[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 5992-5997]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Levin):
  S. 2463. A bill to institute a moratorium on the imposition of the 
death penalty at the Federal and State level until a National 
Commission on the Death Penalty studies its use and policies ensuring 
justice, fairness, and due process are implemented; to the Commission 
on the Judiciary.


             national death penalty moratorium act of 2000

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National 
Death Penalty Moratorium Act of 2000. This bill would place an 
immediate pause on executions in the United States while a national, 
blue ribbon commission reviews the administration of the death penalty. 
Before one more execution is carried out, jurisdictions that impose the 
death penalty have an obligation to ensure that the sentence of death 
will be imposed with justice, fairness, and due process. I am pleased 
that my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, has 
joined me as a cosponsor of this important initiative.
  If a particular aircraft crashed one out of every eight flights, 
Congress would act immediately to ground it. But as New York public 
defender Kevin Doyle says in the book, Actual Innocence, that is about 
what is happening now with the death penalty in this country. Since the 
reinstatement of the modern death penalty, 87 people have been freed 
from death row because they were later proven innocent. That is a 
demonstrated error rate of 1 innocent person for every 7 persons 
executed. When the consequences are life and death, we need to demand 
the same standard for our system of justice as we would for our 
airlines.
  Both supporters and opponents of the death penalty should be 
concerned about the flaws in the system by which we impose sentences of 
death. More than 3,600 inmates sit on State and Federal death rows 
around the country, while it becomes increasingly clear that innocent 
people are being put to death.
  A 1987 study found that between 1900 and 1985, 350 people convicted 
of capital crimes in the United States were innocent of the crimes 
charged. Some escaped execution by minutes. Regrettably, according to 
researchers Radelet and Bedau, 23 had their lives taken from them in 
error.
  In Illinois, since 1973, 13 innocent people have been freed from 
death row in the time that 12 were executed. Governor George Ryan, a 
supporter of the death penalty, has done two things in response: He has 
effectively imposed a moratorium on executions and established a blue 
ribbon commission to review the administration of capital punishment in 
Illinois. Governor Ryan and I are from different political parties, but 
we both recognize that the system by which we impose the death penalty 
is broken.
  Modern DNA testing of forensic evidence led to the exoneration of 5 
of the 13 innocents freed from Illinois' death row and 8 of the 87 men 
and women who have been freed from death row nationwide since the 
1970's. But Illinois and New York are the only states that currently 
provide some measure of access to DNA testing for death row inmates. My 
distinguished colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, has introduced a 
bill, the Innocence Protection Act, of which I am a co-sponsor, that 
would ensure access to DNA testing for all inmates on death row in the 
Federal system and the 38 States that impose the death penalty. That 
bill is an important initiative to help ensure that innocents are not 
condemned to death. I hope my colleagues will join Senator Leahy in 
moving this bill forward.
  But, as Governor Ryan and others have recognized, flaws in our system 
unfortunately go well beyond access to DNA testing. As Barry Scheck, 
Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer note in their book, ``Actual Innocence,''

       Sometimes eyewitnesses make mistakes. Snitches tell lies. 
     Confessions are coerced or fabricated. Racism trumps truth. 
     Lab tests are rigged. Defense lawyers sleep.

  Indeed, Scheck and Neufeld note that eyewitness error is the single 
most important cause of wrongful convictions. As important as DNA 
testing is, it is only the first step in addressing the host of 
problems in the administration of capital punishment.
  It is time for the Congress to take the lead and declare once and for 
all that it is unacceptable to execute an innocent man or woman. It is 
a central pillar of our criminal justice system that it is better that 
many guilty people go free than that one innocent should suffer. Sadly, 
history has demonstrated that time and again, America has brought 
innocence itself to the bar and condemned it to die. That history now 
demonstrates that even in America, innocence itself has provided no 
security from the ultimate punishment.
  Most insidiously, the ghosts of institutional racism still haunt our 
courthouses. They intrude when lawyers select jurors, during the 
presentation of evidence, when the prosecutor contrasts the race of the 
victim and defendant, and when juries deliberate. The evidence mounts 
that the United States applies the death penalty differently to people 
of different races.
  The numbers tell the story: Although African-Americans constitute 
only 13

[[Page 5993]]

percent of the American population, since the Supreme Court reinstated 
the death penalty in 1976, African-Americans account for 35 percent of 
those executed, 43 percent of those who wait on death row nationwide, 
and 67 percent of those who wait on death row in the Federal system. 
Although only 50 percent of murder victims are white, fully 84 percent 
of the victims in death penalty cases were white. Since 1976, America 
has executed 11 whites for killing an African-American, but has 
executed 144 African-Americans for killing a white.
  Governor Ryan and Illinois serve as a model for the Congress and the 
Nation. The flaws in the Illinois criminal justice system are not 
unique. Problems like convicting the innocent, racial disparities in 
the application of the death penalty, and inadequacy of defense counsel 
have plagued the administration of capital punishment across the 
Nation. That is why we need a national review of the death penalty and 
a suspension of executions until we can be sure that death row inmates 
across the country have been given the full protections of justice, 
fairness, and due process.
  Governor Ryan is not alone in questioning the state of the death 
penalty. In the last few months, people of all political stripes have 
been stepping forward to say there is a problem and it is time to do 
something about it.
  Columnist George Will recently wrote that serious defects exist in 
the criminal justice system by which we impose capital punishment. In a 
recent column in The Washington Post, George Will wrote that accounts 
of the wrongly convicted compel the conclusion that ``many innocent 
people are in prison, and some innocent people have been executed.'' He 
also wrote that even though he continues to believe that capital 
punishment may be a deterrent to crime, it can only be an effective 
deterrent if the criminal justice system operates properly to convict 
and sentence those who actually committed the offense, not innocent 
people.
  The Reverend Pat Robertson, a founder of the Christian Coalition and 
a long-time supporter of the death penalty, has also recognized that 
something is terribly amiss in the administration of the death penalty. 
At a recent conference at the College of William and Mary, Reverend 
Robertson noted that the death penalty has been administered in a way 
that discriminates against minorities and the poor who cannot afford 
high-priced defense attorneys. Reverend Robertson said, ``these are all 
reasons to at least slow down.'' He also said, ``I think a moratorium 
would indeed be very appropriate.''
  Around the country, other State and local legislative bodies have 
also urged pause and reflection. At least 17 city and county 
governments have now passed resolutions supporting a moratorium on 
executions. And resolutions have been offered in the legislatures of 
several states, including Alabama, Maryland, New Jersey, Oklahoma, 
Pennsylvania and Washington state. In 1997, the American Bar 
Association adopted a resolution calling for a nationwide moratorium on 
executions. Recently, the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Union of 
American Hebrew Congregations and a number of other religious 
organizations called on the President to suspend the scheduling of 
executions and initiate a review of the administration of capital 
punishment at the Federal level. These local governments and 
organizations have recognized that a little time and a little 
reflection are not much to ask when the lives of innocent people may 
hang in the balance.
  Congress, too, should recognize that a little time and reflection are 
not too much to ask. That is why I ask my colleagues to support the 
bill I introduce today. This bill simply calls on the Federal 
Government and all States that impose the death penalty to suspend 
executions while a national commission reviews the administration of 
the death penalty. The Commission would study all matters relating to 
the administration of the death penalty at the Federal and State levels 
to determine whether it comports with constitutional principles and 
requirements of fairness, justice, equality and due process. Congress 
would review the Commission's final report and then enact or reject its 
recommendations. Those jurisdictions that impose capital punishment 
could resume executions only after Congress considers the Commission's 
final report and repeals the suspension of executions provision of the 
bill.
  This means that before executing even one more person, the Federal 
Government and the States must ensure that not a single innocent person 
will be executed, eliminate discrimination in capital sentencing on the 
basis of the race of either the victim or the defendant, and provide 
for certain basic standards of competency of defense counsel.
  Questions about the administration of the death penalty can only be 
answered with an impartial, independent review.
  The blue-ribbon commission called for in my bill would include 
prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, law enforcement officials, and 
other distinguished Americans with experience or expertise in the 
issue. It would be a balanced commission, not chock full of death 
penalty foes or death penalty supporters representing different 
viewpoints on the issue. Other nations, including some of our closest 
allies, have also established national commissions to review the death 
penalty.
  In the 1950s, Great Britain created the Royal Commission on Capital 
Punishment, and the Canadian Parliament established a joint committee 
of their Senate and House to review capital punishment. Now, almost 50 
years later, I believe it is time for the United States to undertake a 
national review. We should be the leader on issues of justice.
  It has been almost 25 years since the reinstatement of the death 
penalty, and we still don't know how innocent people got on death row 
or how to prevent it from happening again. That is embarrassing, at the 
least, for the world's greatest democracy. My bill is a step in the 
right direction. And the time is now. Our Nation has come to the point 
where the machinery of death is well greased, and the pace of 
executions has accelerated. Last year, our Nation hit an all-time high 
for total executions in any 1 year since 1976. We had 98 executions 
last year in America. This year, we are already on track to meet or 
exceed that same high rate.
  Before our Government takes the life of even one more citizen, it has 
a solemn responsibility to every American to prove that its actions are 
consistent with our Nation's fundamental principles of justice, 
equality, and due process. Before carrying out an irreversible 
punishment, the Government must carefully consider the tough questions 
surrounding capital punishment.
  Mr. President, let us slow the machinery of death to ensure we are 
being fair. Let us reflect to ensure that we are being just. Let us 
pause to be certain we do not kill a single innocent person. This is 
really not too much to ask for a civilized society. I urge my 
colleagues to join me and my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, in 
sponsoring the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act of 2000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GORTON:
  S. 2464. A bill to amend the Robinson-Patman Antidiscrimination Act 
to protect American consumers from foreign drug price discrimination; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                     PRESCRIPTION DRUG FAIRNESS ACT

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, yesterday, a group of 22 Washington State 
senior citizens boarded a bus in Seattle and drove to British Columbia 
in Canada to purchase their prescription medicine. Collectively, those 
22 individuals saved $12,000 by taking that bus ride--an average of 
more than $550 per individual. It is stories like this that have taken 
place over the last 2 or 3 years that bring me here today.
  Every day, all across our northern and southern borders, Americans 
leave the U.S. in order to purchase products discovered, developed, 
manufactured, and sold in the United States, but substances, 
prescription drugs, that are far less expensive in Canada, Mexico,

[[Page 5994]]

and for that matter, in the United Kingdom and across Europe than here 
in the United States.
  My own office did an informal survey and found that for the ten most 
commonly prescribed drugs, prices in British Columbia average 60-
percent less than prices for the identical drugs in the identical 
quantities in the State of Washington. These lower prices don't apply 
only in Washington State or in our northern border States. For example, 
Prozac, to treat depression, is 95 cents a pill in Mexico and $2.21 in 
the United States. The allergy drug, Claritin, costs almost $2 a pill 
in the United States and 41 cents in the United Kingdom. Rilutek, to 
treat Lou Gehrig's disease, costs $9,000 in the United States and 
$5,000 in France.
  Now, it is simply unfair to impose these higher prices on citizens of 
the United States at the drugstore cash register, when the same drugs 
are being sold by the same companies at wholesale, at so much lower 
prices almost everywhere else in the world.
  What is the reason for this price differential? It is a simple one. 
Each of these other countries imposes price controls on the price for 
which they allow their purchasers to pay. The American company, on the 
other hand, looks at the situation and says that price is too low to 
cover my costs of research and development, but I can impose all of the 
costs of research and development on American citizens. The marginal 
cost of manufacturing more pills and selling them in France, Mexico, or 
in Canada is really very small. So I can sell for half the price in 
Canada that I charge in the United States and still make a profit.
  The company makes out just fine. The American citizen pays the price. 
The American citizen pays the price more than once because the American 
citizen has already paid roughly 50 percent of the cost of developing 
that drug through our tax system, either through direct appropriations 
at the National Institutes of Health or through various research and 
development tax credits.
  Just on Sunday morning, the New York Times had an extensive article 
on a drug called Xalatan, which is used for glaucoma, an eye condition, 
developed by an NIH grant in the original instance at Columbia 
University, sold to an American drug company which did the rest of the 
research and development but sold today for one-third of the American 
price in Hungary, and barely half or a third of the American price in 
France and Canada and in the rest of the world. That is all due to the 
fact that these other countries are getting a free ride on the backs of 
American citizens, American purchasers, for the research, development, 
marketing, and sale of these drugs.
  Now, I have labored for the last 5 months to find an answer to this 
question, and my favorite answer to this question at this point is 
included in the bill. The bill is very simple. It builds on an almost 
65-year-old precedent, which is the Robinson-Patman Act. In 1936, this 
Congress passed the Robinson-Patman Act and prohibited price 
discrimination, with very minor exceptions, in sales to U.S. purchasers 
from manufacturers and from wholesalers, designed originally to prevent 
the big chain company from getting such a price break from the 
manufacturer that it could drive its smaller competitors out of 
business. It simply prohibited that kind of price discrimination.
  My bill amends that 65-year-old Robinson-Patman Act by extending that 
nondiscriminatory provision from interstate commerce to interstate and 
foreign commerce with respect to prescription drugs. Remember, this law 
has applied to our American drug manufacturers for 65 years, as far as 
their sales within the United States are concerned. Now, if my bill 
passes, it will apply to their sales overseas, outside of our country. 
That will spread the cost of research and development fairly across all 
of the purchasers, not just the American purchasers, and will 
inevitably result in lower prices for American prescription drug users, 
which is exactly what we ought to do. We will give the drug 
manufacturers not only the opportunity, but the requirement that they 
treat their American purchasers fairly, just as they have been required 
not to discriminate among American purchasers for more than six 
decades.
  As you know, we are in the midst of a national debate over 
prescription drugs and, most particularly, over whether or not we 
should grant a prescription drug benefit to at least certain senior 
citizens who are the beneficiaries of our Medicare system. Just 2 weeks 
ago in this body, we voted on a budget resolution that authorizes up to 
$40 billion for such a drug benefit over the course of the next 5 
years. I supported that budget resolution, and I will support what our 
proper committees report to us in response to that resolution.
  That will benefit one distinct group of senior citizens, those whose 
income levels are low enough to benefit from this assistance in 
purchasing their prescription drugs. It will do absolutely nothing for 
other seniors. It will do nothing for the 44 million uninsured in the 
United States. It will do nothing for the costs of health care 
insurance--for those policies that prescribe prescription drug benefits 
and, therefore, have that cost reflected in the insurance premiums at 
all. In other words, as important as it is to certain seniors, it won't 
go to the heart of the problem--the high and increasing cost of 
prescription drugs.
  Part of those high costs are due to the great success of our drug 
companies. More and more, a greater share of our health care dollars go 
to the prescription drug feature every year because they are now 
successful in treating conditions that previously could not be treated 
at all or required hospitalization. We should hail that progress. We 
certainly should support drug companies' research and development of 
new medicines, but we should not countenance discrimination against 
American citizens and against American purchasers by allowing those 
companies to sell precisely the same prescription in almost every other 
country in the world at prices half or less than half of what they sell 
them for in the United States.
  I have been working on this proposition ever since a November 1999 
cover story in Time magazine which first illustrated the stark nature 
of this problem and its costs. With all of this work and with my 
consultation over the last month with the drug companies themselves, 
which do not like my bill one bit, I have sought a goal. I am not 
wedded to a particular means. I think this bill is a good way to reach 
that goal, but it is not necessarily the only goal. I want the drug 
companies themselves to come up with an answer to this question.
  Members on both sides of the aisle have introduced so-called 
``reimportation'' bills, which I find relatively attractive though 
rather bizarre. At the present time, my senior citizens can go up to 
Canada, as they did yesterday, and buy a 3-month supply of 
prescriptions for their own personal use and bring them back to the 
United States. But the pharmacy in Bellingham, WA, can't go up to a 
wholesaler in Canada and get the lower Canadian price and pass it on to 
that pharmacy's customers in the State of Washington. That kind of 
reimportation is barred, even though we are talking about precisely the 
drug that the Bellingham pharmacy is now required to buy directly from 
the manufacturer.
  Reimportation bills with certain limitations would lift that 
restriction and would allow the bizarre situation where the drugstore 
in the United States could purchase an American-manufactured drug in 
Canada for less than it could buy it for in the United States. I think 
that solution may very well be the direction in which we ought to go. I 
am also convinced that there are other ways of doing it. I will say 
that the drug companies made a reasonable suggestion to me for a tiny 
bit of the problem.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE:
  S. 2465. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny 
tax benefits for research conducted by pharmaceutical companies where 
United States consumers pay higher prices for the products of that 
research than consumers in certain other countries; to the Committee on 
Finance.

[[Page 5995]]




                 prescription price equity act of 2000

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today, 
the Prescription Drug Price Equity Act of 2000. My colleague, Pete 
Stark, a Representative for the State of California in the House of 
Representatives--I want to give him full credit for having introduced 
this legislation in the House. I am proud to be a partner with him.
  The long and the short of it is this bill amends the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 to deny tax benefits for research conducted by 
pharmaceutical companies where U.S. consumers pay higher prices for the 
products of that research than consumers in certain other countries, 
such as Canada. I could go into this in great detail, but I think the 
operational definition is of 5 percent more.
  I tell you right now, in my State of Minnesota, seniors and others 
are in a state of outrage by the fact they can go and buy the same 
drug--produced in this country, FDA approved--for half the price in 
another country.
  If we are going to be giving these tax benefits to these 
pharmaceutical companies, I think they are going to have to be more 
concerned about the very public that gives them these benefits. So I 
introduce this legislation and look forward to support from my 
colleagues.
  Mr. President, like the rest of my colleagues I have just returned 
from a week in my home State of Minnesota. I met with many 
constituents, but none with more compelling stories than senior 
citizens struggling to make ends meet because of the high cost of 
prescription drugs--life-saving drugs that are not covered under the 
Medicare program. Ten or 20 years ago these same senior citizens were 
going to work everyday--in the stores, and factories, and mines in 
Minnesota--earning an honest paycheck, and paying their taxes without 
protest. Now they wonder, how can this Government--their Government--
stand by, when the medicines they need are out of reach.
  The unfairness which Minnesotans feel is exacerbated of course by the 
high cost of prescription drugs here in the United States--the same 
drugs that can be purchased for frequently half the price in Canada or 
Mexico or Europe. These are the exact same drugs, manufactured in the 
exact same facilities with the exact same safety precautions. A year 
ago, most Americans did not know that the exact same drugs are for sale 
at half the price in Canada. Today, you can bet the pharmaceutical 
industry wishes no one knew it. But the cat is out of the bag--and it 
is time for Congress to right the inequities that are rife in the way 
the United States government interacts with the pharmaceutical 
industry.
  Today, I want to focus on one of those inequities--the subsidies that 
the United States Government offers to pharmaceutical manufacturers to 
develop drugs which these same companies proceed to sell to the 
American people at up to twice the price they charge in other 
countries. To combat that problem I am introducing today the 
Prescription Price Equity Act of 2000, a bill to deny research tax 
credits to pharmaceutical companies that sell their products at 
significantly higher prices in the U.S. as compared to other 
industrialized countries.
  The need for this bill is clear. The U.S. Government provides 
lucrative tax credits to the pharmaceutical industry in this country in 
order to promote research and development of new lifesaving 
pharmaceutical products. Yet, in return for these government subsidies, 
the drug companies charge uninsured Americans the highest prices for 
drugs paid by anyone in the world.
  The Congressional Research Service recently completed an analysis of 
the tax treatment of the pharmaceutical industry. That analysis 
concluded that tax credits were a major contribution to lowering the 
average effective tax rate for drug companies by nearly 40 percent 
relative to other major industries from 1990 to 1996. Specifically, the 
report found that while similar industries pay a tax rate of 27.3 
percent, the pharmaceutical industry is paying a rate of only 16.2 
percent. At the same time, after-tax profits for the drug industry 
averaged 17 percent--three times higher than the 5 percent profit 
margin of other industries.
  It is time for the pharmaceutical industry to earn these tax 
benefits--by offering their life saving drugs to America's seniors at 
the same prices they charge in other countries.
  Numerous studies have shown that uninsured seniors pay exorbitant 
prices for pharmaceuticals. Surveys done by the Minnesota Senior 
Federation on the prices of the most commonly used drugs by Medicare 
beneficiaries found that in Minnesota, seniors pay on average about 
twice the price that Canadian seniors just across the border pay for 
the exact same medication. I know that the House Government Reform 
Committee compared prices of prescription drugs in the numerous 
districts around the country with the prices of prescription drugs in 
Canada. Those comparisons found price differentials in the exact same 
ballpark that we found in Minnesota. It is no wonder that Minnesota 
seniors are willing to spend their time and money to go across the 
border to buy their prescription medications. And the same is happening 
all over New England, in the Dakotas, in Montana, in Washington state, 
and elsewhere.
  Yet, at the same time that seniors are being asked to pay these 
outrageous prices, the drug companies are reaping the benefit of 
generous governmental subsidies. There's something wrong with a system 
that gives drug companies huge tax breaks while allowing them to price-
gouge seniors. The Prescription Price Equity Act of 2000 attempts to 
correct this glaring inequity in a very even-handed approach. The 
message to pharmaceutical companies is this: So long as your company 
gives U.S. consumers a fair deal on drug prices as measured against the 
same products sold in other OECD countries, you will continue to 
qualify for all available research tax credits. But if your company is 
found to be fleecing American taxpayers with prices higher than those 
charged for the same product sold in other industrialized countries, 
like Japan, Germany, Switzerland, or Canada, then you become ineligible 
for those tax credits.
  I know that the pharmaceutical industry, through its trade 
association, PhRMA, will oppose the Prescription Price Equity Act and 
will claim that the bill means the end of pharmaceutical research and 
development. That is complete nonsense. As shown by Congressional 
Research Service, drug industry profits are already three times higher 
than all other major industries. This legislation doesn't change the 
current system of research tax credits at all unless drug companies 
refuse to fairly price their U.S. products. This bills intent is by no 
means to reduce the U.S. Government's role in promoting research and 
development. It is simply to make clear that in return for such 
significant government contributions to their industry, drug companies 
must treat American consumers fairly. Is there any reason why U.S. tax 
dollars should be used to allow drug prices to be reduced in other 
highly developed countries, but not here at home as well? Of course 
there is no good reason for that.
  That is why this bill simply tells PhRMA that U.S. taxpayers will no 
longer subsidize low prices in the OECD countries with our tax code. 
Research and development is important and that is why we give these 
huge tax breaks, but that research and development does little good for 
U.S. consumers who can't afford to buy the products of that research.
  This bill does not solve the biggest underlying problem that 
America's senior citizens face. Only a comprehensive, prescription drug 
benefit, available to and affordable by all Medicare beneficiaries will 
do that. I have introduced and cosponsored legislation that can make 
that happen. But this bill, the Prescription Price Equity Act, 
nonetheless, sends an important message. It makes clear that the 
priority of the Federal Government in subsidizing research and 
development is to make sure that the miracles of modern medicine that 
result are at least equally available to American citizens as they are 
to those in the rest of the industrialized world.

[[Page 5996]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GORTON:
  S. 2466. A bill to require the United States Trade Representative to 
enter into negotiations to eliminate price controls imposed by certain 
foreign countries on prescription drugs; to the Committee on Finance.


              prescription drug price control legislation

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will 
direct the U.S. Trade Representative for the next year to negotiate 
fairer and more equal prices from foreign governmental purchasers, and, 
in the absence of success of doing so, make specific statutory 
recommendations to this Congress.
  This is a proposal the drug companies themselves suggested to me. I 
regard it as a constructive proposal, but not as a solution to the 
problem standing alone. But it is a tangible result of the course I 
have already charted, and one that came as a result of my communication 
with drug companies of my concerns and the earlier draft of the bill I 
am introducing today.
  The problem is a very simple one. American citizens are paying too 
much for prescription drugs because our companies are allowing foreign 
purchasers to pay too little for exactly the same drugs. At the very 
least, American citizens who have spent so much of their tax money in 
financing the research and development of these drugs should not be 
paying more than purchasers in other countries.
  That is the goal of each of the two bills I am introducing today, but 
what I really want and what the American people really want is a 
solution and answer to this problem.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 2467. A bill to suspend for 3 years the duty on triazamate; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  S. 2468. A bill to suspend for 3 years the duty on 2, 6-
dichlorotoluene; to the Committee on Finance.
  S. 2469. A bill to suspend for 3 years the duty on 3-Amino-3-methyl-
1-pentyne; to the Committee on Finance.
  S. 2470. A bill to suspend for 3 years the duty on fenbuconazole; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  S. 2471. A bill to suspend for 3 years the duty on methoxyfenozide; 
to the Committee on Finance.


                         Duty Suspension Bills

 Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to 
introduce five bills that will suspend import tariffs for three years 
on five chemicals used in the manufacturing of crop protection agents, 
Triazamate, Dichloro- toluene, Aminomethylpentyne, Fenbuconazole, and 
Methoxyfenozide.
  These chemicals are imported by Rohm and Haas Company, a 
multinational manufacturer of specialty chemicals headquartered in 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Tariffs on these products are not needed to 
protect American industry since these chemicals are not manufactured in 
the United States. Moreover, these chemicals have no other commercial 
end uses other than in the manufacture of pesticides used in 
agricultural applications. The revenue which would be forgone as a 
result of the proposed suspension of duty on these chemicals is minimal 
and has been estimated at less than $227,000 per chemical over the 
entire period of the suspension.
  These end products, used on farms around the globe, are considered 
important tools in the advancement of agriculture. They protect crops 
such as fruits, nuts, vegetables, grain and cotton, against fungal 
infections, weeds, agricultural mites, and insects. By providing 
adequate protection for these crops, farmers are able to market healthy 
produce and grains, while commanding the best prices for their goods.
  Established over 90 years ago, Rohm and Haas Company has grown to 
become one of the world's largest manufacturers of specialty chemicals. 
With 21,000 employees worldwide, the Company continues to maintain a 
significant presence throughout Pennsylvania, with research facilities 
in Newtown, Reading, and Spring House. Additionally, Rohm and Haas 
Company provides grants which support many community organizations 
active in the delivery of health and human services, education, and 
civic and community improvement.
  In consideration of the positive impact Rohm and Haas Company has on 
the global and local communities, I urge my colleagues to support these 
bills which will suspend the duties on the import of these 
chemicals.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 2473. A bill to strengthen and enhance the role of community 
antidrug coalitions by providing for the establishment of a National 
Community Antidrug Coalition Institute; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


  legislation establishing the national community coalition institute

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that 
would give support to community antidrug coalitions nation-wide. The 
National Community Coalition Institute would strengthen and enhance the 
role of community coalitions, to reduce and prevent drug use in 
communities.
  More specifically, one of the problems we have found in implementing 
the Drug Free Communities Program has been the inexperience of a lot of 
the communities, particularly smaller and rural ones in knowing how to 
evaluate their efforts; get information on best practices from other, 
successful coalitions, and on how to fill out grant applications. The 
National Community Coalition Institute would improve the effectiveness 
of community coalitions by providing state-of-the-art and widely 
available education, training, and technical assistance for coalition 
leaders and community teams. The National Community Coalition Institute 
would ensure that communities nation-wide are adequately prepared to 
undertake the important work of building drug free communities.
  Ultimately, the fight against drugs cannot be successful if it does 
not start in our own backyards. I invite all of my colleagues to join 
me in supporting this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Sessions):
  S. 2474. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to improve the 
achievement of cost-effectiveness results from the decisionmaking on 
selections between public workforces and private workforces for the 
performance of a Department of Defense function; to the Committee on 
Armed Services.


         The DoD COST MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT of 2000

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
Alabama, Senator Sessions, to introduce legislation that will improve 
Department of Defense business practices as well as assist the DoD in 
its ability to estimate cost savings, a process that has significant 
impact in the DoD's budget process. This legislation will also result 
in improved readiness by adding a more realistic approach to the DoD's 
cost estimating process by eliminating the unknowns that the DoD faces 
in projecting its budget.
  Today the Department of Defense is using arbitrary cost saving 
objectives of up to $11.2 billion in its budget for Fiscal Years 2001 
to 2005. These cost savings are projected efficiencies expected to be 
realized through processes such as outsourcing and the OMB Circular A-
76 process. Unfortunately, both the Government Accounting Office and 
the Naval Audit Service have published reports stating that these 
savings are inflated and overly optimistic.
  The greatest cause of concern however, is the self-inflicting damage 
caused by these overestimated savings. Once the individual services 
within the Department of Defense establish these arbitrary savings 
goals, they reduce the future operating budget estimates to take into 
account the estimated savings. But, when these predicted savings are 
not achieved, it is the readiness accounts and modernization programs 
that end up paying the price.
  None of us would run our personal home finances in such a manner, and 
no business could proceed using such an accounting method. So that is 
what Senator Sessions, my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, 
and I want to address in this legislation. We want to establish better 
business practices, so that DoD is not setting itself

[[Page 5997]]

up for failure. DoD needs to take a more realistic approach in the way 
it estimates projected savings and how it establishes performance 
standards to measure the impact of workforce changes. The DoD and the 
American taxpayer need to understand the potential impact to the 
readiness of our armed forces.
  This legislation has four basic provisions that will provide improved 
business practices.
  First, this legislation requires the Department of Defense to 
establish a system to track the costs and savings incurred through 
managed competitions, efficient reorganizations, and the streamlining 
of other functions currently being performed by the government through 
the A-76 process or other re-engineering of a federal activity.
  The data collected through the establishment of this system will 
serve two purposes. It will be compiled into a report the Department of 
Defense is required to submit to Congress each year, so that Congress 
will have the information necessary to provide oversight of the A-76 
process and other cost saving reorganizing process. The data will also 
be used to establish a metric of current performance and current costs 
prior to outsourcing, to serve as a standard for future performance and 
future cost comparisons--so that the leaders within the Department of 
Defense will be able to validate the actual savings achieved and 
evaluate the maintenance of performance standards.
  Second, this legislation requires that the cost and savings incurred 
through out-sourcing, strategic sourcing, or re-organizing each 
position currently staffed by federal personnel, be projected over the 
Future Years Defense Program. This requirement will improve savings 
estimates by including both the short and long term costs associated 
with outsourcing, or contracting out a function.
  The third provision of this legislation requires the Secretary of 
Defense to certify that the function analysis and decision to 
outsource, strategically source, or to maintain the current federal 
force was not based on unfair personnel constraints that may prevent 
the current federal organization from operating efficiently. This will 
ensure that our federal workers are provided a fair chance in any 
process and will provide the Department of Defense the most efficient 
work force for the actual task at hand.
  As part of the A-76 process, the Department of Defense is required to 
conduct an evaluation of the impact on local economies and communities 
if the decision is made to convert functions currently being performed 
by government workers to the private sector. The fourth provision of 
this legislation requires the Department of Defense to submit a 
statement of the potential economic impact on each affected local 
community. This notification will provide Congress and our constituents 
the opportunity to better understand these impacts.
  Mr. President, in the short term, this legislation will require 
significant changes in the way the Department of Defense conducts its 
processes. But in the long term this legislation will yield significant 
benefit. These four provisions are based on the recommendations of 
experts in the U.S. General Accounting Office and the Naval Audit 
Service. By enforcing better business practices--which is what this 
legislation effectively does--the long term effects will benefit the 
Department of Defense by improving the accuracy of cost and savings 
estimates, stabilizing the budget, and protecting modernization 
programs.
  Additionally, the benefits will extend to the current federal 
workforce, who will be guaranteed the opportunity to compete on an 
equal basis, and the local communities surrounding these agencies will 
be able to better understand the impact of any decisions that are made.
  Mr. President, I firmly believe that this legislation supports the 
best interests of the Department of Defense and the federal work force. 
I urge my colleagues to review this legislation--and I am confident 
that they will see its merits and join me and support this bill.

                          ____________________