Fair and Representative Presidential Primaries Act of 2007

Mr. President, a month ago I outlined an important issue affecting all Americans who take prescription drugs or use medical devices--the need for greater transparency in the money that drug and device companies hand out to doctors. Today, I am pleased to introduce the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, along with Senator Kohl, chairman of the Special Committee on Aging. This legislation will bring much needed transparency to the financial relationships that exist between the drug and device industries and doctors.

There is no question that the drug and device industries have an intricate network of financial ties with practicing physicians. These financial relationships can take many forms. They can include speaking honoraria, consulting fees, free travel to exotic locations for conferences, or funding for research. Drug and device companies spend billions and billions of dollars every year marketing their products. A good amount of this money goes directly to doctors in the form of these payments.

This practice, and the lack of transparency around it, can obscure the most important question that exists between doctor and patient: What is best for the patient?

As the editorial board of the Des Moines Register wrote recently, and I quote, ``Your doctor's hands may be in the till of a drug company. So how can you know whether the prescription he or she writes is in your best interest, or the best interest of a drug company?'' That is an excellent question. Currently, the public has no way of knowing whether their doctor has taken payments from the drug and device industries, and I intend to change that--not just for Iowans but for all Americans.

Payments to a doctor can be big or small. They can be a simple dinner after work or they can add up to tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. That is right--hundreds of thousands of dollars for one doctor. It is really pretty shocking.

Companies wouldn't be paying this money unless it had a direct effect on the prescriptions doctors write, and the medical devices they use. Patients, of course, are in the dark about whether their doctor is receiving this money.

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act sheds light on these hidden payments and obscured interests through the best disinfectant of all: sunshine. This is a short bill, and a simple one. This bill requires drug and device manufacturers to disclose to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, on a quarterly basis, anything of value given to doctors, such as payments, gifts, honoraria, or travel. Along with the money, these companies will have to report the name of the physician, the value and the date of the payment or gift, its purpose, and what, if anything, was received in exchange. This bill then requires the Department of Health and Human Services to make the information available to the public through a searchable web site.

And this bill has some teeth, too. If a company fails to report, the Physician Payments Sunshine Act imposes a penalty ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 for each violation.

Many States are ahead of the curve on this and have passed, or are currently considering, similar measures. In 1993, Minnesota required the Nation's first public disclosure of gifts and payments from wholesale drug distributors. Vermont passed a similar law in 2003, although much of the information is not publicly available. More recently, the District of Columbia, Maine, and West Virginia have followed suit in requiring disclosure, though not all make the information available to the public through a web site. The General Assembly in my home State of Iowa may soon be requiring disclosure as well.

But this kind of information shouldn't be available only to Americans who happen to be lucky enough to live in a State already addressing this problem. On the contrary, this information should be accessible to all Americans across the country and it should be updated in a timely manner. I propose to my colleagues that now is the time to act.

I realize that some critics, including many of the drug and device companies, are going to say that creating this sort of national database is too time consuming and too expensive. I can hear the complaints already. But let me remind you again--the drug companies are already reporting their payments to doctors in Minnesota and other States. Companies already have this information available. We aren't requiring them to go out and obtain it--we are just asking them to share it with the American people.

Perhaps even more telling is that at least one industry leader has taken the goal of increased transparency into its own hands. Although it is not making its payments to doctors publicly available, Eli Lilly has taken important steps to meet the public's demand for increased sunshine. In response to my investigation of drug company payments for continuing medical education, Eli v Lilly voluntarily created a web site that details payments they make to organizations like patient groups and hospitals. I commend Eli Lilly for taking the lead on that issue, and I look forward to working with them on my latest effort.

This bill is careful not to burden small businesses--it applies only to companies with annual revenues over $100 million. It is the largest companies who are driving this practice, and for whom disclosure would be least burdensome.

Further, during a meeting on a separate matter with officials from Glaxo Smith Kline in early August, my staff brought up the idea of drug companies reporting payments to physicians. I am happy to say that Dr. Moncef Slaoui, the chairman of research and evelopment for Glaxo Smith Kline, said that he was also interested in a little sunshine. In fact, here are his exact words: ``We're happy for transparency.'' I would like to commend Dr. Slaoui for his comments and I look forward to working with him and leaders at other companies on this bill.

It is not only industry leaders who are leading the way on the issue of increased transparency--some of America's best medical schools are taking steps to prevent conflicts of interest among their physicians. In fact, the Yale University School of Medicine, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Stanford University Medical School have gone so far as to prohibit certain gifts and payments altogether.

So let me be clear. This bill does not regulate the business of the drug and device industries. I say, let the people in the industry do their business. After all, they have the training and the skill to get that job done. Just keep the American people apprised of the business you are doing and how you are doing it. Let a little bit of sunshine in to this world of financial relationships--it is, after all, the best disinfectant.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to speak about an amendment we will be voting on in probably an hour and a half. It is amendment No. 2662, which has to do with the expansion of a training facility in my State of Colorado called the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. It is a training facility associated with Fort Carson.

In February of 2007, a few months ago, the U.S. Army made an announcement it would move forward with an effort to acquire an additional 400,000 acres-plus of land in my State to add to this training facility. What I am asking my colleagues to do today is to join with me and a vast bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives in saying we need a timeout before we move forward. I ask my Democratic and Republican colleagues to join us in supporting amendment No. 2662.

I say to everyone in this Chamber and to those who are listening, if you care about private property rights, you will support this amendment. If you care about ranchers and farmers in America, including those who make a living in southeastern Colorado, you will support this amendment. If you care about being wise in terms of how we spend taxpayers' dollars in expanding our military facilities, you will support this amendment.

I wish to make a few remarks about its history, to put this into perspective.

First, the Army in 1982 acquired 235,000 acres for the training facility now known as Pinon Canyon. That facility has been used since 1982. It is an integral component of the training capabilities for Fort Carson, CO.

In 2005, the BRAC Commission, in its recommendations which were approved in the Senate, recommendations which I supported, added additional troops to Fort Carson. The findings of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission said that Fort Carson had sufficient training facilities to provide all the training that is needed for our troops stationed at Fort Carson.

So the first question to be asked by all those who are going to be impacted by this 400,000-acre expansion is whether that amount of land is sufficient to carry on the training purpose required at Fort Carson. That question simply has not been answered.

If the Army moves forward with the expansion of the additional 400,000-plus acres, we will have a Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in Colorado that will have 1,235 square miles. That is an area that is bigger than the size of the State of Rhode Island. Yet what the Army has proposed to do is acquire that land through condemnation or whatever necessary means to move forward with an unjustified need for an expansion of Pinon Canyon.

I am not saying we ought not look at whether we need to have additional training facilities at Fort Carson. We certainly should take a look at that. But until we get the answers as to what has changed from January of 2005 until 2007 that requires the expansion of this training facility so we have a training facility the size of Rhode Island-plus, it is important we ask questions of the Army.

I ask my colleagues to join us in moving forward with a timeout, with a 1-year moratorium on the EIS process which the Army has proposed, and during that 1 year we can ask some very important questions that will be important to those who will be most affected--the residents of southeastern Colorado. We need to ask those questions as well for the men and women in uniform, whom we train at Fort Carson and around our country, to be sure we have appropriate and adequate training facilities for them. Those are questions that do need to be asked.

The Department of Defense authorization and appropriations bills will be coming up, and I have proposed and will introduce legislation that will be cosponsored by my colleague, Senator Allard, where we get those questions answered. When we have those questions answered, then we can make a thoughtful decision about how best to move forward in a manner that, first, enhances and protects the national security of the United States; No. 2, make sure we are protecting the private property rights of the ranchers who have lived in this area for sometimes three and four generations; and No. 3, the investments we make with respect to any expansion of Pinon Canyon are investments that make sense from a fiscal point of view.

I ask my colleagues, when we get to amendment No. 2662 in about an hour, that they vote in support of this amendment.

I conclude by saying there are two values that have driven me in my discussions on this issue of the expansion of Pinon Canyon over the last several months. The first of those values is we need to make sure we are providing the necessary training facilities for our soldiers at Fort Carson and those who will train at the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. We need to make sure we are doing that, and we have a set of questions that need to be answered in that regard.

Second, we need to be sure we are protecting private property rights. When one thinks about the fact that in these 400-plus acres, there are many ranchers who have been there for three and four generations, ranchers who have come to me with tears in their eyes, who talk about the fact that their wife is buried on their ranch and that they took the ranch from their father and their mother and from their grandparents, it seems to me that if there is an opportunity for us to make sure we are protecting private property rights, this is a time for us to say we are going to protect the private property rights of those ranchers.

I say to my colleagues, I am not asking for the death knell to be put on any proposed expansion by the Army. All I am asking is that we have a 1-year timeout, a 1-year delay so we can get these fundamental questions answered on how we move forward with Pinon Canyon.

I urge my colleagues to please support amendment No. 2662 when we vote on it in about an hour.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters in support of my amendment and the position on the Pinon Canyon issue from Otero County, a resolution from Huerfano County, Las Animas County, Colorado Counties, Inc., LaJunta, the Bent County Commissioners, Baca County Commissioners, the Club 20, Action 22, Crowley County, as well as Alamosa County.

I yield the floor.

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

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

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.