     need for additional state efforts to expand programs to 
     screen for the full range of the twenty-nine disorders. 
     Specifically, only 9 percent of the babies born in the United 
     States were tested for all of the recommended conditions. The 
     ``SHINE Act'' will enhance state's capacity to expand the 
     number of screens and provide important newborn screening 
     educational materials to families via the internet.
       We at the March of Dimes are sincerely grateful for your 
     efforts related to newborn screening and look forward to 
     working with you, and others in Congress with an interest in 
     newborn screening.
           Sincerely,

                                              Marina L. Weiss,

                                            Senior Vice President,
                               Public Policy & Government Affairs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Coleman):
  S. 3744. A bill to establish the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad 
Program; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am a lucky politician, a fortunate soul. 
I am lucky that early in my political life, I met two men who had a 
dramatic impact on me and on my decision to seek public office and to 
be involved in public service. The first was a Senator from Illinois 
named Paul Douglas who served from 1948 to 1966 and decided in the year 
1966 to hire a college intern named Durbin from East St. Louis, IL, who 
was going to school at Georgetown University. That was the first time I 
ever walked into a Senate office building, and I tell you, I was swept 
away by the experience. I knew at that time that I wanted to be a part 
of the excitement of this life on Capitol Hill and government, and I 
didn't know how I would ever have a chance to do it. I never dreamed I 
would run for office. But Paul Douglas, my first mentor in public 
service and political office, was there at the right moment in my life 
to inspire me to pursue at least some aspect of public service.
  He introduced me to a fellow named Paul Simon who later served as the 
U.S. Senator from Illinois. Paul was elected in 1984 and served until 
1996. During that 12-year period of time, I was a Member of the House 
of Representatives. For many years before, Paul Simon had been my 
closest friend and mentor in politics. He gave me my first job out of 
law school, when my wife Loretta and I packed everything we owned in a 
very small truck. She took the baby on a plane to fly to Springfield, 
IL, and I drove the truck out with our dog sitting in the front seat of 
my U-Haul truck with me and took my first job working for then 
Lieutenant Governor Paul Simon.
  I was lucky. I learned the craft of politics from Paul Simon. I saw 
in his public service, in his public life, how good this job can be and 
how important it can be if you realize you need to be driven by some 
basic principles. Paul Simon used to say--and I have heard the speech 
so many times; I have even given it--that politics is about two things. 
First, people expect you to be honest, and I think he meant beyond 
dollar honesty--issue honesty; people expect you to tell them what you 
really believe rather than try to hide what your beliefs might be in 
some political double-talk.
  The second thing Paul Simon says is that politics is about helping 
the helpless. He believed there is some mission to this. He was a son 
of a Lutheran minister and a proud Christian but reached across to 
other denominations of religions for his own inspiration. He believed 
that helping the helpless was an important part of government 
responsibility.
  Mr. President, today I am going to introduce legislation with Senator 
Norm Coleman of Minnesota. It is legislation that reflects the vision 
of Senator Paul Simon.
  After the terrible attack of September 11, 2001, Paul Simon, typical 
of his outlook on the world, decided that he could imagine a more 
peaceful world, even in that time of great upheaval. He talked about 
promoting peace and security through understanding and global 
awareness. Specifically, he began to lay out a path to a United States 
that would be populated by Americans who have been abroad and have a 
personal connection to another part of the world. His vision was to 
help prepare a generation with greater cultural competence and real 
life experience in societies unlike our own.
  In the months before his untimely death, Senator Paul Simon came back 
to Washington to talk to me and his former colleagues in the Senate 
about the need to strengthen this country's international 
understanding. As a direct result of his work, Congress established the 
Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Commission to develop the framework for an 
international study abroad program for America's college students. I 
was honored to serve on this bipartisan Lincoln Commission.
  Late last year, the Commission published its report recommending the 
Congress establish a study abroad program for undergraduate students 
that would help build this global awareness and international 
understanding. It is a privilege for me to introduce legislation based 
on the recommendations of this Commission.
  Paul Simon, like so many committed to strengthening our ability to 
lead by investing in the education of young people, struggled with the 
question of how America could lead while so few of our citizens have an 
appropriate knowledge and understanding of the world outside of our 
borders. The United States is a military and economic superpower, yet 
it is continuously threatened by a serious lack of international 
competence in an age of growing globalization. When you travel 
overseas, you cannot help but be struck by the fact that people in 
other countries know so much more about us than we know about them.
  Our lack of world awareness is now seen as a national liability. The 
challenges we face as Americans are increasingly global in nature, and 
our youth must be well prepared for its future. Our national security, 
international economic competitiveness, and diplomatic efforts in 
working toward a peaceful society rest on our global competence and 
ability to appreciate language and culture throughout the world.
  Today I joined a number of our colleagues who walked across the 
Rotunda over to the House of Representatives for a joint meeting of 
Congress where the Prime Minister of Iraq, Mr. al-Maliki, spoke to us. 
He spoke in inspiring terms about his goals for Iraq, an Iraq that was 
based on democratic principles, an Iraq that was based on freedom, an 
Iraq that was free of terrorism.
  The United States has made a major investment in that effort. We are 
now in the fourth year of a war, a war that has claimed over 2,569 
American lives, including 102 brave soldiers from my home State of 
Illinois. Over 20,000 of our soldiers have returned with serious 
injuries--2,000 of those with brain injuries and lives that will be 
compromised and more challenging because they agreed to stand and serve 
and fight for America and they went to Iraq and paid a heavy price.

  We have spent some $320 billion of American treasure on the war in 
Iraq, and we continue to spend, by estimate, $3 billion every single 
week on Iraq, realizing that the end is not near and

[[Page S8282]]

there is no end in sight. We hope our troops will start to come home 
soon, but there is no indication they will.
  Yet, the best military leaders in America, when they sit face to face 
with us here in private meetings, tell us the same thing we have heard 
from many members of this administration. We will not win in Iraq a 
military victory. The victory ultimately has to be a political victory, 
a victory where we convince the Iraqi people that this is a far better 
course to follow, to move toward self-governance and democracy, freedom 
and free markets, and to move away from the days of dictatorships and 
the thinking that led people to a divisive moment in their lives. We 
need to move away from that.
  It suggests, even with the strongest military in the world, giving it 
their best efforts every single minute of every single day, the 
ultimate answer in Iraq and so many other countries is not a military 
answer. It is an answer that brings together political and economic 
elements that ultimately will spell the success of that nation.
  The capacity of the United States to lead in the 21st century, not 
just in Iraq but all over the world, demands that we school new 
generations of American citizens who understand the cultural and social 
realities beyond what they have experienced here at home. Senator Simon 
understood this. He saw the United States as a large community, part of 
an even larger world family. When he saw signs that read, ``God bless 
America,'' Paul Simon used to say, ``I wish they would read `God bless 
America and the rest of the world.' ''
  Senator Simon was a great public servant. His service in Congress was 
exemplary. He was a man with an intrinsic sense of justice and passion 
for the public good. His deep convictions were matched by a genuine 
zeal for the work he did here in Washington and back in Illinois.
  When he retired from the Senate, there was a little ceremony on the 
floor of the Senate, the likes of which this Chamber has never seen. 
The decision was made that since Paul Simon always wore a bow tie, that 
on one given day all of the Senators would come to the floor wearing 
bow ties. To Paul's surprise, he walked in here to find so many of his 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle saluting his retirement by 
wearing his trademark bow tie.
  After he retired from the Senate, Paul Simon carried his vision and 
his energy for leadership back to Southern Illinois University, 
founding the Public Policy Institute at that university in Carbondale, 
IL. In that role, he trained future generations to understand the 
values he fought for his entire life.
  The Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program, which Paul Simon 
inspired, is designed to encourage and support the experience of 
studying overseas in countries whose people, culture, language, 
government, and religion might be very different from ours. The bill I 
am introducing today with Senator Coleman would create a program that 
encourages nontraditional students to spend part of their undergraduate 
careers in nontraditional study abroad destinations. It is said you 
never understand a country until you visit it and you never appreciate 
your home until you leave it. The program we envision provides direct 
fellowships to students but also provides financial incentives to 
colleges and universities to make internal policy changes that make it 
easier for students to study abroad.
  We believe it is the institutional change that will allow the U.S. to 
sustain a steady growth in the number of students who experience this 
learning abroad. As we become a nation whose citizens have studied in 
other countries, we will become more understanding of the rest of the 
world and they will come to know us better.
  We learned this with the Peace Corps. As I travel around the world, I 
never cease to be amazed at the impact which the Peace Corps has had on 
countries, on small villages, and on people. I can recall visiting 
Nepal. I went to Nepal with a former colleague from the home State of 
the Presiding Officer, Oklahoma, Mike Synar. We went to a tiny little 
village way up in the mountains outside of Kathmandu. After we trekked 
up there at high altitudes, out of breath, we came to this little 
village and all of the people were there. They had the third eye on 
their head. There were garlands of flowers around their necks. They 
were dressed in the best clothes they had, and offered us food. And as 
we sat down, they asked us if we knew Paul Jones, from Pittsburgh, PA.
  Of course, we didn't. But we didn't want to say that right off. We 
said, ``Who was he?''
  ``Well, you must know him. He was our Peace Corps volunteer. He was 
here for 2 years. He made such a difference in this village. You must 
know Paul.''
  I made up the name, but it goes to show you that the efforts and 
involvement of Americans overseas not only will help people there but 
will help those who live through the experience. For so many Peace 
Corps volunteers that I met, it was a transformative moment, to serve 
in that Peace Corps at that moment in their life and to go through that 
experience.
  Sending more American students for that overseas experience will not 
only help those students, it will help others around the world to see 
who we are. Think of the battle of images going on in the world today 
even as we speak, images of America that are terrible, images that are 
distorted, that are being shown to people around the world every day. 
And they say this is what America looks like when in fact it isn't even 
close to the truth.
  We can become a nation where we use our public education system to 
expand not only the reach of America's message, but the experience of 
Americans in other countries. I can think of no more appropriate 
tribute to honor Paul Simon, a great statesman himself, than to 
establish this study abroad program.
  In the weeks before Senator Simon's death, Senator Simon wrote the 
following:

       A nation cannot drift into greatness. We must dream and we 
     must be willing to make small sacrifices to achieve those 
     dreams. If I want to improve my home, I must sacrifice a 
     little. If we want to improve our Nation and the world, we 
     must be willing to sacrifice a little. This major national 
     initiative . . . can lift our vision and responsiveness to 
     the rest of the world. Those who read these lines need to do 
     more than nod in agreement [Paul Simon wrote.] This is a 
     battle for understanding that you must help wage.

  I ask my colleagues to join Senator Coleman and myself in this 
bipartisan legislation to help keep alive Senator Paul Simon's vision 
for a culturally aware and a better world.

                          ____________________