[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 49 (Wednesday, April 26, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2940-S2945]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Levin):
S. 2463. A bill to institute a moratorium on the imposition of the
death penalty at the Federal and State level until a National
Commission on the Death Penalty studies its use and policies ensuring
justice, fairness, and due process are implemented; to the Commission
on the Judiciary.
national death penalty moratorium act of 2000
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National
Death Penalty Moratorium Act of 2000. This bill would place an
immediate pause on executions in the United States while a national,
blue ribbon commission reviews the administration of the death penalty.
Before one more execution is carried out, jurisdictions that impose the
death penalty have an obligation to ensure that the sentence of death
will be imposed with justice, fairness, and due process. I am pleased
that my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, has
joined me as a cosponsor of this important initiative.
If a particular aircraft crashed one out of every eight flights,
Congress would act immediately to ground it. But as New York public
defender Kevin Doyle says in the book, Actual Innocence, that is about
what is happening now with the death penalty in this country. Since the
reinstatement of the modern death penalty, 87 people have been freed
from death row because they were later proven innocent. That is a
demonstrated error rate of 1 innocent person for every 7 persons
executed. When the consequences are life and death, we need to demand
the same standard for our system of justice as we would for our
airlines.
Both supporters and opponents of the death penalty should be
concerned about the flaws in the system by which we impose sentences of
death. More than 3,600 inmates sit on State and Federal death rows
around the country, while it becomes increasingly clear that innocent
people are being put to death.
A 1987 study found that between 1900 and 1985, 350 people convicted
of capital crimes in the United States were innocent of the crimes
charged. Some escaped execution by minutes. Regrettably, according to
researchers Radelet and Bedau, 23 had their lives taken from them in
error.
In Illinois, since 1973, 13 innocent people have been freed from
death row in the time that 12 were executed. Governor George Ryan, a
supporter of the death penalty, has done two things in response: He has
effectively imposed a moratorium on executions and established a blue
ribbon commission to review the administration of capital punishment in
Illinois. Governor Ryan and I are from different political parties, but
we both recognize that the system by which we impose the death penalty
is broken.
Modern DNA testing of forensic evidence led to the exoneration of 5
of the 13 innocents freed from Illinois' death row and 8 of the 87 men
and women who have been freed from death row nationwide since the
1970's. But Illinois and New York are the only states that currently
provide some measure of access to DNA testing for death row inmates. My
distinguished colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, has introduced a
bill, the Innocence Protection Act, of which I am a co-sponsor, that
would ensure access to DNA testing for all inmates on death row in the
Federal system and the 38 States that impose the death penalty. That
bill is an important initiative to help ensure that innocents are not
condemned to death. I hope my colleagues will join Senator Leahy in
moving this bill forward.
But, as Governor Ryan and others have recognized, flaws in our system
unfortunately go well beyond access to DNA testing. As Barry Scheck,
Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer note in their book, ``Actual Innocence,''
Sometimes eyewitnesses make mistakes. Snitches tell lies.
Confessions are coerced or fabricated. Racism trumps truth.
Lab tests are rigged. Defense lawyers sleep.
Indeed, Scheck and Neufeld note that eyewitness error is the single
most important cause of wrongful convictions.
[[Page S2941]]
As important as DNA testing is, it is only the first step in addressing
the host of problems in the administration of capital punishment.
It is time for the Congress to take the lead and declare once and for
all that it is unacceptable to execute an innocent man or woman. It is
a central pillar of our criminal justice system that it is better that
many guilty people go free than that one innocent should suffer. Sadly,
history has demonstrated that time and again, America has brought
innocence itself to the bar and condemned it to die. That history now
demonstrates that even in America, innocence itself has provided no
security from the ultimate punishment.
Most insidiously, the ghosts of institutional racism still haunt our
courthouses. They intrude when lawyers select jurors, during the
presentation of evidence, when the prosecutor contrasts the race of the
victim and defendant, and when juries deliberate. The evidence mounts
that the United States applies the death penalty differently to people
of different races.
The numbers tell the story: Although African-Americans constitute
only 13 percent of the American population, since the Supreme Court
reinstated the death penalty in 1976, African-Americans account for 35
percent of those executed, 43 percent of those who wait on death row
nationwide, and 67 percent of those who wait on death row in the
Federal system. Although only 50 percent of murder victims are white,
fully 84 percent of the victims in death penalty cases were white.
Since 1976, America has executed 11 whites for killing an African-
American, but has executed 144 African-Americans for killing a white.
Governor Ryan and Illinois serve as a model for the Congress and the
Nation. The flaws in the Illinois criminal justice system are not
unique. Problems like convicting the innocent, racial disparities in
the application of the death penalty, and inadequacy of defense counsel
have plagued the administration of capital punishment across the
Nation. That is why we need a national review of the death penalty and
a suspension of executions until we can be sure that death row inmates
across the country have been given the full protections of justice,
fairness, and due process.
Governor Ryan is not alone in questioning the state of the death
penalty. In the last few months, people of all political stripes have
been stepping forward to say there is a problem and it is time to do
something about it.
Columnist George Will recently wrote that serious defects exist in
the criminal justice system by which we impose capital punishment. In a
recent column in The Washington Post, George Will wrote that accounts
of the wrongly convicted compel the conclusion that ``many innocent
people are in prison, and some innocent people have been executed.'' He
also wrote that even though he continues to believe that capital
punishment may be a deterrent to crime, it can only be an effective
deterrent if the criminal justice system operates properly to convict
and sentence those who actually committed the offense, not innocent
people.
The Reverend Pat Robertson, a founder of the Christian Coalition and
a long-time supporter of the death penalty, has also recognized that
something is terribly amiss in the administration of the death penalty.
At a recent conference at the College of William and Mary, Reverend
Robertson noted that the death penalty has been administered in a way
that discriminates against minorities and the poor who cannot afford
high-priced defense attorneys. Reverend Robertson said, ``these are all
reasons to at least slow down.'' He also said, ``I think a moratorium
would indeed be very appropriate.''
Around the country, other State and local legislative bodies have
also urged pause and reflection. At least 17 city and county
governments have now passed resolutions supporting a moratorium on
executions. And resolutions have been offered in the legislatures of
several states, including Alabama, Maryland, New Jersey, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania and Washington state. In 1997, the American Bar
Association adopted a resolution calling for a nationwide moratorium on
executions. Recently, the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Union of
American Hebrew Congregations and a number of other religious
organizations called on the President to suspend the scheduling of
executions and initiate a review of the administration of capital
punishment at the Federal level. These local governments and
organizations have recognized that a little time and a little
reflection are not much to ask when the lives of innocent people may
hang in the balance.
Congress, too, should recognize that a little time and reflection are
not too much to ask. That is why I ask my colleagues to support the
bill I introduce today. This bill simply calls on the Federal
Government and all States that impose the death penalty to suspend
executions while a national commission reviews the administration of
the death penalty. The Commission would study all matters relating to
the administration of the death penalty at the Federal and State levels
to determine whether it comports with constitutional principles and
requirements of fairness, justice, equality and due process. Congress
would review the Commission's final report and then enact or reject its
recommendations. Those jurisdictions that impose capital punishment
could resume executions only after Congress considers the Commission's
final report and repeals the suspension of executions provision of the
bill.
This means that before executing even one more person, the Federal
Government and the States must ensure that not a single innocent person
will be executed, eliminate discrimination in capital sentencing on the
basis of the race of either the victim or the defendant, and provide
for certain basic standards of competency of defense counsel.
Questions about the administration of the death penalty can only be
answered with an impartial, independent review.
The blue-ribbon commission called for in my bill would include
prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, law enforcement officials, and
other distinguished Americans with experience or expertise in the
issue. It would be a balanced commission, not chock full of death
penalty foes or death penalty supporters representing different
viewpoints on the issue. Other nations, including some of our closest
allies, have also established national commissions to review the death
penalty.
In the 1950s, Great Britain created the Royal Commission on Capital
Punishment, and the Canadian Parliament established a joint committee
of their Senate and House to review capital punishment. Now, almost 50
years later, I believe it is time for the United States to undertake a
national review. We should be the leader on issues of justice.
It has been almost 25 years since the reinstatement of the death
penalty, and we still don't know how innocent people got on death row
or how to prevent it from happening again. That is embarrassing, at the
least, for the world's greatest democracy. My bill is a step in the
right direction. And the time is now. Our Nation has come to the point
where the machinery of death is well greased, and the pace of
executions has accelerated. Last year, our Nation hit an all-time high
for total executions in any 1 year since 1976. We had 98 executions
last year in America. This year, we are already on track to meet or
exceed that same high rate.
Before our Government takes the life of even one more citizen, it has
a solemn responsibility to every American to prove that its actions are
consistent with our Nation's fundamental principles of justice,
equality, and due process. Before carrying out an irreversible
punishment, the Government must carefully consider the tough questions
surrounding capital punishment.
Mr. President, let us slow the machinery of death to ensure we are
being fair. Let us reflect to ensure that we are being just. Let us
pause to be certain we do not kill a single innocent person. This is
really not too much to ask for a civilized society. I urge my
colleagues to join me and my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, in
sponsoring the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act of 2000.
______
By Mr. GORTON:
S. 2464. A bill to amend the Robinson-Patman Antidiscrimination Act
to protect American consumers from foreign
[[Page S2942]]
drug price discrimination; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
PRESCRIPTION DRUG FAIRNESS ACT
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, yesterday, a group of 22 Washington State
senior citizens boarded a bus in Seattle and drove to British Columbia
in Canada to purchase their prescription medicine. Collectively, those
22 individuals saved $12,000 by taking that bus ride--an average of
more than $550 per individual. It is stories like this that have taken
place over the last 2 or 3 years that bring me here today.
Every day, all across our northern and southern borders, Americans
leave the U.S. in order to purchase products discovered, developed,
manufactured, and sold in the United States, but substances,
prescription drugs, that are far less expensive in Canada, Mexico, and
for that matter, in the United Kingdom and across Europe than here in
the United States.
My own office did an informal survey and found that for the ten most
commonly prescribed drugs, prices in British Columbia average 60-
percent less than prices for the identical drugs in the identical
quantities in the State of Washington. These lower prices don't apply
only in Washington State or in our northern border States. For example,
Prozac, to treat depression, is 95 cents a pill in Mexico and $2.21 in
the United States. The allergy drug, Claritin, costs almost $2 a pill
in the United States and 41 cents in the United Kingdom. Rilutek, to
treat Lou Gehrig's disease, costs $9,000 in the United States and
$5,000 in France.
Now, it is simply unfair to impose these higher prices on citizens of
the United States at the drugstore cash register, when the same drugs
are being sold by the same companies at wholesale, at so much lower
prices almost everywhere else in the world.
What is the reason for this price differential? It is a simple one.
Each of these other countries imposes price controls on the price for
which they allow their purchasers to pay. The American company, on the
other hand, looks at the situation and says that price is too low to
cover my costs of research and development, but I can impose all of the
costs of research and development on American citizens. The marginal
cost of manufacturing more pills and selling them in France, Mexico, or
in Canada is really very small. So I can sell for half the price in
Canada that I charge in the United States and still make a profit.
The company makes out just fine. The American citizen pays the price.
The American citizen pays the price more than once because the American
citizen has already paid roughly 50 percent of the cost of developing
that drug through our tax system, either through direct appropriations
at the National Institutes of Health or through various research and
development tax credits.
Just on Sunday morning, the New York Times had an extensive article
on a drug called Xalatan, which is used for glaucoma, an eye condition,
developed by an NIH grant in the original instance at Columbia
University, sold to an American drug company which did the rest of the
research and development but sold today for one-third of the American
price in Hungary, and barely half or a third of the American price in
France and Canada and in the rest of the world. That is all due to the
fact that these other countries are getting a free ride on the backs of
American citizens, American purchasers, for the research, development,
marketing, and sale of these drugs.
Now, I have labored for the last 5 months to find an answer to this
question, and my favorite answer to this question at this point is
included in the bill. The bill is very simple. It builds on an almost
65-year-old precedent, which is the Robinson-Patman Act. In 1936, this
Congress passed the Robinson-Patman Act and prohibited price
discrimination, with very minor exceptions, in sales to U.S. purchasers
from manufacturers and from wholesalers, designed originally to prevent
the big chain company from getting such a price break from the
manufacturer that it could drive its smaller competitors out of
business. It simply prohibited that kind of price discrimination.
My bill amends that 65-year-old Robinson-Patman Act by extending that
nondiscriminatory provision from interstate commerce to interstate and
foreign commerce with respect to prescription drugs. Remember, this law
has applied to our American drug manufacturers for 65 years, as far as
their sales within the United States are concerned. Now, if my bill
passes, it will apply to their sales overseas, outside of our country.
That will spread the cost of research and development fairly across all
of the purchasers, not just the American purchasers, and will
inevitably result in lower prices for American prescription drug users,
which is exactly what we ought to do. We will give the drug
manufacturers not only the opportunity, but the requirement that they
treat their American purchasers fairly, just as they have been required
not to discriminate among American purchasers for more than six
decades.
As you know, we are in the midst of a national debate over
prescription drugs and, most particularly, over whether or not we
should grant a prescription drug benefit to at least certain senior
citizens who are the beneficiaries of our Medicare system. Just 2 weeks
ago in this body, we voted on a budget resolution that authorizes up to
$40 billion for such a drug benefit over the course of the next 5
years. I supported that budget resolution, and I will support what our
proper committees report to us in response to that resolution.
That will benefit one distinct group of senior citizens, those whose
income levels are low enough to benefit from this assistance in
purchasing their prescription drugs. It will do absolutely nothing for
other seniors. It will do nothing for the 44 million uninsured in the
United States. It will do nothing for the costs of health care
insurance--for those policies that prescribe prescription drug benefits
and, therefore, have that cost reflected in the insurance premiums at
all. In other words, as important as it is to certain seniors, it won't
go to the heart of the problem--the high and increasing cost of
prescription drugs.
Part of those high costs are due to the great success of our drug
companies. More and more, a greater share of our health care dollars go
to the prescription drug feature every year because they are now
successful in treating conditions that previously could not be treated
at all or required hospitalization. We should hail that progress. We
certainly should support drug companies' research and development of
new medicines, but we should not countenance discrimination against
American citizens and against American purchasers by allowing those
companies to sell precisely the same prescription in almost every other
country in the world at prices half or less than half of what they sell
them for in the United States.
I have been working on this proposition ever since a November 1999
cover story in Time magazine which first illustrated the stark nature
of this problem and its costs. With all of this work and with my
consultation over the last month with the drug companies themselves,
which do not like my bill one bit, I have sought a goal. I am not
wedded to a particular means. I think this bill is a good way to reach
that goal, but it is not necessarily the only goal. I want the drug
companies themselves to come up with an answer to this question.
Members on both sides of the aisle have introduced so-called
``reimportation'' bills, which I find relatively attractive though
rather bizarre. At the present time, my senior citizens can go up to
Canada, as they did yesterday, and buy a 3-month supply of
prescriptions for their own personal use and bring them back to the
United States. But the pharmacy in Bellingham, WA, can't go up to a
wholesaler in Canada and get the lower Canadian price and pass it on to
that pharmacy's customers in the State of Washington. That kind of
reimportation is barred, even though we are talking about precisely the
drug that the Bellingham pharmacy is now required to buy directly from
the manufacturer.
Reimportation bills with certain limitations would lift that
restriction and would allow the bizarre situation where the drugstore
in the United States could purchase an American-manufactured drug in
Canada for less than it could buy it for in the United States. I think
that solution may very well be the direction in which we ought to go. I
am also convinced that there are other ways of doing it. I will say
[[Page S2943]]
that the drug companies made a reasonable suggestion to me for a tiny
bit of the problem.
______
By Mr. WELLSTONE:
S. 2465. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny
tax benefits for research conducted by pharmaceutical companies where
United States consumers pay higher prices for the products of that
research than consumers in certain other countries; to the Committee on
Finance.
prescription price equity act of 2000
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today,
the Prescription Drug Price Equity Act of 2000. My colleague, Pete
Stark, a Representative for the State of California in the House of
Representatives--I want to give him full credit for having introduced
this legislation in the House. I am proud to be a partner with him.
The long and the short of it is this bill amends the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to deny tax benefits for research conducted by
pharmaceutical companies where U.S. consumers pay higher prices for the
products of that research than consumers in certain other countries,
such as Canada. I could go into this in great detail, but I think the
operational definition is of 5 percent more.
I tell you right now, in my State of Minnesota, seniors and others
are in a state of outrage by the fact they can go and buy the same
drug--produced in this country, FDA approved--for half the price in
another country.
If we are going to be giving these tax benefits to these
pharmaceutical companies, I think they are going to have to be more
concerned about the very public that gives them these benefits. So I
introduce this legislation and look forward to support from my
colleagues.
Mr. President, like the rest of my colleagues I have just returned
from a week in my home State of Minnesota. I met with many
constituents, but none with more compelling stories than senior
citizens struggling to make ends meet because of the high cost of
prescription drugs--life-saving drugs that are not covered under the
Medicare program. Ten or 20 years ago these same senior citizens were
going to work everyday--in the stores, and factories, and mines in
Minnesota--earning an honest paycheck, and paying their taxes without
protest. Now they wonder, how can this Government--their Government--
stand by, when the medicines they need are out of reach.
The unfairness which Minnesotans feel is exacerbated of course by the
high cost of prescription drugs here in the United States--the same
drugs that can be purchased for frequently half the price in Canada or
Mexico or Europe. These are the exact same drugs, manufactured in the
exact same facilities with the exact same safety precautions. A year
ago, most Americans did not know that the exact same drugs are for sale
at half the price in Canada. Today, you can bet the pharmaceutical
industry wishes no one knew it. But the cat is out of the bag--and it
is time for Congress to right the inequities that are rife in the way
the United States government interacts with the pharmaceutical
industry.
Today, I want to focus on one of those inequities--the subsidies that
the United States Government offers to pharmaceutical manufacturers to
develop drugs which these same companies proceed to sell to the
American people at up to twice the price they charge in other
countries. To combat that problem I am introducing today the
Prescription Price Equity Act of 2000, a bill to deny research tax
credits to pharmaceutical companies that sell their products at
significantly higher prices in the U.S. as compared to other
industrialized countries.
The need for this bill is clear. The U.S. Government provides
lucrative tax credits to the pharmaceutical industry in this country in
order to promote research and development of new lifesaving
pharmaceutical products. Yet, in return for these government subsidies,
the drug companies charge uninsured Americans the highest prices for
drugs paid by anyone in the world.
The Congressional Research Service recently completed an analysis of
the tax treatment of the pharmaceutical industry. That analysis
concluded that tax credits were a major contribution to lowering the
average effective tax rate for drug companies by nearly 40 percent
relative to other major industries from 1990 to 1996. Specifically, the
report found that while similar industries pay a tax rate of 27.3
percent, the pharmaceutical industry is paying a rate of only 16.2
percent. At the same time, after-tax profits for the drug industry
averaged 17 percent--three times higher than the 5 percent profit
margin of other industries.
It is time for the pharmaceutical industry to earn these tax
benefits--by offering their life saving drugs to America's seniors at
the same prices they charge in other countries.
Numerous studies have shown that uninsured seniors pay exorbitant
prices for pharmaceuticals. Surveys done by the Minnesota Senior
Federation on the prices of the most commonly used drugs by Medicare
beneficiaries found that in Minnesota, seniors pay on average about
twice the price that Canadian seniors just across the border pay for
the exact same medication. I know that the House Government Reform
Committee compared prices of prescription drugs in the numerous
districts around the country with the prices of prescription drugs in
Canada. Those comparisons found price differentials in the exact same
ballpark that we found in Minnesota. It is no wonder that Minnesota
seniors are willing to spend their time and money to go across the
border to buy their prescription medications. And the same is happening
all over New England, in the Dakotas, in Montana, in Washington state,
and elsewhere.
Yet, at the same time that seniors are being asked to pay these
outrageous prices, the drug companies are reaping the benefit of
generous governmental subsidies. There's something wrong with a system
that gives drug companies huge tax breaks while allowing them to price-
gouge seniors. The Prescription Price Equity Act of 2000 attempts to
correct this glaring inequity in a very even-handed approach. The
message to pharmaceutical companies is this: So long as your company
gives U.S. consumers a fair deal on drug prices as measured against the
same products sold in other OECD countries, you will continue to
qualify for all available research tax credits. But if your company is
found to be fleecing American taxpayers with prices higher than those
charged for the same product sold in other industrialized countries,
like Japan, Germany, Switzerland, or Canada, then you become ineligible
for those tax credits.
I know that the pharmaceutical industry, through its trade
association, PhRMA, will oppose the Prescription Price Equity Act and
will claim that the bill means the end of pharmaceutical research and
development. That is complete nonsense. As shown by Congressional
Research Service, drug industry profits are already three times higher
than all other major industries. This legislation doesn't change the
current system of research tax credits at all unless drug companies
refuse to fairly price their U.S. products. This bills intent is by no
means to reduce the U.S. Government's role in promoting research and
development. It is simply to make clear that in return for such
significant government contributions to their industry, drug companies
must treat American consumers fairly. Is there any reason why U.S. tax
dollars should be used to allow drug prices to be reduced in other
highly developed countries, but not here at home as well? Of course
there is no good reason for that.
That is why this bill simply tells PhRMA that U.S. taxpayers will no
longer subsidize low prices in the OECD countries with our tax code.
Research and development is important and that is why we give these
huge tax breaks, but that research and development does little good for
U.S. consumers who can't afford to buy the products of that research.
This bill does not solve the biggest underlying problem that
America's senior citizens face. Only a comprehensive, prescription drug
benefit, available to and affordable by all Medicare beneficiaries will
do that. I have introduced and cosponsored legislation that can make
that happen. But this bill, the Prescription Price Equity Act,
nonetheless, sends an important message. It makes clear that the
priority of the Federal Government in subsidizing research and
development is to make sure that the miracles of modern medicine that
result are at least equally available to American citizens as
[[Page S2944]]
they are to those in the rest of the industrialized world.
______
By Mr. GORTON:
S. 2466. A bill to require the United States Trade Representative to
enter into negotiations to eliminate price controls imposed by certain
foreign countries on prescription drugs; to the Committee on Finance.
prescription drug price control legislation
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will
direct the U.S. Trade Representative for the next year to negotiate
fairer and more equal prices from foreign governmental purchasers, and,
in the absence of success of doing so, make specific statutory
recommendations to this Congress.
This is a proposal the drug companies themselves suggested to me. I
regard it as a constructive proposal, but not as a solution to the
problem standing alone. But it is a tangible result of the course I
have already charted, and one that came as a result of my communication
with drug companies of my concerns and the earlier draft of the bill I
am introducing today.
The problem is a very simple one. American citizens are paying too
much for prescription drugs because our companies are allowing foreign
purchasers to pay too little for exactly the same drugs. At the very
least, American citizens who have spent so much of their tax money in
financing the research and development of these drugs should not be
paying more than purchasers in other countries.
That is the goal of each of the two bills I am introducing today, but
what I really want and what the American people really want is a
solution and answer to this problem.
______
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 2467. A bill to suspend for 3 years the duty on triazamate; to the
Committee on Finance.
S. 2468. A bill to suspend for 3 years the duty on 2, 6-
dichlorotoluene; to the Committee on Finance.
S. 2469. A bill to suspend for 3 years the duty on 3-Amino-3-methyl-
1-pentyne; to the Committee on Finance.
S. 2470. A bill to suspend for 3 years the duty on fenbuconazole; to
the Committee on Finance.
S. 2471. A bill to suspend for 3 years the duty on methoxyfenozide;
to the Committee on Finance.
Duty Suspension Bills
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to
introduce five bills that will suspend import tariffs for three years
on five chemicals used in the manufacturing of crop protection agents,
Triazamate, Dichloro- toluene, Aminomethylpentyne, Fenbuconazole, and
Methoxyfenozide.
These chemicals are imported by Rohm and Haas Company, a
multinational manufacturer of specialty chemicals headquartered in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Tariffs on these products are not needed to
protect American industry since these chemicals are not manufactured in
the United States. Moreover, these chemicals have no other commercial
end uses other than in the manufacture of pesticides used in
agricultural applications. The revenue which would be forgone as a
result of the proposed suspension of duty on these chemicals is minimal
and has been estimated at less than $227,000 per chemical over the
entire period of the suspension.
These end products, used on farms around the globe, are considered
important tools in the advancement of agriculture. They protect crops
such as fruits, nuts, vegetables, grain and cotton, against fungal
infections, weeds, agricultural mites, and insects. By providing
adequate protection for these crops, farmers are able to market healthy
produce and grains, while commanding the best prices for their goods.
Established over 90 years ago, Rohm and Haas Company has grown to
become one of the world's largest manufacturers of specialty chemicals.
With 21,000 employees worldwide, the Company continues to maintain a
significant presence throughout Pennsylvania, with research facilities
in Newtown, Reading, and Spring House. Additionally, Rohm and Haas
Company provides grants which support many community organizations
active in the delivery of health and human services, education, and
civic and community improvement.
In consideration of the positive impact Rohm and Haas Company has on
the global and local communities, I urge my colleagues to support these
bills which will suspend the duties on the import of these
chemicals.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY:
S. 2473. A bill to strengthen and enhance the role of community
antidrug coalitions by providing for the establishment of a National
Community Antidrug Coalition Institute; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
legislation establishing the national community coalition institute
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that
would give support to community antidrug coalitions nation-wide. The
National Community Coalition Institute would strengthen and enhance the
role of community coalitions, to reduce and prevent drug use in
communities.
More specifically, one of the problems we have found in implementing
the Drug Free Communities Program has been the inexperience of a lot of
the communities, particularly smaller and rural ones in knowing how to
evaluate their efforts; get information on best practices from other,
successful coalitions, and on how to fill out grant applications. The
National Community Coalition Institute would improve the effectiveness
of community coalitions by providing state-of-the-art and widely
available education, training, and technical assistance for coalition
leaders and community teams. The National Community Coalition Institute
would ensure that communities nation-wide are adequately prepared to
undertake the important work of building drug free communities.
Ultimately, the fight against drugs cannot be successful if it does
not start in our own backyards. I invite all of my colleagues to join
me in supporting this effort.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Sessions):
S. 2474. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to improve the
achievement of cost-effectiveness results from the decisionmaking on
selections between public workforces and private workforces for the
performance of a Department of Defense function; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
The DoD COST MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT of 2000
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from
Alabama, Senator Sessions, to introduce legislation that will improve
Department of Defense business practices as well as assist the DoD in
its ability to estimate cost savings, a process that has significant
impact in the DoD's budget process. This legislation will also result
in improved readiness by adding a more realistic approach to the DoD's
cost estimating process by eliminating the unknowns that the DoD faces
in projecting its budget.
Today the Department of Defense is using arbitrary cost saving
objectives of up to $11.2 billion in its budget for Fiscal Years 2001
to 2005. These cost savings are projected efficiencies expected to be
realized through processes such as outsourcing and the OMB Circular A-
76 process. Unfortunately, both the Government Accounting Office and
the Naval Audit Service have published reports stating that these
savings are inflated and overly optimistic.
The greatest cause of concern however, is the self-inflicting damage
caused by these overestimated savings. Once the individual services
within the Department of Defense establish these arbitrary savings
goals, they reduce the future operating budget estimates to take into
account the estimated savings. But, when these predicted savings are
not achieved, it is the readiness accounts and modernization programs
that end up paying the price.
None of us would run our personal home finances in such a manner, and
no business could proceed using such an accounting method. So that is
what Senator Sessions, my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee,
and I want to address in this legislation. We want to establish better
business practices, so that DoD is not setting itself up for failure.
DoD needs to take a more realistic approach in the way it estimates
projected savings and how it establishes performance standards to
measure the impact of workforce
[[Page S2945]]
changes. The DoD and the American taxpayer need to understand the
potential impact to the readiness of our armed forces.
This legislation has four basic provisions that will provide improved
business practices.
First, this legislation requires the Department of Defense to
establish a system to track the costs and savings incurred through
managed competitions, efficient reorganizations, and the streamlining
of other functions currently being performed by the government through
the A-76 process or other re-engineering of a federal activity.
The data collected through the establishment of this system will
serve two purposes. It will be compiled into a report the Department of
Defense is required to submit to Congress each year, so that Congress
will have the information necessary to provide oversight of the A-76
process and other cost saving reorganizing process. The data will also
be used to establish a metric of current performance and current costs
prior to outsourcing, to serve as a standard for future performance and
future cost comparisons--so that the leaders within the Department of
Defense will be able to validate the actual savings achieved and
evaluate the maintenance of performance standards.
Second, this legislation requires that the cost and savings incurred
through out-sourcing, strategic sourcing, or re-organizing each
position currently staffed by federal personnel, be projected over the
Future Years Defense Program. This requirement will improve savings
estimates by including both the short and long term costs associated
with outsourcing, or contracting out a function.
The third provision of this legislation requires the Secretary of
Defense to certify that the function analysis and decision to
outsource, strategically source, or to maintain the current federal
force was not based on unfair personnel constraints that may prevent
the current federal organization from operating efficiently. This will
ensure that our federal workers are provided a fair chance in any
process and will provide the Department of Defense the most efficient
work force for the actual task at hand.
As part of the A-76 process, the Department of Defense is required to
conduct an evaluation of the impact on local economies and communities
if the decision is made to convert functions currently being performed
by government workers to the private sector. The fourth provision of
this legislation requires the Department of Defense to submit a
statement of the potential economic impact on each affected local
community. This notification will provide Congress and our constituents
the opportunity to better understand these impacts.
Mr. President, in the short term, this legislation will require
significant changes in the way the Department of Defense conducts its
processes. But in the long term this legislation will yield significant
benefit. These four provisions are based on the recommendations of
experts in the U.S. General Accounting Office and the Naval Audit
Service. By enforcing better business practices--which is what this
legislation effectively does--the long term effects will benefit the
Department of Defense by improving the accuracy of cost and savings
estimates, stabilizing the budget, and protecting modernization
programs.
Additionally, the benefits will extend to the current federal
workforce, who will be guaranteed the opportunity to compete on an
equal basis, and the local communities surrounding these agencies will
be able to better understand the impact of any decisions that are made.
Mr. President, I firmly believe that this legislation supports the
best interests of the Department of Defense and the federal work force.
I urge my colleagues to review this legislation--and I am confident
that they will see it's merits and join me and support this bill.
____________________