[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 This approach is outdated.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.

                          ____________________