Consortium on the Impact of Technology in Aging Health Services Act of 2006

Mr. President, I am a lucky politician, a fortunate soul. I am lucky that early in my political life, I met two men who had a dramatic impact on me and on my decision to seek public office and to be involved in public service. The first was a Senator from Illinois named Paul Douglas who served from 1948 to 1966 and decided in the year 1966 to hire a college intern named Durbin from East St. Louis, IL, who was going to school at Georgetown University. That was the first time I ever walked into a Senate office building, and I tell you, I was swept away by the experience. I knew at that time that I wanted to be a part of the excitement of this life on Capitol Hill and government, and I didn't know how I would ever have a chance to do it. I never dreamed I would run for office. But Paul Douglas, my first mentor in public service and political office, was there at the right moment in my life to inspire me to pursue at least some aspect of public service.

He introduced me to a fellow named Paul Simon who later served as the U.S. Senator from Illinois. Paul was elected in 1984 and served until 1996. During that 12-year period of time, I was a Member of the House of Representatives. For many years before, Paul Simon had been my closest friend and mentor in politics. He gave me my first job out of law school, when my wife Loretta and I packed everything we owned in a very small truck. She took the baby on a plane to fly to Springfield, IL, and I drove the truck out with our dog sitting in the front seat of my U-Haul truck with me and took my first job working for then Lieutenant Governor Paul Simon.

I was lucky. I learned the craft of politics from Paul Simon. I saw in his public service, in his public life, how good this job can be and how important it can be if you realize you need to be driven by some basic principles. Paul Simon used to say--and I have heard the speech so many times; I have even given it--that politics is about two things. First, people expect you to be honest, and I think he meant beyond dollar honesty--issue honesty; people expect you to tell them what you really believe rather than try to hide what your beliefs might be in some political double-talk.

The second thing Paul Simon says is that politics is about helping the helpless. He believed there is some mission to this. He was a son of a Lutheran minister and a proud Christian but reached across to other denominations of religions for his own inspiration. He believed that helping the helpless was an important part of government responsibility.

Mr. President, today I am going to introduce legislation with Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota. It is legislation that reflects the vision of Senator Paul Simon.

After the terrible attack of September 11, 2001, Paul Simon, typical of his outlook on the world, decided that he could imagine a more peaceful world, even in that time of great upheaval. He talked about promoting peace and security through understanding and global awareness. Specifically, he began to lay out a path to a United States that would be populated by Americans who have been abroad and have a personal connection to another part of the world. His vision was to help prepare a generation with greater cultural competence and real life experience in societies unlike our own.

In the months before his untimely death, Senator Paul Simon came back to Washington to talk to me and his former colleagues in the Senate about the need to strengthen this country's international understanding. As a direct result of his work, Congress established the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Commission to develop the framework for an international study abroad program for America's college students. I was honored to serve on this bipartisan Lincoln Commission.

Late last year, the Commission published its report recommending the Congress establish a study abroad program for undergraduate students that would help build this global awareness and international understanding. It is a privilege for me to introduce legislation based on the recommendations of this Commission.

Paul Simon, like so many committed to strengthening our ability to lead by investing in the education of young people, struggled with the question of how America could lead while so few of our citizens have an appropriate knowledge and understanding of the world outside of our borders. The United States is a military and economic superpower, yet it is continuously threatened by a serious lack of international competence in an age of growing globalization. When you travel overseas, you cannot help but be struck by the fact that people in other countries know so much more about us than we know about them.

Our lack of world awareness is now seen as a national liability. The challenges we face as Americans are increasingly global in nature, and our youth must be well prepared for its future. Our national security, international economic competitiveness, and diplomatic efforts in working toward a peaceful society rest on our global competence and ability to appreciate language and culture throughout the world.

Today I joined a number of our colleagues who walked across the Rotunda over to the House of Representatives for a joint meeting of Congress where the Prime Minister of Iraq, Mr. al-Maliki, spoke to us. He spoke in inspiring terms about his goals for Iraq, an Iraq that was based on democratic principles, an Iraq that was based on freedom, an Iraq that was free of terrorism.

The United States has made a major investment in that effort. We are now in the fourth year of a war, a war that has claimed over 2,569 American lives, including 102 brave soldiers from my home State of Illinois. Over 20,000 of our soldiers have returned with serious injuries--2,000 of those with brain injuries and lives that will be compromised and more challenging because they agreed to stand and serve and fight for America and they went to Iraq and paid a heavy price.

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

there is no end in sight. We hope our troops will start to come home soon, but there is no indication they will.

Yet, the best military leaders in America, when they sit face to face with us here in private meetings, tell us the same thing we have heard from many members of this administration. We will not win in Iraq a military victory. The victory ultimately has to be a political victory, a victory where we convince the Iraqi people that this is a far better course to follow, to move toward self-governance and democracy, freedom and free markets, and to move away from the days of dictatorships and the thinking that led people to a divisive moment in their lives. We need to move away from that.

It suggests, even with the strongest military in the world, giving it their best efforts every single minute of every single day, the ultimate answer in Iraq and so many other countries is not a military answer. It is an answer that brings together political and economic elements that ultimately will spell the success of that nation.

The capacity of the United States to lead in the 21st century, not just in Iraq but all over the world, demands that we school new generations of American citizens who understand the cultural and social realities beyond what they have experienced here at home. Senator Simon understood this. He saw the United States as a large community, part of an even larger world family. When he saw signs that read, ``God bless America,'' Paul Simon used to say, ``I wish they would read `God bless America and the rest of the world.' ''

Senator Simon was a great public servant. His service in Congress was exemplary. He was a man with an intrinsic sense of justice and passion for the public good. His deep convictions were matched by a genuine zeal for the work he did here in Washington and back in Illinois.

When he retired from the Senate, there was a little ceremony on the floor of the Senate, the likes of which this Chamber has never seen. The decision was made that since Paul Simon always wore a bow tie, that on one given day all of the Senators would come to the floor wearing bow ties. To Paul's surprise, he walked in here to find so many of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle saluting his retirement by wearing his trademark bow tie.

After he retired from the Senate, Paul Simon carried his vision and his energy for leadership back to Southern Illinois University, founding the Public Policy Institute at that university in Carbondale, IL. In that role, he trained future generations to understand the values he fought for his entire life.

The Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program, which Paul Simon inspired, is designed to encourage and support the experience of studying overseas in countries whose people, culture, language, government, and religion might be very different from ours. The bill I am introducing today with Senator Coleman would create a program that encourages nontraditional students to spend part of their undergraduate careers in nontraditional study abroad destinations. It is said you never understand a country until you visit it and you never appreciate your home until you leave it. The program we envision provides direct fellowships to students but also provides financial incentives to colleges and universities to make internal policy changes that make it easier for students to study abroad.

We believe it is the institutional change that will allow the U.S. to sustain a steady growth in the number of students who experience this learning abroad. As we become a nation whose citizens have studied in other countries, we will become more understanding of the rest of the world and they will come to know us better.

We learned this with the Peace Corps. As I travel around the world, I never cease to be amazed at the impact which the Peace Corps has had on countries, on small villages, and on people. I can recall visiting Nepal. I went to Nepal with a former colleague from the home State of the Presiding Officer, Oklahoma, Mike Synar. We went to a tiny little village way up in the mountains outside of Kathmandu. After we trekked up there at high altitudes, out of breath, we came to this little village and all of the people were there. They had the third eye on their head. There were garlands of flowers around their necks. They were dressed in the best clothes they had, and offered us food. And as we sat down, they asked us if we knew Paul Jones, from Pittsburgh, PA.

Of course, we didn't. But we didn't want to say that right off. We said, ``Who was he?''

``Well, you must know him. He was our Peace Corps volunteer. He was here for 2 years. He made such a difference in this village. You must know Paul.''

I made up the name, but it goes to show you that the efforts and involvement of Americans overseas not only will help people there but will help those who live through the experience. For so many Peace Corps volunteers that I met, it was a transformative moment, to serve in that Peace Corps at that moment in their life and to go through that experience.

Sending more American students for that overseas experience will not only help those students, it will help others around the world to see who we are. Think of the battle of images going on in the world today even as we speak, images of America that are terrible, images that are distorted, that are being shown to people around the world every day. And they say this is what America looks like when in fact it isn't even close to the truth.

We can become a nation where we use our public education system to expand not only the reach of America's message, but the experience of Americans in other countries. I can think of no more appropriate tribute to honor Paul Simon, a great statesman himself, than to establish this study abroad program.

In the weeks before Senator Simon's death, Senator Simon wrote the following:

A nation cannot drift into greatness. We must dream and we

must be willing to make small sacrifices to achieve those

dreams. If I want to improve my home, I must sacrifice a

little. If we want to improve our Nation and the world, we

must be willing to sacrifice a little. This major national

initiative . . . can lift our vision and responsiveness to

the rest of the world. Those who read these lines need to do

more than nod in agreement [Paul Simon wrote.] This is a

battle for understanding that you must help wage.

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

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006. This bill achieves three important goals.

First, it prevents the President from issuing a signing statement that alters the meaning of a statute by instructing Federal and State courts not to rely on Presidential signing statements in interpreting a statute.

Second, it permits the Congress to seek what amounts to a declaratory judgment on the legality of Presidential signing statements that seek to modify--or even to nullify--a duly enacted statute.

Third, it grants Congress the power to intervene in any case in the Supreme Court where the construction or constitutionality of any act of Congress is in question and a presidential signing statement for that act was issued.

Presidential signing statements are nothing new. Since the days of President James Monroe, Presidents have issued statements when signing bills. It is widely agreed that there are legitimate uses for signing statements. For example, Presidents may use signing statements to instruct executive branch officials how to administer a law. They may also use them to explain to the public the likely effect of a law. And, there may be a host of other legitimate uses.

However, the use of signing statements has risen dramatically in recent years. As of June 26, 2006, President Bush had issued 130 signing statements. President Clinton issued 105 signing statements during his two terms. While the mere numbers may not be significant, the reality is that the way the President has used those statements renders the legislative process a virtual nullity.

The President cannot use a signing statement to rewrite the words of a statute nor can the President use a signing statement to selectively nullify those provisions he does not like. This much is clear from our Constitution. The Constitution grants the President a specific, narrowly defined role in enacting legislation. Article I, section 1 of the Constitution vests ``all legislative powers . . . in a Congress.'' Article I, section 7 of the Constitution provides that when a bill is presented to the President, he may either sign it or veto it with his objections. He may also choose to do nothing, thus rendering a so- called pocket veto. The President cannot veto part of bill, however; he cannot veto certain provisions he does not like.

The Founders had good reason for constructing the legislative process as it is: by creating a bicameral legislature and then granting the President the veto power. According to The Records of the Constitutional Convention, the veto power was designed by our Framers to protect citizens from a particular Congress that might enact oppressive legislation. However, the Framers did not want the veto power to be unchecked, and so, in article I, section 7, they balanced it by allowing Congress to override a veto by two-thirds vote.

As you can see, this is a finely structured constitutional procedure that goes straight to the heart of our system of check and balances. Any action by the President that circumvents this finely structured procedure is an unconstitutional attempt to usurp legislative authority. If the President is permitted to rewrite the bills that Congress passes and cherry pick which provisions he likes and does not like, he subverts the constitutional process designed by our Framers.

The Supreme Court has affirmed that the constitutional process for enacting legislation must be safe guarded. As the Supreme Court explained in INS v. Chahda, ``It emerges clearly that the prescription for legislative action in Article I, Section 1, clause 7 represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure.''

So, while signing statements have been commonplace since our country's founding, we must make sure that they are not being used in an unconstitutional manner; a manner that seeks to rewrite legislation, and exercise line item vetoes.

President Bush has used signing statements in ways that have raised some eyebrows. For example, Congress passed the PATRIOT Act after months of deliberation. We debated nearly every provision--often redrafting and revising. Moreover, we worked very closely with the President because we wanted to get it right. We wanted to make sure that we were passing legislation that the executive branch would find workable. In fact, in many ways, the process was an excellent example of the legislative branch and the executive branch working together towards a common goal.

In the end, the bill that was passed by the Senate and the House contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. It also required Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations.

The President signed the PATRIOT Act into law, but afterwards, he wrote a signing statement that said he could withhold any information from Congress provided in the oversight provisions if he decided that disclosure would impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties.

Now, during the entire process of working with the President to draft

the PATRIOT Act, he never asked the Congress to include this language in the Act. At a hearing we held on signing statements, I asked an executive branch official, Michelle Boardman from the Office of Legal Counsel, why the President did not ask the Congress to put the signing statement language into the bill. She simply didn't have an answer. I asked her to get back to me with the answer and I still have not gotten a response.

Take another example, the McCain amendment. In that legislation, Congress voted by an overwhelming margin--90 to 9--to ban all U.S. personnel from inflicting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment on any prisoner held anywhere by the United States. President Bush, who had threatened to veto the legislation, instead invited its prime sponsor, Senator John McCain, to the White House for a public reconciliation and declared they had a common objective: to make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture.

Now from that, you might conclude that by signing the McCain amendment into law, the Bush administration has fully committed to not using torture. But you would be wrong. After the public ceremony of signing the bill into law, the President issued a signing statement saying his administration would interpret the new law ``in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.'' This vague language may mean that--despite the McCain amendment--the administration may still be preserving a right to inflict torture on prisoners and to evade the International Convention Against Torture.

The constitutional structure of enacting legislation must be safeguarded. That is why I am here today to introduce the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006. This bill does not seek to limit the President's power--and this bill does not seek to expand Congress's power. Rather, this bill simply seeks to safeguard our constitution.

First, the bill instructs courts not to rely on Presidential signing statements in construing an act. This will provide courts with much- needed guidance on how legislation should be interpreted. The Supreme Court's reliance on Presidential signing statements has been sporadic and unpredictable. In some cases--such as United States v. Lopez, where the Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act--the Supreme Court has relied on Presidential signing statements as a source of authority, while in other cases, such as the recent military tribunals case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, it has conspicuously declined to do so. This inconsistency has the unfortunate effect of rendering the interpretation of Federal law unpredictable.

It is well within Congress's power to resolve judicial disputes such as this by enacting rules of statutory interpretation. This power flows from article I, section 8, clause 18 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power ``To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.'' Rules of statutory interpretation are necessary and proper to execute the legislative power. Moreover, any legislation that sets out rules for interpreting an act makes legislation more clear and precise which is exactly what we aim to achieve here in Congress. Congress can and should exercise this power over the interpretation of Federal statutes in a systematic and comprehensive manner.

Second, this bill permits the Congress to seek a declaratory judgment on the legality of Presidential signing statements that seek to modify--or even to nullify--a duly enacted statute. Again, this simply ensures that signing statements are not used in an unconstitutional manner.

Third, it grants Congress the power to intervene in any case in the Supreme Court where the construction or constitutionality of any act of Congress is in question and a Presidential signing statement for that act was issued. That way, if the court is trying to determine the meaning or the constitutionality of an act, the Congress gets a voice in the debate.

Take for example United States v. Lopez. In that case, the Supreme Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act as beyond Congress's power to regulate commerce. Chief Justice Rehnquist relied, in part, on President George Bush's signing statement to support the Court's conclusion that the plain language of the statute does not suggest that it affects interstate commerce. Now, I do not see, in a case like this, why Congress should not get to explain its side. This bill would allow Congress to intervene and present evidence as to the meaning of an act in question.

This bill does not seek to limit the President's power and it does not seek to expand Congress's power. It simply seeks to put measures in place that will safeguard the constitutional structure of enacting legislation. In preserving this structure, this bill reinforces our system of checks and balances and separation of powers set out in our Constitution and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, today I will introduce a bill to repair and strengthen the Presidential public financing system. The Presidential Funding Act of 2006 will ensure that this system that has served our country so well for over a generation will continue to fulfill its promise in the 21st century.

The Presidential public financing system was put into place in the wake of the Watergate scandals as part of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. It was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. The system, of course, is voluntary, as the Supreme Court required. Every major party nominee for President since 1976 has participated in the system for the general election and, prior to 2000, every major party nominee had participated in the system for the primary election, too. In the last election, President Bush and two Democratic candidates, Howard Dean and the eventual nominee John Kerry, opted out of the system for the Presidential primaries. President Bush and Senator Kerry elected to take the taxpayer-funded grant in the general election. President Bush also opted out of the system for the Republican primaries in 2000 but took the general election grant.

It is unfortunate that the matching funds system for the primaries is becoming less viable. The system protects the integrity of the electoral process by allowing candidates to run viable campaigns without becoming overly dependent on private donors. The system has worked well in the past, and it is worth repairing so that it can work in the future. If we don't repair it, the pressures on candidates to opt out because their opponents are opting out will increase until the system collapses from disuse.

This bill makes changes to both the primary and general election public financing system to address the weaknesses and problems that have been identified by both participants in the system and experts on the presidential election financing process. First and most important, it eliminates the State-by-State spending limits in the current law and substantially increases the overall spending limit from the current limit of approximately $45 million to $150 million, of which up to $100 million can be spent before April 1 of the election year. This should make the system much more viable for serious candidates facing opponents who are capable of raising significant sums outside the system. The bill also makes available substantially more public money for participating candidates by increasing the match of small contributions from 1:1 to 4:1.

One very important provision of this bill ties the primary and general election systems together and requires candidates to make a single decision on whether to participate. Candidates who opt out of the primary system and decide to rely solely on private money cannot return to the system for the general election. And candidates must commit to participate in the system in the general election if they want to receive Federal matching funds in the primaries. The bill also increases the spending limits for participating candidates in the primaries who face a nonparticipating opponent if that opponent raises more than 20 percent more than the spending limit. This provides some protection against being far outspent by a nonparticipating opponent. Additional grants of public

money are also available to participating candidates who face a nonparticipating candidate spending substantially more than the spending limit.

The bill also sets the general election spending limit at $100 million, indexed for inflation. And if a general election candidate does not participate in the system and spends more than 20 percent more than the combined primary and general election spending limits, a participating candidate will receive a grant equal to twice the general election spending limit.

This bill also addresses what some have called the ``gap'' between the primary and general election seasons. Presumptive Presidential nominees have emerged earlier in the election year over the life of the public financing system. This had led to some nominees being essentially out of money between the time that they nail down the nomination and the convention where they are formally nominated and become eligible for the general election grant. For a few cycles, soft money raised by the parties filled in that gap, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 fortunately has now closed that loophole. This bill allows candidates who are still in the primary race as of April 1 to spend an additional $50 million. In addition, the bill allows the political parties to spend up to $25 million between April 1 and the date that a candidate is nominated and an additional $25 million after the nomination. The total amount of $50 million is over three times the amount allowed under current law. This should allow any gap to be more than adequately filled.

Obviously, these changes make this a more generous system. So the bill also makes the requirement for qualifying more difficult. To be eligible for matching funds, a candidate must raise $25,000 in matchable contributions--up to $200 for each donor--in at least 20 States. That is five times the threshold under current law.

The bill also makes a number of changes in the system to reflect the changes in our Presidential races over the past several decades. For one thing, it makes matching funds available starting on July 1 of the year preceding the election, 6 months earlier than is currently the case. For another, it sets a single date for release of the public grant for the general election--the Friday before Labor Day. This addresses an inequity in the current system, under which the general election grant is released after each nominating convention, which can be several weeks apart.

The bill will also end the political parties' use of soft money for their conventions and requires presidential candidates to disclose bundled contributions. Additional provisions, and those I have discussed in summary form here, are explained in a section-by-section analysis of the bill that I will ask to be printed in the Record, following my statement. I will also ask that a copy of the bill itself be printed in the Record, following my statement.

Mr. President, the purpose of this bill is to improve the campaign finance system, not to advance one party's interests. In fact, with the country looking forward to the first Presidential election since 1952 where both the incumbent President and the sitting Vice-President are not running, this is a perfect time to make changes in the Presidential public funding system. Each party will have numerous candidates in the primaries, and no party can claim it will be helped or hurt by these changes.

Fixing the Presidential public financing system will cost money, but our best calculations at the present time indicate that the changes to the system in this bill can be paid for by raising the income tax check-off on an individual return from $3 to just $10. The total cost of the changes to the system, based on data from the 2004 elections, is projected to be around $360 million over the 4-year election cycle. To offset that increased cost, this bill caps taxpayer subsidies for promotion of agricultural products, including some brand-name goods, by limiting the Market Access Program to $100 million per year.

Though the numbers are large, this is actually a very small investment to make to protect the health of our democracy and integrity of our Presidential elections. The American people do not want to see a return to the pre-Watergate days of unlimited spending on presidential elections and candidates entirely beholden to private donors. We must act now to preserve the crown jewel of the Watergate reforms and ensure the fairness of our elections and the confidence of our citizens in the process.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional materials be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Multidistrict Litigation Restoration Act of 2006.

The word ``Lexecon'' is well known in the Federal judiciary. It refers to the 1998 Supreme Court decision holding that statutory authority does not exist for transferee courts handling cases centralized by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel, or the MDL Panel, to retain these cases for trial. For approximately 30 years, courts receiving cases for pretrial proceedings from the MDL Panel invoked the general venue statute to transfer cases to themselves for trial. The process worked well because the court that had handled the pretrial phase was well-versed in the case's facts and was in the best position to encourage all parties to reach a settlement, or--barring settlement--make a final determination by adjudicating the dispute. But with the Lexecon decision that practice ended, and ever since we have been left with a multidistrict, multiparty, multiforum system that is costly, time-consuming, repetitive, inefficient, and often inconsistent.

As many of my colleagues know, the MDL Panel is an entity comprising seven judges, authorized to transfer civil actions pending in more than one district and involving one or more common questions of fact to any district court for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The MDL Panel authorizes the transfer upon determining that it will be for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions. Congress established this centralization mechanism in 1968 to avoid duplication of discovery, prevent inconsistent rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

Typically, cases centralized by the MDL Panel are numerous and complex. About 150,000 cases with millions of claims have been resolved through the process since its creation. They have included such matters as mass torts, antitrust price fixing, securities fraud, and unfair employment practices. The transferee judge becomes highly knowledgeable about the litigation during his or her consideration of voluminous pretrial proceedings. When all of the cases are remanded to the various transferor courts following completion of pretrial proceedings, those courts know little or nothing about the litigation. Even when all the parties agree to keep the matter that has been transferred in the court it was transferred to, it cannot be done under the current law. In some instances, judges have followed cases to courts outside their judicial circuit to conduct trial, at considerable inconvenience and expense, in order to spare other judges from the nightmare of having such mammoth cases so suddenly thrust upon them.

Let me give you an example of what this means in real terms. In my own State of Utah, there have been nearly 1,000 cases that have been transferred

either in or out of Utah's judicial district by the MDL Panel since 1968. In fiscal year 2005, there were nearly 50 cases transferred out of Utah through the MDL process. That is 50 cases that could be dumped back onto our judges in Utah without any warning or preparation. At the same time, there were six MDL cases pending in Utah at the end of 2005. Under the post-Lexecon system, one or more of our judges could be required to follow these cases to other districts throughout the United States for trial. Both of these scenarios would prove to be a serious burden for a small judicial district like Utah, and could hamper or delay justice for the people of my State. This is the same challenge our courts face nationwide as a result of the Lexecon decision.

Congress is the only entity that can solve these problems. Writing for the Court in Lexecon, Justice Souter stated that ``the proper venue for resolving the issue remains the floor of Congress.'' That is why I am introducing the Multidistrict Litigation Restoration Act of 2006 today, to give the Federal judiciary the necessary statutory authority to transfer multidistrict litigation cases for the purposes of trial. This legislation will return the law to what was in effect for almost three decades prior to the Lexecon decision. It will provide the MDL Panel with the most efficient option for resolving complex issues, the best means to encourage universal settlements, and the most consistent approach for rendering decisions.

This legislation is supported by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policy arm of the Federal judicial branch, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice. The legislation is also supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform.

Moreover, this is not a partisan effort. Proposals to reform multidistrict, multiparty litigation were first advanced by the Carter administration. I introduced similar legislation in the 106th Congress with Senators Leahy, Kohl, and Schumer. That bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

This legislation is long overdue. Lexecon was decided 8 years ago. The House has passed a Lexecon fix four times since 1999. In a letter to the chairman of the MDL Panel, Judge Thomas W. Thrash, a Federal district court judge for the Northern District of Georgia, reporting on the disposition of a multidistrict litigation case that he was required to try in Texas because he could not transfer the case to Georgia, summed up the situation well. Judge Thrash wrote, ``Needless to say, resolution of this case has been prolonged and involved greater expense to the judiciary . . . because of my inability to transfer the Northern District of Texas case to myself for trial here in the Northern District of Georgia. On the other hand, it would have been almost criminal to dump this case on a new Northern District of Texas judge for trial. . . . I hope that this problem will be fixed by Congress soon.''

Mr. President, I share that hope. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Multidistrict Litigation Restoration Act of 2006 and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the SHINE Act of 2006 with my colleague Senator George Allen. This legislation is critical for the health of newborns and children.

Each year in our Nation at least 4 million newborns are screened and severe disorders are detected in 5,000 of them. Although these numbers may seem small, these disorders are often life threatening and can cause mental and physical disabilities if left untreated. Early detection by newborn screening can lessen side effects or completely prevent progression of many of these disorders if medical intervention is started early enough.

I am proud to say that New York has been a leader in newborn screening since 1960 when Dr. Robert Guthrie developed the first newborn screening test. Since then, more than 10 million babies have been tested. In 2004, New York expanded their newborn screening panel from 11 to 44 conditions. These improvements were a concerted effort by State officials and parent advocacy groups like the Newborn Screening Saves Lives and Hunter's Hope Foundation. They share a common goal that every child born with a treatable disease should receive early diagnosis and lifesaving treatment so that they can grow up happy and healthy. Today, we want to ensure that the great strides made by New York can be a model for all States and that New York can continue to make advancements that will benefit the children of New York and around the Nation.

Newborn screening experts suggest States should test for a minimum of 29 treatable core conditions. However, as of today, some States only screen for seven conditions. Every child should have access to tests that may prevent them from a life-threatening disease. Parents should not have to drive across State lines to improve the health of their baby. This bill establishes grant programs so that States can increase their capacity to screen for all the core conditions. Grant funds are also available for States like New York to expand newborn screening panels above and beyond the core conditions by developing additional newborn screening tests.

We should expect equity within newborn screening so that it does not matter where your baby is born. This legislation will establish recommended guidelines for States for newborn screening tests, reporting, and data standards. Our goal should be that affected babies be identified quickly, babies who have the diseases should not be missed, and the number of newborns falsely identified as sick should be minimized. By tracking the prevalence of diseases identified by newborn screening within States, we will be able to meet these goals and improve the long-term health of our children.

I hear from many parents how scary it is to have a sick child and to not have a diagnosis. Many parents spend years trying to find out what is wrong with their child and feel helpless. This legislation will make sure that current information on newborn screening is available and accessible to health providers and parents. The SHINE Act will provide interactive formats so that parents and providers can ask questions and receive answers about the newborn screening test, diagnosis, follow-up and treatment.

Early treatment can prevent negative and irreversible health outcomes for affected newborns. We should be doing all we can to give every child born in our country the opportunity for a happy and healthy life.

I ask unanimous consent that the following letters in support of this legislation from the March of Dimes, Hunter's Hope Foundation, Save Babies Through Screening Foundation, and Blythedale Children's Hospital be printed in the Record.