[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 115 (Monday, September 25, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9196-S9201]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page S9196]]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Wellstone, and
Mr. Kerry):
S. 3100. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to
reform the provisions relating to child labor; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
children's act for responsible employment
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce
legislation to update and bring America's child labor laws into the
21st century. This much-needed bill is titled the Children's Act for
Responsible Employment of 2000 (The CARE Act of 2000).
As many of you know, I have been working to eradicate child labor
overseas since 1992. At that time, I introduced the Child Labor
Deterrence Act, which prohibits the importation of products made by
abusive and exploitative child labor. Since then, we have made
significant progress.
Let me cite just three examples.
In Bangladesh in 1995, a precedent-setting memorandum of
understanding was signed between the garment industry and the
International Labor Organization, which has resulted in 9,000 children
being moved from factories and into schools. In Pakistan two years
later, another memorandum of understanding was signed to the benefit of
hundreds of children sewing soccer balls and to the benefit of their
families.
In May of this year, it was a pleasure to go to the White House to
witness President Clinton signing into law new provisions I authored to
flatly prohibit the importing into the U.S. of any products made by
forced or indentured child labor and to deny duty-free trade benefits
to any country that is not meeting its legal obligations to eliminate
the worst forms of child labor.
It is important to understand that when the growth of a child is
stopped, so is the growth of a nation. In keeping with our nation's
commitment to human rights, democracy, and economic justice, the United
States must continue to lead the struggle against the scourge of
exploitative child labor wherever it occurs. But to have the
credibility and moral authority to lead this global effort, we must be
certain that we are doing all we can to eradicate exploitative child
labor here at home.
Sadly, this is not the case as I stand here before you today. This is
why I am sponsoring this new legislation to crack down on exploitative
child labor in America. I am also heartened by the fact that the
Clinton administration and the Child Labor Coalition made up of more
than 50 organizations all across our country endorse prompt enactment
of this bill.
Consider the plight of child labor in just one sector of the American
economy--large-scale commercial agriculture.
Just three months ago in June, Mr. President, an alarming report
entitled ``Fingers to the Bone'' was released by Human Rights Watch. It
is a deeply troubling indictment of America's failure to protect child
farmworkers who pick our fruits and vegetables every day. As many as
800,000 children in the U.S. work on large-scale commercial farms,
corporate farms if you will, often under very hazardous conditions that
expose them to pesticide poisoning, heat illness, serious injuries,
and lifelong disabilities. The sad truth is that despite very difficult
and dangerous working conditions, current federal law allows children
as young children to take jobs on corporate farms at a younger age, for
longer hours, and under more hazardous conditions than children in
nonagricultural lines of work.
We must end this disgraceful double standard.
Furthermore, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), first enacted in
1938, allows children as young as 10 years old to work in the fields of
America's corporate farms. In nonagricultural lines of work, children
generally must be at least 14 years of age and are limited to three
hours of work a day while school is in session. Truth be told, even
those laws are inadequately enforced by the U.S. Labor Department where
young farmworkers are concerned. The FLSA simply must be revised and
improved to protect the health, safety, and education of all children
in America.
I also want to call to the attention of my colleagues a five-part
Associated Press series on child labor in the United States that was
published in 1997. It dramatically unmasks the shame of exploitative
child labor in our midst. For example, it graphically portrays the
exploitation and desperation of 4-year-olds picking chili peppers in
New Mexico and 10-year-olds harvesting cucumbers in Ohio. It documents
how 14-year-old Alexis Jaimes was crushed to death, while working on a
construction site in Texas when a 5,000 pound hammer fell on him.
This is outrageous and intolerable. Children should be learning, not
risking their health and forfeiting their future in sweatshops.
Children should be acquiring computer skills so we don't have to keep
importing every-increasing numbers of H-1B visa workers from abroad, as
we are being pressured to support now, and not slaving in the fields or
street peddling and being short-changed on a solid education. At
bottom, children should be afforded their childhood, not treated like
chattel or disposable commodities. Not just here in the United States,
but in every country in the world.
But we cannot expect to curb exploitative child labor overseas unless
America leads by example, cracking down on exploitative child labor in
our own backyard.
There is no national database on children working in America or the
injuries they incur. But there is mounting evidence to suggest there is
a growing problem with exploitative child labor in America, as
underscored by the recently released Human Rights Watch study delivered
to all of our offices and an excellent series of investigative reports
from the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
At least 800,000 children are working in the fields of large-scale
commercial agriculture in the U.S.
The FLSA's bias against farmworker children amounts to de facto race-
based discrimination because an estimated 85 percent of migrant and
seasonal farmworkers nationwide are racial minorities.
In some regions, including Arizona, approximately 99 percent of
farmworkers are Latino.
Only 55 percent of the child laborers toiling in the fields will ever
graduate from high school.
Existing EPA regulations and guidelines offer no more protection from
pesticide poisoning for child laborers than they do for adult
farmworkers.
Every 5 days, a child dies from a work-related accident.
Mr. President, one of the great U.S. Senators of the 20th century,
Hubert Humphrey, used to remind all of us that the greatness of any
society should be measured by how it treats people at the dawn and
twilight of life. By that measure, we clearly need to do better by
America's children.
There is no good reason why children working in large-scale
commercial agriculture are legally permitted to work at younger ages,
in more hazardous occupations, and for longer periods of time than
their peers in other industries. As GAO investigators have noted, a 13-
year-old is not allowed under current law to perform clerical work in
an air-conditioned office, but the same 13-year-old may be employed to
pick strawberries in a field in the heat of summer.
And so I offer this legislation in order that we fight exploitative
child labor here at home with the same resolve that we confront it in
the global economy. This legislation will toughen civil and criminal
penalties for willful child labor violators, afford minors working in
large-scale commercial agriculture the same rights and protection as
those working in nonagricultural jobs, prohibit children under 16 from
working in peddling or door-to-door sales, strengthen the authority of
the U.S. Secretary of Labor to deal with ``hot goods'' made by child
labor in interstate commerce, and improve enforcement of our nation's
child labor laws.
But it is not my purpose to prevent children from working under any
circumstances in America. My focus is on preventing exploitation.
Accordingly, this bill also preserves exemptions for children working
on family farms as well as selling door-to-door as volunteers for
nonprofit organizations like the Girl Scouts of America.
[[Page S9197]]
In conclusion, I want to remind my colleagues that a child laborer
has little chance to get a solid education because he or she spend his
or her days at work with little regard for that child's safety and
future. But it becomes clearer every day that in order for an
individual or a nation to be competitive in the high-tech, globalized
economy of the 21st century, a premium must be placed upon educating
all children. We can't afford to leave any of our children behind.
At the bottom, this is why I am sponsoring this legislation to
strengthen our child labor laws here at the home and effectively deter
and punish those who exploit our children in the workplace. It is time
to bring our nation's child labor laws into modern times, so that we
can prepare for the future.
It is totally unacceptable to me that upon entering the 21st century,
the commercial exploitation of children in the workplace continues in
our midst--largely out of sight and out of mind to most Americans.
It is time to give all of the children in the U.S. and around the
world the chance at a real childhood and extend to them the education
necessary to competing in tomorrow's high-road workplace.
______
Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself and Mr. Sessions):
S. 3101. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
as a deduction in determining adjusted gross income the deduction for
expenses in connection with services as a member of a reserve component
of the Armed Forces of the United States; to the Committee on Finance.
RESERVISTS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2000
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, for the past fourteen years, the men and
women serving selflessly in the Reserve components of our Armed Forces,
which includes the National Guard and federal Reserve, have been denied
a sensible, fair, and morally right tax deduction. Today, I am
introducing a bill that will correct this tax injustice.
The Reservist Tax Relief Act of 2000 will allow Reservist and
National Guardsmen and women, who are our nation's purest citizen-
soldiers, to deduct travel expenses as a business expense, when they
travel in connection with military service. It is my hope that my
colleagues will join me in quickly passing this legislation before the
end of the 106th Congress.
With the dramatic downsizing of the U.S. military over the past
decade, the Reserve component has become an increasingly valuable
aspect of our national defense. Traditionally geared to provide trained
units and individuals to augment the Active components in time of war
or national emergency, the Reserve component's role and responsibility
has rapidly increased throughout the 1990s. During the Cold War, the
Reserve component was rarely mobilized due to the robust nature of the
Active Duty forces, however, with the 1/3 cut in Active Duty forces
since 1990 there have been five presidential mobilizations of the Guard
and Reserve beginning with the 1990-1991 Gulf War. The Guard and
Reserve are heavily relied upon to provide support for smaller regional
contingencies, peace-keeping and peace-making operations, and disaster
relief. Although this level of mobilization is unprecedented during a
time of peace, the men and women of the Guard and Reserve have
performed a tremendous job in bridging the gap in our national
security. For instance, more than 1,000 Missouri Army National Guard
soldiers went to Honduras to help the country recover from the
devastation of Hurricane Mitch. Additionally, Missouri Air Force
Reservists have defended the skies over Bosnia-Herzegovina. America's
Reserve component is now essential to our every-day military
operations.
I strongly believe that our Active Duty forces should be provided
additional resources to improve the readiness and overall capability of
our national defense so America will not have to over-use its ``weekend
warriors.'' But I also know that Congress should provide the necessary
resources and support for the Reserve component to complement their new
position in our security. Beyond providing the Reserve component with
the resources, training, and equipment to be fully integrated into the
military's ``Total Force'' concept, the Reserve component personnel
should be provided targeted support to address their unique concerns.
When a member of the Reserve component chooses to serve, these brave
men and women give up at least several weeks a year for training. In
return, they are provided only minimal pay. With this training, along
with additional out of area deployments each lasting up to 179 days,
the 866,000 Reserve troops have put in 12 to 13 million man--days in
each of the last three years. This type of commitment often puts a
tremendous strain on these men and women, their families, and their
employers. They all deserve our deepest thanks and sense of gratitude,
and also our full support.
Mr. President, the Reservist Tax Relief Act of 2000 is one way we can
actively support the contribution made by the Reserves to our national
defense. This bill, endorsed by the Reserve Officers' Association of
the United States, will provide a tax deduction to National Guard and
Reserve members for travel expenses related to their military services,
so that their travel costs in connection with Guard duty can be treated
as a business expense. This provision was part of the federal tax code
until it was removed by the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Estimates show that
approximately 10 percent of Reserve members, or about 86,000 personnel,
must travel over 150 miles each way from home in order to fulfil their
military commitments. The expenses involved in traveling this distance
at least ``one weekend a month and two weeks a year'' can become a
tremendous burden for dedicated citizen-soldiers. It is time, with
taxes at record levels in this country, to reinstate this tax deduction
for military reservists, who give up more than just their time in
service to this country.
This tax relief bill is estimated to result in $291 million less tax
dollars being collected by the Treasury over the next five years; the
first year ``cost'' is $13 million. In the era of multi-billion dollar
programs and surpluses this amount may seem small to Washington
bureaucrats, but to the hard-working Reservists and Guardsmen in
Missouri, this additional tax deduction will provide real financial
help. Most Reservists and National Guardsmen and women do not enlist as
a means to become a millionaire, but are motivated by a sense of duty
to country. It is our responsibility to respond to their service with
this simple tax correction. I urge my colleagues to support this
measure and to support the men and women of our Reserve and Guard
forces. I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 3101
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 ``Reservists Tax Relief Act of
2000''.
SEC. 2. DEDUCTION OF CERTAIN EXPENSES OF RESERVISTS.
(a) Deduction Allowed.--Section 162 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to trade or business expenses) is
amended by redesignating subsection (p) as subsection (q) and
inserting after subsection (o) the following new subsection:
``(p) Treatment of Expenses of Members of Reserve Component
of Armed Forces of the United States.--For purposes of
subsection (a), in the case of an individual who performs
services as a member of a reserve component of the Armed
Forces of the United States at any time during the taxable
year, such individual shall be deemed to be away from home in
the pursuit of a trade or business during any period for
which such individual is away from home in connection with
such service.''.
(b) Deduction Allowed Whether or Not Taxpayer Elects To
Itemize.--Section 62(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to certain trade and business deductions of
employees) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) Certain expenses of members of reserve components of
the armed forces of the united states.--The deductions
allowed by section 162 which consist of expenses paid or
incurred by the taxpayer in connection with the performance
of services by such taxpayer as a member of a reserve
component of the Armed Forces of the United States.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
[[Page S9198]]
______
By Mr. ASHCROFT:
S. 3102. A bill to require the written consent of a parent of an
unemancipated minor prior to the referral of such minor for abortion
services; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
putting parents first act
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that will reaffirm the vital role parents play in the lives of their
children. My legislation, the Putting Parents First Act, will guarantee
that parents have the opportunity to be involved in one of their
children's most important and life-affecting decisions--whether or not
to have an abortion.
The American people have long understood the unique and essential
role the family plays in our culture. It is the institution through
which we best inculcate and pass down our most cherished values. As is
frequently the case, President Reagan said it best. Within the American
family, Reagan said, ``the seeds of personal character are planted, the
roots of public virtue first nourished. Through love and instruction,
discipline, guidance and example, we learn from our mothers and fathers
the values that will shape our private lives and public citizenship.''
The Putting Parents First Act establishes something that ought to be
self-evident, but tragically is not: that mothers and fathers should be
allowed to be involved in a child's decision whether or not to have a
major, life-changing, and sometimes life-threatening, surgical
procedure--an abortion. This seems so simple. In many states, school
officials cannot give a child an aspirin for a headache without
parental consent. But doctors can perform abortions on children without
parental consent or even notification. This defies logic.
The legislation I am introducing today would prohibit any individual
from performing an abortion upon a minor under the age of 18 unless
that individual has secured the informed written consent of the minor
and a parent or guardian. In accordance with Supreme Court decisions
concerning state-passed parental consent laws, the Putting Parents
First Act allows a minor to forego the parental involvement requirement
in cases where a court has issued a waiver certifying that the process
of obtaining the consent of a parent or guardian is not in the best
interests of the minor or that the minor is emancipated.
For too long, the issue of abortion has polarized the American
people. To some extent, this is the inevitable result of vastly
different views of when life begins and ends, what `choices' are
involved, and who has the ability to determine these answers for
others. Many including myself, view abortion as the destruction of
innocent human life that should be an option in only the most extreme
situations, such as rape, incest, or when the very life of the mother
is at stake. Others, including a majority of current Supreme Court
Justices, view abortion as a constitutionally-protected alternative for
pregnant women that should almost always be available. I think that all
sides would agree that abortion involves a serious decision and a
medical procedure that is not risk-free.
Thankfully, there are areas of common ground in the abortion debate
on which both sides, and the Supreme Court, can agree. One such area of
agreement is that, whenever possible, parents should be informed and
involved when their young daughters are faced with a decision as
serious as abortion. A recent CBS/New York Times survey found that 78
percent of Americans support requiring parental consent before an
abortion is performed on a girl under age 18. Even those who do not
view an abortion as a taking of human life recognize it as a momentous,
indeed a life-changing, decision that a minor should not be left to
make alone. The fact that nearly 80 percent of the states have passed
laws requiring doctors to notify or seek the consent of a minor's
parents before performing an abortion also demonstrates the consensus
in favor of parental involvement.
The instruction and guidance about which President Reagan spoke are
needed most when our children are dealing with important life
decisions. It is hard to imagine a decision more important than whether
or not a child should have a child of her own. We recognize, as
fundamental to our understanding of freedom, that parents have unique
rights and responsibilities to control the education and upbringing of
their children--rights that absent a compelling interest, neither
government nor other individuals should supercede. When a young woman
finds herself in a crisis situation, ideally she should be able to turn
to her parents for assistance and guidance. This may not always happen,
and may not be reality for some young women, but at the very least, we
should make sure that our policies support good parenting, not undercut
parents. Sadly, another reason to encourage young women to include a
parent in the decision to undergo an abortion is because of adverse
health consequences that can arise after an abortion. Abortion is a
surgical procedure that can and sometimes does result in complications.
Young women have died of internal bleeding and infections because their
parents were unaware of the medical procedures that they had undergone,
and did not recognize post-abortion complications.
Unfortunately, parental involvement laws are only enforced in about
half of the 39 states that have them. Some states have enacted laws
that have been struck down in state or federal courts; in other states,
the executive branch has chosen not to enforce the legislature's will.
As a result, just over 20 states have parental consent laws in effect
today. In the remaining 30 states, parents are often excluded from
taking part in their minor children's most fundamental decisions.
Moreover, in those states where laws requiring parental consent are
on the books and being enforced, those laws are frequently circumvented
by pregnant minors who cross state lines to avoid the laws'
requirements. Often, a pregnant minor is taken to a bordering state by
an adult male attempting to ``hide his crime'' of statutory rape and
evade a state law requiring parental notification or consent. Sadly,
nowhere is this problem more apparent than in my home state of
Missouri. I was proud to have successfully defended Missouri's parental
consent law before the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood versus
Ashcroft. Unfortunately, a study a few years ago in the American
Journal of Public Health found that the odds of a minor traveling out
of state for an abortion increased by over 50 percent after Missouri's
parental consent law went into effect. There are ads in the St. Louis,
Missouri, Yellow Pages luring young women to Illinois clinics with the
words ``No Parental Consent Required'' in large type.
The limited degree of enforcement and the ease with which state laws
can be evaded demand a national solution. The importance of protecting
the fundamental rights of parents demands a national solution. And the
protection of life--both the life of the unborn child, and the life and
health of the pregnant young woman--demands we take action. Requiring a
parent's consent before a minor can receive an abortion is one way
states have chosen to protect not only the role of parents and the
health and safety of young women, but also, the lives of the unborn.
Thus, enactment of a federal parental consent law will allow Congress
to protect the guiding role of parents as it protects human life.
The Putting Parents First Act is based on state statutes that have
already been determined to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The legislation establishes a minimum level of involvement by parents
that must be honored throughout this nation. It does not preempt state
parental involvement laws that provide additional protections to the
parents of pregnant minors.
Mr. President, sound and sensible public policy requires that parents
be involved in critical, life-shaping decisions involving their
children. A young person whose life is in crisis may be highly anxious,
and may want to take a fateful step without their parents' knowledge.
But it is at these times of crisis that children need their parents
most. They need the wisdom, love and guidance of a mother or a father,
not policy statements of government bureaucrats, or uninvolved
strangers. This legislation will strengthen the family and protect
human life by keeping parents involved when children are making
decisions that could shape the rest of their lives.
[[Page S9199]]
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. Bryan):
S. 3103. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose
a discriminatory profits tax on pharmaceutical companies which charge
prices for prescription drugs to domestic wholesale distributors that
exceed the most favored customer prices charged to foreign wholesale
distributors; to the Committee on Finance.
PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, American consumers should have access to
reasonably priced medicines. That seems like such a simple and
reasonable statement to make, yet it is a bold one to make in this
Congress. Drug prices should be a central part of the debate. I firmly
believe we must do two things relative to prescription drugs (1) add a
prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program and (2) address the
high price of drugs. It is the second issue that the bill I am
introducing today with Senator Bryan seeks to address.
The Prescription Drug Price Anti-Discrimination Act provides that
when a prescription drug manufacturer has a policy that discriminates
against U.S. wholesalers by charging them more than it charges foreign
wholesalers, a 10 percent discriminatory profits tax would be imposed
on that manufacturer. This 10 percent discriminatory profits tax will
be dedicated to Part A of the Medicare trust fund.
This legislation does not attempt to control drug prices. The
manufacturer may charge what it chooses to a foreign wholesaler or a
U.S. wholesaler. But if the manufacturer does not have a non-
discriminatory pricing policy, the discriminatory profits penalty kicks
in. It is up to the manufacturer. If the manufacturer reports that it
has a policy to charge U.S. wholesalers no more than foreign
wholesalers, there is no penalty. That statement would be attached to
the company's tax return, and it would be treated like any other
representation on a tax return.
This bill applies to U.S. manufacturers distributing to foreign
wholesalers in Canada and any country that is a member of the European
Union. By limiting the bill to Canada and the European countries, we
still allow for prescription drug manufacturers to sell AIDS drugs at
lower prices to African countries or other countries ravaged by
diseases. The bill refers only to other countries whose resources are
comparable to ours.
Fortune magazine recently reported that pharmaceuticals ranked as the
most profitable industry in the country in three benchmarks-return on
revenues, return on assets, and return on equity. Yet, Americans are
forced to pay extraordinarily high prices for prescription drugs in the
U.S. when they can cross the border to Canada to buy those same drugs
at far lower prices. This legislation should help bring Americans the
prescription drugs that they need at lower prices.
I have come to the Senate floor on previous occasions to talk about
my own constituents who travel from Michigan to Canada just to purchase
lower priced prescription drugs. We found that seven of the
prescription drugs most used by Americans cost an average of 89 percent
more in Michigan than in Canada. For example, Premarin, an estrogen
tablet taken by menopausal women costs $23.24 in Michigan and $10.04 in
Ontario. The Michigan price is 131 percent above the Ontario price.
Another example, Synthroid, a drug taken to replace a hormone normally
produced by the thyroid gland, costs $13.16 in Michigan and $7.96 in
Ontario. The Michigan price is 65 percent above the Ontario price.
To add insult to injury, these drugs received financial support from
the taxpayers of the United States through a tax credit for research
and development and in some cases through direct grants from the NIH to
the scientists who developed these drugs. In 1996 (the latest year that
we have data) through a variety of tax credits, the industry reduced
its tax liability by $3.8 billion or 43 percent.
Research is very important and we want pharmaceutical companies to
engage in robust research and development. But American consumers
should not pay the share of research and development that consumers in
other countries should be shouldering.
Manufacturers of prescription drugs are spending fortunes for
advertising. According to the Wall Street Journal, spending on consumer
advertising for drugs rose 40 percent in 1999 compared with 1998. In
1999 the drug industry spent nearly $14 billion on promotion, public
relations and advertising.
Mr. President, I have been sent a letter from Families USA, a noted
health care advocacy group, which states that the bill we are
introducing today ``will help Medicare beneficiaries buy drugs at lower
prices.''
Our citizens should not have to cross the border for cheaper
medicines made in the U.S. U.S. consumers are subsidizing other
countries when it comes to prescription drug prices. That is simply
wrong and this legislation will help to correct this situation.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Prescription
Drug Price Anti-Discrimination Act and I commend my colleague, Senator
Levin, for his leadership on this initiative.
This bill would require drug manufacturers to treat American patients
fairly--a manufacturer must have a policy in place that states that it
does not discriminate against U.S. wholesalers by charging them more
than it charges foreign wholesalers. If the company does not have this
policy in place, then a 10 percent discriminatory profits tax would be
imposed.
The reason for this bill is abundantly clear: American patients are
being charged significantly higher prices than are patients in foreign
countries for the exact same drugs. Is there any reason why our
citizens--44 million of whom are uninsured and faced with paying these
high prices--should be forced to make the choice between going without
much-needed prescription drugs or paying 50, 100, or even 300 percent
more for their drugs than do citizens in Canada, Great Britain, and
Australia? Of course there isn't.
Today, patients without drug coverage in the United States are not
treated fairly by U.S. manufacturers. I was shocked to discover the
enormous price disparities that exist for some of the most commonly
used drugs. For example, Prevacid, which is used to treat ulcers, is
282 percent more expensive in the United States than in Great Britain.
Claritin is used to treat all allergies--as we all know thanks to
frequent television commercials--and is 308 percent more expensive when
purchased by American patients than when purchased by Australian
patients. And Prozac, which can help millions of Americans suffering
from depression, is out of reach to many as it is 177 percent more
expensive in the United States than in Australia.
Our Medicare beneficiaries deserve a prescription drug benefit, and
all of our citizens deserve the assurance that U.S. manufacturers will
not charge them significantly more than they charge foreign patients.
This bill will not harm the drug industry. They can choose to accept
the tax penalty, or they can lower prices to American consumers to the
levels they charge foreign consumers. Either way, they will remain a
very profitable industry:
Fortune magazine recently again rated the pharmaceutical industry as
the most profitable industry in terms of return on revenues, return on
assets, and return on equity.
Drug companies enjoy huge tax benefits relative to other industries:
their effective tax rate was 40 percent lower than that of all other
U.S. industries between 1993-1996. Compared to certain industries, the
drug industry's effective tax rate was even lower--for example, it was
47 percent lower than that for wholesale and retail trade.
Additionally, higher drug prices for American patients simply aren't
justified in the face of soaring marketing and advertising budgets: the
industry spent almost $2 billion in 1999 on direct-to-consumer
advertising, and more than $11 billion on marketing and promotion to
physicians.
I don't have an argument with large profits--but American patients
should not be charged more than patients in other countries for the
same drugs. Moreover, American taxpayers should not be forced to
underwrite highly profitable corporations that exploit American
consumers.
Although many of us are still hopeful that we can pass a meaningful
Medicare prescription drug benefit before the close of this Congress,
at the very least we should require fair pricing for American patients.
[[Page S9200]]
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.
______
Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Bond):
S. 3104. A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 with respect to the
marking of door hinges; to the Committee on Finance.
tariff act of 1930 amendment
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 3104
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MARKING OF DOOR HINGES.
Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1304) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (l) as subsection (m); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (k) the following new
subsection:
``(l) Marking of Certain Door Hinges.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no
exception may be made under subsection (a)(3) with respect to
door hinges and parts thereof (except metal forgings and
castings imported for further processing into finished hinges
and door hinges designed for motor vehicles), each of which
shall be marked on the exposed surface of the hinge when
viewed after fixture with the English name of the country of
origin by means of die stamping, cast-in-mold lettering,
etching, or engraving.
``(2) Other means of marking.--If, because of the nature of
the article, it is not technically or commercially feasible
to mark it by 1 of the 4 methods specified in paragraph (1),
the article may be marked by an equally permanent method of
marking such as paint stenciling or, in the case of door
hinges of less than 3 inches in length, by marking on the
smallest unit of packaging utilized.''.
SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by section 1 apply to goods entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on and after the
date that is 6 months after the date of enactment of this
Act.
______
Mr. BREAUX:
S. 3105. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify
the allowance of the child credit, the deduction for personal
exemptions, and the earned income credit in the case of missing
children, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
MISSING CHILDREN TAX FAIRNESS ACT OF 2000
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Missing
Children Tax Fairness Act.
As a father and grandfather, I know there is no greater fear than
having a child taken from you. No family should have to go through such
a horrible tragedy, yet in 1999 alone, approximately 750,000 children
were reported missing. The parents of these missing children must face
the daily reality that they may never find their children or even know
their fate, yet most never lose hope or give up the search for any
clue. It seems unfathomable that families in such a tragic predicament
would be faced with the added burden of higher taxation, but that is
exactly what is happening under current tax policy.
Recently, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued an advisory
opinion which stated that the families of missing children may claim
their child as a dependent only in the year of the kidnapping. However,
in the following years, no such deduction may be taken, regardless of
if the child's room is still being maintained and money is still being
spent on the search. The IRS Chief Counsel admitted that this issue is
``not free from doubt'' but concluded that, in the absence of legal
authority to the contrary, denying the dependency exemption was
consistent with the intent of the law. I believe this issue should be
decided differently and that Congress must remedy this unjust
situation.
The Missing Children Tax Fairness Act will clarify the treatment of
missing children with respect to certain basic tax benefits and ensure
that the families of these children will not be penalized by the tax
code. It makes certain that families will not lose the dependency
exemption, child credit, or earned income credit because their child
was taken from them. I believe this a fair and equitable solution to a
tax situation faced by families who are victims of one of the most
heinous crimes imaginable--child abduction. I urge my colleagues to
cosponsor this important piece of legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
my statement be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 3105
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 ``Missing Children Tax
Fairness Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF MISSING CHILDREN WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN
TAX BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 151 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional
exemption for dependents) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(6) Treatment of missing children.--
``(A) In general.--Solely for the purposes referred to in
subparagraph (B), a child of the taxpayer--
``(i) who is presumed to have been kidnapped by someone who
is not a member of the family of such child or the taxpayer,
and
``(ii) who would be (without regard to this paragraph) the
dependent of the taxpayer for the taxable year in which the
kidnapping occurred if such status were determined by taking
into account the 12 month period beginning before the month
in which the kidnapping occurred,
shall be treated as a dependent of the taxpayer for all
taxable years ending during the period that the child is
kidnapped.
``(B) Purposes.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply solely for
purposes of determining--
``(i) the deduction under this section,
``(ii) the credit under section 24 (relating to child tax
credit), and
``(iii) whether an individual is a surviving spouse or a
head of a household (as such terms are defined in section 2).
``(C) Termination of treatment.--Subparagraph (A) shall not
apply with respect to any child of a taxpayer as of the first
taxable year of the taxpayer beginning after the calendar
year in which there is a determination that the child is dead
(or, if earlier, in which the child would have attained age
18).''
(b) Comparable Treatment for Earned Income Credit.--Section
32(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
qualified child) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(F) Treatment of missing children.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, an
individual--
``(I) who is presumed to have been kidnapped by someone who
is not a member of the family of such individual or the
taxpayer, and
``(II) who had, for the taxable year in which the
kidnapping occurred, the same principal place of abode as the
taxpayer for more than one-half of the portion of such year
before the date of the kidnapping,
shall be treated as meeting the requirement of subparagraph
(A)(ii) with respect to a taxpayer for all taxable years
ending during the period that the individual is kidnapped.
``(ii) Termination of treatment.--Clause (i) shall not
apply with respect to any child of a taxpayer as of the first
taxable year of the taxpayer beginning after the calendar
year in which there is a determination that the child is dead
(or, if earlier, in which the child would have attained age
18).''
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Leahy):
S. 3106. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
clarify the definition of homebound under the Medicare home health
benefit; to the Committee on Finance.
THE HOME HEALTH CARE PROTECTION ACT OF 2000
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am here today to introduce the Home
Health Care Protection Act of 2000. This legislation has been written
to make sure that qualification for Medicare home health services does
not negatively impact other area's of a patient's recovery process, or
preclude participation in important personal activities, like religious
services.
The homebound requirement to qualify for Medicare home health
services has been applied restrictively and inconsistently by the
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) and its various Medicare
contractors. In April 1999, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
sent a report to Congress on the homebound definition. The report
identifies the wide variety in interpretation of the definition and the
absurdity of some coverage determinations that follow. While I do not
support all the conclusions of the report, I do agree with the
Secretary that a clarification of the definition is needed to improve
uniformity of application.
Of particular concern to me is the disqualification of seniors who,
[[Page S9201]]
through significant assistance, are capable of attending adult day care
programs for integrated medical treatment that has been empirically
recognized as effective for some severe cases of Alzheimer's and
related dementia's. A close reading of current law does not preclude
homebound beneficiaries from using adult day services, yet some fiscal
intermediaries are establishing reimbursement policies that force
beneficiaries to forgo needed adult day services in order to remain
eligible for home health benefits.
The Home Health Protection Act states that absences for attendance in
adult day care for health care purposes shall not disqualify a
beneficiary. It is inappropriate and counterproductive to force seniors
to choose between Medicare home health benefits and adult day care
services in circumstances where both are needed as part of a
comprehensive plan of care.
I have also heard from numerous beneficiaries who fear that absences
from the home for family emergencies or religious purposes could
disqualify them from the home health benefit. Current law attempts to
address this situation by allowing for absences of infrequent or short
duration. However, one Vermont senior, who suffers from multiple
sclerosis and numerous complications, cannot leave the home without a
wheelchair and a van equipped with a lift. She left the home once a
week, for three hours at a time, to visit her terminally ill spouse in
a nursing home and attend religious services there together. She was
determined to be ``not homebound.''
There are more stories like this. At the same time, visiting nurses
have identified individuals who are healthy enough to leave the home
without difficulty, but because they never do, they retain home health
benefits at the expense of the Medicare program. Our legislation
specifically clarifies that absences from the home are allowed for
religious services and visiting infirm and sick relatives. In a time of
great need or family crisis, seniors should feel comforted that the
government won't stand in their way.
Federally funded home health care is an often quiet but invaluable
part of life for America's seniors. We in Congress have an obligation
to make sure that the Medicare program lives up to its promise and that
home health will be available to those who need it. I would like to
thank my cosponsors, Senators Reed and Leahy for their dedication to
this issue. We look forward to working with the rest of Congress to
turn this legislation into law.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, the
junior Senator from Vermont, in introducing legislation that I hope
will resolve an issue that has needlessly confined Medicare
beneficiaries receiving home health benefits to their residences.
Today, my colleague and I are introducing a revised version of a bill
we introduced earlier this year. I am pleased that this new
legislation, the Home Health Care Protection Act, has the support of
several national aging organizations, including the Alzheimer's
Association, the National Council on Aging and the National Association
for Home Care.
The Home Health Care Protection Act seeks to clarify the conditions
under which a beneficiary may leave his or her home while maintaining
eligibility for Medicare home health services. The Health Care
Financing Administration (HCFA) requires that a beneficiary be
``confined to the home'' in order to be eligible for services. The
current homebound requirement is supposed to allow beneficiaries to
leave the home to attend adult day care services, receive medical
treatment, or make occasional trips for non-medical purposes, such as
going to the barber. However, the definition has been inconsistently
applied, resulting in great distress for beneficiaries who are fearful
that they will lose their benefit if they leave their home to attend
events such as church services. Clearly, the intent of the rule is not
to make our frail elderly prisoners in their own homes. The legislation
we are introducing today seeks to bring greater clarity to the
homebound definition so that they no longer are.
I am proud to have worked with my colleague, Senator Jeffords, on
this issue and hope that we can get this legislation passed before the
end of the session. Mr. President, the Home Health Care Protection Act
seeks to provide some reasonable parameters that will enable
beneficiaries suffering from Alzheimer's, among other chronic and
debilitating diseases, to leave their home without worry. This modest
legislation would make a real difference to home health beneficiaries
in my state of Rhode Island as well as Medicare beneficiaries across
the country and I would urge my colleagues to support it.
____________________