THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
In fact, the law says that we should defend intellectual property rights. Section 315 of Uruguay Round Implementation Act states that it is the policy of the U.S. to seek enactment and implementation of foreign intellectual property laws that ``strengthen and supplement'' TRIPs. This amendment contradicts the law and would inhibit the pharmaceutical industry from seeking assistance from their own government to resolve intellectual property rights issue with foreign governments.
While the author of the amendment contends that the restrictions would not apply if the bill was in compliance with TRIPs, I'm not sure how such a determination of a violation can be made without going to WTO. Unless, we decide that the State Department can make legal determinations about the legality or illegality of intellectual property rights actions, this amendment would allow the Administration to prejudge the outcome of a WTO case.
The amendment is broadly drafted and could prohibit the Administration from acting even when there is a clear violation of TRIPs, as in the case of South Africa . The South African Medicines Act, which is under litigation in South Africa , not only permits parallel importation which is not permitted under Article 28 of the TRIPs agreements, it also contains a provision which allows the complete abrogation of patient rights at the discretion of the Minister of Health.
Specifically, Section 15c of the South African Medicines Act says that, the Health Minister may determine ``that the rights with regard to any medicine under a patent granted in the Republic shall not extend to acts in respect of such medicine which has been put on the market by the owner of the medicine, or with his or her consent.''
Conceivably the amendment could compel the State Department to refrain from action if the government in question--in this case South Africa --claims that their actions are in compliance with TRIPs, since the amendment does not establish how to determine if an action is compliant with TRIPs.
Members need to know the facts, Article 28 of TRIPs--the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property obligates countries to prohibit parallel importation of patented products.
Pharmaceutical companies spend millions of dollars annually for the research and development of pharmaceutical products--patents protect their intellectual property. If those rights can be arbitrarily violated what incentive remains to pursue R&D for new and more effective drugs.
It is irresponsible to forbid our State Department from acting on behalf of companies and citizens and that is what this amendment would do.
AIDS CRISIS
It is important to note that the amendment is not specific to AIDS drugs and as such, would affect imports of all medicines.
This amendment is not about the AIDS crisis. We do need to address the AIDS crisis in Africa . Last Friday this Chamber passed two amendments which recognize the need for the
[Page: H6030] GPO's PDF
We should address the AIDS crisis by adopting appropriate policies and programs. We should not adopt a policy which abrogates property rights and international agreements.
The U.S. Global Strategy on HIV/AIDS , released in March 1999, cites health care infrastructure problems, including shortage of doctors, clinics and laboratories, as the biggest obstacles to the delivery of effective HIV/AIDS care. These are issues which we need to consider. On Monday, Vice President GORE announced a $100 million initiative to fight the growing AIDS epidemic in Africa , this is the type of action that we need to take and I intend to advocate for the authorization and appropriations of those funds.
I urge Members to vote against the Sanders amendment and to look for real, meaningful solutions to the AIDS crisis.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would urge the Members to have the courage to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry and support this amendment cosponsored by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. JACKSON), the gentleman from California (Mr. STARK), the gentleman from California (Mr. ROHRABACHER), the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. MCKINNEY), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. KUCINICH), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. HILLIARD), the gentleman from California (Mr. GEORGE MILLER), the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. SCHAKOWSKY) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. BERRY).
Let us win this fight.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 printed in part B of House Report 106-235.
AMENDMENT NO. 18 OFFERED BY MR. GIBBONS
Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. GIBBONS:
Page 46, after line 22, insert the following:
SEC. 257. ISSUANCE OF PASSPORTS FOR THE FIRST TIME TO CHILDREN UNDER AGE 14.
(a) IN GENERAL.--
(1) REGULATIONS.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall issue regulations providing that before a child under the age of 14 years is issued a passport for the first time, the requirements under paragraph (2) shall apply under penalty of perjury.
(2) REQUIREMENTS.--
(A) Both parents, or the child's legal guardian, must execute the application and provide documentary evidence demonstrating that they are the parents or guardian; or
(B) the person executing the application must provide documentary evidence that such person--
(i) has sole custody of the child;
(ii) has the consent of the other parent to the issuance of the passport; or
(iii) is in loco parentis and has the consent of both parents, of a parent with sole custody over the child, or of the child's legal guardian, to the issuance of the passport.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.--The regulations required by subsection (a) may provide for exceptions in exigent circumstances, such as, those involving the health or welfare of the child.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. GIBBONS) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. GIBBONS).
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Simply put, this amendment will help protect our American children from international parental child abduction. It is an inconceivable but irrefutable fact that once a child is taken from the United States, it is nearly impossible to get that child returned.
One of the most difficult and frustrating experiences for parents of internationally abducted children is that U.S. laws and court orders are not usually recognized in foreign countries and therefore are not entitled or enforceable actions abroad.
Even when criminal charges have been filed against the abducting parent in the United States, many foreign nations will not honor a U.S. request for extradition. It is therefore imperative that any measure we take must be preventive, for once these children are taken out of the country, they are often gone forever.
The aim of this amendment is prevention, prevention of anguish to families, prevention of the violation of parental rights, prevention of international child abduction.
These children are often abducted during or shortly after a contentious divorce, sometimes by an abusive parent. At a time when these children are most vulnerable and most uncertain about their future, they are snatched and taken away to a foreign country.
Let me tell a story, Madam Chairman, of Mikey Kale from my home State of Nevada for whom this amendment is named. On Valentine's Day in 1993, then 6-year-old Mikey was abducted by his biological father and kidnapped to war-torn Croatia.
Mikey's father and mother were divorced at this time. His mother had sole legal custody of Mikey. His father did not. But Mikey's father was still able to get a passport for his son even though he did not have any legal custodial rights. Thankfully, after a number of weeks and months and tremendous emotional and financial effort, Mikey's mother was able to get Mikey returned home.
Mikey's mother, Barbara, had this to say about her family's ordeal:
I learned through the State Department in Washington that my ex-husband had obtained a passport and birth certificate for Mikey within weeks of the divorce. I didn't think a person could get a passport for their child unless they had legal custody. I was wrong.
Mikey's mother goes on to say that this one law needs to be revised to help protect American children.
Madam Chairman, I am here to say that Mikey's mom is right. This law needs to be revised. It needs to be changed to protect our American children. We need to make it more difficult for would-be parental child abductors to obtain passports for children to prevent their further goal of taking young children out of this country. My amendment is a simple legislative solution which will implement a system of checks and safeguards prior to the issuance of a passport for the first time issuance to a child under the age of 14.
We who are parents and grandparents know that we are the ones who are looked upon as protectors by our children. This is a common-sense legislative solution to a devastating and tragic problem. And this problem is more common than you would think. Each year, more than 1,000 children are abducted and then taken out of the United States to foreign countries.
Here in the United States where our missing and abducted children are counted meticulously inside our borders, it is still hard to track the number of children who are taken overseas because only 45 nations have signed a Hague treaty designed to resolve international child custody disputes.
Mikey Kale is one of the fortunate ones. Most children are not. Regardless of the number of cases, whether it is 10 or 10,000, one case of international child abduction is too many, and my amendment seeks to prevent that tragedy from occurring.
I ask my colleagues to help me join in this effort to protect the Mikey Kales out there. Until more can be done, I believe this is the simplest, most cost-effective legislative solution to protect our children's rights and their lives. I would ask all my colleagues to join with me.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[Page: H6031] GPO's PDF
I appreciate the efforts by the gentleman from Nevada on this amendment and the efforts of the Bureau of Consular Affairs at the State Department. We are willing to accept this amendment. Stopping child abduction is extremely important and the right thing to do.
I commend the gentleman for proposing this matter. We accept the amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman. I rise to support the amendment of my colleague from Nevada, Mr. GIBBONS, which adds safeguards to the issuance of first-time passports to children. By requiring the consent of both parents, or proof that the person executing the application has legal custody of the child, it will be an important weapon in the fight against international child abduction by noncustodial parents.
The problem is very real. In numerous cases, estranged parents who are foreign residents have abducted their children to foreign countries, flagrantly violating the orders of courts in the United States. The problem is serious enough that the United States has become a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. That Convention establishes an international standard according to which children abducted to foreign countries will be returned to the country of their habitual residence.
Unfortunately, the problem persists, even under the Convention. there are continuing, credible allegations that some countries have become havens for child abductors, and ignore return orders issued pursuant to the Hague Convention. For that reason, Section 203 of the underlying bill extends and expands the State Department's annual reporting on the compliance of signatories to the Convention.
The Gibbons amendment is an additional safeguard that will help ensure that children are not wrongfully removed from the United States in the first place. I hope it receives wide support from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. GIBBONS).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. GIBBONS) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 printed in part B of House Report 106-235.
AMENDMENT NO. 22 OFFERED BY MR. GILMAN
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. GILMAN:
Page 84, after line 16, insert the following (and make such technical and conforming changes as may be necessary):
SEC. 703 RESTRICTIONS ON NUCLEAR COOPERATION WITH NORTH KOREA.
(a) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any international agreement, no agreement for cooperation (as defined in sec. 11 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014 b.)) between the United States and North Korea may become effective, no license may be issued for export directly or indirectly to North Korea of any nuclear material, facilities, components, or other goods, services, or technology that would be subject to such agreement, and no approval may be given for the transfer or re-transfer directly or indirectly to North Korea of any nuclear material, facilities, components, or other goods, services, or technology that would be subject to such agreement, until--
(1) the President determines and reports to the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate that--
(A) North Korea has come into full compliance with its safeguards agreement with the IAEA (INFCIRC/403) and has taken all steps that have been deemed necessary by the IAEA in this regard;
(B) North Korea has permitted the IAEA full access to all additional sites and all information (including historical records) deemed necessary by the IAEA to verify the accuracy and completeness of North Korea's initial report of May 4, 1992, to the IAEA on all nuclear sites and material in North Korea;
(C) North Korea is in full compliance with its obligations under the Agreed Framework;
(D) North Korea is in full compliance with its obligations under the Joint Declaration on Denuclearization;
(E) North Korea does not have the capability to enrich uranium, and is not seeking to acquire or develop such capability, or any additional capability to reprocess spent nuclear fuel;
(F) North Korea has terminated its nuclear weapons program, including all efforts to acquire, develop, test, produce, or deploy such weapons; and
(G) the transfer to North Korea of key nuclear components, under the proposed agreement for cooperation with North Korea and in accordance with the Agreed Framework, is in the national interest of the United States; and
(2) there is enacted a joint resolution stating in substance that the Congress concurs in the determination and report of the President submitted pursuant to paragraph (1).
(b) CONSTRUCTION.--The restrictions contained in subsection (a) shall apply in addition to all other applicable procedures, requirements, and restrictions contained in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and other laws.
AMENDMENT NO. 22, AS MODIFIED, OFFERED BY MR. GILMAN
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified with the modification that I have placed at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Part B amendment No. 22, as modified, offered by Mr. GILMAN:
Page 84, after line 16, insert the following (and make such technical and conforming changes as may be necessary):
SEC. 703. RESTRICTIONS ON NUCLEAR COOPERATION WITH NORTH KOREA.
(a) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any international agreement, no agreement for cooperation (as defined in sec. 11 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014 b.)) between the United States and North Korea may become effective, no license may be issued for export directly or indirectly to North Korea of any nuclear material, facilities, components, or other goods, services, or technology that would be subject to such agreement, and no approval may be given for the transfer or retransfer directly or indirectly to North Korea of any nuclear material, facilities, components, or other goods, services, or technology that would be subject to such agreement, until--
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents