[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.

                          ____________________