[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23822-23825]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Thune, Mr. Coleman, Ms. Klobuchar, 
        Mrs. Dole, Mr. Vitter, and Ms. Collins):
  S. 2021. A bill to provide $50,000,000,000 in new transportation 
infrastructure funding through bonding to empower States and local 
governments to complete significant infrastructure projects across all 
modes of transportation, including roads, bridges, rail and transit 
systems, ports, and inland waterways, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, despite the record transportation funding 
that Congress provided in the 2005 Transportation Reauthorization bill, 
SAFETEA-LU, our Nation's infrastructure is being stressed to the 
breaking point. Our ports and rail lines are at or near capacity. Our 
highways are clogged. The tragedy in Minneapolis last month showed the 
entire country that our bridges are in desperate need of repair.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers has noted that over the next 
5 years $1.6 trillion in investment is needed from all levels of 
government to keep our Nation's current transportation system up to 
date. To put that into perspective, our Nation's infrastructure needs 
roughly six times as much funding as was included in SAFETEA-LU.
  The question is ``Where do we find the transportation funding that 
our country needs to meet our transportation and our economic needs?''
  Senator Thune's and my answer is to invest in America.
  Everyone agrees that our country's infrastructure needs are 
tremendous. Everyone agrees that our country needs to invest more in 
transportation. What Congress hasn't been able to agree on is where to 
find the money. Gas taxes just don't generate enough revenues to even 
begin to satisfy highway and transit needs.
  In this budget climate, pots of extra Federal money are not just 
sitting around waiting to be used, and States surely don't have any 
extra money either. Most have budget deficits. All the conventional 
funding sources are coming up short, so Senator Thune and I think it is 
time to think outside the box and outside the trust funds. The Federal 
Government is about the only entity in the country that does not borrow 
money for capital projects, but in this climate it should and it must.
  Senator Thune and I have come up with a creative approach to provide 
$50 billion of additional new funding for transportation projects our 
country desperately needs by issuing Build America Bonds. Our country's 
needs are so great that we think funding should be made available that 
is in addition to SAFETEA-LU.
  Our legislation is not a substitute for fixing the transportation 
trust fund. We still must address that problem, and next year we must 
start on a new transportation bill. Our legislation is meant to provide 
extra money on top of regular transportation funding.
  This money could not be earmarked by Congress. This will not fund any 
Senator's pet project. This money will be controlled by the States, and 
used for the projects they think are most critical.
  An annual amount of approximately $500 million from trade fees will 
be placed in an Infrastructure Finance Account and invested for the 
life of the bonds, which will generate more than enough to repay the 
entire $50 billion principal amount.
  That means the only cost to the Government is the ``interest 
portion'' on the bonds, which is in the form of tax credits. With this 
funding mechanism, as little as $2 billion a year could generate the 
$50 billion in funding for transportation infrastructure. I call that a 
very smart investment in our country's infrastructure.
  This investment is badly needed.
  Citizens stuck in traffic choking on exhaust need relief. Truckers 
who need to detour miles out of their way to avoid weight-limited 
bridges need relief. As our economy struggles with stagnating wages, 
the loss of even basic health benefits for many, and a mortgage market 
that is spiraling downward, the American worker needs relief.
  The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that each $1 billion 
of funding for transportation directly produces nearly 50,000 jobs. So 
under the Wyden/Thune proposal the $50 billion of new transportation 
funding will provide critical economic stimulus that will create up to 
2.5 million family wage jobs.
  This is an economic stimulus idea that will generate more funding for 
the economy now. It will create jobs. It is a chance for the Federal 
Government to hold up its end of the bargain with our States.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today, Senator Wyden and I are introducing 
an important piece of legislation that seeks to address the significant 
transportation infrastructure needs that exist across the country. The 
Build America Bonds Act would provide $50 billion in infrastructure 
investment for all states across the country.
  This legislation is a slightly modified version of bills that Senator 
Wyden and others advocated in previous Congresses. While the Federal 
Government has allocated record funding levels to States under the 
Transportation reauthorization bill that Congress passed in 2005, the 
need for infrastructure improvements far exceeds available Federal and 
State funding sources.
  For instance, the American Society of Civil Engineers has noted that 
over the next 5 years, $1.6 trillion in investment is needed from all 
levels of government to keep our Nation's current transportation system 
up to date. To put this into perspective, this funding level is roughly 
six times larger than what is currently being spent.
  Our legislation, the Build America Bonds Act, is not intended to 
replace the current user-fee structure the highway trust fund relies on 
today--it would be a supplemental funding stream that would allow 
States to address the backlog of important highway, bridge, rail, and 
waterway projects that exist in every State across the country.
  The funding under our legislation would not be earmarked by 
Congress--it would be distributed directly to States. Further, this 
much needed funding would create over 2 million jobs, spur significant 
economic growth, save lives by making much needed improvements to 
transportation problems that exist from coast to coast and keep our 
economy moving.
  Our legislation is cosponsored by Senators Coleman, Klobuchar, Dole, 
Vitter, and Collins. In addition, the Build America Bonds Act enjoys 
the broad support of a diverse group of business, labor and 
transportation groups, including: Associated General Contractors of 
America, AGC, American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials, AASHTO; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; National Association of 
Manufacturers, NAM; National Construction Alliance--a coalition of the 
Laborers, Carpenters, and Operating Engineers Unions; American Highway 
Users Alliance; and many others.

[[Page 23823]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Mr. Levin):
  S. 2024. A bill to provide for interregional primary elections and 
caucuses for the selection of delegates to political party Presidential 
nominating conventions; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am proposing today and will 
file legislation to create a comprehensive and nationwide process for 
voters to select nominees every 4 years for President of the United 
States. This legislation will establish six Presidential primary 
dates--the first one in March of a Presidential election year, two in 
April, two in May, and one in June.
  Each of these contests would feature at least one State from six 
different regions, six geographic regions around the country. The order 
of States within each region would rotate every 4 years--every 
Presidential election. That order would be determined at the beginning 
by lot in order to determine the sequence. And then the next 
Presidential election, the ones who had gone first in March would then 
go to the end of the line and they would be in June, and the list would 
move up.
  It would give voters in the larger States a strong voice in selecting 
the nominees over that 4-month period while also giving the citizens in 
the smaller States a fair say, instead of the present system we have 
now where the small States are the ones that have an inordinate 
influence in selecting the nominees of the two great parties.
  So in this legislation, by featuring States from each of the six 
regions, there will be racial, ethnic, economic, and regional diversity 
on each of the primary dates. And, of course, it has a much more 
rational proposal for an agenda, in that you start in March and it 
concludes in June of the Presidential election year, instead of this 
chaotic situation we have now with States trying to get ahead of each 
other, with them starting now as early as the early part of January and 
with it being frontloaded so that, in effect, we may find the 
Presidential nominee decided by the middle of February.
  I am introducing this legislation with my colleague Senator Levin of 
Michigan. It is our experience as Senators from Florida and Michigan 
that we have seen firsthand how unfair and undemocratic our 
Presidential primary system has become. I might say this legislation 
tracks Senator Levin's brother's legislation filed in the House of 
Representatives, Congressman Sandy Levin. Our bill is going to try to 
approach a rational way of selecting the nominees for President of the 
United States instead of this chaotic system we have now.
  Now, neither bill is going to fix the current controversy we have 
over the sequence of the contest in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and 
South Carolina. For that, a short-term fix is certainly needed. What we 
have now is this chaotic situation where all the small States are 
trying to get ahead of each other. This certainty is needed to resolve 
the fix created by several States moving their 2008 primaries ahead of 
some of the other States. In my State, the Republican legislature of 
Florida--signed into law by a Republican Governor--moved the Florida 
primary from March to January 29. In Senator Levin's State, a 
Democratic legislature--signed into law by a Democratic Governor--moved 
its primary to January 15. What we may find is that other States may 
follow suit with a big jump.
  I have proposed to the Democratic National Committee that it allow, 
for this particular Presidential cycle, the traditional first-in-the-
Nation States to move ahead of my State on January 29; and, instead, 
the party leaders have decided that Florida's votes are not going to 
count in the 2008 Presidential primary. The DNC said Florida's earlier 
primary, which was signed into law by our Governor, would alter the 
sequence of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. So last 
month, the party officials decided to strip Florida of its 210 
delegates to the national convention. That means that this country's 
fourth largest State will have no say in picking the Democratic 
Presidential nominee. Well, that is simply unacceptable.
  Florida still has several weeks to find a solution for the DNC that 
it will accept; or, as I have suggested, legal action may be necessary. 
It is a case of fundamental rights versus the rules of a political 
party. And as to our right to vote, and to have that vote count, there 
can be no debate. I want to say that again. As to our right to vote, 
and to have that vote count, there can be no debate.
  Senator Levin and I will work hard to ensure that the controversy 
over the respective positions of Florida and Michigan in the primary 
schedule are resolved; and, for the long term, our legislation would 
bring order to the next and all future Presidential primary seasons. It 
would ensure that no one State has a disproportionate influence on the 
selection of the nominees. By introducing this bill today, we want to 
begin a broader discussion about achieving lasting reform.
  With the experience we have had in Florida, in the disputed 
Presidential election in 2000, and again 6 years later, with there 
having been an ``undervote'' of 18,000 votes in a congressional 
election in one county in Florida, Sarasota County, the sensitivity in 
Florida of having the right to vote and to have that ballot count, and 
to have that ballot count as intended, is paramount, and it is highly 
sensitive in the State of Florida. For a political party to punish a 
State for stepping out of line is the height of insensitivity in 
understanding that those votes are critical and that people know their 
sacred right of the ballot is protected. We intend to see that the 
right to have their votes counted, and counted as they intend, is 
preserved.
  In the meantime, we have to bring rationality to this process. The 
regional primary system set up in this legislation Senator Levin and I 
are introducing today is a suggested approach so that by the year 2012 
we will have order in selecting our Presidential nominees instead of 
the chaos we find ourselves in now.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record, as follows:
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2024

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fair and Representative 
     Presidential Primaries Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. INTERREGIONAL PRIMARY ELECTIONS AND CAUCUSES.

       (a) Selection of Delegates to Conventions.--The delegates 
     to each national convention for the nomination of candidates 
     of a political party for the offices of President and Vice 
     President shall be selected by primary election or by caucus, 
     as provided by State law. Such State law shall conform to the 
     requirements of the national political executive committee 
     and the national nominating convention of the political party 
     involved.
       (b) Timing of Primary Elections and Caucuses.--
       (1) In general.--In each region described in subsection 
     (c), the primary elections and caucuses (as the case may be) 
     in a subregion (comprised of a State or a group of States) 
     shall be conducted on each of the following days of each 
     Presidential election year: the second Tuesday in March, the 
     first Tuesday in April, the fourth Tuesday in April, the 
     second Tuesday in May, the fourth Tuesday in May, and the 
     second Tuesday in June.
       (2) Initial order of primaries and caucuses.--For the first 
     Presidential election with respect to which this Act applies, 
     the Election Assistance Commission shall determine by lot the 
     order of subregions in each region for conduct of primary 
     elections and caucuses by the States under paragraph (1).
       (3) Order of primaries and caucuses for subsequent 
     elections.--The subregions determined under paragraph (2) to 
     be first in order for the first Presidential election to 
     which this Act applies shall be last in order with respect to 
     the next such election, and the other subregions shall 
     advance in the order accordingly. The order shall change with 
     respect to subsequent elections in a like manner.
       (4) Special rules for district of columbia, puerto rico, 
     and territories.--Any primary election or caucus for the 
     District of Columbia shall be conducted on the same day as a 
     primary election or caucus for the State of Maryland. Any 
     primary election or caucus for the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico shall be conducted on the same day as a primary election 
     or caucus for the State of

[[Page 23824]]

     Florida. Any primary election or caucus for any other 
     territory, possession, or other entity entitled under the 
     rules of a political party to delegate representation at the 
     national convention of that party shall be conducted on the 
     same day as a primary election or caucus for the States of 
     Alaska and Hawaii.
       (c) Establishment of Regions.--The regions (designated by 
     number) and the subregions (designated by letter) referred to 
     in subsection (b) are as follows:
       (1) Region 1: (A) Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont; (B) 
     Massachusetts; (C) Connecticut, Rhode Island; (D) Delaware, 
     New Jersey; (E) New York; (F) Pennsylvania.
       (2) Region 2: (A) Maryland; (B) West Virginia; (C) 
     Missouri; (D) Indiana; (E) Kentucky; (F) Tennessee.
       (3) Region 3: (A) Ohio; (B) Illinois; (C) Michigan; (D) 
     Wisconsin; (E) Iowa; (F) Minnesota.
       (4) Region 4: (A) Texas; (B) Louisiana; (C) Arkansas, 
     Oklahoma; (D) Colorado; (E) Kansas, Nebraska; (F) Arizona, 
     New Mexico.
       (5) Region 5: (A) Virginia; (B) North Carolina; (C) South 
     Carolina; (D) Florida; (E) Georgia; (F) Mississippi, Alabama.
       (6) Region 6: (A) California; (B) Washington; (C) Oregon; 
     (D) Idaho, Nevada, Utah; (E) Montana, North Dakota, South 
     Dakota, Wyoming; (F) Hawaii, Alaska.

     SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT.

       The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any 
     appropriate United States district court for such declaratory 
     or injunctive relief as may be necessary to carry out this 
     Act.

     SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

       The Election Assistance Commission shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out this Act.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITION.

       As used in this Act, the term ``State law'' means the law 
     of a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, or a territory or possession of the United 
     States.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall apply with respect to Presidential elections 
     taking place more than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 2028. A bill to require the State of Louisiana to match Federal 
funding to fully address the Road Home Program shortfall; to the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about 
an important issue that will determine the success of long-term 
recovery efforts in the gulf coast. As you know gulf coast was 
devastated in 2005 by two of the most powerful storms to ever hit the 
U.S. in recorded history Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We also 
experienced the unprecedented disaster of having a major metropolitan 
city, the city of New Orleans, under up to 20 feet of water for 2 weeks 
when there were 28 separate levee failures which flooded 12,000 acres, 
or 80 percent of New Orleans following Katrina.
  I strongly believe that the Congress can provide vast amounts of tax 
credits, grants, loans, and waivers but all these benefits will not 
spur recovery if we cannot get people back into their homes. That is 
where recovery must start and end. In Louisiana alone, for example, we 
had over 20,000 businesses destroyed. However, businesses cannot open 
their doors if their workers have nowhere to live. Louisiana also had 
875 schools destroyed. Again, teachers cannot come back to school and 
teach our children if they do not have a roof over their heads. So a 
fundamental piece of recovery in the gulf coast is to allow disaster 
victims to return home and rebuild.
  Today, I am proud to introduce legislation which is extremely 
important to the recovery in the State of Louisiana. This is because, 
over the past few months, we have learned that the Road Home is facing 
a shortfall of billions of dollars due to various reasons. There is 
certainly more than enough blame to go around for the mistakes in the 
creation and management of the Road Home program, and fixing them will 
be a shared responsibility. But a significant initial flaw can be found 
in the inadequate and unfairly distributed funding which represented 
all the administration was willing to commit towards Louisiana 
recovery. At this stage, the funding shortfall threatens to stall 
recovery in Louisiana and leave homeowners without the vital funds they 
need to rebuild their homes. To address this important issue, the bill 
we introduce today includes an authorization of funds so that if the 
State of Louisiana puts up $1 billion towards the Road Home shortfall, 
additional funds necessary to shore up the program would be available. 
I strongly believe this bill will serve as a hand up, not a hand out. 
The State of Louisiana shares a financial obligation to address the 
shortfall and this bill would hold it accountable, but with the State 
meeting their obligation the Federal Government also would step in to 
help.
  In closing, let me reiterate that this bill addresses one of the most 
fundamental needs following a disaster: the need to return home. 
Whether residents live in million dollar mansions, rental housing, or 
public housing they all share a desire to return to their communities 
and, in particular, their homes. I urge my colleagues to support this 
important legislation as now these disaster victims are counting on the 
Congress for action.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2028

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Louisiana Road Home Act''.

     SEC. 2. ROAD HOME PROGRAM SHORTFALL.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary for the State of Louisiana to carry out the Road 
     Home Program, provided that as of June 1, 2007, the State of 
     Louisiana has provided at least $1,000,000,000 for such 
     Program.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. 
        McCaskill, Mr. Schumer, and Ms. Klobuchar):
  S. 2029. A bill to amend title XI of the Social Security Act to 
provide for transparency in the relationship between physicians and 
manufacturers of drugs, devices, or medical supplies for which payment 
is made under Medicare, Medicaid, or SCHIP; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, a month ago I outlined an important 
issue affecting all Americans who take prescription drugs or use 
medical devices--the need for greater transparency in the money that 
drug and device companies hand out to doctors. Today, I am pleased to 
introduce the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, along with Senator Kohl, 
chairman of the Special Committee on Aging. This legislation will bring 
much needed transparency to the financial relationships that exist 
between the drug and device industries and doctors.
  There is no question that the drug and device industries have an 
intricate network of financial ties with practicing physicians. These 
financial relationships can take many forms. They can include speaking 
honoraria, consulting fees, free travel to exotic locations for 
conferences, or funding for research. Drug and device companies spend 
billions and billions of dollars every year marketing their products. A 
good amount of this money goes directly to doctors in the form of these 
payments.
  This practice, and the lack of transparency around it, can obscure 
the most important question that exists between doctor and patient: 
What is best for the patient?
  As the editorial board of the Des Moines Register wrote recently, and 
I quote, ``Your doctor's hands may be in the till of a drug company. So 
how can you know whether the prescription he or she writes is in your 
best interest, or the best interest of a drug company?'' That is an 
excellent question. Currently, the public has no way of knowing whether 
their doctor has taken payments from the drug and device industries, 
and I intend to change that--not just for Iowans but for all Americans.
  Payments to a doctor can be big or small. They can be a simple dinner 
after work or they can add up to tens of thousands and even hundreds of 
thousands of dollars each year. That is right--hundreds of thousands of 
dollars for one doctor. It is really pretty shocking.
  Companies wouldn't be paying this money unless it had a direct effect 
on the prescriptions doctors write, and the

[[Page 23825]]

medical devices they use. Patients, of course, are in the dark about 
whether their doctor is receiving this money.
  The Physician Payments Sunshine Act sheds light on these hidden 
payments and obscured interests through the best disinfectant of all: 
sunshine. This is a short bill, and a simple one. This bill requires 
drug and device manufacturers to disclose to the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services, on a quarterly basis, anything of value given to 
doctors, such as payments, gifts, honoraria, or travel. Along with the 
money, these companies will have to report the name of the physician, 
the value and the date of the payment or gift, its purpose, and what, 
if anything, was received in exchange. This bill then requires the 
Department of Health and Human Services to make the information 
available to the public through a searchable web site.
  And this bill has some teeth, too. If a company fails to report, the 
Physician Payments Sunshine Act imposes a penalty ranging from $10,000 
to $100,000 for each violation.
  Many States are ahead of the curve on this and have passed, or are 
currently considering, similar measures. In 1993, Minnesota required 
the Nation's first public disclosure of gifts and payments from 
wholesale drug distributors. Vermont passed a similar law in 2003, 
although much of the information is not publicly available. More 
recently, the District of Columbia, Maine, and West Virginia have 
followed suit in requiring disclosure, though not all make the 
information available to the public through a web site. The General 
Assembly in my home State of Iowa may soon be requiring disclosure as 
well.
  But this kind of information shouldn't be available only to Americans 
who happen to be lucky enough to live in a State already addressing 
this problem. On the contrary, this information should be accessible to 
all Americans across the country and it should be updated in a timely 
manner. I propose to my colleagues that now is the time to act.
  I realize that some critics, including many of the drug and device 
companies, are going to say that creating this sort of national 
database is too time consuming and too expensive. I can hear the 
complaints already. But let me remind you again--the drug companies are 
already reporting their payments to doctors in Minnesota and other 
States. Companies already have this information available. We aren't 
requiring them to go out and obtain it--we are just asking them to 
share it with the American people.
  Perhaps even more telling is that at least one industry leader has 
taken the goal of increased transparency into its own hands. Although 
it is not making its payments to doctors publicly available, Eli Lilly 
has taken important steps to meet the public's demand for increased 
sunshine. In response to my investigation of drug company payments for 
continuing medical education, Eli Lilly voluntarily created a web site 
that details payments they make to organizations like patient groups 
and hospitals. I commend Eli Lilly for taking the lead on that issue, 
and I look forward to working with them on my latest effort.
  This bill is careful not to burden small businesses--it applies only 
to companies with annual revenues over $100 million. It is the largest 
companies who are driving this practice, and for whom disclosure would 
be least burdensome.
  Further, during a meeting on a separate matter with officials from 
Glaxo Smith Kline in early August, my staff brought up the idea of drug 
companies reporting payments to physicians. I am happy to say that Dr. 
Moncef Slaoui, the chairman of research and evelopment for Glaxo Smith 
Kline, said that he was also interested in a little sunshine. In fact, 
here are his exact words: ``We're happy for transparency.'' I would 
like to commend Dr. Slaoui for his comments and I look forward to 
working with him and leaders at other companies on this bill.
  It is not only industry leaders who are leading the way on the issue 
of increased transparency--some of America's best medical schools are 
taking steps to prevent conflicts of interest among their physicians. 
In fact, the Yale University School of Medicine, the University of 
Pennsylvania, and the Stanford University Medical School have gone so 
far as to prohibit certain gifts and payments altogether.
  So let me be clear. This bill does not regulate the business of the 
drug and device industries. I say, let the people in the industry do 
their business. After all, they have the training and the skill to get 
that job done. Just keep the American people apprised of the business 
you are doing and how you are doing it. Let a little bit of sunshine in 
to this world of financial relationships--it is, after all, the best 
disinfectant.

                          ____________________