[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 76 (Tuesday, June 5, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5833-S5839]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lugar,
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Hollings, Mr. Levin, Mr. Corzine, and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 982. A bill to promote primary and secondary health promotion and
disease prevention services and activities among the elderly, to amend
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to add preventive health
benefits, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues
Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, Lugar, Bingaman, Chafee, Murray, Hollings,
Rockefeller, Levin, Lincoln, and Corzine, to introduce the Medicare
Wellness Act.
For too long, the Medicare approach to health care has been wholly
reactive. Benefits are designed to treat illness and disability once a
recipient is already suffering. This approach is outdated. It is time
for Medicare to become pro-active. It is time to focus on helping
people to prevent disease in the first place so that they may live not
just longer, but more fulfilling lives.
The Medicare Wellness Act shifts the focus of Medicare, changing it
from a program that simply treats illness to one that promotes
wellness. For this reason, The Medicare Wellness Act has support from a
broad range of groups, including the National Council on Aging, the
American College of Preventive Medicine, the American Heart
Association, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation.
Currently, 70 percent of medical spending is the result of
preventable illnesses, many of which occur in older adults. It does not
have to be this way. Research shows that declines in health are not
inevitable with age. In fact, many chronic diseases can be prevented by
making lifestyle changes such as taking up an exercise program
[[Page S5834]]
or quitting smoking. A healthier lifestyle adopted at any time during
one's lifetime can increase active life expectancy and decrease disease
and disability.
The Medicare Wellness Act helps promote preventive health care among
older Americans, first by adding to the list of Medicare benefits
several services that we know to be effective in preventing disease.
These benefits focus on some of the most prominent, underlying risk
factors for illness that face all Medicare beneficiaries, including:
Screening for hypertension, counseling for tobacco cessation, medical
nutrition therapy services for cardiovascular patients, counseling for
post-menopausal women, screening for vision and hearing loss, expanded
screening for osteoporosis, and screening for cholesterol.
The addition of these new benefits represent the highest
recommendations for Medicare beneficiaries in the U.S. Preventive
Services Task Force, recognized as the gold standard within the
prevention community, and the Institute of Medicine.
The benefits can help reduce Medicare beneficiaries' risk for health
problems such as stroke, cancer, osteoporosis, and heart disease.
Other major components of our bill include the establishment of the
Healthy Seniors Promotion Program. This program will be led by an
interagency group within the Department of Health and Human Services,
which will look at existing preventive benefits and offer suggestions
to make their use more widespread.
This point is critical.
The fact is that there are a number of prevention-related services
available to Medicare beneficiaries today, including mammograms and
colorectal cancer screening. But those services are seriously
underutilized. A study published by Dartmouth University, The Dartmouth
Atlas of Health Care 1999, found that only 28 percent of women age 65-
69 receive mammograms and only 12 percent of beneficiaries were
screened for colorectal cancer. These are disturbing figures.
Additionally, the Medicare Wellness Act incorporates an aggressive
applied research effort to investigate new methods of improving the
health of Medicare beneficiaries and the management of chronic
diseases.
Further, our bill would establish a health education and risk
appraisal program aimed at major behavioral risk factors such as diet,
exercise, alcohol and tobacco use, and depression.
This program will target both pre-65 individuals and current Medicare
beneficiaries and will strive to increase awareness among individuals
of major risk factors that impact health, to change personal health
habits, to improve health status, and ultimately to save the Medicare
program money.
In addition to new research on prevention among Medicare
beneficiaries, the Medicare Wellness Act would require several reports
to assess the overall scientific validity of the Medicare preventive
benefits package.
First, our bill would require the Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission, known as MedPAC, to report to Congress every three years on
whether the Medicare program needs to change over time in order to
ensure that Medicare benefits are appropriate for the population being
served and is as comprehensive as private insurance plans offered.
Currently, there is no regular assessment to ensure that Medicare is
providing a healthcare package that is up-to-date with either the
current needs of seniors or current scientific findings. Quite frankly,
Medicare hasn't kept up with the rest of the health care world, we need
to do better.
A second study that our bill would require is one in which the
institute of Medicine, IOM, would assess, every three years, the
scientific validity of the entire Medicare preventive benefits package.
The study will be presented to Congress in a manner that mirrors The
Trade Act of 1974. The Institute of Medicine's recommendations would be
presented to Congress in legislative form. Congress would then have 60
days to either accept or reject the recommendations. But Congress could
not change the recommendations themselves.
This ``fast-track'' process is a deliberate effort to get Congress
out of the business of micro-managing the Medicare program allowing
science to dictate the medical needs of seniors in America.
In the aggregate, the Medicare Wellness Act represents the most
comprehensive legislative proposal in the 107th Congress for the
Medicare program focused on health promotion and disease prevention for
beneficiaries. It represents sound health policy based on sound
science.
However, at a time when there is concern over the solvency of
Medicare and concern that it won't be able to provide future seniors
with the health care that they are promised, one may question whether
it is wise to expand upon benefits already offered. And one is wise to
do so.
However, the issue of prevention is different.
Benjamin Franklin was truly on the mark when he first said that ``an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure''. Offering preventive
care under Medicare, or the ``ounce of prevention,'' will definitely
cost the government money up front. However, this initial outlay of
dollars will be returned in terms of costs saved in the long run by
avoiding long-term, cost intensive treatments, or the ``pound of
cure''.
And, just as important, although unmeasurable, will be the enhanced
quality of life for seniors. Prevention helps us all to live more
healthy lives in the long run which translates into more productive and
fulfilling lives as well.
Today, many people continue to work beyond the age of 65 contributing
to the workforce and the economy. However, they are only able to do so
if their health allows.
When considering the future of Medicare, the question really comes
down to this. Is the value of improved quality of life for seniors and
their ability to maintain healthy, functional and productive lives
worth the expenditure?
While improving Medicare's financial outlook for future generations
is imperative, we must do it in a way that gives our seniors the
ability to live longer, healthier and valued lives.
I believe that by pursuing a prevention strategy that addresses some
the most fundamental risk factors for chronic illness and disability
that face seniors, we will make an invaluable contribution to the
Medicare reform debate and, more importantly, to our children and
grandchildren.
I encourage my colleagues to join us on this important bill and to
work with us to ensure that the provisions of the bill are reflected in
any Medicare reform legislation that is debated and voted on this year
in the Senate.
I ask unanimous consent that a list of groups supporting this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Groups Supporting the Medicare Wellness Act of 2001
American Cancer Society.
American College of Preventive Medicine.
American Dietetic Association.
American Geriatrics Society.
American Heart Association.
American Lung Association.
American Physical Therapy Association.
American Public Health Association.
American Speech-Language Hearing Association.
Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.
Families USA.
National Campaign for Hearing Health.
National Osteoporosis Foundation.
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and
Medicare.
National Council on Aging.
National Chronic Care Association.
National Mental Health Association.
Partnership for Prevention.
Strong Women Inside and Out.
United Cerebral Palsy Associations.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Graham
today in introducing the Medicare Wellness Act of 2001. Our Nation's
rapidly growing senior population and the ongoing search for cost-
effective health care have led to the development of this important
legislation. The goal of the Medicare Wellness Act is to increase
access to preventive health services, improve the quality of life for
America's seniors, and increase the cost-effectiveness of the Medicare
program.
Congress created the Medicare program in 1965 to provide health
insurance for Americans age 65 and over.
[[Page S5835]]
From the outset, the program has focused on coverage for hospital
services needed for an unexpected or intensive illness. In recent
years, however, a great escalation in program expenditures and an
increase in knowledge about the value of preventive care have forced
policy makers to re-evaluate the current Medicare benefit package.
The Medicare Wellness Act adds to the Medicare program those benefits
recommended by the Institute of Medicine and the U.S. Preventive
Services Task Force. These include: screening for hypertension,
counseling for tobacco cessation, counseling for hormone replacement
therapy, screening for vision and hearing loss, cholesterol screening,
expanded screening for osteoporosis, and nutrition therapy counseling
or seniors with cardiovascular disease. These services address the most
prominent risk factors facing Medicare beneficiaries.
In 1997 and again in 2000, Congress added several new preventive
benefits to the Medicare program through the Balanced Budget Act and
the Beneficiary Improvement and Protection Act. These benefits included
annual mammography, diabetes self-management, prostate cancer
screening, pelvic examinations, glaucoma screening, and colorectal
cancer screening. Congress's next logical step is to incorporate the
nine new screening and counseling benefits in the Medicare Wellness
Act. If these symptoms are addressed regularly, beneficiaries will have
a head start on fighting the conditions they lead to, such as diabetes,
lung cancer, heart disease, blindness, osteoporosis, and many others.
Research suggests that insurance coverage encourages the use of
preventive and other health care services. The Medicare Wellness Act
also eliminates the deductibles and coinsurance for new and current
preventive benefits in the program. Because screening services are
directed at people without symptoms, this will further encourage the
use of services by reducing the cost barrier to care. Increased use of
screening services will mean that problems will be caught earlier,
which will permit more successful treatment. This will save the
Medicare program money because it is cheaper to screen for an illness
and treat its early diagnosis than to pay for drastic hospital
procedures at a later date.
However, financial access is not the only barrier to the use of
preventive care services. Other barriers include low levels of
education or information for beneficiaries. That is why the Medicare
Wellness Act instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
coordinate with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the
Health Care Financing Administration to establish a Risk Appraisal and
Education Program within Medicare. This program will target both
current beneficiaries and individuals below the age of 65 who have high
risk factors. Outreach to these groups will offer questions regarding
major behavioral risk factors, including the lack of proper nutrition,
the use of alcohol, the lack of regular exercise, the use of tobacco,
and depression. State of the art software, case managers, and nurse
hotlines will then identify what conditions beneficiaries are at risk
for, based on their individual responses to the questions, then refer
them to preventive screening services in their area and inform them of
actions they can take to lead a healthier life.
The Medicare Wellness Act also establishes the Healthy Seniors
Promotion Program. This program will bring together all the agencies
within the Department of Health and Human Services that address the
medical, social and behavioral issues affecting the elderly to increase
knowledge about and utilization of prevention services among the
elderly, and develop better ways to prevent or delay the onset of age-
related disease or disability.
Now is the time for Medicare to catch up with current health science.
We need a Medicare program that will serve the health care needs of
America's seniors by utilizing up-to-date knowledge on healthy aging.
Effective health care must address the whole health of an individual. A
lifestyle that includes proper exercise and nutrition, and access to
regular disease screening ensures that proper attention is being paid
to the whole individual, not just a solitary body part. It is time we
reaffirm our commitment to provide our Nation's seniors with quality
health care.
It is my hope that my colleagues in Congress will examine this
legislation and realize the inadequacy of the current package of
preventive benefits in the Medicare program. We have the opportunity to
transform Medicare from an out-dated sickness program to a modern
wellness program. I want to thank Senator Bob Graham and all the other
cosponsors of the Medicare Wellness Act who are supporting this bold
step towards successful Medicare reform.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Graham
and Senator Jeffords in introducing the Medicare Wellness Act of 2001,
Medicare reform for the 21st century. This important legislation will
make it easier for senior citizens to take advantage of the preventive
benefits to them, while strengthening Medicare at the same time.
Greater investment in the health of the nation's elderly is long
overdue. Although we have made significant progress in reducing chronic
disability among older Americans, we still have a long way to go.
According to the World Health Organization, the United States ranks
behind 23 other nations in ``healthy life expectancy.'' Surely, we can
do better than that.
Each year, chronic disability adds $26 billion to the nation's health
care costs. Unless we act, the burden of these costs will become
increasingly unbearable for countless senior citizens. In the next 30
years, Medicare will be under even heavier pressures as the baby boom
generation retires. Nearly one fifth of the population will be 65 and
older by 2025, which means that a larger number of beneficiaries will
be supported by a smaller number of workers. To avoid hard remedies
such as benefit cuts or tax increases, we should do all we can to
reduce future Medicare costs by improving the health of senior
citizens.
According to a study at Duke University, if the 1.3 percent decline
in disability achieved over the last 12 years can be raised to 1.5
percent, we can potentially save enough in Medicare to avoid any
substantial long-term increase in Medicare tax or reduction in
benefits. The Medicare Wellness Act attempt to do that. It waives cost-
sharing for a series of preventive benefits, provides individual health
risk appraisals, encourages a falls prevention campaign, and funds
pilot projects and new research on the most effective ways to encourage
senior citizens to adopt healthier lifestyles.
Prevention saves lives and saves money. Screening can often be the
difference between a successful battle with cancer and a failed one.
Colorectral cancers, for example, have a five-year survival rate of up
to 90 percent if detected at an early stage--but currently only 37
percent of these cancers are actually diagnosed early. Unfortunately,
screening tests are significantly under-used by Medicare beneficiaries.
Only approximately a third of men and women at-risk for these cancers
are currently being screened.
Our bill helps to combat this problem by eliminating cost-sharing and
deductibles for a wide range of preventive services, such as screening
for colorectral cancers, mammography, screening for glaucoma, bone mass
measurement, medical nutrition therapy services, and screening for
cholesterol problems and hypertension.
The Medicare Wellness Act also creates a national ``falls
prevention'' education and awareness campaign to reduce these injuries.
Older Americans are hospitalized for fall-related injuries five times
more often then they are for other types of injuries. This awareness
campaign will educate senior citizens about precautions they can take
to reduce the likelihood of such injuries.
Clinical depression also takes a heavy toll on the nation's elderly.
Compared to all other age groups, senior citizens have the highest
suicide rate in the nation. Twenty percent of persons age 55 and older
suffer from a mental disorder that is not part of the normal aging
process. As with so many other illnesses, depression is under-diagnosed
among the elderly. This bill provides needed funding for demonstration
projects to screen for depression, so that elderly persons suffering
from this problem can be diagnosed and referred to specialists for the
treatment they need.
[[Page S5836]]
The Medicare Wellness Act also encourages senior citizens to improve
their health and reduce the risks of illness in other ways. Typical
factors leading to poor health include smoking, physical inactivity,
and excessive use of alcohol. A health risk appraisal initiative under
the Act will given senior citizens the individual attention they need
to make the changes in lifestyle necessary to improve their health.
In addition, the Medicare Wellness Act encourages research to explore
the most effective ways to improve Medicare's role in preventing
disease and improving health. Pilot programs are authorized to
experiment with innovative ways to promote healthier lifestyles and
reach out to senior citizens in various settings.
Federal agencies will undertake particular research programs on these
issues. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission is asked to evaluate
Medicare benefits in relation to private sector benefits. The National
Institute on Aging is asked to report on ways to improve the quality of
life for the elderly. The Institute of Medicine is asked to make
recommendations to Congress about the medical and cost effectiveness of
existing Medicare benefits and the potential benefit of preventive
services.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. The
Medicare Wellness Act can be a significant contribution to healthier
senior citizens and a healthier Medicare.
______
By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 983. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Fructooligosaccharides; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would
temporarily suspend the duty on Fructooligosaccharides. I ask unanimous
consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 983
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.
(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by
inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:
`` 9902.21.01 Fructooligosacch Free No change No change On or before 12/ ''
arides (FOS) 31/2003 .
(provided for
in subheading
2106.90.99)....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. ENZI (for himself and Ms. Snowe).
S. 984. A bill to improve the Veterans Beneficiary Travel Program of
the Department of Veterans Affairs; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President I rise today to introduce the Veterans Road
to Health Care Act 2001. This legislation would raise the travel
reimbursement rate for veterans who must travel to Veterans
Administration hospitals for treatment. The current reimbursement for
veterans is 11 cents per mile. This bill would raise that figure to
match the Federal employees travel reimbursement rate which is 34.5
cents per mile.
The average price for gas in Wyoming right now is $1.63 per gallon. I
know it varies across the Nation. The current rate of 11 cents per
miles barely makes a dent in the expenses incurred by veterans who have
no choice but travel by automobile for health care. I have received
numerous letters from veterans in Wyoming describing how difficult it
is to work into their budget the money necessary to travel between
their hometown and the VA hospital. Being able to access health care is
vital, it should not be a choice between driving to receive needed
treatment or being able to afford other necessities.
In Wyoming, we have two VA hospitals, one in Cheyenne and one in
Sheridan. Veterans have to travel to one of these facilities to be
treated for health conditions and be covered by the health care plan
that the military provides for them. This poses a serious problem in
terms of travel expense, especially with the rise in gasoline prices.
It was a problem before; it is a bigger problem now. Some of the
largest towns in Wyoming like Evanston and Cody are over 300 miles away
from the nearest VA facility. A veteran living in Evanston has to drive
360 miles to reach the nearest VA hospital, and from Cody it is about
300 miles to the nearest facility.
This bill addresses the healthcare of veterans who have special
needs. It would allow veterans who have been referred to a special care
center by their VA physician to be reimbursed under the Travel
Beneficiary Program for their travel to the specialized facility. This
applies only to those veterans who cannot receive adequate care at
their VA facility and who have a nonservice connected disability.
This legislation is important to all veterans, but it is especially
significant to those veterans who live in rural States, like my home
State of Wyoming. Rural States are less populated, there is greater
distance between towns and far fewer options for transportation.
Wyoming has miles and miles of miles and miles. Cars are the main mode
of transportation. In urban areas, there are more readily available
health care facilities and more transportation options for accessing
those facilities. There are subways and bus systems and the towns and
cities and VA hospitals are closer together.
I believe that the Government has a duty to compensate our service
men and women for the sacrifices they made defending the freedoms of
this country. With our current recruitment and retention problems in
the military, I think it is our Nation's responsibility to give
veterans the kind of access to healthcare they have earned through
their service to our country. The rising cost of gasoline should not be
the driving factor for a veteran to go untreated at veterans clinics. I
strongly urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 984
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 ``Veterans Road to Health Care
Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENT OF VETERANS BENEFICIARY TRAVEL PROGRAM.
(a) Payments for Certain Additional Medical Care.--(1)
Section 111(b)(1) of title 38, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(G) A veteran whose travel is in connection with
treatment or care for a non-service-connected disability at
non-Department facility if the treatment or care--
``(i) is provided upon the recommendation of medical
personnel of the Department; and
``(ii) is not available at the Department facility at which
such recommendation is made.''.
(2) The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall take effect
on October 1, 2001, and shall apply with respect to fiscal
years after fiscal year 2001.
(b) Calculation of Expenses of Travel.--(1) Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, in calculating expenses of travel
for purposes of the Veterans Beneficiary Travel Program, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall utilize the current
mileage reimbursement rates for the use on official business
of privately owned vehicles prescribed by the Administrator
of General Services under section 5707(b) of title 5, United
States Code.
(2) In this subsection, the term ``Veterans Beneficiary
Travel Program'' means the program of payment or
reimbursement for necessary expenses of travel of veterans
and their beneficiaries prescribed under sections 111 and
1728 of title 38, United States Code, and under any other
provisions of law administered by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs for payment or reimbursement for such expenses of
travel.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Smith
of New Hampshire, Mr. Allard, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Specter):
S. 986. A bill to allow media coverage of court proceedings; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Sunshine
in
[[Page S5837]]
the Courtroom Act.'' This bill will give federal judges the discretion
to allow for the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting and
televising of federal court proceedings. The Sunshine in the Courtroom
Act will help the public become better informed about the judicial
process. Moreover, this bill will help produce a healthier judiciary.
Increased public scrutiny will bring about greater accountability and
help judges to do a better job. The sun needs to shine in on the
federal courts.
Allowing cameras in the federal courtrooms is consistent with our
Founding Fathers' intent that trials be held in front of as many people
as choose to attend. I believe that the First Amendment requires that
court proceedings be open to the public and, by extension, the news
media. The Constitution and Supreme Court both support the fundamental
principles and aims of this bill. The Supreme Court has said, ``what
transpires in the courtroom is public property.'' Clearly, the American
values of openness and education are served by using electronic media
in federal courtrooms.
There are many benefits and no substantial detrimental effects to
allowing greater public access to the inner workings of our federal
courts. Fifteen states conducted studies aimed specifically at the
educational benefits derived from camera access to courtrooms. They all
determined that camera coverage contributed to greater public
understanding of the judicial system.
Moreover, the widespread use in state court proceedings show that
still and video cameras can be used without any problems, and that
procedural discipline is preserved. According to the National Center
for State Courts, forty-eight states allow modern audio-visual coverage
of court proceedings under a variety of rules and conditions. My own
State of Iowa has operated successfully in this open manner for 20
years. Further, at the federal level, the Federal Judicial Center
conducted a pilot program in 1994 which studied the effect of cameras
in a select number of federal courts. That study found ``small or no
effects of camera presence on participants in the proceeding, courtroom
decorum, or the administration of justice.''
I would like to note that even the Supreme Court has recognized that
there is a serious public interest in the open airing of important
court cases. At the urging of Senator Schumer and myself, Chief Justice
Rehnquist allowed the delayed audio broadcasting of the oral arguments
before the Supreme Court in the 2000 presidential election dispute. The
Supreme Court's response to our request was an historic, major step in
the right direction. Since then, other courts have followed suit, such
as the live audio broadcast of oral arguments before the D.C. Circuit
in the Microsoft antitrust case and the televising of appellate
proceedings before the Ninth Circuit in the Napster copyright case. The
public wants to see what is happening in these important judicial
proceedings, and the benefits are significant in terms of public
knowledge and discussion.
We've introduced the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act with a well-
founded confidence based on the experience of the states as well as
state and federal studies. However, in order to be certain of the
safety and integrity of our judicial system, we have included a 3-year
sunset provision allowing a reasonable amount of time to determine how
the process is working before making the provisions of the bill
permanent.
It is also important to note that the bill simply gives judges the
discretion to use cameras in the courtroom. It does not require judges
to have cameras in their courtroom if they do not want them. The bill
also protects the anonymity of non-party witnesses by giving them the
right to have their voices and images obscured during testimony.
So, the bill does not require cameras, but allows judges to exercise
their discretion to permit cameras in appropriate cases. The bill
protects witnesses and does not compromise safety. The bill preserves
the integrity of the judicial system. The bill is based on the
experience of the states and the federal courts. And the bill's net
result will be greater openness and accountability of the nation's
federal courts. The best way to maintain confidence in our judicial
system, where the federal judiciary holds tremendous power, is to let
the sun shine in by opening up the federal courtrooms to public view
through broadcasting. And allowing cameras in the courtroom will bring
the judiciary into the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 986
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Presiding judge.--The term ``presiding judge'' means
the judge presiding over the court proceeding concerned. In
proceedings in which more than 1 judge participates, the
presiding judge shall be the senior active judge so
participating or, in the case of a circuit court of appeals,
the senior active circuit judge so participating, except
that--
(A) in en banc sittings of any United States circuit court
of appeals, the presiding judge shall be the chief judge of
the circuit whenever the chief judge participates; and
(B) in en banc sittings of the Supreme Court of the United
States, the presiding judge shall be the Chief Justice
whenever the Chief Justice participates.
(2) Appellate court of the united states.--The term
``appellate court of the United States'' means any United
States circuit court of appeals and the Supreme Court of the
United States.
SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF PRESIDING JUDGE TO ALLOW MEDIA COVERAGE
OF COURT PROCEEDINGS.
(a) Authority of Appellate Courts.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the presiding judge of an appellate
court of the United States may, in the discretion of that
judge, permit the photographing, electronic recording,
broadcasting, or televising to the public of court
proceedings over which that judge presides.
(b) Authority of District Courts.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, any presiding judge of a district court of the United
States may, in the discretion of that judge, permit the
photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or
televising to the public of court proceedings over which that
judge presides.
(2) Obscuring of witnesses.--
(A) In general.--Upon the request of any witness in a trial
proceeding other than a party, the court shall order the face
and voice of the witness to be disguised or otherwise
obscured in such manner as to render the witness
unrecognizable to the broadcast audience of the trial
proceeding.
(B) Notification to witnesses.--The presiding judge in a
trial proceeding shall inform each witness who is not a party
that the witness has the right to request that the image and
voice of that witness be obscured during the witness'
testimony.
(c) Advisory Guidelines.--The Judicial Conference of the
United States may promulgate advisory guidelines to which a
presiding judge, in the discretion of that judge, may refer
in making decisions with respect to the management and
administration of photographing, recording, broadcasting, or
televising described under subsections (a) and (b).
SEC. 3. SUNSET.
The authority under section 2(b) shall terminate 3 years
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am proud to once again be an original
cosponsor of the Grassley-Schumer bill on cameras in the courtroom. I
strongly support allowing cameras in federal courtrooms for a simple
reason. Trials and court hearings are public proceedings. They are paid
for by the taxpayers. Except in the most rare and unusual
circumstances, the public has a right to see what happens in those
proceedings. We have a long tradition of press access to trials, but in
this day and age, it is no longer sufficient to be able to read in the
morning paper what happened in a trial the day before. The public wants
to see for itself what goes on in our courts of law, and I think it has
a right to do so.
Experience in the state courts--and the vast majority of states now
allow trials to be televised--has shown that it is possible to permit
the public to see trials on television without compromising the rights
of a defendant to a fair trial or the safety or privacy interests of
witnesses or jurors. Concerns about cameras interfering with the fair
administration of justice in this country I believe are overstated.
Let me note also that I believe the arguments against allowing
cameras in the courtroom are the least persuasive in the case of
appellate proceedings, including the Supreme Court. I had the
[[Page S5838]]
opportunity to watch the oral argument at the Supreme Court late in
1999 in an important case dealing with campaign finance reform. It was
a fascinating experience, and one that I wish all Americans could have.
Of course, the entire country was able to hear audio feeds of the two
oral arguments in Bush v. Gore only hours after those arguments were
completed. Hearing those arguments directly was an important and
positive public educational experience. Seeing the arguments live would
have been even better. I do not believe that a discreet camera in that
courtroom would have changed the argument one iota.
There is no question in my mind that the highly trained and
prestigious judges and lawyers who sit on and argue before our nation's
federal appellate courts would continue to conduct themselves with
dignity and professionalism if cameras were recording their work. These
proceedings are where law is made in this country. The public will
benefit greatly from being able to watch federal judges and advocates
in action at oral argument.
The bill that my friends from New York and Iowa are introducing today
is a responsible and measured bill. It gives discretion to individual
federal judges to allow cameras in their courtrooms. At the same time,
it assures that witnesses will be able to request that their identities
not be revealed in televised proceedings. This bill gives deference to
the experience and judgment of federal judges who remain in charge of
their own courtrooms. That is the right approach.
My state of Wisconsin has a long and proud tradition of open
government, and it has served us well. Coming from that tradition, my
approach is to look with skepticism on any remnant of secrecy that
lingers in our governmental processes at the federal level. When the
workings of government are transparent, the people understand it better
and can more thoroughly and constructively participate in it. And they
can more easily hold their elected leaders and other public officials
accountable. I believe this principle can and should be applied to the
judicial as well as the legislative and executive branches of
government, while still respecting the unique role of the unelected
federal judiciary.
Cameras in the courtroom is an idea whose time came some time ago. It
is high time we brought it to the federal courts. I am proud to support
the Grassley-Schumer bill, and I hope we can enact it this year.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Grassley in
introducing this legislation to permit federal trials and appellate
proceedings to be televised, at the discretion of the presiding judge.
Former Chief Justice Warren Burger once said of the U.S. Supreme
Court, ``A court which is final and unreviewable needs more careful
scrutiny than any other. Unreviewable power is the most likely to
indulge itself and the least likely to engage in dispassionate self-
analysis . . . In a country like ours, no public institution, or the
people who operate it, can be above public debate.''
I believe that these words are applicable to the entire federal
judiciary. As such, I strongly support giving federal judges discretion
to televise the proceedings over which they preside. When the people of
this nation watch their government in action, they come to understand
how our governing institutions work and equip themselves to hold those
institutions accountable for their deeds. If there are flaws in our
governing institutions--including our courts--we hide them only at our
peril.
The federal courts are lagging behind the state courts on the issue
of televising court proceedings. Indeed, 47 out of the 50 states allow
cameras in their courtrooms in at least some cases. Moreover, a two-
and-a-half year pilot program in which cameras were routinely permitted
in six federal district courts and two courts of appeals revealed near
universal support for cameras in the courtroom.
Our bill would simply afford federal trial and appellate judges
discretion to permit cameras in their courtrooms. It would not require
them to do so. Furthermore, to protect the privacy of non-party
witnesses, the legislation would give such witnesses the right to have
their voices and images obscured during their testimony.
I eagerly anticipate Senate passage and the day when openness is the
norm in our federal courtrooms, not the exception.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 988. A bill to provide that countries receiving foreign assistance
be conducive to United States business; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the International
Anti-Corruption Act of 2001. This legislation addresses the growing
problem of official and unofficial corruption abroad. This bill is
based on S. 1514, which I introduced in the 106th Congress.
Endemic corruption around the world negatively impacts both the
United States and the citizens of countries where corruption is
tolerated. Overseas corruption directly hurts U.S. businesses as they
endeavor to expand internationally. U.S. workers are affected when
corruption closes doors to our exports. In addition, the honest and
hard working citizens of countries stricken with corruption suffer as
they are compelled to pay bribes to officials and other people in
positions of power just to get the permits and licenses they need to
get things done. The trade barrier created by corruption also limits
the purchasing choices available to these people. Finally, many leading
U.S. companies that are eager to invest and build factories overseas to
produce consumer goods for consumption in those countries, often wisely
choose not to do so because they are not willing to deal with the
corruption they would encounter. Overall, honest and hard working
people living all around the world suffer as productive output is
unjustly harmed.
As the Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in
Europe, known as the Helsinki Commission, I am working to address the
problem of corruption. In the 106th Congress, I chaired a Commission
hearing that focused on the issues of bribery and corruption in the
region of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, an
area stretching from Vancouver to Vladivostok. During this hearing, the
Commission heard that, in economic terms, rampant corruption and
organized crime in this vast region has cost U.S. businesses billions
of dollars in lost contracts with direct implications for our economy.
In addition, two years ago while attending the annual session of the
OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in St. Petersburg, Russia, I had an
opportunity to sit down with U.S. business representatives and learned,
first-hand, about the many obstacles they face.
Ironically, in some of the biggest recipients of U.S. foreign
assistance--countries like Russia and Ukraine--the climate is either
not conducive or outright hostile to American business.
The time has come to stop providing aid as usual to those countries
which line up to receive our assistance, only to turn around and fleece
U.S. businesses conducting legitimate operations in these countries.
For this reason, I am introducing the International Anti-Corruption Act
of 2001 to require the State Department to submit a report and the
President to certify by March 1 of each year that countries which are
receiving U.S. foreign aid are, in fact, conducive to American
businesses and investors. If a country is found to be hostile to
American businesses, aid from the United States would be cut off. The
certification would be specifically based on whether a country is
making progress in, and is committed to, economic reform aimed at
eliminating corruption.
In fact, monitoring and measuring corruption, and the corresponding
overall economic freedom, is nothing new. The Heritage Foundation
regularly produces a comprehensive report entitled the ``Index of
Economic Freedom.'' This year's 2001 report ranks 155 countries on the
basis of 10 criteria, including ``government intervention, foreign
investment and black market.'' While corruption is not identified
individually in this report, you can bet there is a strong negative
correlation between overall economic freedom and corruption. The more
economic freedom you have, the less corruption you will have. It should
be no surprise that the countries with the lowest levels of economic
freedom are the very same countries that suffer from economic
stagnation year after year. We owe it
[[Page S5839]]
to the good people trapped in corrupt political systems to do what we
can to help root out and get rid of this corruption.
Under this bill, if the President certifies that a country's business
climate is not conducive for U.S. businesses, that country will, in
effect, be put on probation. The country would continue to receive U.S.
foreign aid through that end of the fiscal year, but aid would be cut
off on the first day of the next fiscal year unless the President
certifies the country is making significant progress in implementing
the specified economic indicators and is committed to recognizing the
involvement of U.S. business.
My bill also includes the customary waiver authority where the
national interests of the United States are at stake. For countries
certified as hostile to or not conducive for U.S. business, aid can
continue if the President determines it is in the national security
interest of the United States. However, the determination expires after
six months unless the President determines its continuation is
important to our national security interest.
I also included a provision which would allow aid to continue to meet
urgent humanitarian needs, including food, medicine, disaster and
refugee relief, to support democratic political reform and rule of law
activities, and to create private sector and non-governmental
organizations that are independent of government control, or to develop
a free market economic system.
Instead of jumping on the bandwagon to pump millions of additional
American tax dollars into countries which are hostile to U.S.
businesses and investors, we should be working to root out the kinds of
bribery and corruption that have an overall chilling effect on much
needed foreign investment. Left unchecked, such corruption will
continue to undermine fledgling democracies worldwide and further
impede moves toward a genuine free market economy. I believe the
legislation I am introducing today is a critical step this direction,
and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 988
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 ``International Anti-
Corruption Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE.
(a) Report and Certification.--
(1) In general.--Not later than March 1 of each year, the
President shall submit to the appropriate committees a
certification described in paragraph (2) and a report for
each country that received foreign assistance under part I of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 during the fiscal year.
The report shall describe the extent to which each such
country is making progress with respect to the following
economic indicators:
(A) Implementation of comprehensive economic reform, based
on market principles, private ownership, equitable treatment
of foreign private investment, adoption of a legal and policy
framework necessary for such reform, protection of
intellectual property rights, and respect for contracts.
(B) Elimination of corrupt trade practices by private
persons and government officials.
(C) Moving toward integration into the world economy.
(2) Certification.--The certification described in this
paragraph means a certification as to whether, based on the
economic indicators described in subparagraphs (A) through
(C) of paragraph (1), each country is--
(A) conducive to United States business;
(B) not conducive to United States business; or
(C) hostile to United States business.
(b) Limitations on Assistance.--
(1) Countries hostile to united states business.--
(A) General limitation.--Beginning on the date the
certification described in subsection (a) is submitted--
(i) none of the funds made available for assistance under
part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (including
unobligated balances of prior appropriations) may be made
available for the government of a country that is certified
as hostile to United States business pursuant to such
subsection (a); and
(ii) the Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the
United States Executive Director of each multilateral
development bank to vote against any loan or other
utilization of the funds of such institution to or by any
country with respect to which a certification described in
clause (i) has been made.
(B) Duration of limitations.--Except as provided in
subsection (c), the limitations described in clauses (i) and
(ii) of subparagraph (A) shall apply with respect to a
country that is certified as hostile to United States
business pursuant to subsection (a) until the President
certifies to the appropriate committees that the country is
making significant progress in implementing the economic
indicators described in subsection (a)(1) and is no longer
hostile to United States business.
(2) Countries not conducive to united states business.--
(A) Probationary period.--A country that is certified as
not conducive to United States business pursuant to
subsection (a), shall be considered to be on probation
beginning on the date of such certification.
(B) Required improvement.--Unless the President certifies
to the appropriate committees that the country is making
significant progress in implementing the economic indicators
described in subsection (a) and is committed to being
conducive to United States business, beginning on the first
day of the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which a
country is certified as not conducive to United States
business pursuant to subsection (a)(2)--
(i) none of the funds made available for assistance under
part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (including
unobligated balances of prior appropriations) may be made
available for the government of such country; and
(ii) the Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the
United States Executive Director of each multilateral
development bank to vote against any loan or other
utilization of the funds of such institution to or by any
country with respect to which a certification described in
subparagraph (A) has been made.
(C) Duration of limitations.--Except as provided in
subsection (c), the limitations described in clauses (i) and
(ii) of subparagraph (B) shall apply with respect to a
country that is certified as not conducive to United States
business pursuant to subsection (a) until the President
certifies to the appropriate committees that the country is
making significant progress in implementing the economic
indicators described in subsection (a)(1) and is conducive to
United States business.
(c) Exceptions.--
(1) National security interest.--Subsection (b) shall not
apply with respect to a country described in subsection (b)
(1) or (2) if the President determines with respect to such
country that making such funds available is important to the
national security interest of the United States. Any such
determination shall cease to be effective 6 months after
being made unless the President determines that its
continuation is important to the national security interest
of the United States.
(2) Other exceptions.--Subsection (b) shall not apply with
respect to--
(A) assistance to meet urgent humanitarian needs (including
providing food, medicine, disaster, and refugee relief);
(B) democratic political reform and rule of law activities;
(C) the creation of private sector and nongovernmental
organizations that are independent of government control; and
(D) the development of a free market economic system.
SEC. 3. TOLL-FREE NUMBER.
The Secretary of Commerce shall make available a toll-free
telephone number for reporting by members of the public and
United States businesses on the progress that countries
receiving foreign assistance are making in implementing the
economic indicators described in section 2(a)(1). The
information obtained from the toll-free telephone reporting
shall be included in the report required by section 2(a).
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Appropriate committees.--The term ``appropriate
committees'' means the Committee on International Relations
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate.
(2) Multilateral development bank.--The term ``multilateral
development bank'' means the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development, the International Development
Association, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development.
____________________