[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 185 (Wednesday, December 5, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14788-S14802]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Ensign, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr.
Martinez):
S. 2408. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
require physician utilization of the Medicare electronic prescription
drug program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, seven thousand Americans die every year
because of preventable adverse drug events. Tens of thousands of more
are injured. Meanwhile, of the three billion prescriptions that are
written each year, doctors report that nearly one billion of them
required a followup for clarity, costing our health care system
billions of dollars a year. That is why I am pleased to join my
colleagues Senator Ensign, Senator Stabenow and Senator Martinez to
introduce critical legislation to help bring our health care system
into the 21st century through electronic prescribing, e-prescribing, of
medications in the Medicare program.
The benefits of e-prescribing are clear and compelling. When a doctor
``writes'' an electronic prescription, a computer or handheld device
warns of potentially dangerous interactions or allergies or informs a
physician whether a particular drug is covered by a patient's
insurance. It also tells the physician whether a chemically identical
generic alternative is available at a fraction of the price. The path
to a more modern, accountable health care system starts with health
information technology. The path to robust health information
technology starts with e-prescribing.
This legislation would provide permanent funding for physician
payment bonuses in Medicare to help offset the costs of acquiring e-
prescribing systems and to incentivize the use of the
[[Page S14789]]
technology. The bill would also require all physicians in Medicare to
use e-prescribing starting in 2011--1 year later than the Institute of
Medicine recommended in their recent study. We have talked long enough
about using technology to stem perpetually rising health care costs and
poor quality, and our legislation takes an important step to do
something about it.
I want to give particular credit to Mark Merritt and his team at
Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, PCMA, for their hard work
and leadership. PCMA is responsible for a seminal study in this field,
which showed for the first time that broader adoption of e-prescribing
will not only save lives, but will also save billions of dollars for
patients, payers and taxpayers alike. Perhaps most importantly, PCMA
created a strong and diverse coalition of health care stakeholders to
advocate for this legislation, including business, labor, consumer
advocates, physicians, health plans, pharmacists, and drug
manufacturers. The PCMA-led coalition has worked diligently on Capitol
Hill in support of this important issue. They have educated Congress on
e-prescribing and are helping to make sure that we get the policy
right.
The Medicare E-MEDS Act gets it right. The standards and
interoperability for e-prescribing are in place; the technology is
affordable; and, most importantly, the dramatic benefits for patients
and health care purchasers--especially the Federal Government--are
overwhelmingly clear. This bill is a solid step towards addressing
these important issues in the delivery of our Nation's health care. It
is time that Congress act to save lives and increase efficiency in
America's health care system.
Mr. President, I ask for 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 the
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2408
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 ``Medicare Electronic
Medication and Safety Protection (E-MEDS) Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Patient safety is an important issue and a priority
among patients, providers, insurers, businesses, and
government entities alike.
(2) Adverse drug events are defined by the Institute of
Medicine as ``any injury due to medication''.
(3) According to the Institute of Medicine, more then 1.5
million preventable adverse drug events occur every year in
the United States.
(4) Studies indicate that at least 530,000 preventable
adverse drug events occur each year among the Medicare
population, and cost the Federal Government upwards of
$887,000,000, or $1,983 per person.
(5) Electronic prescription drug programs, or e-
prescribing, provide for the electronic transmittal of
prescription information from the prescribing health care
provider to the dispensing pharmacy and pharmacist.
(6) Electronic prescribing provides formulary and coverage
information before a prescription is written to better inform
the patient and prescriber of lower cost options, including
generics.
(7) E-prescribing can help to eliminate medical errors,
injuries, hospitalizations, and even death that can result
from illegible prescriptions and bad drug interactions, in
addition to reducing patient medication non-adherence.
(8) The Institute of Medicine recommends that all
physicians create a plan to implement and use e-prescribing
technology by 2010.
SEC. 3. INCENTIVES FOR USE OF E-PRESCRIBING UNDER MEDICARE.
(a) Bonus Payments.--Section 1833 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(v) Incentive Payments for Physician Use of E-
Prescribing.--
``(1) One-time bonus for start-up costs.--
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines, based upon
coding in claims submitted under this part over a duration
specified by the Secretary, that a physician meets a
threshold volume or proportion (as specified by the
Secretary) of claims for physicians' services for individuals
enrolled under this part that--
``(i) are classified (under section 1848) as evaluation and
management services;
``(ii) include the making of a prescription that could
under law be made using the electronic prescription drug
program; and
``(iii) use the electronic prescription drug program for
such prescription,
the Secretary shall make a payment to the physician, in
addition to any other payment under this part, of the amount
specified in subparagraph (B). Not more than one payment may
be made under this subsection with respect to any physician.
``(B) Amount.--The payment amount under subparagraph (A)
shall be, in the case of a physician that meets the
conditions of subparagraph (A) for a period that begins
during--
``(i) 2008 or 2009, $2,000;
``(ii) 2010 or 2011, $1,500; or
``(iii) 2012 or a subsequent year, $1,000.
``(2) On-going bonus for use of e-prescribing.--
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines, based upon
coding in claims submitted under this part over a period
specified by the Secretary, that a physician uses the
electronic prescription drug program for prescribing at least
a threshold volume or proportion (as specified by the
Secretary) of claims for physicians' services for individuals
enrolled under this part, in addition to the amount of
payment that would otherwise be made under this part for
physicians' services by the physician that are classified as
evaluation and management services under section 1848, there
also shall be paid to the physician an amount equal to 1
percent of the allowed charges for such services. In applying
the previous sentence, there shall not be taken into account
claims for prescriptions written for controlled substances
which may not under law be prescribed using the electronic
prescription drug program.
``(B) Application to physician shortage bonuses.--The
additional payment under this paragraph shall be taken into
account in applying subsections (m) and (u).
``(3) Auditing.--Provisions applicable to the auditing of
claims for payment and enforcement of false claims under this
part shall apply to claims for payment under this subsection.
``(4) Electronic prescription drug program defined.--In
this subsection, the term `electronic prescription drug
program' means the program established under section 1860D-
4(e).''.
(b) Requirement for Use of E-Prescribing.--Section 1848(a)
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-8(a)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Adjustment in fee schedule for failure to use e-
prescribing.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), effective
for physicians' services furnished on or after January 1,
2011, in the case of such services--
``(i) that are classified as evaluation and management
services under this section; and
``(ii) in connection with which there was one or more
prescriptions made that could have been made, but were not
all made, under the electronic prescription drug program,
the fee schedule amount otherwise applicable under this
section shall be reduced by 10 percent.
``(B) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the application of
subparagraph (A) until January 1, 2012, or January 1, 2013,
as specified by the Secretary, in cases of demonstrated
hardship or unforeseen circumstances specified by the
Secretary.''.
SEC. 4. REPORTS ON E-PRESCRIBING.
(a) CMS Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid Services shall submit to Congress a
report on progress on implementing e-prescribing under the
Medicare electronic prescription drug program under section
1860D-4(e) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
104(e)).
(2) Items included.--Such report shall include information
on--
(A) the percentage of Medicare physicians that utilize the
electronic prescription drug program;
(B) the estimated savings resulting from the use of e-
prescribing; and
(C) progress on reducing avoidable medical errors resulting
from the use of e-prescribing.
(b) GAO Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit to Congress a report on the impact
of implementation of such program on physicians.
(2) Items included.--Such report shall include information
on--
(A) factors influencing the adopting of e-prescribing by
physicians; and
(B) the impact of this Act on physicians practicing in
individual or small group practices and on physicians
practicing in rural areas.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Obama):
S. 2411. A bill to require the establishment of a credit card safety
star rating system for the benefit of consumers, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, And Urban Affairs.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, credit card debt is hitting American
families like a wrecking ball, with our families already being hammered
by skyrocketing fuel prices and the subprime mortgage mess. We have
seen credit card debt go up almost 25 percent in the last 3 years. I
have brought to the floor a typical credit card agreement
[[Page S14790]]
that millions of our citizens enter into. It is 44 pages long. You
can't see it from the chair, but it goes on and on and on with small
print. It is very obvious to me that buried in all of this legalese,
buried in all of this technical jargon, is a variety of sneaky terms
that end up hurting consumers because it is not possible to understand
what is in much of the key provisions of these agreements. For example,
we understand folks in New Jersey, Oregon, or anywhere else pay a lot
of attention to the interest rate provision. They pay a lot of
attention to the annual fee provision. But they don't notice a lot of
the little disclosures that end up hidden in the legalese that can end
up making the real cost of credit significantly higher.
Last week, I met with students across the State of Oregon. A lot of
them, with the financial aid cutbacks, are now walking on an economic
tightrope. They balance their food bills against their fuel bills and
their fuel bills against their housing costs. They are on an economic
tightrope. They are getting buried in credit card debt. Very often they
find, for example, that if they have a credit card, and they are late
on another payment with someone else, their credit card interest rate
ends up going up as a result. There may be a small provision in their
existing credit card agreement that allows it, but nobody, for the most
part, knows about it.
Students would say their interest rates would double almost overnight
with virtually no notice. They would not be given any clear
communication about what is going on. They would just find their costs
would arbitrarily skyrocket, and they would again be unable to pay
their bills.
Now, I recognize in a free society folks have a constitutional right
to be foolish, to rack up charges that would not be wise, but they can
do so anyway in a free society. I do not think most people will do
that, certainly not the students I met with in Oregon last week, if it
is possible to understand the terms of these credit cards in
straightforward, plain and simple English rather than see the key
provisions buried in all kinds of legalese that you would have to be a
wizard to sort out.
So I am proposing today, with the support of our colleague, Senator
Obama from Illinois, that the Federal Reserve, which has great
expertise in this area, set up a safety rating system for credit
cards--not one that evaluates credit card companies on provisions that
are appropriately evaluated in the marketplace, but on safety matters--
for example, whether a credit card company gives the consumer adequate
notice before they change terms; whether, for example, they highlight
the key kinds of changes rather than bury them in the small print.
I think the Federal Reserve, with the technical expertise they have
and the independent judgment they bring to these financial questions,
is the ideal place to develop and operate a safety rating system. Such
a system has worked quite well for new cars. When you have a rating
system for cars, people can understand how they would be protected in a
crash. The legislation I am offering will tell people whether credit
card companies are treating them fairly and disclosing the key
provisions so that a free market can work.
So under the rating system I propose today with Senator Obama, it
would be required for credit card companies to put on the card itself,
put on the various promotional materials they are using, stars which,
in effect, would be granted on the basis of the Federal Reserve's
independent judgment as to whether the key safety criteria are being
met.
I am very hopeful that at a time when our citizens are being pounded
by powerful economic forces, particularly in the energy and housing
field, there could at least be bipartisan agreement that the Senate
could support transparency, disclosure, changes in the credit card
business, so our consumers--and millions are using these credit cards
during this holiday season--can understand the agreements they are
getting into.
The students I met with last week are taking steps now to better
police what is going on in the credit card field. On several campuses
in Oregon, they have moved the credit card companies off campus. Yet
the credit card companies continue to flood the students with
promotional material.
I was told, for example, about one program where students were
brought into a room where money was essentially floating in the air,
where it was as if you would be going to a financial paradise if you
just signed up for one of these credit card agreements.
I am not proposing heavy-handed regulation. I am not proposing one-
size-fits-all government. I am proposing that an agency with the
expertise to make sure there is disclosure, that the forms and
agreements are printed in simple English--that that kind of information
be rewarded in the marketplace. If companies are not willing to do it,
the American people could find that out as well.
That is the kind of simple, straightforward approach--with
disclosure, transparency, in simple English--that makes sense for the
digital age. With the Federal Reserve completing that first safety
rating, all Americans could get that kind of information quickly and
conveniently. That is what is in the interest of the American people
with respect to this credit card debt issue at a critical time.
I hope my colleagues will support the legislation I introduce today
with Senator Obama.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Obama, Mr. Durbin,
Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Biden, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 2412. 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 reintroduce a bill to
repair and strengthen the presidential public financing system.
Bipartisan support is a key element of successful campaign finance
reform efforts, and I am therefore delighted that the junior Senator
from Maine, Sen. Collins, has agreed to be the principal cosponsor of
the bill.
The Presidential Funding Act of 2007 will ensure that this system
will continue to fulfill its promise in the 21st century. The bill will
take effect in January 2009, so it will first apply in the 2012
presidential election.
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 in Buckley. 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 as well.
In the 2004 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 accepted the general election grant. Several of
the leading candidates for President in the 2008 election are not
participating in the primary system, and it remains to be seen whether
either major party candidate will accept public funds in the general
election.
It is unfortunate that the matching funds system for the primaries
has become less practicable. 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 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 participants in the system, experts on the
presidential election financing process, and an electorate that is
increasingly dismayed by the influence of money in politics. First and
most important, it eliminates the state-by-state primary spending
limits in the current law and substantially increases the overall
primary spending limit from the current
[[Page S14791]]
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. 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 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. 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 opposing 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 has 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 until funds for the general
election are made available. 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 the ``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 6 months before
the date of the first primary or caucus, that's approximately 6 months
earlier than is currently the case. For another, it sets a single date
for release of the public grants for the general election--the Friday
before Labor Day. This addresses an inequity in the current system,
under which the general election grants are released after each
nominating convention, which can be several weeks apart.
The bill also prohibits Federal elected officials and candidates from
soliciting soft money for use in funding the party conventions and
requires presidential candidates to disclose bundled contributions. The
bundling provision builds on a provision contained in ethics and
lobbying reform bill enacted earlier this year. It requires
presidential candidates to disclose all bundlers of $50,000 or more.
The purpose of this bill is to improve the campaign finance system,
not to advance one party's interests. In fact, this is an excellent
time to make changes in the Presidential public funding system. The
2008 presidential campaign, which is already underway, will undoubtedly
be the most expensive in history. A number of candidates from both
parties have opted out of the primary matching funds system, and some
experts predict that one or both major party nominees will even refuse
public grants for the general election period. It is too late to make
the changes needed to repair the system for the 2008 election. But if
we act now, we can make sure that an updated and revised system is in
place for the 2012 election. If we act now, I am certain that the 2008
campaign cycle will confirm our foresight. If we do nothing, 2008 will
continue and accelerate the slide of the current system into
irrelevancy.
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 $365 million over the 4-year election cycle. To
offset that increased cost, this bill first amends the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 to allow the Bureau of Land Management to implement new
user fees for processing oil and gas permits. It also amends the
Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to increase the yearly maintenance fee and
one-time location fee for holders of more than 10 mining claims on
federal land to $150 and $50 per claim, respectively, and imposes a 4
percent royalty on the gross income from mining on existing claims.
Finally, it amends the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 to use
a state's fee formula to establish the grazing fees for federal land in
that state.
Though the numbers are large, this is actually a very small
investment to make to protect our democracy and preserve the 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 to ensure the fairness of our elections and the confidence of our
citizens in the process by repairing the cornerstone of the Watergate
reforms.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2412
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 2007''.
(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. Regulation of convention financing.
Sec. 10. Disclosure of bundled contributions to presidential campaigns.
Sec. 11. Repeal of priority in use of funds for political conventions.
Sec. 12. Offsets.
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
[[Page S14792]]
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.--Section 9032(6) of
such Code is amended by striking ``the beginning of the
calendar year in which a general election for the office of
President of the United States will be held'' and inserting
``the date that is 6 months prior to the date of the earliest
State primary election''.
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.
441a(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
[[Page S14793]]
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 the beginning 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.''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 9034(b) 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(j)(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:
``(j) 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
[[Page S14794]]
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
2008, 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.
``(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 2008.''.
(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. REGULATION OF CONVENTION FINANCING.
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.--Any person described in
subsection (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--
``(1) 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
``(2) are not from sources prohibited by this Act from
making contributions in connection with an election for
Federal office.''.
SEC. 10. DISCLOSURE OF BUNDLED CONTRIBUTIONS TO PRESIDENTIAL
CAMPAIGNS.
(a) In General.--Paragraphs (1) through (3) of section
304(i) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C.
434(i)) are amended to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Disclosure of bundled contributions by lobbyists.--
Each committee described in paragraph (6) shall include in
the first report required to be filed under this section
after each covered period (as defined in paragraph (2)) a
separate schedule setting forth the name, address, and
employer of each person reasonably known by the committee to
be a person described in paragraph (7) who provided 2 or more
bundled contributions to the committee in an aggregate amount
greater than the applicable threshold (as defined in
paragraph (3)) during the covered period, and the aggregate
amount of the bundled contributions provided by each such
person during the covered period.
``(B) Disclosure of bundled contributions to presidential
campaigns.--Each committee which is an authorized committee
of a candidate for the office of President or for nomination
to such office shall include in the first report required to
be filed under this section after each covered period (as
defined in paragraph (2)) a separate schedule setting forth
the name, address, and employer of each person who provided 2
or more bundled contributions to the committee in an
aggregate amount greater than the applicable threshold (as
defined in paragraph (3)) during the election cycle, and the
aggregate amount of the bundled contributions provided by
each such person during the covered period and such election
cycle. Such schedule shall include a separate listing of the
name, address, and employer of each person included on such
schedule who is reasonably known by the committee to be a
person described in paragraph (7), together with the
aggregate amount of bundled contributions provided by such
person during such period and such cycle.
``(2) Covered period.--In this subsection, a `covered
period' means--
``(A) with respect to a committee which is an authorized
committee of a candidate for the office of President or for
nomination to such office--
``(i) the 4-year election cycle ending with the date of the
election for the office of the President; and
``(ii) any reporting period applicable to the committee
under this section during which any person provided 2 or more
bundled contributions to the committee; and
``(B) with respect to any other committee--
``(i) the period beginning January 1 and ending June 30 of
each year;
``(ii) the period beginning July 1 and ending December 31
of each year; and
``(iii) any reporting period applicable to the committee
under this section during which any person described in
paragraph (7) provided 2 or more bundled contributions to the
committee in an aggregate amount greater than the applicable
threshold.
``(3) Applicable threshold.--
``(A) In general.--In this subsection, the `applicable
threshold' is--
[[Page S14795]]
``(i) $50,000 in the case of a committee which is an
authorized committee of a candidate for the office of
President or for nomination to such office; and
``(ii) $15,000 in the case of any other committee.
In determining whether the amount of bundled contributions
provided to a committee by a person exceeds the applicable
threshold, there shall be excluded any contribution made to
the committee by the person or the person's spouse.
``(B) Indexing.--In any calendar year after 2007, section
315(c)(1)(B) shall apply to each amount applicable under
subparagraph (A) in the same manner as such section applies
to the limitations established under subsections (a)(1)(A),
(a)(1)(B), (a)(3), and (h) of such section, except that for
purposes of applying such section to the amount applicable
under subparagraph (A), the `base period' shall be 2006.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsection (i) of section 304
of such Act (2 U.S.C. 434) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``described in paragraph
(7)'' each place it appears in subparagraphs (C) and (D);
(2) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``(other than a
candidate for the office of President or for nomination to
such office)'' after ``candidate''; and
(3) in paragraph (8)(A)--
(A) by striking ``, with respect to a committee described
in paragraph (6) and a person described in paragraph (7),''
and inserting ``, with respect to a committee described in
paragraph (6) or an authorized committee of a candidate for
the office of President or for nomination to such office,'';
(B) by striking ``by the person'' in clause (i) thereof and
inserting ``by any person''; and
(C) by striking ``the person'' each place it appears in
clause (ii) and inserting ``such person''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to reports filed under section 304
of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 after January 1,
2009.
SEC. 11. 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. 12. OFFSETS.
(a) Removal of Prohibition on Increasing Fees for
Permits.--Section 365 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42
U.S.C. 15924) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (i); and
(2) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (i).
(b) Disposal of Moneys From Sales, Bonuses, Rentals, and
Royalties.--Section 20 of the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970
(30 U.S.C. 1019) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 20. DISPOSAL OF MONEYS FROM SALES, BONUSES, RENTALS,
AND ROYALTIES.
``Subject to section 35 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30
U.S.C. 192), all funds received from the sales, bonuses,
royalties, and rentals under this Act (including payments
referred to in section 6) shall be disposed of in the same
manner as funds received pursuant to section 6 of this Act or
section 35 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 192), as the
case may be.''.
(c) Royalty for Hardrock Mining.--The Revised Statutes are
amended by inserting after section 2352 (30 U.S.C. 76) the
following:
``SEC. 2353. RESERVATION OF ROYALTY.
``(a) Definition of Locatable Mineral.--In this section:
``(1) In general.--The term `locatable mineral' means any
mineral, the legal and beneficial title to which remains in
the United States and that is not subject to disposition
under--
``(A) the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.);
``(B) the Act of August 7, 1947 (commonly known as the
`Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands') (30 U.S.C. 351 et
seq.);
``(C) the Act of July 31, 1947 (commonly known as the
`Materials Act of 1947') (30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); or
``(D) the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et
seq.).
``(2) Exclusions.--The term `locatable mineral' does not
include any mineral that is subject to a restriction against
alienation imposed by the United States and is--
``(A) held in trust by the United States for any Indian or
Indian tribe (as defined in section 2 of the Indian Mineral
Development Act of 1982 (25 U.S.C. 2101)); or
``(B) owned by any Indian or Indian tribe (s defined in
section 2 of that Act).
``(b) Royalty.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, production of all locatable minerals from any mining
claim located under the general mining laws, or mineral
concentrates or products derived from locatable minerals from
any such mining claim, as the case may be, shall be subject
to a royalty of 8 percent of the gross income from mining.
``(c) Liability for Payment.--The claim holder or any
operator to whom the claim holder has assigned the obligation
to make royalty payments under the claim, and any person who
controls the claim holder or operator, shall be liable for
payment of royalties under this section.
``(d) Royalty for Federal Land Subject to Existing
Permit.--The royalty under subsection (b) shall be 4 percent
in the case of any Federal land that--
``(1) is subject to an operations permit on the date of
enactment of this section; and
``(2) produces valuable locatable minerals in commercial
quantities on the date of enactment of this section.
``(e) Federal Land Added to Existing Operations Permit.--
Any Federal land added through a plan modification to an
operations permit that is submitted after the date of
enactment of this section shall be subject to the royalty
that applies to Federal land under subsection (b).
``(f) Deposit.--Amounts received by the United States as
royalties under this section shall be deposited into the
general fund of the Treasury.''.
(d) Hardrock Mining Claim Maintenance Fee.--
(1) Fee.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in section 2511(e)(2)
of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (30 U.S.C. 242(e)(2)), for
each unpatented mining claim, mill, or tunnel site on
federally owned land, whether located before, on, or after
enactment of this Act, each claimant shall pay to the
Secretary, on or before August 31 of each year, a claim
maintenance fee of $150 per claim to hold the unpatented
mining claim, mill, or tunnel site for the assessment year
beginning at noon on September 1.
(B) Relation to other law.--A claim maintenance fee
described in subparagraph (A) shall be in lieu of--
(i) the assessment work requirement in section 2324 of the
Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 28); and
(ii) the related filing requirements in subsections (a) and
(c) of section 314 of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1744).
(C) Waiver.--
(i) In general.--The claim maintenance fee required under
subparagraph (A) shall be waived for a claimant who certifies
in writing to the Secretary that on the date the payment was
due, the claimant and all related parties--
(I) held not more than 10 mining claims, mill sites, or
tunnel sites, or any combination of mining claims, mill
sites, or tunnel sites, on public land; and
(II) have performed assessment work required under section
2324 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 28) to maintain the
mining claims held by the claimant and all related parties
for the assessment year ending on noon of September 1 of the
calendar year in which payment of the claim maintenance fee
was due.
(ii) Definition of all related parties.--In clause (i),
with the respect to any claimant, the term ``all related
parties'' means--
(I) the spouse and dependent children (as defined in
section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), of the
claimant; or
(II) a person affiliated with the claimant, including--
(aa) a person controlled by, controlling, or under common
control with the claimant; or
(bb) a subsidiary or parent company or corporation of the
claimant.
(D) Adjustment.--
(i) In general.--Not less than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, or more
frequently if the Secretary determines an adjustment to be
reasonable, the Secretary shall adjust the claim maintenance
fee required under subparagraph (A) to reflect changes for
the 12-month period ending the preceding November 30 in the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.
(ii) Notification.--Not later than July 1 of any year in
which an adjustment is made under clause (i), the Secretary
shall provide claimants notice of the adjustment.
(iii) Application.--A fee adjustment under clause (i) shall
be effective beginning January 1 of the calendar year
following the calendar year in which the adjustment is made.
(2) Location fee.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, for each unpatented mining claim, mill, or tunnel site
located during the period beginning on the date of enactment
of this Act and ending on September 30, 1998, the locator
shall, at the time the location notice is recorded with the
Bureau of Land Management, pay to the Secretary a location
fee, in addition to the fee required by paragraph (1), of $50
per claim.
(3) Deposit.--Amounts received under paragraph (1) or (2)
that are not otherwise allocated for the administration of
the mining laws by the Department of the Interior shall be
deposited into the general fund of the Treasury.
(4) Co-ownership.--The co-ownership provisions of section
2324 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 28) shall remain in
effect except that the annual claim maintenance fee, if
applicable, shall replace applicable assessment requirements
and expenditures.
(5) Failure to pay.--Failure to pay the claim maintenance
fee required by paragraph (1) shall conclusively constitute a
forfeiture of the unpatented mining claim, mill, or tunnel
site by the claimant and the claim shall be considered to be
null and void by operation of law.
(6) Other requirements.--
[[Page S14796]]
(A) Relation to other law.--Nothing in this section changes
or modifies the requirements of subsections (b) or (c) of
section 314(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1744).
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 2324 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States (30 U.S.C. 28) is amended by
inserting ``or section 12(d)(1) of the Presidential Funding
Act of 2007'' after ``Act of 1993,''.
(e) Grazing Fees.--Section 6(a) of the Public Rangelands
Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1905) is amended by
striking ``the $1.23 base'' and all that follows through
``previous year's fee'' and inserting ``an amount determined
in the same manner as the State in which the land is located
determines the amount of fees charged for public grazing on
land owned by the State, as determined by the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior, as
appropriate''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the 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, 2009.
____
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 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 six months prior to the first
state caucus or primary.
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-l 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 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. The amount will be adjusted for
inflation, and rounded to the nearest dollar, beginning in
2009.
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: REGULATION OF CONVENTION FINANCING
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.
SECTION 10: DISCLOSURE OF BUNDLED CONTRIBUTIONS
This section builds on the bundling disclosure provision of
the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007
(``HLOGA'') to require presidential campaigns to disclose
[[Page S14797]]
the name, address, and employer of all individuals or groups
that bundle contributions totaling more than $50,000 in the
four year election cycle. Individuals who are registered
lobbyists would have to be separately identified. HLOGA's
definition of bundling would apply to bundling disclosure by
the presidential candidates, and no change is made to the
requirements of HLOGA with respect to congressional
campaigns.
SECTION 11: 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 12: OFFSET
This section provides an offset for the increased cost of
the presidential public funding system. The total increased
cost is estimated to be $365 million over four years. The
bill (1) authorizes the Bureau of Land Management to
implement new user fees for processing oil and gas permits;
(2) increases the yearly maintenance fee and one-time
location fee for holders of more than 10 mining claims on
federal land to $150 and $50 per claim, respectively, and
imposes a 4% royalty on the gross income from mining on
existing claims; and (3) uses state formulas to set federal
grazing fees.
SECTION 13: EFFECTIVE DATE
Provides that the amendments will apply to presidential
elections occurring after January 1, 2009.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise to join my friend from Wisconsin,
Senator Feingold, in introducing the Presidential Funding Act of 2007.
It was 100 years ago that the reformer President Theodore Roosevelt
proposed ``a very radical measure'' in his State of the Union message
to Congress. He envisioned a system of campaign financing that would
include a congressional appropriation to support national campaigns so
that, as he said, ``The need for collecting large campaign funds would
vanish.''
When the campaign financing reforms of the 1970s were enacted, it was
hoped that we would draw closer to achieving Theodore Roosevelt's goal
of funding the pursuit of our highest public office largely from public
rather than private funds.
Our Presidential-campaign finance system still suffers from serious
defects, however, and current events are dramatically highlighting the
need for continued reform and improvement.
The current Presidential campaign is already shaping up as the most
expensive election in history by far. Candidate after candidate has
chosen to forego public funds due to fundamental flaws in the system.
Fund-raising tallies have already shattered records. If a candidate
decides to seek public funding, he or she risks running out of funds to
counter candidates who can attract large amounts of private
contributions.
Current estimates are that the 2008 contest for the Presidency of the
U.S. will cost more than $1 billion. Much of that cost will be incurred
in delivering messages to the electorate through advertising and
publications of all sorts.
One billion dollars is a huge sum. Yet we cannot expect modern
campaigns to be run on budgets that might have sufficed for William
McKinley, whose successful 1896 campaign relied heavily on speeches
from his front porch in Canton, Ohio, to admirers who came by train to
hear him. This idyllic but limited approach to campaigning is long
gone.
Unless we wish to return to the cronyism, influence peddling, and
restricted suffrage of the 19th century, large expenditures on
broadcasting and other media are essential for any campaign that hopes
to prevail. That financial fact obliges candidates to spend a great
deal of time appearing at exclusive, big-ticket fundraisers.
To allow candidates to spend less time raising money, Congress
established a system of public funding for Presidential campaigns that
started with the 1976 Presidential election. That system has not been
substantially changed since 1984, and its limitations have only become
more evident with time.
The central problem is that the system does not provide enough public
funds to permit a credible contest against well-bankrolled candidates
who have opted out of the public-financing system.
In November 2003, Governor Dean announced that he would opt out of
public financing, saying ``floods of special-interest money have forced
us to abandon a broken system.'' Senator Kerry also felt obliged to opt
out so that he could lend his campaign $6 million rather than be
restricted to the use of $50,000 in personal funds.
Citing Senator Dole's campaign in 1996, Senator McCain's campaign in
2000, and Senator Edwards's campaign in 2004, the League of Women
Voters has spoken of the public system's ``devil's bargain'' for
candidates: ``To get matching funds, they have to accept a spending
limit that will leave them bankrupt if the contest continues into
March. . . . With the underdogs boxed in by the limits, the
frontrunners, and others who can afford it, have additional incentive
to opt out.''
The bill we introduce today would make a number of important changes.
The key provisions of the Presidential Funding Act of 2007 would
increase the public match for primary-season contributions, make funds
available earlier in the contest, tie the availability of public
funding during the general-election campaign to a candidate's using it
during the primary season, provide additional funds if a non-publicly
funded opponent spends heavily, and update spending limits to more
realistic levels.
All of these steps represent sensible and useful improvements in the
campaign-finance system.
I recognize that some of our colleagues and some members of the
public are wary of taxpayer-supported funding for Presidential
candidates. I can only respond that the alternative--a complete
reliance on private contributions--is worse.
I would also reassure doubters that this bill is no giveaway or an
inducement to fringe candidates of narrow appeal. Its provisions are
predicated upon matches for individual contributions, not absolute
grants, and it requires achieving significant levels of individual
contributions in at least 20 States.
We all understand that the current system of public funding for
campaigns has defects. The growing inclination of candidates to opt out
of the system underscores that fact. The Presidential Funding Act of
2007 would cure some serious problems and help restore the appeal of
public funding.
If enacted, this bill would take effect in January 2009. By moving
toward virtually full realization of Theodore Roosevelt's ``very
radical measure,'' we can take a big step toward making the financing,
the conduct, and the outcome of the 2012 presidential campaign a
genuine source of pride for American citizens of all political
affiliations.
______
By Mr. ENZI (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 2413. A bill to provide death and disability benefits for aerial
firefighters who work on a contract basis for a public agency and
suffer death or disability in the line of duty, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the 2007 fire season was one of the worst in
recent history. Millions of acres burned across America. The fires
destroyed homes, and their damage is estimated in the hundreds of
millions of dollars. These fires would have been worse, if not for the
skill and bravery of the aerial firefighters who risked their lives to
fight them.
Aerial firefighters take on the dangerous tasks of maneuvering aerial
vehicles in and out of fire zones. Each time they step in a plane,
their life is at risk. Unfortunately, while we expect aerial
firefighters to risk their lives to help control fires, we refuse to
provide their families with the knowledge that they will be made
financially whole if their husband or wife dies in the line of duty.
This is because aerial firefighters do not qualify for death benefits
under the Public Safety Officers' Benefit, PSOB, program, which
provides financial and educational benefits to individuals serving a
public safety agency in an official capacity, on a paid or volunteer
basis. Currently, those receiving benefits include, but are not limited
to, law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency medical
technicians, ambulance crew members, and corrections officers.
Senator Feinstein and I say that these pilots do the same work and
take on the same risks as other public safety officers. They should get
the same
[[Page S14798]]
benefits. That is the reason that we have introduced the Aerial
Firefighter Relief Act of 2007. This important legislation will remedy
this problem and makes aerial firefighters eligible for death benefits.
The Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance, BJA, the
agency that administers the PSOB, has ruled that aerial pilots are
ineligible because they are contractors and not employed directly by
the federal and state agencies involved in wildland fire management and
suppression. The 1980 official finding that prohibits the pilots and
their families from receiving benefits states that pilots are not ``a
`public safety officer' as this term is defined in the PSOB ACT because
[they are] not serving a public agency in an official capacity . . . as
a fireman.''
Unfortunately, pilots also often do not receive benefits from their
employers. Federal agencies outsource air tanker missions to the
lowest-cost private operators who do not provide benefits to keep their
costs down. Some companies do offer a minimal amount of life insurance.
However, it is expensive, both for the pilot and the contractor. In the
``low cost'' competitive bid situation they are in, the contractors
cannot afford to add more expenses to the payroll or they reduce their
chances of winning a fire suppression contract--and go out of business.
Other forms of life insurance are also difficult to obtain because of
the dangerous nature of aerial firefighting.
It is common sense legislation that deserves the support of my
colleagues, and I am pleased to have Senator Feinstein as an original
cosponsor. In the coming months, I look forward to working with the
appropriate committees to move this legislation forward so that our
brave aerial firefighters can take to the skies knowing that their
families will be taken care of if they pass away taking care of our
country.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to cosponsor
Senator Enzi's Aerial Firefighter Relief Act of 2007.
On August 27, 2001, a California pilot named Larry Groff took off
from Ukiah in State Air Tanker 87, doing what he loved, flying and
fighting fires.
Like thousands of contract firefighters hired by the Government, he
figured that if anything ever happened to him, his family would be
taken care of. But that day, while maneuvering above a north coast fire
started by a couple of Hells Angels who had blown up their
methamphetamine lab, Larry Groff died in a midair collision.
Faced with the prospect of raising their 6 children alone, his widow,
Christine Wells-Groff, filed a claim under the Public Safety Officers'
Benefit Program. This PSOB Program provides a lump-sum payoff to
survivors of any ``public safety officer,'' a term which can include
not only actual government employees but also any volunteer or any
person acting in a ``similar relationship of performing services as
part of a public agency.''
At the time of his death, Larry Groff had been flying a State-
operated air tanker. He was wearing a California Department of Forestry
uniform. And after his death, the California agency for which he had
worked issued an opinion stating that he was an officially recognized
member of that agency. But he was also a contract employee.
Because of that, Ms. Wells-Groff's PSOB claim was initially denied by
the Bureau of Justice Affairs, based on its opinion that contract
employees cannot qualify for PSOB benefits. Ms. Wells-Groff then
appealed, and she later convinced a trial court that despite being a
contract employee, her husband had held a ``similar relationship of
performing services as part of a public agency,'' thereby qualifying
him as a ``public safety officer'' entitled to PSOB benefits.
Unfortunately, on July 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit reversed that decision. The appellate court agreed that Mr.
Groff's facts might fall within the applicable regulation's key
definition of a ``similar relationship'' but it said that the question
of whether he had met this standard was not entirely clear and that it
would defer to the Government's narrow interpretation of that language,
absent further clarification from Congress.
Following this decision, Ms. Wells-Groff petitioned the Supreme Court
to take her case. However, it is unclear if the Court will hear the
case, let alone decide in her favor. So today, I want to go on record
to support the policy that these contract employees should be entitled
to the same PSOB benefits as other injured firefighters and volunteers.
The bill that Senator Enzi is introducing and that I am pleased to
cosponsor will make it clear that survivors of aerial firefighters like
Larry Groff who make the ultimate sacrifice should qualify for PSOB
benefits. In addition, this legislation will clarify that the district
court was right in the Wells-Groff case. Brave firefighters like Larry
Groff, who regularly put their lives on the line in officially
sanctioned aerial firefighting activities to protect us, do this
country a great service.
This bill will clarify that when actually up in the air carrying out
official firefighting missions, contract employees will be deemed to
hold a ``similar relationship of performing services as part of a
public agency''--and meet the regulatory standard already in place--so
that they are covered by the PSOB laws, and their survivors can receive
the benefits they need and deserve.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
______
By Mr. REID (for Mrs. Clinton):
S. 2415. A bill to require the President and the Office of the Global
AIDS Coordinator to establish a comprehensive and integrated HIV
prevention strategy to address the vulnerabilities of women and girls
in countries for which the United States provides assistance to combat
HIV/AIDS, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Protection
Against Transmission of HIV for Women and Youth, PATHWAY, Act of 2007,
legislation that is a companion to the bill introduced by
Representative Barbara Lee.
Women and girls account for about half of the 33 million infections
worldwide. But in the places that are hardest hit by epidemic, AIDS has
a disproportionate impact upon women. In sub-Saharan Africa, women
account for more than 60 percent of those living with HIV/AIDS. Young
women account for 3 out of every 4 new HIV infections among sub-Saharan
youth. Our prevention messages are not reaching youth--in studies
completed in 17 countries in 2003, more than 75 percent of the young
women surveyed could not identify ways to protect themselves against
HIV infection.
Clearly, we need to do more to stem the rising tide of HIV infection
in women, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. But what doing more
requires is an examination of the factors that contribute to women's
vulnerability to HIV infection. There are links between gender-based
violence and increased risk for HIV infection, links between lack of
education and economic opportunity and increased risk for HIV
infection, links between human trafficking and sexual exploitation and
increased risk for HIV infection.
Unfortunately, our current policies do not allow us to take these
factors into account. The law governing funding of the President's
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, requires \1/3\ of all
prevention funding to be spent on abstinence-until-marriage programs.
In addition, a 2005 guidance from the Office of the Global AIDS
Coordinator found that countries were directed to spend half of their
prevention funds on sexual transmission prevention, with a full \2/3\
of that funding to be spent on ``abstinence and be faithful'' programs,
rather than comprehensive HIV prevention education efforts.
More than 40 percent of women in Africa and South Asia are married
before the age of 18. Directing funding to abstinence-until-marriage
programs fails to address their needs. Exhorting them to ``be
faithful'' in relationships where they may not have control over their
partners' behavior is short-sighted. Making it the official policy of
the U.S. Government to restrict funding for efforts that could help
these women learn about female-controlled prevention methods is
unconscionable.
In 2003, President Bush pledged to prevent 7 million new HIV
infections through PEPFAR. But we cannot let that promise go unmet due
to ideology.
The legislation I am introducing today will lift restrictions on
funding
[[Page S14799]]
for our prevention efforts. It will also require the President to
develop and implement a coordinated, comprehensive HIV strategy to
address gender disparities in HIV infection, with a focus on the stigma
surrounding HIV, the links between gender-based violence and HIV
infection, the ways in which increasing educational and economic
opportunities for women can prevent HIV infection, and ways in which to
improve access to female-controlled prevention methods. This strategy
is a step forward--one that can ensure that the disproportionate risks
faced by too many women are taken into account in our global AIDS
efforts.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that women's
vulnerability to HIV infection is addressed as we work to reauthorize
PEPFAR.
______
By Mr. CASEY (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 2418. A bill to ensure the safety of imported food products for
the citizens of the United States, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the EAT SAFE Act
of 2007. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague on the Agriculture
Committee, Senator Grassley, to introduce this important piece of food
safety legislation.
As we have all seen this past year, in the wake of massive recalls of
pet food manufactured using contaminated Chinese gluten and consumer
warnings about the safety of various imported food products, ensuring
the safety of food products and food ingredients being brought into
this country from other nations has taken on a greater urgency.
A report issued in September by the President's Interagency Working
Group on Import Safety acknowledged that ``aspects of our present
import system must be strengthened to promote security, safety, and
trade for the benefit of American consumers.'' The EAT SAFE Act that we
are introducing today is designed to address one of those critical
aspects of the food and agricultural import system that, in the face of
the mounting imported food safety crisis, has received little public
focus. That issue is food and other agricultural products that are
being smuggled into the U.S.
When many people think of food smuggling, they likely think of it as
something that occurs when travelers attempt to bring small amounts of
foreign food or agricultural products into the U.S. by concealing it in
their vehicles, luggage, or other personal affects. While this type of
smuggling is unquestionably a problem that U.S. authorities must and do
address, the larger threat of smuggled food and agricultural products
comes from the companies, importers, and individuals who circumvent
U.S. inspection requirements or restrictions on imports of certain
products from a particular country.
The ways in which these companies, importers, and individuals
circumvent the system can happen in any number of ways. Many times
smuggled products are intentionally mislabeled and bear the
identification of a product that can legally enter the country. Other
times, smuggled products gain import entry through falsifying the
products' countries of origin. And, many times, products that have
previously been denied entry are later ``shopped around,'' that is,
presented to another U.S. port of entry in the effort to gain
importation undetected.
Just some examples of prohibited products discovered in commerce in
the United States in recent years include duck parts from Vietnam and
poultry products from China, both nations with confirmed human cases of
avian influenza; unpasteurized raw cheeses from Mexico containing a
bacterium that causes tuberculosis; strawberries from Mexico
contaminated with hepatitis A; and mislabeled puffer fish from China
containing a potentially deadly toxin. These smuggled food and
agriculture products present safety risks to our food, plants, and
animals, and pose a threat to our Nation's health, economy, and
security.
The EAT SAFE Act addresses these serious risks by applying
commonsense measures to protect our food and agricultural supply. This
legislation authorizes funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and the Food and Drug Administration to bolster their efforts by hiring
additional personnel to detect and track smuggled products. It also
authorizes funding to provide food safety cross training for Homeland
Security Agricultural Specialists and agricultural cross training for
Customs' Border Patrol Agents to ensure that those men and women
working on the front lines are knowledgeable about these serious food
and agricultural threats.
In addition to focusing on increased personal and training, the EAT
SAFE Act also seeks to increase importer accountability. The
legislation requires private laboratories conducting tests on FDA-
regulated products on behalf of importers to apply for and be certified
by FDA. It also imposes civil penalties for laboratories or importers
who knowingly or conspire to falsify imported product laboratory
sampling and for importers who circumvent the USDA import reinspection
system.
Finally, the EAT SAFE Act will also ensure increased public awareness
of smuggled products, as well as recalled food products, by requiring
the USDA and FDA to provide this information to the public in a timely
and easily searchable manner.
These commonsense measures are an important first step towards
safeguarding Americans' food and agricultural supply and ensuring our
Nation's health, economy, and security.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2418
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 ``Ending
Agricultural Threats: Safeguarding America's Food for
Everyone (EAT SAFE) Act of 2007''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Food safety training, personnel, and coordination.
Sec. 5. Reporting of smuggled food products.
Sec. 6. Civil penalties relating to illegally imported meat and poultry
products.
Sec. 7. Certification of food safety labs.
Sec. 8. Data sharing.
Sec. 9. Public notice regarding recalled food products.
Sec. 10. Foodborne illness education and outreach competitive grants
program.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the safety of the food supply of the United States is
vital to--
(A) the health of the citizens of the United States;
(B) the preservation of the confidence of those citizens in
the food supply of the United States; and
(C) the success of the food sector of the United States
economy;
(2) the United States has the safest food supply in the
world, and maintaining a secure domestic food supply is
imperative for the national security of the United States;
(3) in a report published by the Government Accountability
Office in January 2007, the Comptroller General of the United
States described food safety oversight as 1 of the 29 high-
risk program areas of the Federal Government; and
(4) the task of preserving the safety of the food supply of
the United States is complicated by pressures relating to--
(A) food products that are smuggled or imported into the
United States without being screened, monitored, or inspected
as required by law; and
(B) the need to improve the enforcement of the United
States in reducing the quantity of food products that are--
(i) smuggled into the United States; and
(ii) imported into the United States without being
screened, monitored, or inspected as required by law.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Administration.--The term ``Administration'' means the
Food and Drug Administration.
(2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service.
(3) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of Agriculture.
(4) Food defense threat.--The term ``food defense threat''
means any intentional contamination, including any disease,
pest, or poisonous agent, that could adversely affect the
safety of human or animal food products.
(5) Smuggled food product.--The term ``smuggled food
product'' means a prohibited
[[Page S14800]]
human or animal food product that a person fraudulently
brings into the United States.
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
SEC. 4. FOOD SAFETY TRAINING, PERSONNEL, AND COORDINATION.
(a) Department.--
(1) Training programs.--
(A) Agricultural specialists.--
(i) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish training
programs to educate each Federal employee who is employed in
a position described in section 421(g) of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 231(g)) on issues relating to
food safety and agroterrorism.
(ii) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subparagraph $1,700,000.
(B) Cross-training of employees of united states customs
and border protection.--
(i) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish training
programs to educate border patrol agents employed by the
United States Customs and Border Protection of the Department
of Homeland Security about identifying human, animal, and
plant health threats and referring the threats to the
appropriate agencies.
(ii) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subparagraph $4,800,000.
(2) Illegal import detection personnel.--Subtitle G of the
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7
U.S.C. 6981 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 263. FOOD SAFETY PERSONNEL AND TRAINING.
``(a) Additional Employees.--Not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of the Ending Agricultural Threats:
Safeguarding America's Food for Everyone (EAT SAFE) Act of
2007, the Secretary shall hire a sufficient number of
employees to increase the number of full-time field
investigators, import surveillance officers, support staff,
analysts, and compliance and enforcement experts employed by
the Food Safety and Inspection Service as of October 1, 2007,
by 100 employees, in order to--
``(1) provide additional detection of food defense threats;
``(2) detect, track, and remove smuggled human food
products from commerce; and
``(3) impose penalties on persons or organizations that
threaten the food supply.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000.''.
(b) Administration.--Chapter IV of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341 et seq.) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``SEC. 417. FOOD SAFETY PERSONNEL AND TRAINING.
``(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of the Ending Agricultural Threats: Safeguarding
America's Food for Everyone (EAT SAFE) Act of 2007, the
Administration shall hire a sufficient number of employees to
increase the number of full-time field investigators, import
surveillance officers, support staff, analysts, and
compliance and enforcement experts employed by the
Administration as of October 1, 2007, by 150 employees, in
order to--
``(1) provide additional detection of food defense threats;
``(2) detect, track, and remove smuggled food products from
commerce; and
``(3) impose penalties on persons or organizations that
threaten the food supply.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.''.
(c) Coordination of Federal Agencies.--Section 411(b) of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 211(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Coordination of federal agencies.--The Commissioner
of United States Customs and Border Protection, in
coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs, shall conduct activities to
target, track, and inspect shipments that--
``(A) contain human and animal food products; and
``(B) are imported into the United States.''.
SEC. 5. REPORTING OF SMUGGLED FOOD PRODUCTS.
(a) Department.--
(1) Public notification.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 3 days after the date on
which the Department identifies a smuggled food product, the
Secretary shall provide to the public notification describing
the food product identified by the Department and, if
available, the individual or entity that smuggled the food
product.
(B) Required forms of notification.--The Secretary shall
provide public notification under subparagraph (A) through--
(i) a news release of the Department for each smuggled food
product identified by the Department;
(ii) a description of each smuggled food product on the
website of the Department;
(iii) the management of a periodically updated list that
contains a description of each individual or entity that
smuggled the food product identified by the Secretary under
subparagraph (A); and
(iv) any other appropriate means, as determined by the
Secretary.
(2) Notification to department of homeland security.--Not
later than 30 days after the date on which the Department
identifies a smuggled food product, the Secretary shall
provide to the Department of Homeland Security notification
of the smuggled food product.
(b) Administration.--
(1) Public notification.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 3 days after the date on
which the Administration identifies a smuggled food product,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide to
the public notification describing the smuggled food product
identified by the Administration and, if available, the
individual or entity that smuggled the food product.
(B) Required forms of notification.--The Secretary of
Health and Human Services shall provide public notification
under subparagraph (A) through--
(i) a press release of the Administration for each smuggled
food product identified by the Administration;
(ii) a description of each smuggled food product on the
website of the Administration;
(iii) the management of a periodically updated list that
contains a description of each individual or entity that
smuggled the food product identified by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services under subparagraph (A); and
(iv) any other appropriate means, as determined by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(2) Notification to department of homeland security.--Not
later than 30 days after the date on which the Administration
identifies a smuggled food product, the Secretary of Health
and Human Services shall provide to the Department of
Homeland Security notification of the smuggled food product.
SEC. 6. CIVIL PENALTIES RELATING TO ILLEGALLY IMPORTED MEAT
AND POULTRY PRODUCTS.
(a) Meat Products.--Section 20(b) of the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 620(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(b) The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(b) Destruction; Civil Penalties.--
``(1) Destruction.--The Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Civil penalties.--Each individual or entity that
fails to present each meat article that is the subject of the
importation of the individual or entity to an inspection
facility approved by the Secretary shall be liable for a
civil penalty assessed by the Secretary in an amount not to
exceed $25,000 for each meat article that the individual or
entity fails to present to the inspection facility.''.
(b) Poultry Products.--Section 12 of the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 461) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and all that follows
through ``(a) Any person'' and inserting the following:
``SEC. 12. PENALTIES.
``(a) Penalties Relating to the Violation of Certain
Sections.--
``(1) In general.--Any person''; and
(2) in subsection (a) (as amended by paragraph (1)), by
adding at the end the following:
``(2) Failure to present poultry products at designated
inspection facilities.--Each individual or entity that fails
to present each poultry product that is the subject of the
importation of the individual or entity to an inspection
facility approved by the Secretary shall be liable for a
civil penalty assessed by the Secretary in an amount not to
exceed $25,000 for each poultry product that the individual
or entity fails to present to the inspection facility.''.
(c) Egg Products.--Section 12 of the Egg Products
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1041) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and all that follows
through ``(a) Any person'' and inserting the following:
``SEC. 12. PENALTIES.
``(a) Penalties Relating to the Violation of Certain
Prohibited Actions.--
``(1) In general.--Any person''; and
(2) in subsection (a) (as amended by paragraph (1)), by
adding at the end the following:
``(2) Failure to present egg products at designated
inspection facilities.--Each individual or entity that fails
to present each egg product that is the subject of the
importation of the individual or entity to an inspection
facility approved by the Secretary shall be liable for a
civil penalty assessed by the Secretary in an amount not to
exceed $25,000 for each egg product that the individual or
entity fails to present to the inspection facility.''.
SEC. 7. CERTIFICATION OF FOOD SAFETY LABS; SUBMISSION OF TEST
RESULTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter IV of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341 et seq.), as amended by section
4(b), is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 418. CERTIFICATION OF FOOD SAFETY LABS; SUBMISSION OF
TEST RESULTS.
``(a) Definition of Food Safety Lab.--In this section, the
term `food safety lab' means an establishment that conducts
testing, on behalf of an importer through a contract or other
arrangement, to ensure the safety of articles of food.
``(b) Certification Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--A food safety lab shall submit to the
Secretary an application for certification. Upon review, the
Secretary
[[Page S14801]]
may grant or deny certification to the food safety lab.
``(2) Certification standards.--The Secretary shall
establish criteria and methodologies for the evaluation of
applications for certification submitted under paragraph (1).
Such criteria shall include the requirements that a food
safety lab--
``(A) be accredited as being in compliance with standards
set by the International Organization for Standardization;
``(B) agree to permit the Secretary to conduct an
inspection of the facilities of the food safety lab and the
procedures of such lab before making a certification
determination;
``(C) agree to permit the Secretary to conduct routine
audits of the facilities of the food safety lab to ensure
ongoing compliance with accreditation and certification
requirements;
``(D) submit with such application a fee established by the
Secretary in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of
application review, including inspection under subparagraph
(B); and
``(E) agree to submit to the Secretary, in accordance with
the process established under subsection (c), the results of
tests conducted by such food safety lab on behalf of an
importer.
``(c) Submission of Test Results.--The Secretary shall
establish a process by which a food safety lab certified
under this section shall submit to the Secretary the results
of all tests conducted by such food safety lab on behalf of
an importer.''.
(b) Enforcement.--Section 303(f) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(f)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as
paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) An importer (as defined in section 418) shall be
subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $25,000
if such importer knowingly engages in the falsification of
test results submitted to the Secretary by a food safety lab
certified under section 418.
``(4) A food safety lab certified under section 418 shall
be subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed
$25,000 for knowingly submitting to the Secretary false test
results under section 418.'';
(3) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``paragraph (3)(A)''
and inserting ``paragraph (5)(A)'';
(4) in paragraph (4), as so redesignated, by striking
``paragraph (1) or (2)'' each place it appears and inserting
``paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4)''; and
(5) in paragraph (6), as so redesignated, by striking
``paragraph (4)'' each place it appears and inserting
``paragraph (6)''.
SEC. 8. DATA SHARING.
(a) Department of Agriculture Memoranda of Understanding.--
The Secretary shall ensure that the agencies within the
Department of Agriculture, including the Food Safety and
Inspection Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, enter into a
memorandum of understanding to ensure the timely and
efficient sharing of all information collected by such
agencies related to foodborne pathogens, contaminants, and
illnesses.
(b) Interagency Memorandum of Understanding.--The
Secretary, in collaboration with the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, shall enter into a memorandum of
understanding between the agencies within the Department of
Agriculture, including those described in subsection (a), and
the agencies within the Department of Health and Human
Services, including the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, to ensure
the timely and efficient sharing of all information collected
by such agencies related to foodborne pathogens,
contaminants, and illnesses.
SEC. 9. PUBLIC NOTICE REGARDING RECALLED FOOD PRODUCTS.
(a) Department.--
(1) News releases regarding recalled food products.--
(A) In general.--On the date on which a human or animal
food product regulated by the Department is voluntarily
recalled, the Secretary shall provide to the public a news
release describing the human or animal food product.
(B) Contents.--Each news release described in subparagraph
(A) shall contain a comprehensive list of each human and
animal food product regulated by the Department that is
voluntarily recalled.
(2) Website.--The Secretary shall modify the website of the
Department to contain--
(A) not later than 1 business day after the date on which a
human or animal food product regulated by the Department is
voluntarily recalled, a news release describing the human or
animal food product;
(B) if available, an image of each human and animal food
product that is the subject of a news release described in
subparagraph (A); and
(C) not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, a search engine that--
(i) is consumer-friendly, as determined by the Secretary;
and
(ii) provides a means by which an individual could locate
each human and animal food product regulated by the
Department that is voluntarily recalled.
(3) State-issued and industry press releases.--To meet the
requirement under paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary--
(A) may provide to the public a press release issued by a
State; and
(B) shall not provide to the public a press release issued
by a private industry entity in lieu of a press release
issued by the Federal Government or a State.
(4) Prohibition on delegation of duty.--The Secretary may
not delegate, by contract or otherwise, the duty of the
Secretary--
(A) to provide to the public a news release under paragraph
(1); and
(B) to make any required modification to the website of the
Department under paragraph (2).
(b) Administration.--
(1) Press releases regarding recalled food products.--
(A) In general.--On the date on which a human or animal
food product regulated by the Administration is voluntarily
recalled, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
provide to the public a press release describing the human or
animal food product.
(B) Contents.--Each press release described in subparagraph
(A) shall contain a comprehensive list of each human and
animal food product regulated by the Administration that is
voluntarily recalled.
(2) Website.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall modify the website of the Administration to contain--
(A) not later than 1 business day after the date on which a
human or animal food product regulated by the Administration
is voluntarily recalled a press release describing the human
or animal food product;
(B) if available, an image of each human and animal food
product that is the subject of a press release described in
subparagraph (A); and
(C) not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, a search engine that--
(i) is consumer-friendly, as determined by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services; and
(ii) provides a means by which an individual could locate
each human and animal food product regulated by the
Administration that is voluntarily recalled.
(3) State-issued and industry press releases.--For purposes
of meeting the requirement under paragraph (1)(A), the
Secretary of Health and Human Services--
(A) may provide to the public a press release issued by a
State; and
(B) may not provide to the public a press release issued by
a private industry entity in lieu of a press release issued
by a State or the Federal Government.
(4) Prohibition on delegation of duty.--The Secretary of
Health and Human Services may not delegate, by contract or
otherwise, the duty of the Secretary of Health and Human
Services--
(A) to provide to the public a press release under
paragraph (1); and
(B) to make any required modification to the website of the
Administration under paragraph (2).
SEC. 10. FOODBORNE ILLNESS EDUCATION AND OUTREACH COMPETITIVE
GRANTS PROGRAM.
Title IV of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7621 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 412. FOODBORNE ILLNESS EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the
Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service.
``(2) Commissioner.--The term `Commissioner' means the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
``(3) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means--
``(A) the government of a State (including a political
subdivision of a State);
``(B) an educational institution;
``(C) a private for-profit organization;
``(D) a private non-profit organization; and
``(E) any other appropriate individual or entity, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(b) Establishment.--The Secretary (acting through the
Administrator of the Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service), in consultation with the
Administrator and the Commissioner, shall establish and
administer a competitive grant program to provide grants to
eligible entities to enable the eligible entities to carry
out educational outreach partnerships and programs to provide
to health providers, patients, and consumers information to
enable those individuals and entities--
``(1) to recognize--
``(A) foodborne illness as a serious public health issue;
and
``(B) each symptom of foodborne illness to ensure the
proper treatment of foodborne illness;
``(2) to understand--
``(A) the potential for contamination of human and animal
food products during each phase of the production of human
and animal food products; and
``(B) the importance of using techniques that help ensure
the safe handling of human and animal food products; and
``(3) to assess the risk of foodborne illness to ensure the
proper selection by consumers of human and animal food
products.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,500,000 for
fiscal year 2008 and each fiscal year thereafter.''.
[[Page S14802]]
____________________