Quality Cheese Act of 2005

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Sunshine in 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 have 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 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, all 50 states allow for some 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 over 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, the Supreme Court has allowed for audio broadcasting in other landmark cases. 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 camera 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.

Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce the Quality Cheese Act of 2005. This legislation will protect the consumer, save taxpayer dollars and provide support to America's dairy farmers, who have taken a beating in the marketplace in recent years.

When Wisconsin consumers have the choice, they will choose natural Wisconsin cheese. But some in the food industry have pushed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to change current law, which would leave consumers not knowing whether cheese is really all natural or not.

If the Federal Government creates a loophole for imitation cheese ingredients to be used in U.S. cheese vats, some cheese labels saying ``domestic'' and ``natural'' will no longer be truly accurate.

If USDA and FDA allow a change in Federal rules, imitation milk proteins known as milk protein concentrate, casein, or dry ultra filtered milk could be used to make cheese in place of the wholesome natural milk produced by cows in Wisconsin or other parts of the U.S.

I was deeply concerned by these efforts to change America's natural cheese standard. This effort to allow milk protein concentrate and casein into natural cheese products flies in the face of logic and could create a loophole that could allow unlimited amounts of substandard imported milk proteins to enter U.S. cheese vats.

While the industry proposal was withdrawn, my legislation would permanently prevent a similar back-door attempt to allow imitation milk as a cheese ingredient and ensure that consumers could be confident that they were buying natural cheese when they saw the natural label.

Over the past decade, cheese consumption has risen at a strong pace due in part to promotional and marketing efforts and investments by dairy farmers across the country. Year after year, per capita cheese consumption has risen at a steady rate.

These proposals to change our natural cheese standards, however, could decrease consumption of natural cheese by raising concerns about the origin of casein and milk protein concentrate. Use of such products could significantly tarnish the wholesome reputation of natural cheese in the eyes of the consumer and have unknown effects on quality and flavor.

This change could seriously compromise decades of work by America's dairy farmers to build up domestic cheese consumption levels. It is simply not fair to America's farmers or to consumers. After all, consumers have a right to know if the cheese that they buy is unnatural. And by allowing milk protein concentrate milk into supposedly natural cheese, we are denying consumers the entire picture.

Allowing MPCs or dry ultra-filtered milk into natural cheeses would also harm dairy producers throughout the United States. Some estimate that the annual effect of the change on the dairy farm sector of the economy could be more than $100 million.

The proposed change to our natural cheese standard would also harm the American taxpayer. If we allow MPCs to be used in cheese, we will effectively permit unrestricted importation of these ingredients into the United States. Because there are no tariffs and quotas on these ingredients, these heavily subsidized products would quickly displace natural domestic dairy ingredients.

These unnatural domestic dairy products would enter our domestic cheese market and could depress dairy prices paid to American dairy producers. Low dairy prices, in turn, could result in increased costs to the dairy price support program as the federal government is forced to buy domestic milk products when they are displaced in the market by cheap imports. So, at the same time that U.S. dairy farmers would receive lower prices, the U.S. taxpayer would pay more for the dairy price support program.

This change does not benefit the dairy farmer, consumer or taxpayer. Who then is it good for?

It would benefit only the subsidized foreign MPC producers out to make a fast buck by exploiting a system put in place to support our dairy farmers.

This legislation addresses the concerns of farmers, consumers and taxpayers by prohibiting dry ultra-filtered milk, casein, and MPCs from being included in America's natural cheese standard.

Congress must shut the door on any backdoor efforts to undermine America's dairy farmers. I urge my colleagues to pass my legislation and prevent a loophole that would allow changes that hurt the consumer, taxpayer, and dairy farmer.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce the Quality Cheese Act of 2005. This legislation will protect the consumer, save taxpayer dollars and provide support to America's dairy farmers, who have taken a beating in the marketplace in recent years.

When Wisconsin consumers have the choice, they will choose natural Wisconsin cheese. But some in the food industry have pushed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to change current law, which would leave consumers not knowing whether cheese is really all natural or not.

If the Federal Government creates a loophole for imitation cheese ingredients to be used in U.S. cheese vats, some cheese labels saying ``domestic'' and ``natural'' will no longer be truly accurate.

If USDA and FDA allow a change in Federal rules, imitation milk proteins known as milk protein concentrate, casein, or dry ultra filtered milk could be used to make cheese in place of the wholesome natural milk produced by cows in Wisconsin or other parts of the U.S.

I was deeply concerned by these efforts to change America's natural cheese standard. This effort to allow milk protein concentrate and casein into natural cheese products flies in the face of logic and could create a loophole that could allow unlimited amounts of substandard imported milk proteins to enter U.S. cheese vats.

While the industry proposal was withdrawn, my legislation would permanently prevent a similar back-door attempt to allow imitation milk as a cheese ingredient and ensure that consumers could be confident that they were buying natural cheese when they saw the natural label.

Over the past decade, cheese consumption has risen at a strong pace due in part to promotional and marketing efforts and investments by dairy farmers across the country. Year after year, per capita cheese consumption has risen at a steady rate.

These proposals to change our natural cheese standards, however, could decrease consumption of natural cheese by raising concerns about the origin of casein and milk protein concentrate. Use of such products could significantly tarnish the wholesome reputation of natural cheese in the eyes of the consumer and have unknown effects on quality and flavor.

This change could seriously compromise decades of work by America's dairy farmers to build up domestic cheese consumption levels. It is simply not fair to America's farmers or to consumers. After all, consumers have a right to know if the cheese that they buy is unnatural. And by allowing milk protein concentrate milk into supposedly natural cheese, we are denying consumers the entire picture.

Allowing MPCs or dry ultra-filtered milk into natural cheeses would also harm dairy producers throughout the United States. Some estimate that the annual effect of the change on the dairy farm sector of the economy could be more than $100 million.

The proposed change to our natural cheese standard would also harm the American taxpayer. If we allow MPCs to be used in cheese, we will effectively permit unrestricted importation of these ingredients into the United States. Because there are no tariffs and quotas on these ingredients, these heavily subsidized products would quickly displace natural domestic dairy ingredients.

These unnatural domestic dairy products would enter our domestic cheese market and could depress dairy prices paid to American dairy producers. Low dairy prices, in turn, could result in increased costs to the dairy price support program as the federal government is forced to buy domestic milk products when they are displaced in the market by cheap imports. So, at the same time that U.S. dairy farmers would receive lower prices, the U.S. taxpayer would pay more for the dairy price support program.

This change does not benefit the dairy farmer, consumer or taxpayer. Who then is it good for?

It would benefit only the subsidized foreign MPC producers out to make a fast buck by exploiting a system put in place to support our dairy farmers.

This legislation addresses the concerns of farmers, consumers and taxpayers by prohibiting dry ultra-filtered milk, casein, and MPCs from being included in America's natural cheese standard.

Congress must shut the door on any backdoor efforts to undermine America's dairy farmers. I urge my colleagues to pass my legislation and prevent a loophole that would allow changes that hurt the consumer, taxpayer, and dairy farmer.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Senior Elder Care Relief and Empowerment Act--the SECURE Act.

The SECURE Act would provide eligible taxpayers with a nonrefundable tax credit equal to 50 percent of qualified expenses incurred on behalf of senior citizens above a $1,000 spending floor.

The Senate Special Committee on Aging, which I chaired in the 108th Congress and of which I remain a member, held several hearings over the last couple years on different facets of the growing long-term care crisis in this country. A major concern of mine is that the Federal long-term care policy mix may not have the right incentives--especially when it comes to the tough choices faced by families who want to care for their frail and aging relatives.

More and more families are facing the stress and financial difficulties that come with caring for their aging parents.

It is critical to note that families, not government, provide 80 percent of long-term care for older persons in the United States. This is an enormous strength of our long-term care system. The U.S. Administration on Aging reports that about 22 million people serve as informal caregivers for seniors with at least one limitation on their activities of daily living.

These caregivers often face extreme stress and financial burden-- especially those we call the sandwich generation. The sandwich generation refers to those sandwiched between caring for their aging parents and caring for their own children.

It is difficult for families to balance caring for children and saving or paying for college, while at the same time struggling with financing care for frail and aging parents.

Many caregivers forgo job promotions, reduce their hours on the job, cut back to part-time, or take extended leaves of absence to stay at home and care for their aging family members. Direct expenses include the cost of prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, home modifications, and physical therapy.

Caregivers also endure emotional and personal health strains.

The average age of a caregiver is 57, with one-third over age 65 themselves. Caregivers suffer from higher rates of depression or anxiety. These conditions often lead to higher risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or other chronic conditions.

For many families, the nursing home is the only solution for providing long-term care, and that can be a good choice. For other families, keeping aging and vulnerable relatives in their own home or in the caregiver's home makes sense.

Family caregiving for aging and vulnerable relatives requires a flexible national response to ensure seniors and their families have the most appropriate high quality choices.

That is why I am introducing the SECURE Act. This legislation would help reduce the financial strain and related emotional and medical stress faced by family caregivers, as they care for their frail and aging parents, by providing much-needed tax relief for qualified expenses.

The SECURE Act would increase the eldercare choices available to families and has the potential to reduce the number of seniors forced to spend down their nest-egg in order to qualify for Medicaid services.

Qualified expenses include costs that are not reimbursable--those not covered by Medicare or other insurance--for physical assistance with essential daily activities to prevent injury; long-term care expenses, including normal household services; architectural expenses necessary to modify the senior's residence; respite care; adult daycare; assisted living services that are non-housing related expenses; independent living; home care; and home health care.

Seniors with long-term care needs also would be able to use the tax credit on their own behalf.

The SECURE Act should not preclude seniors or those near retirement from purchasing long-term care insurance. The Act would provide tax relief for high-risk seniors who cannot qualify for long-term care insurance policies.

I invite my colleagues to cosponsor this compassionate legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a brief description be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help address the devastating health workforce shortages we will be facing in this country. Health care expenditures represent 15.3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. These expenditures are expected to rise to l8.7 percent by 2014. As health care needs grow, society faces increasing challenges related to the health care workforce. By 2020, 29 percent nursing positions are projected to be vacant. From 2000-2010, an additional 1.2 million aides will be needed to cover projected growth in long-term care positions and replacement of departing workers. An aging health care workforce means that by 2008, almost half of the workforce will be 45 years of age and older. Currently, U.S. providers rely on international medical graduate and foreign trained nurses to fill some critical roles, while continuing to face a shortage of providers in health professional shortage areas. Health workforce challenges need to analyzed, understood, and alleviated, to ensure better access and better quality of care.

The Health Workforce Advisory Commission Act of 2005 will help to create a national vision to serve as a roadmap for investing in the health workforce. Through analysis and recommendation, an 18 member commission of national workforce and health experts will provide insight regarding the solutions necessary to enhance our health workforce. Key areas for commission focus will include forecasting of supply and distribution of physicians, nurses and other health professionals, studying the national and global impact of workforce policies related to the utilization of internationally trained practitioners, and developing appropriate measures to ensure diversity of the U.S. health workforce. The commission will make recommendations to Congress on health workforce policy.

It is vital that the U.S. take new measures to ensure that workforce challenges are met and overcome for current and future generations. By undertaking and overcoming the challenges before us, we will enhance both the quality of healthcare and the quality of life, provide access nationwide, and build a health care system that is consistent with our current and future health and economic needs. The Health Workforce Advisory Commission can serve a new and integral role for our health care system and our society, now and in the future.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.