[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 145 (Thursday, September 27, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12289-S12292]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Schumer, 
        Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Martinez):
  S. 2106. A bill to provide nationwide subpoena authority for actions 
brought under the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to the offer the Procedural 
Fairness for September 11 Victims Act, a simple bill that ensures 
procedural fairness for the parties to litigation arising out of the 
terrible events of September 11, 2001.
  When we passed the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund of 2001, we 
established a Federal cause of action in the U.S. District Court for 
the Southern District of New York as the exclusive remedy for damages 
arising out of the September 11 attacks. The Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure effectively limit service of a subpoena by a party to an 
action under the Victims Compensation Fund to within 100 miles of the 
Southern District of New York. Litigating a Federal cause of action 
under the Victims Compensation Fund is likely to involve the testimony 
and the production of documents by a substantial number of witnesses 
who may not reside within 100 miles of the

[[Page S12290]]

Southern District of New York. Neither the Victims Compensation fund 
statute nor the Federal rules, however, currently provide an effective 
means for securing such testimony or documents.
  The Procedural Fairness for September 11 Victims Act addresses this 
oversight by allowing parties to Victims Compensation Fund actions to 
subpoena witnesses and documents from anywhere in the U.S. The court 
retains its authority to quash or modify any such subpoena if it is 
unduly burdensome to the witness subpoenaed.
  Justice requires that the parties to cases arising under the Victims 
Compensation Fund have access to all the testimony and documents 
relevant to their claims, regardless of where in the U.S. the witnesses 
or documents are located. By granting the parties to such cases 
nationwide subpoena authority, administered by the Federal court, this 
act ensures that they do. As the bipartisan cosponsorship of the act 
attests, ensuring procedural fairness in these cases bearing on the 
terrible attacks of September 11 is not a Democratic issue or 
Republican issue, it is an American issue. I strongly encourages my 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me and the other 
cosponsors of this important bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2106

       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 ``Procedural Fairness for 
     September 11 Victims Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The September 11th Victims Compensation Fund of 2001 
     (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) establishes a Federal cause of action 
     in the United States District Court for the Southern District 
     of New York as the exclusive remedy for damages arising out 
     of the hijacking and subsequent crash of American Airlines 
     flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines flights 93 and 175, on 
     September 11, 2001.
       (2) Rules 45(b)(2) and 45(c)(3)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules 
     of Civil Procedure effectively limit service of a subpoena to 
     any place within, or within 100 miles of, the district of the 
     court by which it is issued, unless a statute of the United 
     States expressly provides that the court, upon proper 
     application and cause shown, may authorize the service of a 
     subpoena at any other place.
       (3) Litigating a Federal cause of action under the 
     September 11 Victims Compensation Fund of 2001 is likely to 
     involve the testimony and the production of other documents 
     and tangible things by a substantial number of witnesses, 
     many of whom may not reside, be employed, or regularly 
     transact business in, or within 100 miles of, the Southern 
     District of New York.

     SEC. 3. NATIONWIDE SUBPOENAS.

       Section 408(b) of the September 11 Victims Compensation 
     Fund of 2001 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(4) Nationwide subpoenas.--
       ``(A) In general.--A subpoena requiring the attendance of a 
     witness at trial or a hearing conducted under this section 
     may be served at any place in the United States.
       ``(B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection is 
     intended to diminish the authority of a court to quash or 
     modify a subpoena for the reasons provided in clause (i), 
     (iii), or (iv) of subparagraph (A) or subparagraph (B) of 
     rule 45(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 2109. A bill to designate certain Federal lands in Riverside 
County, California, as wilderness, to designate certain river segments 
in Riverside County as a wild, scenic, or recreational river, to adjust 
the boundary of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National 
Monument, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the 
California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act. This bipartisan 
legislation will protect nearly 200,000 acres of pristine and 
ecologically sensitive lands in Riverside County as Wilderness or 
Potential Wilderness, the highest level of protection and conservation 
for Federal public lands in American law.
  Over the past year, I worked with my colleague, Representative Mary 
Bono, who represents the areas protected in this bill. Together, we 
worked to reach consensus with local officials, environmentalists, 
businesses, sportsmen, and Indian tribes. The result is this 
bipartisan, bicameral bill.
  Riverside County contains some of California's, indeed, America's, 
most spectacular desert and mountain vistas and landscapes. The 
breathtaking lands protected in this bill also provide habitat for 
threatened bighorn sheep and the desert tortoise, as well as many other 
species such as mule deer, mountain quail, and bald eagles.
  Specifically, the bill protects 150,531 acres of lands as wilderness, 
highest level of protection and conservation for Federal public lands 
in American law. Another 41,100 acres of land would be designated as 
potential wilderness. Once the final inholding claims are settled by 
the National Park Service, these lands will become ``wilderness'' 
without the necessity of an additional act of Congress. In the 
meantime, these lands will be managed by the Park Service as 
``wilderness.''
  The bill also designates 31 miles of river as wild and scenic on four 
California Rivers: North Fork San Jacinto River, Fuller Mill Creek, 
Palm Canyon Creek, and Bautista Creek. These rivers are biologically 
important watersheds in this dry part of my State.
  Many of these lands were included in my statewide wilderness bill, 
the California Wild Heritage Act, which I reintroduced in February.
  The bill has broad, local support including from Riverside County 
supervisors, municipalities, chambers of commerce, environmentalists, 
sportsmen, and businesses. The bill includes important provisions 
clarifying that Federal agencies could use all the tools necessary to 
fight and prevent wildfires. The wilderness boundaries were drawn in 
consultation with local communities and tribes.
  I look forward to working with local interests and all of my 
colleagues to see this important legislation enacted.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 2110. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 427 North Street in Taft, California, as the ``Larry 
S. Pierce Post Office''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
honoring a fallen hero, Army Staff Sergeant Larry S. Pierce.
  This bill would rename a post office in Taft, California after Staff 
Sergeant Pierce.
  Staff Sergeant Pierce moved to Taft, California as a young child and 
attended Taft city schools and Taft Union High School, which my own 
father graduated from in 1922.
  Staff Sergeant Pierce would have graduated with the Taft Union High 
School class of 1959, but he chose to join the U.S. Army in 1958.
  On September 20, 1965, Staff Sergeant Pierce was killed near Ben Cat 
in the Republic of Vietnam. He made the ultimate sacrifice to protect 
his comrades, smothering the blast of an anti-personnel mine with his 
body.
  He was only 24 years old.
  He left behind his wife, Verlin, and three children: Teresa, Kelley, 
and Gregory.
  President Lyndon B. Johnson posthumously awarded Staff Sergeant 
Pierce the Medal of Honor on February 24, 1966. The citation on his 
Medal of Honor reads as follows:

       For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of 
     life above and beyond the call of duty. Sgt. Pierce was 
     serving as squad leader in a reconnaissance platoon when his 
     patrol was ambushed by hostile forces.
       Through his inspiring leadership and personal courage, the 
     squad succeeded in eliminating an enemy machinegun and 
     routing the opposing force. While pursuing the fleeing enemy, 
     the squad came upon a dirt road and, as the main body of his 
     men entered the road, Sgt. Pierce discovered an antipersonnel 
     mine emplaced in the road bed.
       Realizing that the mine could destroy the majority of his 
     squad, Sgt. Pierce saved the lives of his men at the 
     sacrifice of his life by throwing himself directly onto the 
     mine as it exploded. Through his indomitable courage, 
     complete disregard for his safety, and profound concern for 
     his fellow soldiers, he averted loss of life and injury to 
     the members of his squad.
       Sgt. Pierce's extraordinary heroism, at the cost of his 
     life, are in the highest traditions of the U.S. Army and 
     reflect great credit upon himself and the Armed Forces of his 
     country.

  Naming the Taft Post Office in Staff Sergeant Pierce's honor is a 
fitting commemoration and meaningful way for the community to remember 
the

[[Page S12291]]

dedication and sacrifices of the members of our Armed Forces.
  I would like to thank the members of the Taft City Council, who 
passed a resolution on September 4, 2007 to request that Congress 
rename the Taft Post Office the Larry S. Pierce Post Office.
  I sincerely hope that my colleagues will support this resolution to 
honor the service and sacrifice of Staff Sergeant Pierce.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Sanders):
  S. 2111. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 to allow State educational agencies, local educational 
agencies, and schools to increase implementation of early intervention 
services, particularly school-wide positive behavior supports; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
provide teachers an extra tool for the important work they do. This 
legislation will expand an approach that is successfully improving 
student behavior and the climate for learning in thousands of schools 
across the country: Positive Behavior Supports. I am pleased to be 
joined by Senators Durbin and Sanders in introducing the Positive 
Behavior for Effective Schools Act, and I urge other colleagues to join 
us.
  Good school climate supports good teaching. Positive Behavior 
Supports are already being used in my home State of Illinois, where 
there is a network to provide assistance for schools that adopt this 
approach. In these schools, students are taught about positive 
behavior, teachers and administrators are supported in learning 
motivational techniques, and adults set the same high standards for 
student conduct as they do for student achievement. Students are helped 
to see the importance of behaving in a way so that they and their 
classmates can learn. The components necessary to do this on a school-
wide basis include an agreement by the entire staff to define and 
support appropriate student behavior. Although this seems simple, it is 
often more effective than surveillance cameras, zero tolerance or other 
get-tough approaches to school discipline.
  Positive Behavior Supports programs deal with discipline problems 
based on one simple premise: stop problem behavior before it starts. 
The specifics of the program are research-based, backed by both 
experiment and experience. With Positive Behavior Supports, learning 
time increases, and students do better. It makes sense that with fewer 
disruptions, with less time in the principal's office, or out of 
school, students can focus more, and so learn more.
  Positive Behavior Supports are already established in many places. 
Universities and resource centers work with over 6,700 schools in 38 
States. To help teachers teach our children, today I propose that we 
expand this innovative program. The Positive Behavior for Effective 
Schools Act amends ESEA to allow Title I funds to be used for Positive 
Behavior Supports, and creates an office in the Department of Education 
to assist in these efforts. The act provides flexibility for schools 
and districts to use Title I funds, so that schools and teachers can 
choose to receive assistance to improve school climate and thereby 
support teaching and opportunities for students to learn.
  My good friend from Illinois, Congressman Phil Hare, has introduced 
companion legislation in the House, and I urge my colleagues to join 
our effort in the Senate. Let us give our teachers an additional tool 
to support their teaching. Let us give our children the benefit of high 
expectations and supports for good behavior. Let us give our schools 
the opportunity to adopt this approach. Let us help our kids by 
supporting Positive Behavior Supports.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN:
  S. 2115. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
extend for 6 months the eligibility period for the ``Welcome to 
Medicare'' physical examination and to provide for the coverage and 
waiver of cost-sharing for preventive services under the Medicare 
program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare 
Preventive Services Coverage Act of 2007. It has been ten years since 
Congress enacted the first comprehensive package of preventive services 
for Medicare beneficiaries. At the time Medicare was created in 1965, 
it was modeled closely after the indemnity health insurance policies of 
the time. As such, Medicare only covered the treatment of illnesses, 
and it paid for tests only when a symptom was present, but it did not 
cover preventive services. Over the next 3 decades, the medical 
community learned a great deal about the importance of preventive care. 
Although as early as the 1970s, health maintenance organizations had 
begun to cover cancer screenings and other wellness services, 
traditional Medicare had not kept pace.
  The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 changed that. Working across the 
aisle, I introduced legislation that year to provide coverage for 
lifesaving screenings to Medicare beneficiaries. With strong bipartisan 
support, Congress added our language to BBA 1997, ensuring coverage for 
preventive services, including: an annual screening mammography for 
women over age 39; screening pap smear and pelvic examination for 
cervical cancer; prostate cancer screening; colorectal cancer 
screening; bone mass measurement for osteoporosis; and diabetes testing 
supplies and self-management training services.
  Congress expanded this list of benefits in subsequent Medicare 
legislation. Now traditional Medicare also covers cardiovascular 
screenings to help prevent heart attacks and strokes; diabetes 
screenings; flu shots to help prevent influenza, glaucoma screening, 
medical nutrition therapy services, Hepatitis B vaccine, and ultrasound 
screening for aortic aneurysm.
  Medicare also now covers a one-time ``Welcome to Medicare Visit'' 
within the first 6 months of Part B enrollment. This is an initial 
physical examination where beneficiaries can receive education and 
counseling about their medical history and needs, have some preventive 
screenings performed, and get referrals for other services.
  Yes, over the past decade, Medicare has indeed made great strides 
toward helping our seniors get screened for diseases. But we have far 
to go.
  The participation rate for Medicare preventive benefits is low. One 
key obstacle is financial. America's seniors still have the highest 
out-of-pocket costs of any age group. A 2007 Kaiser Family Foundation 
study compared out-of-pocket health care spending among age groups. For 
nonprescription drug expenses, it found that average spending for the 
over-65 population was nearly twice that for under-65 group. It also 
showed that on average, seniors in one-person households are spending 
12.5 percent of their incomes on health care, versus 2.2 percent of 
those under 65. This means that excluding prescription drug costs, 
despite Medicare Part D, seniors will have very high medical bills that 
stretch their fixed incomes. It is no wonder that preventive services 
that require cost-sharing will be delayed or not received at all.

  Over the years, we have also improved the benefits. We have waived 
the deductible for mammograms and colorectal cancer screenings. But 
cost sharing is still an obstacle for many seniors. They still must 
satisfy the deductible before getting reimbursed for the physical exam 
and most other services, and they must pay coinsurance for all other 
services except laboratory tests.
  The bill that I am introducing today will waive the cost sharing for 
all preventive screenings and the Welcome to Medicare physical 
examination. It will also grant the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services the authority to add additional benefits as he or she 
determines to be ``reasonable and necessary for the prevention or early 
detection of an illness or disability.'' These determinations would 
take into account evidence-based recommendations by the U.S. Preventive 
Services Task Force and other organizations. Finally, my bill would 
extend eligibility for the Welcome to Medicare Visit from its current 
time frame of 6 months to 1 year.
  This bill will mean the difference between early screening and 
delayed diagnosis and treatment. It will mean the difference between 
detecting a serious illness and providing hundreds of thousands of 
dollars of services later.

[[Page S12292]]

  Let me explain why. Preventive services such as mammography and 
colonoscopy are important tools in the fight against serious disease. 
The earlier they are detected, the greater the chances of survival. For 
example, when caught in the first stages, the 5-year survival rate for 
breast cancer is 98 percent. But if the cancer has spread, that rate 
declines to 26 percent. Similarly, if colorectal cancer is detected in 
its early states, the survival rate is 90 percent, but only 10 percent 
if found when it is most advanced.
  Our seniors are at particular risk for cancer. The greatest single 
risk factor for colorectal cancer is being over the age of 50, when 
more than 90 percent of cases are diagnosed. In addition to increasing 
survival rates, identifying diseases early reduces Medicare costs. In 
the case of colorectal cancer, Medicare will pay $207 for a screening 
colonoscopy in a medical facility, but if the patient is not diagnosed 
until the disease has metastasized, the cost of care can exceed $60,000 
over the patient's lifetime. Medicare pays $98 for a mammogram, but if 
breast cancer is not detected early, treatment can cost tens of 
thousands of dollars more, depending on when the cancer is found and 
the course of treatment used. One drug used to treat late stage breast 
cancer can cost as much as $40,000 a year. There can be no doubt that 
these services are both life saving and cost saving. But if seniors 
cannot afford the copayments for these services, they may delay getting 
them.
  In addition to cancer, diabetes is another prevalent disease among 
seniors. The statistics associated with diabetes are staggering. Nearly 
20 million Americans are estimated to have diabetes. Approximately half 
know they have diabetes and another half have diabetes but do not know 
it. But once diagnosed, the co-morbidities associated with diabetes can 
be avoided. It is estimated that 90 percent of diabetes-related 
blindness is preventable, 50 percent of kidney disease requiring 
dialysis is preventable, 50 percent of diabetic-related amputations are 
preventable and 50 percent of diabetic-related hospitalizations are 
preventable.
  Diabetes and its complications are not only disabling, but costly to 
Medicare as well. The cost of medical care of people with diabetes is 
about $150 billion a year, according to data from the Department of 
Health and Human Services. In its direct costs, diabetes was the most 
costly of the 39 diseases reported. Despite the fact that 9 percent of 
the Medicare population is diagnosed with diabetes, about 27 percent of 
the Medicare budget is used to treat their diabetes.
  Most of the cost for medical care of people with diabetes is for the 
treatment of the complications, which are largely preventable with 
modern treatment including blood sugar control. Clearly, prevention of 
the complications of diabetes would reduce the costs of diabetes in 
lives and in dollars.
  Numerous studies have found that once diabetes management training is 
provided, populations see a nearly 50 percent reduction in emergency 
room visits. In addition, the number of outpatient visits, doctor 
office visits, and other medical expenses all decline. Diabetes can 
lead to amputations, blindness, heart disease, and stroke, all of which 
can be prevented with training and management.

  This bill also gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the 
authority to add new preventive services based on the recommendations 
of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. As we have seen, it can 
take a very long time for Congress to change health policy in this 
country. In order to add new preventive services to Medicare, it now 
requires legislative action. Under current law, as our researchers 
discover new, more efficient, and more accurate screening methods to 
detect disease, Congress would have to pass new legislation authorizing 
coverage for each one. This provision would enable Medicare to provide 
coverage for new types of screenings based on up-to-date scientific 
evidence.
  The Preventive Services Task Force has a long and distinguished 
record. It dates back to 1984, when the U.S. Public Health Service 
convened a panel of primary and preventive health care specialists to 
develop guidelines for preventive services. From this panel, the U.S. 
Preventive Services Task Force's Guide to Clinical Preventive Services 
was born. While many other respected professional and research 
organizations have issued their own recommendations, the Task Force's 
publication is regarded as the ``gold standard'' reference on 
preventive services. In December of 1995, a new Task Force released an 
updated and expanded second edition of the Guide which includes 
findings on 200 preventive interventions for more than 70 diseases and 
conditions. The Task Force employed a rigorous methodology to review 
the evidence for and against hundreds of preventive services, assessing 
more than 6,000 studies. The Task Force recommended specific screening 
tests, immunizations, or counseling interventions only when strong 
evidence demonstrated the effectiveness of preventive services. My bill 
will give the Secretary the authority to use this gold standard to 
expand Medicare's basic benefit package to include the tests that 
studies have shown to be effective.
  The newest benefit is the Welcome to Medicare Visit, an initial 
physical examination for new beneficiaries. We know that large numbers 
of people in the 55 to 64 age group lack health insurance, so it is 
particularly important for them to get a baseline examination and 
screenings for diseases that affect elderly people But as of July 2006, 
only 2 percent of all new beneficiaries, or about 8,000 people, have 
received this physical exam. Uptake has been slow for a number of 
reasons. You must get the exam within 6 months of enrolling in Medicare 
Part B. But many seniors don't learn about the benefit until they have 
been enrolled for a while, and even then it can take several months to 
schedule a physical examination with a doctor. So the vast majority of 
our seniors are missing out on this important benefit. My bill extends 
eligibility from 6 months after enrolling in Part B to 1 year.
  Finally, I want to address the matter of cost, and that is the 
appropriate thing to do under our budget scoring principles. The 
elimination of cost sharing for preventive services has been scored by 
the Congressional Budget Office at $1.1 billion over 5 years. Based on 
CBO estimates from the 2003 Medicare law, extending the eligibility 
period for the Welcome to Medicare Visit from six months to one year 
will cost approximately $1.2 billion over years. But I believe that the 
members of this body also understand that, although dynamic scoring is 
not used by CBO, preventive health care will save money. If we detect 
diseases earlier, the overall cost to our society will be less. Our 
seniors will save out of pocket costs and all taxpayers will save 
money.
  This bill is supported by the American Cancer Society's Cancer Action 
Network, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
Employees, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, the Colorectal Cancer 
Coalition, C3, and the Society of Vascular Surgeons. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in this effort to get improve seniors' access to 
lifesaving preventive services.

                          ____________________