[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.
____________________