[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 131 (Thursday, September 6, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11215-S11218]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Thune, Mr. Coleman, Ms. Klobuchar,
Mrs. Dole, Mr. Vitter, and Ms. Collins):
S. 2021. A bill to provide $50,000,000,000 in new transportation
infrastructure funding through bonding to empower States and local
governments to complete significant infrastructure projects across all
modes of transportation, including roads, bridges, rail and transit
systems, ports, and inland waterways, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, despite the record transportation funding
that Congress provided in the 2005 Transportation Reauthorization bill,
SAFETEA-LU, our Nation's infrastructure is being stressed to the
breaking point. Our ports and rail lines are at or near capacity. Our
highways are clogged. The tragedy in Minneapolis last month showed the
entire country that our bridges are in desperate need of repair.
The American Society of Civil Engineers has noted that over the next
5 years $1.6 trillion in investment is needed from all levels of
government to keep our Nation's current transportation system up to
date. To put that into perspective, our Nation's infrastructure needs
roughly six times as much funding as was included in SAFETEA-LU.
The question is ``Where do we find the transportation funding that
our country needs to meet our transportation and our economic needs?''
Senator Thune's and my answer is to invest in America.
Everyone agrees that our country's infrastructure needs are
tremendous. Everyone agrees that our country needs to invest more in
transportation. What Congress hasn't been able to agree on is where to
find the money. Gas taxes just don't generate enough revenues to even
begin to satisfy highway and transit needs.
In this budget climate, pots of extra Federal money are not just
sitting around waiting to be used, and States surely don't have any
extra money either. Most have budget deficits. All the conventional
funding sources are coming up short, so Senator Thune and I think it is
time to think outside the box and outside the trust funds. The Federal
Government is about the only entity in the country that does not borrow
money for capital projects, but in this climate it should and it must.
Senator Thune and I have come up with a creative approach to provide
$50 billion of additional new funding for transportation projects our
country desperately needs by issuing Build America Bonds. Our country's
needs are so great that we think funding should be made available that
is in addition to SAFETEA-LU.
Our legislation is not a substitute for fixing the transportation
trust fund. We still must address that problem, and next year we must
start on a new transportation bill. Our legislation is meant to provide
extra money on top of regular transportation funding.
This money could not be earmarked by Congress. This will not fund any
Senator's pet project. This money will be controlled by the States, and
used for the projects they think are most critical.
An annual amount of approximately $500 million from trade fees will
be placed in an Infrastructure Finance Account and invested for the
life of the bonds, which will generate more than enough to repay the
entire $50 billion principal amount.
That means the only cost to the Government is the ``interest
portion'' on the bonds, which is in the form of tax credits. With this
funding mechanism, as little as $2 billion a year could generate the
$50 billion in funding for transportation infrastructure. I call that a
very smart investment in our country's infrastructure.
This investment is badly needed.
Citizens stuck in traffic choking on exhaust need relief. Truckers
who need to detour miles out of their way to avoid weight-limited
bridges need relief. As our economy struggles with stagnating wages,
the loss of even basic health benefits for many, and a mortgage market
that is spiraling downward, the American worker needs relief.
[[Page S11216]]
The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that each $1 billion
of funding for transportation directly produces nearly 50,000 jobs. So
under the Wyden/Thune proposal the $50 billion of new transportation
funding will provide critical economic stimulus that will create up to
2.5 million family wage jobs.
This is an economic stimulus idea that will generate more funding for
the economy now. It will create jobs. It is a chance for the Federal
Government to hold up its end of the bargain with our States.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today, Senator Wyden and I are introducing
an important piece of legislation that seeks to address the significant
transportation infrastructure needs that exist across the country. The
Build America Bonds Act would provide $50 billion in infrastructure
investment for all states across the country.
This legislation is a slightly modified version of bills that Senator
Wyden and others advocated in previous Congresses. While the Federal
Government has allocated record funding levels to States under the
Transportation reauthorization bill that Congress passed in 2005, the
need for infrastructure improvements far exceeds available Federal and
State funding sources.
For instance, the American Society of Civil Engineers has noted that
over the next 5 years, $1.6 trillion in investment is needed from all
levels of government to keep our Nation's current transportation system
up to date. To put this into perspective, this funding level is roughly
six times larger than what is currently being spent.
Our legislation, the Build America Bonds Act, is not intended to
replace the current user-fee structure the highway trust fund relies on
today--it would be a supplemental funding stream that would allow
States to address the backlog of important highway, bridge, rail, and
waterway projects that exist in every State across the country.
The funding under our legislation would not be earmarked by
Congress--it would be distributed directly to States. Further, this
much needed funding would create over 2 million jobs, spur significant
economic growth, save lives by making much needed improvements to
transportation problems that exist from coast to coast and keep our
economy moving.
Our legislation is cosponsored by Senators Coleman, Klobuchar, Dole,
Vitter, and Collins. In addition, the Build America Bonds Act enjoys
the broad support of a diverse group of business, labor and
transportation groups, including: Associated General Contractors of
America, AGC, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, AASHTO; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; National Association of
Manufacturers, NAM; National Construction Alliance--a coalition of the
Laborers, Carpenters, and Operating Engineers Unions; American Highway
Users Alliance; and many others.
______
By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Mr. Levin):
S. 2024. A bill to provide for interregional primary elections and
caucuses for the selection of delegates to political party Presidential
nominating conventions; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am proposing today and will
file legislation to create a comprehensive and nationwide process for
voters to select nominees every 4 years for President of the United
States. This legislation will establish six Presidential primary
dates--the first one in March of a Presidential election year, two in
April, two in May, and one in June.
Each of these contests would feature at least one State from six
different regions, six geographic regions around the country. The order
of States within each region would rotate every 4 years--every
Presidential election. That order would be determined at the beginning
by lot in order to determine the sequence. And then the next
Presidential election, the ones who had gone first in March would then
go to the end of the line and they would be in June, and the list would
move up.
It would give voters in the larger States a strong voice in selecting
the nominees over that 4-month period while also giving the citizens in
the smaller States a fair say, instead of the present system we have
now where the small States are the ones that have an inordinate
influence in selecting the nominees of the two great parties.
So in this legislation, by featuring States from each of the six
regions, there will be racial, ethnic, economic, and regional diversity
on each of the primary dates. And, of course, it has a much more
rational proposal for an agenda, in that you start in March and it
concludes in June of the Presidential election year, instead of this
chaotic situation we have now with States trying to get ahead of each
other, with them starting now as early as the early part of January and
with it being frontloaded so that, in effect, we may find the
Presidential nominee decided by the middle of February.
I am introducing this legislation with my colleague Senator Levin of
Michigan. It is our experience as Senators from Florida and Michigan
that we have seen firsthand how unfair and undemocratic our
Presidential primary system has become. I might say this legislation
tracks Senator Levin's brother's legislation filed in the House of
Representatives, Congressman Sandy Levin. Our bill is going to try to
approach a rational way of selecting the nominees for President of the
United States instead of this chaotic system we have now.
Now, neither bill is going to fix the current controversy we have
over the sequence of the contest in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and
South Carolina. For that, a short-term fix is certainly needed. What we
have now is this chaotic situation where all the small States are
trying to get ahead of each other. This certainty is needed to resolve
the fix created by several States moving their 2008 primaries ahead of
some of the other States. In my State, the Republican legislature of
Florida--signed into law by a Republican Governor--moved the Florida
primary from March to January 29. In Senator Levin's State, a
Democratic legislature--signed into law by a Democratic Governor--moved
its primary to January 15. What we may find is that other States may
follow suit with a big jump.
I have proposed to the Democratic National Committee that it allow,
for this particular Presidential cycle, the traditional first-in-the-
Nation States to move ahead of my State on January 29; and, instead,
the party leaders have decided that Florida's votes are not going to
count in the 2008 Presidential primary. The DNC said Florida's earlier
primary, which was signed into law by our Governor, would alter the
sequence of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. So last
month, the party officials decided to strip Florida of its 210
delegates to the national convention. That means that this country's
fourth largest State will have no say in picking the Democratic
Presidential nominee. Well, that is simply unacceptable.
Florida still has several weeks to find a solution for the DNC that
it will accept; or, as I have suggested, legal action may be necessary.
It is a case of fundamental rights versus the rules of a political
party. And as to our right to vote, and to have that vote count, there
can be no debate. I want to say that again. As to our right to vote,
and to have that vote count, there can be no debate.
Senator Levin and I will work hard to ensure that the controversy
over the respective positions of Florida and Michigan in the primary
schedule are resolved; and, for the long term, our legislation would
bring order to the next and all future Presidential primary seasons. It
would ensure that no one State has a disproportionate influence on the
selection of the nominees. By introducing this bill today, we want to
begin a broader discussion about achieving lasting reform.
With the experience we have had in Florida, in the disputed
Presidential election in 2000, and again 6 years later, with there
having been an ``undervote'' of 18,000 votes in a congressional
election in one county in Florida, Sarasota County, the sensitivity in
Florida of having the right to vote and to have that ballot count, and
to have that ballot count as intended, is paramount, and it is highly
sensitive in the State of Florida. For a political party to punish a
State for stepping out of line is the height of insensitivity in
understanding that those votes are critical and that people know their
sacred right of the ballot is protected. We
[[Page S11217]]
intend to see that the right to have their votes counted, and counted
as they intend, is preserved.
In the meantime, we have to bring rationality to this process. The
regional primary system set up in this legislation Senator Levin and I
are introducing today is a suggested approach so that by the year 2012
we will have order in selecting our Presidential nominees instead of
the chaos we find ourselves in now.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record, as follows:
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2024
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 ``Fair and Representative
Presidential Primaries Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. INTERREGIONAL PRIMARY ELECTIONS AND CAUCUSES.
(a) Selection of Delegates to Conventions.--The delegates
to each national convention for the nomination of candidates
of a political party for the offices of President and Vice
President shall be selected by primary election or by caucus,
as provided by State law. Such State law shall conform to the
requirements of the national political executive committee
and the national nominating convention of the political party
involved.
(b) Timing of Primary Elections and Caucuses.--
(1) In general.--In each region described in subsection
(c), the primary elections and caucuses (as the case may be)
in a subregion (comprised of a State or a group of States)
shall be conducted on each of the following days of each
Presidential election year: the second Tuesday in March, the
first Tuesday in April, the fourth Tuesday in April, the
second Tuesday in May, the fourth Tuesday in May, and the
second Tuesday in June.
(2) Initial order of primaries and caucuses.--For the first
Presidential election with respect to which this Act applies,
the Election Assistance Commission shall determine by lot the
order of subregions in each region for conduct of primary
elections and caucuses by the States under paragraph (1).
(3) Order of primaries and caucuses for subsequent
elections.--The subregions determined under paragraph (2) to
be first in order for the first Presidential election to
which this Act applies shall be last in order with respect to
the next such election, and the other subregions shall
advance in the order accordingly. The order shall change with
respect to subsequent elections in a like manner.
(4) Special rules for district of columbia, puerto rico,
and territories.--Any primary election or caucus for the
District of Columbia shall be conducted on the same day as a
primary election or caucus for the State of Maryland. Any
primary election or caucus for the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico shall be conducted on the same day as a primary election
or caucus for the State of Florida. Any primary election or
caucus for any other territory, possession, or other entity
entitled under the rules of a political party to delegate
representation at the national convention of that party shall
be conducted on the same day as a primary election or caucus
for the States of Alaska and Hawaii.
(c) Establishment of Regions.--The regions (designated by
number) and the subregions (designated by letter) referred to
in subsection (b) are as follows:
(1) Region 1: (A) Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont; (B)
Massachusetts; (C) Connecticut, Rhode Island; (D) Delaware,
New Jersey; (E) New York; (F) Pennsylvania.
(2) Region 2: (A) Maryland; (B) West Virginia; (C)
Missouri; (D) Indiana; (E) Kentucky; (F) Tennessee.
(3) Region 3: (A) Ohio; (B) Illinois; (C) Michigan; (D)
Wisconsin; (E) Iowa; (F) Minnesota.
(4) Region 4: (A) Texas; (B) Louisiana; (C) Arkansas,
Oklahoma; (D) Colorado; (E) Kansas, Nebraska; (F) Arizona,
New Mexico.
(5) Region 5: (A) Virginia; (B) North Carolina; (C) South
Carolina; (D) Florida; (E) Georgia; (F) Mississippi, Alabama.
(6) Region 6: (A) California; (B) Washington; (C) Oregon;
(D) Idaho, Nevada, Utah; (E) Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Wyoming; (F) Hawaii, Alaska.
SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT.
The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any
appropriate United States district court for such declaratory
or injunctive relief as may be necessary to carry out this
Act.
SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.
The Election Assistance Commission shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out this Act.
SEC. 5. DEFINITION.
As used in this Act, the term ``State law'' means the law
of a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, or a territory or possession of the United
States.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall apply with respect to Presidential elections
taking place more than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 2028. A bill to require the State of Louisiana to match Federal
funding to fully address the Road Home Program shortfall; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about
an important issue that will determine the success of long-term
recovery efforts in the gulf coast. As you know gulf coast was
devastated in 2005 by two of the most powerful storms to ever hit the
U.S. in recorded history Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We also
experienced the unprecedented disaster of having a major metropolitan
city, the city of New Orleans, under up to 20 feet of water for 2 weeks
when there were 28 separate levee failures which flooded 12,000 acres,
or 80 percent of New Orleans following Katrina.
I strongly believe that the Congress can provide vast amounts of tax
credits, grants, loans, and waivers but all these benefits will not
spur recovery if we cannot get people back into their homes. That is
where recovery must start and end. In Louisiana alone, for example, we
had over 20,000 businesses destroyed. However, businesses cannot open
their doors if their workers have nowhere to live. Louisiana also had
875 schools destroyed. Again, teachers cannot come back to school and
teach our children if they do not have a roof over their heads. So a
fundamental piece of recovery in the gulf coast is to allow disaster
victims to return home and rebuild.
Today, I am proud to introduce legislation which is extremely
important to the recovery in the State of Louisiana. This is because,
over the past few months, we have learned that the Road Home is facing
a shortfall of billions of dollars due to various reasons. There is
certainly more than enough blame to go around for the mistakes in the
creation and management of the Road Home program, and fixing them will
be a shared responsibility. But a significant initial flaw can be found
in the inadequate and unfairly distributed funding which represented
all the administration was willing to commit towards Louisiana
recovery. At this stage, the funding shortfall threatens to stall
recovery in Louisiana and leave homeowners without the vital funds they
need to rebuild their homes. To address this important issue, the bill
we introduce today includes an authorization of funds so that if the
State of Louisiana puts up $1 billion towards the Road Home shortfall,
additional funds necessary to shore up the program would be available.
I strongly believe this bill will serve as a hand up, not a hand out.
The State of Louisiana shares a financial obligation to address the
shortfall and this bill would hold it accountable, but with the State
meeting their obligation the Federal Government also would step in to
help.
In closing, let me reiterate that this bill addresses one of the most
fundamental needs following a disaster: the need to return home.
Whether residents live in million dollar mansions, rental housing, or
public housing they all share a desire to return to their communities
and, in particular, their homes. I urge my colleagues to support this
important legislation as now these disaster victims are counting on the
Congress for action.
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. 2028
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 ``Louisiana Road Home Act''.
SEC. 2. ROAD HOME PROGRAM SHORTFALL.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary for the State of Louisiana to carry out the Road
Home Program, provided that as of June 1, 2007, the State of
Louisiana has provided at least $1,000,000,000 for such
Program.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs.
McCaskill, Mr. Schumer, and Ms. Klobuchar):
S. 2029. A bill to amend title XI of the Social Security Act to
provide for transparency in the relationship between physicians and
manufacturers of
[[Page S11218]]
drugs, devices, or medical supplies for which payment is made under
Medicare, Medicaid, or SCHIP; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, a month ago I outlined an important
issue affecting all Americans who take prescription drugs or use
medical devices--the need for greater transparency in the money that
drug and device companies hand out to doctors. Today, I am pleased to
introduce the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, along with Senator Kohl,
chairman of the Special Committee on Aging. This legislation will bring
much needed transparency to the financial relationships that exist
between the drug and device industries and doctors.
There is no question that the drug and device industries have an
intricate network of financial ties with practicing physicians. These
financial relationships can take many forms. They can include speaking
honoraria, consulting fees, free travel to exotic locations for
conferences, or funding for research. Drug and device companies spend
billions and billions of dollars every year marketing their products. A
good amount of this money goes directly to doctors in the form of these
payments.
This practice, and the lack of transparency around it, can obscure
the most important question that exists between doctor and patient:
What is best for the patient?
As the editorial board of the Des Moines Register wrote recently, and
I quote, ``Your doctor's hands may be in the till of a drug company. So
how can you know whether the prescription he or she writes is in your
best interest, or the best interest of a drug company?'' That is an
excellent question. Currently, the public has no way of knowing whether
their doctor has taken payments from the drug and device industries,
and I intend to change that--not just for Iowans but for all Americans.
Payments to a doctor can be big or small. They can be a simple dinner
after work or they can add up to tens of thousands and even hundreds of
thousands of dollars each year. That is right--hundreds of thousands of
dollars for one doctor. It is really pretty shocking.
Companies wouldn't be paying this money unless it had a direct effect
on the prescriptions doctors write, and the medical devices they use.
Patients, of course, are in the dark about whether their doctor is
receiving this money.
The Physician Payments Sunshine Act sheds light on these hidden
payments and obscured interests through the best disinfectant of all:
sunshine. This is a short bill, and a simple one. This bill requires
drug and device manufacturers to disclose to the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, on a quarterly basis, anything of value given to
doctors, such as payments, gifts, honoraria, or travel. Along with the
money, these companies will have to report the name of the physician,
the value and the date of the payment or gift, its purpose, and what,
if anything, was received in exchange. This bill then requires the
Department of Health and Human Services to make the information
available to the public through a searchable web site.
And this bill has some teeth, too. If a company fails to report, the
Physician Payments Sunshine Act imposes a penalty ranging from $10,000
to $100,000 for each violation.
Many States are ahead of the curve on this and have passed, or are
currently considering, similar measures. In 1993, Minnesota required
the Nation's first public disclosure of gifts and payments from
wholesale drug distributors. Vermont passed a similar law in 2003,
although much of the information is not publicly available. More
recently, the District of Columbia, Maine, and West Virginia have
followed suit in requiring disclosure, though not all make the
information available to the public through a web site. The General
Assembly in my home State of Iowa may soon be requiring disclosure as
well.
But this kind of information shouldn't be available only to Americans
who happen to be lucky enough to live in a State already addressing
this problem. On the contrary, this information should be accessible to
all Americans across the country and it should be updated in a timely
manner. I propose to my colleagues that now is the time to act.
I realize that some critics, including many of the drug and device
companies, are going to say that creating this sort of national
database is too time consuming and too expensive. I can hear the
complaints already. But let me remind you again--the drug companies are
already reporting their payments to doctors in Minnesota and other
States. Companies already have this information available. We aren't
requiring them to go out and obtain it--we are just asking them to
share it with the American people.
Perhaps even more telling is that at least one industry leader has
taken the goal of increased transparency into its own hands. Although
it is not making its payments to doctors publicly available, Eli Lilly
has taken important steps to meet the public's demand for increased
sunshine. In response to my investigation of drug company payments for
continuing medical education, Eli v Lilly voluntarily created a web
site that details payments they make to organizations like patient
groups and hospitals. I commend Eli Lilly for taking the lead on that
issue, and I look forward to working with them on my latest effort.
This bill is careful not to burden small businesses--it applies only
to companies with annual revenues over $100 million. It is the largest
companies who are driving this practice, and for whom disclosure would
be least burdensome.
Further, during a meeting on a separate matter with officials from
Glaxo Smith Kline in early August, my staff brought up the idea of drug
companies reporting payments to physicians. I am happy to say that Dr.
Moncef Slaoui, the chairman of research and evelopment for Glaxo Smith
Kline, said that he was also interested in a little sunshine. In fact,
here are his exact words: ``We're happy for transparency.'' I would
like to commend Dr. Slaoui for his comments and I look forward to
working with him and leaders at other companies on this bill.
It is not only industry leaders who are leading the way on the issue
of increased transparency--some of America's best medical schools are
taking steps to prevent conflicts of interest among their physicians.
In fact, the Yale University School of Medicine, the University of
Pennsylvania, and the Stanford University Medical School have gone so
far as to prohibit certain gifts and payments altogether.
So let me be clear. This bill does not regulate the business of the
drug and device industries. I say, let the people in the industry do
their business. After all, they have the training and the skill to get
that job done. Just keep the American people apprised of the business
you are doing and how you are doing it. Let a little bit of sunshine in
to this world of financial relationships--it is, after all, the best
disinfectant.
____________________