As requested, I am writing this letter to explain to the AKC's constituency the legislative process that can be expected as congressional consideration of PAWS moves forward.
As you know, Senator Santorum and his staff are working on revisions to the language of PAWS with Senate legislative counsel, who write Senate legislation, to address concerns expressed by the AKC and others. In his letter which you read at the recent Delegates' meeting, Senator Santorum stated that he hopes to release a "discussion draft" of these revisions by the end of the month. A "discussion draft" is simply a way of notifying colleagues and the public of a Senator's intention to make changes in a bill. At this time, while Congress is in recess, it is the only practical way of putting new legislative language before the public.
When the Senate reconvenes, Senator Santorum can actually make his proposed changes in PAWS in one of several ways. He can introduce a new, revised bill. He can offer the revisions as amendments to PAWS. Finally, he can offer a revised bill as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the original language. Any of these actions will accomplish the same result. That result is that the bill that Senator Santorum's subcommittee, or the full Senate agriculture committee, considers will be the revised bill.
The next step in the legislative process is a "mark up" and vote on the revised PAWS bill by the Senate agriculture committee. Senator Santorum has indicated he plans to call for such a mark up early in the next session of Congress, which will get underway after the President's State of the Union address in early February. Committee action is normally followed by a floor vote by the full Senate, either on PAWS as a stand-alone bill, or as an amendment to some other piece of legislation that is before the Senate.
I should also note that the PAWS hearing on November 8, 2005 was just that, a hearing. It was not, and never was intended to be, a subcommittee mark up. Most legislation undergoes a hearing process before any votes are taken. The notion that because no vote on PAWS was taken at the November 8 hearing this indicates a lack of support for PAWS is a complete misrepresentation of the process. The hearing was organized by the Senate agriculture committee staff even though it was a subcommittee hearing. If the committee wanted to block action on PAWS, they simply would have denied the request for a hearing. No vote was ever scheduled or anticipated in conjunction with the PAWS hearing.
The hearing accomplished what was intended. It brought PAWS to the attention of members of Congress and signaled to members that the legislation was beginning to move. It is worth noting that more than 90 percent of the bills introduced into Congress never get a hearing. Since the PAWS hearing, a substantial number of new co-sponsors have endorsed PAWS in both the Senate and House of Representatives. When Congress recessed in mid-December, nearly one quarter of the Senate, and more than one quarter of the House of Representatives were co-sponsors of PAWS. Additional co-sponsors are expected to be added when Congress reconvenes.
It is common for federal legislation to take at least a full two-year congressional session, and often several sessions, before it is finally enacted. The fact that PAWS has already had a hearing and obtained such a large number of co-sponsors in the eight months since it was introduced is very good progress by congressional legislative standards. I am confident that this good progress will continue in the second session of the current Congress. •