[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 106 (Friday, July 31, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9557-S9561]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S9557]]
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 2395. A bill to provide grants to strengthen State and local 
health care systems' response to domestic violence by building the 
capacity of health care professionals and staff to identify, address, 
and prevent domestic violence; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


                     the prescription for abuse act

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, with the passage of the Violence Against 
Women Act in 1994, Congress recognized domestic violence as a serious 
threat to the health safety of women in this country. We successfully 
created vital programs to train the law enforcement and judicial 
communities to respond to domestic violence, and further supported 
important intervention programs. In some respects, however, we left the 
job only partially addressed. We failed to train and support the 
professionals that face victims of domestic violence on a daily basis: 
health care professionals and staff.
  Today, I am pleased that Senator Stevens is joining me in introducing 
a bill to fill that gap: ``The Prescription for Abuse Act--(Rx for 
Abuse Act).''
  Health care professionals and staff are truly on the front lines of 
domestic violence work. Nearly four million American women are 
physically abused each year. While our shelters are always overwhelmed, 
not all women seek shelter. Not all victims call the police. But 
eventually, almost all victims seek medical care. Last year, the 
Department of Justice reported that more than one in three women who 
sought care in emergency rooms for violence-related injuries were 
injured by a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend. And, 
while the impact on the health care system is immense, few health care 
settings have intervened in a comprehensive way to identify, treat, and 
prevent the violence that they see on a daily basis. Of particular 
interest reported to me by a New Mexico doctor, a significant number of 
office or emergency room visits are not detected as domestic violence-
related because physicians and staff are not trained to properly 
identify the signs of a battered victim.
  Domestic violence is repetitive in nature. According to 1993 data 
from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, one in five women victimized by 
their spouse or ex-spouse reported that they had been a victim of a 
series of at least three assaults in the prior six months. 
Unfortunately, the way the system currently works, the bones are set 
and the cuts stitched, but the patients are seldom asked about their 
injuries or referred to services that can help them stop the violence.
  Health care providers, professionals, hospitals, emergency health 
care staff, physical therapists, and domestic violence organizations 
need to join forces to find ways to identify, address and document 
abuse. They need to work together to ensure the confidentiality and 
safety of victims, and to connect victims to available services.
  Violence against women takes a tremendous toll on our health care 
system. Battering is a leading cause of injury to women and each year 
more than a million women seek medical attention because of it. Women 
who have been battered or sexually assaulted utilize the health care 
system at much higher rates than non-abused women, for a variety of 
health problems, including repeated injuries, stress-related disorders, 
depression, and other physical and mental illnesses. And battering 
during pregnancy increases the risk of premature, low birth weight, or 
stillborn babies. Health care providers and staff are often the first, 
and only, professionals to see a battered woman's injuries. They are in 
a unique position to identify abuse before it is reported and to 
intervene in a way that will result in a reduction in the morbidity and 
mortality caused by violence in the home. In far too many ways to 
enumerate, domestic violence is a health care issue. Training health 
care professionals and staff to recognize, intervene, and refer victims 
to additional assistance is the purpose of this bill.
  As we are all aware, domestic violence knows no age, educational, 
economic, or socio-cultural barriers. It is evident in our smallest 
communities and our largest cities. In the sparsely-populated State of 
New Mexico, there are 26 domestic violence shelters that served more 
than 16,000 unduplicated clients last year. There were 11,400 non-
resident shelter clients and 5,000 shelter residents, with 77,000 
nights of shelter provided in one year alone. This represents a thirty-
eight percent increase over a four-year period. The New Mexico 
Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the countless professionals who 
staff the shelters and clinics across the State know the extent and 
consequences of the horrific problem of domestic violence on children, 
women, and families.
  I am proud to say that New Mexico is on the cutting edge of a 
strategy to begin the process of training health care professionals and 
staff to become more involved in this critical issue. Last month, a 
collaborative effort of the New Mexico Coalition Against Domestic 
Violence, the New Mexico Medical Society, and the New Mexico Department 
of Health, in partnership with the Family Violence Prevention Fund 
Health Initiative, pulled together teams from 15 hospitals across the 
State to train health care providers to identify and respond to the 
needs of domestic violence victims that they treat. Based on the 
ongoing work in my State, and similar work in Alaska, Senator Stevens 
and I am introducing a bill to replicate such efforts around the 
country.
  The bill establishes three and four-year demonstration grants to 
strengthen state and local health care systems' responses to domestic 
violence by building the capacity of health care professionals and 
staff to identify, address, and prevent domestic violence among their 
patients. It will give these health care professionals the training, 
tools, and support they need to confidently address the violence that 
affects their patients' health. The bill authorizes ten grants up to 
two million dollars each for statewide teams to develop four-year 
demonstration programs and ten grants up to $450,000 each for local 
teams to direct three-year local level demonstrations. Eligible state 
applicants are state health departments, domestic violence coalitions, 
or the state medical or health professionals' associations or 
societies, or other nonprofit or governmental entities that have a 
history of work on domestic violence.
  Mr. President, there is no question that early intervention on the 
part of health professionals can decrease the morbidity and mortality 
that results from violence in the home. I am pleased to join with 
Senator Stevens in introducing the ``Rx for Abuse Act,'' and I urge my 
colleagues to cosponsor this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the 
text of the bill be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2395

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. GRANTS TO ADDRESS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN HEALTH CARE 
                   SETTINGS.

       (a) In General.--The Family Violence Prevention and 
     Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10401 et seq.) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 319. GRANTS TO ADDRESS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN HEALTH 
                   CARE SETTINGS.

       ``(a) General Purpose Grants.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Office of Family Violence and Prevention Services 
     of the Administration for Children and Families, may award 
     grants to eligible State and local entities to strengthen the 
     State and local health care system's response to domestic 
     violence by building the capacity of health care 
     professionals and staff to identify, address, and prevent 
     domestic violence.
       ``(b) State Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may award grants under 
     subsection (a) to entities eligible under paragraph (2) for 
     the conduct of not to exceed 10 Statewide programs for the 
     design and implementation of Statewide strategies to enable 
     health care workers to improve the health care system's 
     response to treatment and prevention of domestic violence as 
     provided for in subsection (d).
       ``(2) Eligible entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under paragraph (1) an entity shall--
       ``(A) be a State health department, nonprofit State 
     domestic violence coalition, State professional medical 
     society, State health professional association, or other 
     nonprofit or State entity with a documented history of 
     effective work in the field of domestic violence;
       ``(B) demonstrate to the Secretary that such entity is 
     representing a team of organizations and agencies working 
     collaboratively

[[Page S9558]]

     to strengthen the health care system's response to domestic 
     violence; and
       ``(C) prepare and submit to the Secretary an application at 
     such time, in such manner, and containing such information as 
     the Secretary may require.
       ``(3) Limitation.--The Secretary may not award a grant to a 
     State health department under paragraph (1) unless the State 
     health department can certify that State laws, policies, and 
     practices do not require the mandatory reporting of domestic 
     violence by health care professionals and staff when the 
     victim is an adult.
       ``(4) Term and amount.--A grant under this section shall be 
     for a term of 4 years and for an amount not to exceed 
     $2,000,000 for each such year.
       ``(c) Local Demonstration Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may award grants under 
     subsection (a) to entities eligible under paragraph (2) for 
     the conduct of not to exceed 10 demonstration projects for 
     the design and implementation of a strategy to improve the 
     response of local health care professionals and staff to the 
     treatment and prevention of domestic violence.
       ``(2) Eligible entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under paragraph (1) an entity shall--
       ``(A) be a local health department, local nonprofit 
     domestic violence organization or service provider, local 
     professional medical society or health professional 
     association, or other nonprofit or local government entity 
     that has a documented history of effective work in the field 
     of domestic violence;
       ``(B) demonstrate to the Secretary that such entity is 
     representing a team of organizations working collaboratively 
     to strengthen the health care system's response to domestic 
     violence; and
       ``(C) prepare and submit to the Secretary an application at 
     such time, in such manner, and containing such information as 
     the Secretary may require.
       ``(3) Term and amount.--A grant under this section shall be 
     for a term of 3 years and for an amount not to exceed 
     $450,000 for each such year.
       ``(d) Use of Funds.--Amounts provided under a grant under 
     this section shall be used to design and implement 
     comprehensive Statewide and local strategies to improve the 
     health care setting's response to domestic violence in 
     hospitals, clinics, managed care settings, emergency medical 
     services, and other health care systems. Such a strategy 
     shall include--
       ``(1) the development, implementation, and dissemination of 
     policies and procedures to guide health care professionals 
     and staff responding to domestic violence;
       ``(2) the training of, and providing follow-up technical 
     assistance to, health care professionals and staff to screen 
     for domestic violence, and then to appropriately assess, 
     record in medical records, treat, and refer patients who are 
     victims of domestic violence to domestic violence services;
       ``(3) the implementation of practice guidelines for 
     widespread screening and recording mechanisms to identify and 
     document domestic violence, and the institutionalization of 
     such guidelines and mechanisms in quality improvement 
     measurements such as patient record reviews, staff 
     interviews, patient surveys, or other methods used to 
     evaluate and enhance staff compliance with protocols;
       ``(4) the development of an on-site program to address the 
     safety, medical, mental health, and economic needs of 
     patients who are victims of domestic violence achieved either 
     by increasing the capacity of existing health care 
     professionals and staff to address these issues or by 
     contracting with or hiring domestic violence advocates to 
     provide the services;
       ``(5) the development of innovative and effective 
     comprehensive approaches to domestic violence identification, 
     treatment, and prevention models unique to managed care 
     settings, such as--
       ``(A) exploring ways to include compensated health care 
     professionals and staff for screening and other services 
     related to domestic violence;
       ``(B) developing built-in incentives such as billing 
     mechanisms and protocols to encourage health care 
     professionals and staff to implement screening and other 
     domestic violence programs; and
       ``(C) contracting with community agencies as vendors to 
     provide domestic violence victims access to advocates and 
     services in health care settings; and
       ``(6) the collection of data, implementation of patient and 
     staff surveys, or other methods of measuring the 
     effectiveness of their programs and for other activities 
     identified as necessary for evaluation by the evaluating 
     agency.
       ``(e) Evaluation.--The Secretary may use not to exceed 5 
     percent of the amount appropriated for a fiscal year under 
     subsection (e) to evaluate the economic and health benefits 
     of the programs and activities conducted by grantees under 
     this section and the extent to which the institutionalization 
     of protocols, practice guidelines, and recording mechanisms 
     has been achieved.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this section--
       ``(A) $24,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 
     2002; and
       ``(B) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
       ``(2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated under paragraph 
     (1) shall remain available until expended.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--Section 305(a) of the Family 
     Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10405(a)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``an employee'' and inserting ``one or more 
     employees''; and
       (B) by striking ``individual'' and inserting 
     ``individuals''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 2396. A bill to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to require 
the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a pilot program under which 
milk producers and cooperatives will be permitted to enter into forward 
price contracts with milk handlers; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.


                  Dairy Forward Pricing Pilot Program

 Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which will 
help the dairy industry manage price volatility. The bill requires the 
Secretary of Agriculture to establish a pilot program under which milk 
producers and cooperatives will be permitted to enter into forward 
price contracts with milk handlers.

  The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 required 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture to consolidate the federal milk 
marketing orders by April 1999, to phase out the dairy price support 
program by January 1, 2000, and replace it with a recourse loan program 
for commercial dairy processors by January 1, 2000, and authorizes 
reforms in the federal milk marketing order system. Movement toward a 
more market-oriented dairy industry was supported on a bipartisan basis 
in the House and Senate.
  At a July 29, 1997, Senate Agriculture Committee hearing, witnesses 
testified that price volatility exists in the dairy industry as it does 
for other agricultural commodities. However, in the case of the dairy 
industry, the tools to manage price risk are less developed and the 
knowledge of how to use risk management techniques is below that of 
most other food commodities.
  On January 2, 1998, and again on February 25, 1998, I wrote Secretary 
of Agriculture Glickman recommend modification of federal milk 
marketing orders to permit proprietary handlers of milk to offer dairy 
producers forward contracts for milk. The department interprets the 
applicable statute as prohibiting the offering of forward contracts 
because the contracts would violate a requirement to pay producers a 
minimum price.
  The legislation I introduce today authorizes the Secretary of 
Agriculture to conduct a three-year pilot program for forward pricing 
of milk. Under the program, milk handlers and producers could 
voluntarily enter into fixed price contracts for specific volume of 
milk for an agreed upon period of time. It is intended that the 
Secretary of Agriculture review the forward pricing contracts to ensure 
that the contracts are consistent with all existing fair agricultural 
trade practices.
  Mr. President, it is important that dairy producers and processors be 
afforded risk management tools. I believe this legislation will assist 
in that effort and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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. 2396

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DAIRY FORWARD PRICING PILOT PROGRAM.

       The Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
     reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing 
     Agreement Act of 1937, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 23. DAIRY FORWARD PRICING PILOT PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     establish a pilot program under which milk producers and 
     cooperatives are authorized to voluntarily enter into forward 
     price contracts with milk handlers.
       ``(b) Minimum Milk Price Requirements.--Payments made by 
     milk handlers to milk producers and cooperatives, and prices 
     received by milk producers and cooperatives, under the 
     forward contracts shall be deemed to satisfy all regulated 
     minimum milk price requirements of paragraphs (A), (B), (C), 
     (D), (F), and (J) of subsection (5), and subsections (7)(B) 
     and (18), of section 8c.
       ``(c) Application.--This section shall apply only with 
     respect to the marketing of federally regulated milk 
     (regardless of its use)

[[Page S9559]]

     that is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or 
     that directly burdens, obstructs, or affects interstate or 
     foreign commerce in federally regulated milk.
       ``(d) Termination of Effectiveness.--The authority provided 
     by this section terminates 3 years after the date of the 
     establishment of the pilot program under subsection 
     (a).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Terricelli and 
        Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 2397. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
issuance of tax-exempt private activity bonds to finance public-private 
partnership activities relating to school facilities in public 
elementary and secondary schools, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


               public school construction partnership act

 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, teachers, students, parents, and 
school administrators know that the United States faces a school 
infrastructure crisis. Many of our schools are more than 50 years old 
and crumbling, and the General Accounting Office estimates that it will 
cost about $112 billion to bring them into good repair. Moreover, this 
estimate does not take into account the need for new construction. The 
U.S. Department of Education projects that some 1.9 million more 
students will be entering schools in the next 10 years. At current 
prices, it will cost about $73 billion to build the new schools needed 
to educate this growing student population. Mr. President, I might add 
that my own State is gaining 60,000 new students each year. By the end 
of the decade, Florida's student enrollment will have increased 25 
percent more than the population as a whole.
  Education is rightfully a state and local matter, but the Federal 
government can play a helpful, non-intrusive role in assisting 
communities overwhelmed by explosive increases in student enrollment. 
We at the Federal level should help empower local school districts to 
find innovative, cost effective ways to finance new schools and repair 
aging ones. Let me quote Mr. Roger Cuevas, who is the superintendent of 
schools for Miami-Dade County, FL:

       It is important that financing options be defined in as 
     flexible a manner as possible and especially not be limited 
     to general obligation bonds . . . Flexibility in the choice 
     of the type of eligible debt financing, as well as the 
     capacity of the program to adapt to state-by-state 
     differences are as critical to all school districts in the 
     Nation as is its funding level.

  The bill I am introducing today providing new flexibility to state 
and local efforts to finance new schools and repair older ones. The 
first provision provides for public school construction the same 
financing opportunities which are currently available in a wide variety 
of other public-need areas namely, airports, seaports, mass transit 
facilities, water and sewer facilities, solid waste, disposal 
facilities, qualified residential rental projects, local furnishing of 
electric energy and gas, heating and cooling facilities, qualified 
hazardous waste facilities, high-speed inter-city rail facilities and 
environmental enhancements, of hydroelectric generating facilities. In 
all of these 10 separate areas, the U.S. Congress has provided 
assistance in the financing through what is known as private activity 
bonds.
  This bill adds public schools in this list. Mr. President, this 
legislation was part of Senator Coverdell's A Plus Savings Account bill 
that was passed by the Senate earlier this session. Unfortunately, this 
important provision was eliminated by a House-Senate Conference 
Committee. Mr. President, we now have another chance to do something 
constructive for our public schools. A recent article in the Washington 
Post reported that education is one of the American people's highest 
priorities. It should be one of our highest priorities too.
  This legislation provides to each state the opportunity to issue tax-
exempt private activity bonds to finance construction of public 
schools. These bonds would be administered at the state level, just as 
are the other 10 categories of private activity bonds. States 
containing school districts experiencing high growth would be allowed 
to issue bonds each year in an amount equal to $10 multiplied by the 
population of the state. For example, if a state with high-growth 
school districts has a population of 5 million, it could issue up to 
$50 million of bonds to finance school construction. A high-growth 
school district is one with an enrollment of at least 5,000 students 
and the enrollment has grown by at least 20 percent during the five 
years previous to the year of bond issue. According to the U.S. 
Department of Education, 286 school districts located throughout the 
Nation currently meet high-growth qualifications.
  This proposal puts decisionmaking at the local level. Each state 
would decide how to allocate its bonding authority among its high-
growth school districts. The state or local education authority would 
enter into an agreement--with the most favorable terms it could 
negotiate--with a private corporation to build schools. The state would 
issue the bonds, but the private corporation would be responsible for 
servicing the debt on the bonds. The state or local education authority 
would then lease back the facility. Ownership of the facility would 
revert to the state or local education authority upon retirement of the 
bonds.
  There are multiple benefits to permitting states and local school 
districts to enter into partnerships with private corporations to build 
schools. First, this mechanism can reduce construction time. For 
example, it would take a school district issuing $4 million of general 
obligation bonds each year, using the traditional ``pay-as-you-go'' 
approach, about 11 years to finance the construction of three typical 
schools. The lease back mechanism permitted through the use of private 
activity bonds could result in building three schools within three 
years of issuing the bonds. Perhaps just as important, this arrangement 
would permit the use of facilities for other worthwhile purposes when 
school is not in session.
  The other component to this legislation provides relief to small or 
rural school districts issuing bonds for school construction. Under 
current law, issuers of school construction bonds worth less than $10 
million are exempt from the arbitrage rebate rules. This bill raises 
that exemption to $15 million, providing relief from burdensome Federal 
regulations to even more school districts.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support these modest proposals 
to provide some much needed assistance to our public schools.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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. 2397

       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 ``Public School Construction 
     Partnership Act''.

     SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF QUALIFIED PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL FACILITY 
                   BONDS AS EXEMPT FACILITY BONDS.

       (a) Treatment as Exempt Facility Bond.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 142 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     exempt facility bond) is amended by striking ``or'' at the 
     end of paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end of 
     paragraph (12) and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(13) qualified public educational facilities.''
       (b) Qualified Public Educational Facilities.--Section 142 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(k) Qualified Public Educational Facilities.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(13), the 
     term `qualified public educational facility' means any school 
     facility which is--
       ``(A) part of a public elementary school or a public 
     secondary school,
       ``(B) except as provided in paragraph (6)(B)(iii), located 
     in a high-growth school district, and
       ``(C) owned by a private, for-profit corporation pursuant 
     to a public-private partnership agreement with a State or 
     local educational agency described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Public-private partnership agreement described.--A 
     public-private partnership agreement is described in this 
     paragraph if it is an agreement--
       ``(A) under which the corporation agrees--
       ``(i) to do 1 or more of the following: construct, 
     rehabilitate, refurbish, or equip a school facility, and
       ``(ii) at the end of the contract term, to transfer the 
     school facility to such agency for no additional 
     consideration, and
       ``(B) the term of which does not exceed the term of the 
     underlying issue.
       ``(3) School facility.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `school facility' means--

[[Page S9560]]

       ``(A) school buildings,
       ``(B) functionally related and subordinate facilities and 
     land with respect to such buildings, including any stadium or 
     other facility primarily used for school events, and
       ``(C) any property, to which section 168 applies (or would 
     apply but for section 179), for use in the facility.
       ``(4) Public schools.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     terms `elementary school' and `secondary school' have the 
     meanings given such terms by section 14101 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801), as in 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
       ``(5) High-growth school district.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `high-growth school district' means a 
     school district established under State law which had an 
     enrollment of at least 5,000 students in the second academic 
     year preceding the date of the issuance of the bond and an 
     increase in student enrollment of at least 20 percent during 
     the 5-year period ending with such academic year.
       ``(6) Annual aggregate face amount of tax-exempt 
     financing.--
       ``(A) In general.--An issue shall not be treated as an 
     issue described in subsection (a)(13) if the aggregate face 
     amount of bonds issued by the State pursuant thereto (when 
     added to the aggregate face amount of bonds previously so 
     issued during the calendar year) exceeds an amount equal to 
     the greater of--
       ``(i) $10 multiplied by the State population, or
       ``(ii) $5,000,000.
       ``(B) Allocation rules.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subparagraph, the State may allocate in a calendar year the 
     amount described in subparagraph (A) for such year in such 
     manner as the State determines appropriate.
       ``(ii) Rules for carryforward of unused amount.--With 
     respect to any calendar year, a State may make an election 
     under rules similar to the rules of section 146(f), except 
     that the sole carryforward purpose with respect to such 
     election is the issuance of exempt facility bonds described 
     in section 142(a)(13).
       ``(iii) Special allocation rule for schools outside high-
     growth school districts.--A State may elect to allocate an 
     aggregate face amount of bonds not to exceed $5,000,000 from 
     the amount described in subparagraph (A) for each calendar 
     year for qualified public educational facilities without 
     regard to the requirement under paragraph (1)(A).''
       (c) Exemption From General State Volume Caps.--Paragraph 
     (3) of section 146(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to exception for certain bonds) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or (12)'' and inserting ``(12), or 
     (13)'', and
       (2) by striking ``and environmental enhancements of 
     hydroelectric generating facilities'' and inserting 
     ``environmental enhancements of hydroelectric generating 
     facilities, and qualified public educational facilities''.
       (d) Exemption From Limitation on Use for Land 
     Acquisition.--Section 147(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to certain rules not apply) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Exempt facility bonds for qualified public-private 
     schools.--Subsection (c) shall not apply to any exempt 
     facility bond issued as part of an issue described in section 
     142(a)(13) (relating to qualified public-private schools).'', 
     and
       (2) by striking ``Mortgage Revenue Bonds, Qualified Student 
     Loan Bonds, and Qualified 501(c)(3) Bonds'' in the heading 
     and inserting ``Certain Bonds''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to bonds issued after December 31, 1998.

     SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL INCREASE IN ARBITRAGE REBATE EXCEPTION FOR 
                   GOVERNMENTAL BONDS USED TO FINANCE EDUCATION 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 148(f)(4)(D)(vii) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to increase in exception for 
     bonds financing public school capital expenditures) is 
     amended by striking ``$5,000,000'' the second place it 
     appears and inserting ``$10,000,000''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to obligations issued after December 31, 
     1998.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN:
  S. 2399. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain drug 
substances used as an HIV antiviral drug; to the Committee on Finance.


                     tariff elimination legislation

 Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to 
eliminate the tariffs on two chemicals, TIC-A and TIC-C, used in the 
production of protease inhibitors. Protease inhibitors are critical 
components of the ``cocktail'' therapy used for the treatment of the 
HIV virus that causes AIDS.
  Protease inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment regimen for HIV 
patients. Since Food and Drug Administration approval in 1996, protease 
inhibitors have become effective treatments for HIV patients. These 
treatments reduce the amount of virus in the blood stream of HIV 
patients to undetectable levels. The result of this treatment regimen 
is that most patients on the ``cocktail'' therapy have been able to 
resume active and productive lives.
  Protease inhibitors are extremely sophisticated molecules and as a 
result are very difficult to manufacture. In addition, they are most 
effective only in high doses, making the treatment regimen very costly. 
Duty elimination of protease inhibitor raw materials, like TIC-A and 
TIC-C, will help reduce the costs associated with the production of the 
treatments.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the 
bill be placed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2399

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. TEMPORARY DUTY SUSPENSIONS ON CERTAIN HIV DRUG 
                   SUBSTANCES.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     inserting in numerical sequence the following new headings:

       

``9902.32.1  (S)-N-tert-butyl-                                          
 4.           1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-                                       
              3-isoquinoline                                            
              carboxamide (CAS                                          
              No. 149182-72-                                            
              9)(provided for in                                        
              subheading                                                
              2933.40.60).......  Free    No                            
                                           change   No                  
                                                     change   On or     
                                                               before 6/
                                                               30/99    
9902.32.16.  (S)-N-tert-butyl-                                          
              1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-                                       
              3-isoquinoline                                            
              carboxamide                                               
              hydrochloride salt                                        
              (CAS No. 149057-17-                                       
              0)(provided for in                                        
              subheading                                                
              2933.40.60).......  Free    No                            
                                           change   No                  
                                                     change   On or     
                                                               before 6/
                                                               30/99    
9902.32.18.  (S)-N-tert-butyl-                                          
              1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-                                       
              3-isoquinoline                                            
              carboxamide                                               
              sulfate salt (CAS                                         
              No. 186537-30-                                            
              4)(provided for in                                        
              subheading                                                
              2933.40.60).......  Free    No                            
                                           change   No                  
                                                     change   On or     
                                                               before 6/
                                                               30/99    
9902.32.20.  (3S)-1,2,3,4-                                              
              tetrahydroisoquino                                        
              line-3-carboxylic                                         
              acid (CAS No.                                             
              74163-81-8)(provid                                        
              ed for in                                                 
              subheading                                                
              2933.40.60).......  Free    No                            
                                           change   No                  
                                                     change   On or     
                                                               before 6/
                                                               30/99''. 
                                                                        

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the date that is 15 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 2401. A bill to authorize the addition of the Paoli Battlefield 
site in Malvern, Pennsylvania, to Valley Forge National Historical 
Park; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                   paoli battlefield site legislation

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce 
legislation to authorize the addition of the Paoli Battlefield site in 
Malvern, Pennsylvania to Valley Forge National Historical Park. The 
Paoli Massacre was an important chapter in the British campaign to 
capture Philadelphia in 1777. More than 50 American soldiers lost their 
lives when the British attacked and bayoneted General ``Mad'' Anthony 
Wayne's forces at Paoli Battlefield. Accordingly, this land needs to be 
preserved as an important part of Pennsylvania's history and our 
nation's history.
  Congressman Curt Weldon has introduced this legislation in the House 
of Representatives and we are working together with the local community 
toward enactment of this bill prior to adjournment. The issue is quite 
simple. The Paoli Battlefield is an unprotected Revolutionary War site 
that is privately owned by the Malvern Preparatory School. The School 
intends to sell the land in order to strengthen its endowment, but 
officials agreed to give the community a chance to purchase the land 
for historical preservation purposes. Thus, the Paoli Battlefield will 
become open to residential or commercial development if $2.5 million is 
not raised by next year to purchase the land. Our bill envisions a 
combination of public and private financing to purchase the battlefield 
and link it to the protected lands known as Valley Forge National 
Historical Park. Specifically, the bill authorizes a purchase price of 
$2.5 million with not less than $1 million in nonfederal funds.

[[Page S9561]]

  Too many important historical sites, especially Revolutionary War 
battlefields, have already been lost to residential and commercial 
development. The citizens of Malvern, through the Paoli Battlefield 
Preservation Fund, have already raised in excess of $1 million to 
acquire the site. Thus, if the expected $2.5 million price is 
maintained, adding the Paoli Battlefield to Valley Forge National 
Historical Park would cost the federal government no more than $1.5 
million. The bill also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 
enter into a cooperative agreement with the Borough of Malvern, which 
has agreed to manage the 45-acre site in perpetuity, thereby ensuring 
that Valley Forge will not have to expend additional federal resources 
for Park operations on the Paoli Battlefield.
  Mr. President, this Congress has made a commitment to protecting 
battlefield sites. I have been pleased to support these efforts as well 
as the effort to obtain funding in the FY99 Interior and Related 
Agencies Appropriations bill to conduct the Revolutionary War and War 
of 1812 Historic Preservation Study. Paoli Battlefield played an 
important role in the Revolutionary War, and I therefore urge my 
colleagues to support this effort to protect an important piece of 
American history. Simply put, in a $1.7 trillion federal budget, I 
believe that we should be able to find a maximum of $1.5 million in 
federal funds to preserve a rich part of our history.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 2402. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey 
certain lands in San Juan County, New Mexico, to San Juan College; to 
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

                          ____________________