[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 11, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5036-S5052]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 996. A bill to establish a matching grant program to help State 
and local jurisdictions purchase school safety equipment; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                 STUDENTS LEARNING IN SAFE SCHOOLS ACT

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Students Learning 
in Safe Schools Act of 1999.
  This legislation would build on the successes of two bills I 
sponsored in the 105th Congress and that were signed into law, S. 2235, 
which established the Cops in Schools program and S. 1605, the 
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998.
  Juvenile crime prevention, of course, is on all of our minds, 
particularly since the recent tragedy in Littleton. I think all of us 
know that violence has

[[Page S5037]]

gone up among youngsters and it threatens a safe learning environment 
for our students at school. As a former teacher, a deputy sheriff, and 
parent, I developed a special sensitivity long before I came to the 
Senate.
  On April 20, in my home State, 13 innocent victims, 12 students and 1 
very heroic teacher, were murdered at Columbine High School. This town 
is a very nice town. Littleton is a wonderful community. The school of 
Columbine is a nice school with few problems. I guess people are prone 
to say if it could happen there, it certainly could happen anywhere.
  Clearly, no student should have to go to school where they fear for 
their lives. Statistics on violence in schools are startling. In fact, 
recent reports indicated there were 173 violent deaths in U.S. schools 
between 1994 and 1998 and that 31% of children know someone their age 
who carries a gun. The National Education Association estimated that 
100,000 youngsters carry guns to school and 160,000 children miss class 
every day because they fear physical harm.
  We know that government cannot fix it all. We are being leaned on, of 
course, to pass more and more laws to correct all these problems, but 
most of us know there has to be teamwork involving students and parents 
and families and communities and religious leaders and school 
administrators.
  This teamwork should also include law enforcement officers working 
closely with schools. Teachers and principals simply do not have the 
training or equipment or resources to deal with the problem. And they 
shouldn't have to, they should be focusing on teaching our kids.
  That's why I introduced S. 2235 last year, the School Resource 
Officers Partnership Grant Act of 1998, to help stop school violence. 
S. 2235, which was signed into law last October, will create thousands 
of vital partnerships between state and local law enforcement agencies, 
and the schools, parents and children they serve and protect. Schools 
that establish these partnerships would be eligible to receive federal 
funding through the Justice Department to hire School Resource 
Officers, also known as SROs. SROs are career law enforcement officers, 
with sworn authority, within the Community Policing program, and will 
work in and around our schools.
  Working in cooperation with youngsters, parents, teachers and 
principals, these SROs would be able to keep track of potentially 
dangerous kids and effectively deal with them before things escalate, 
violence errupts, and youngsters get hurt. These SROs would work in our 
schools, not as armed guards, but primarially as people who would help 
resolve conflicts.
  There is $60 million in Cops in School grants which will be 
distributed this year alone. In fact, the Justice Department has just 
announced the first round of grants with hundreds of schools in 42 
states benefiting.
  The bill I am introducing today, the Students Learning in Safe 
Schools Act of 1999, would build on the Cops in Schools program to help 
improve school safety. The Students Learning in Safe Schools Act would 
provide federal matching grants to help schools buy metal detectors, 
metal detecting wands, video cameras, and other equipment needed to 
help make our schools safer. This bill calls for a matching grant of 
$40 million for each of the 3 fiscal years from fiscal year 2000 
through fiscal year 2002. The grants would be easily accessible to 
States, local governments, and school districts with a minimum of 
redtape. This is not a mandate, however. It is an opportunity for 
school districts to get some additional resources.
  This legislation calls for posting this new school safety equipment 
grant program on the Internet right next to the Cops in Schools program 
which can now be found on the Justice Department's web sight. This 
would help provide one stop shopping where people can go for help in 
getting both the safety personnel and safety equipment they need to 
help make their schools safer.
  I do not expect this legislation, of course, to solve all our 
problems but certainly it is another tool I hope will go a long way in 
reducing juvenile violence in schools.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record 
following my remarks.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 996

       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 ``Students Learning in Safe 
     Schools Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR SCHOOL SAFETY EQUIPMENT.

       (a) In General.--Part Y of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is amended--
       (1) by striking the part designation and part heading and 
     inserting the following:

                   ``PART Y--MATCHING GRANT PROGRAMS

             ``Subpart A--Grant Program For Armor Vests'';

       (2) by striking ``this part'' each place that term appears 
     and inserting ``this subpart''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:

         ``Subpart B--Grant Program For School Safety Equipment

     ``SEC. 2511. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director of the Bureau of Justice 
     Assistance is authorized to make grants to States, units of 
     local government, Indian tribes, and local educational 
     agencies to purchase school safety equipment for use in and 
     near elementary and secondary schools.
       ``(b) Uses of Funds.--Grants awarded under this section 
     shall be--
       ``(1) distributed directly to the State, unit of local 
     government, Indian tribe, or local educational agency, as 
     applicable; and
       ``(2) used for the purchase of school safety equipment for 
     use in elementary and secondary schools in the jurisdiction 
     of the grantee.
       ``(c) Preferential Consideration.--In awarding grants under 
     this subpart, the Director of the Bureau of Justice 
     Assistance may give preferential consideration, if feasible, 
     to an application from a jurisdiction that--
       ``(1) has the greatest need for school safety equipment, 
     based on the percentage of elementary and secondary schools 
     in the jurisdiction of the applicant that do not have access 
     to such equipment;
       ``(2) has a violent crime rate at or above the national 
     average as determined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; 
     or
       ``(3) has not received a block grant under the Local Law 
     Enforcement Block Grant program described under the heading 
     `Violent Crime Reduction Programs, State and Local Law 
     Enforcement Assistance' of the Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105-119).
       ``(d) Minimum Amount.--Unless all eligible applications 
     submitted by any State or unit of local government within 
     such State for a grant under this section have been funded, 
     such State, together with grantees within the State (other 
     than Indian tribes), shall be allocated in each fiscal year 
     under this section not less than 0.50 percent of the total 
     amount appropriated in the fiscal year for grants pursuant to 
     this section except that the United States Virgin Islands, 
     American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands shall 
     each be allocated .25 percent.
       ``(e) Maximum Amount.--A qualifying State, unit of local 
     government, Indian tribe, or local educational agency may not 
     receive more than 5 percent of the total amount appropriated 
     in each fiscal year for grants under this section, except 
     that a State, together with the grantees within the State may 
     not receive more than 20 percent of the total amount 
     appropriated in each fiscal year for grants under this 
     section.
       ``(f) Matching Funds.--The portion of the costs of a 
     program provided by a grant under subsection (a) may not 
     exceed 50 percent. Any funds appropriated by Congress for the 
     activities of any agency of an Indian tribal government or 
     the Bureau of Indian Affairs performing law enforcement 
     functions on any Indian lands may be used to provide the non-
     Federal share of a matching requirement funded under this 
     subsection.
       ``(g) Allocation of Funds.--Not less than 50 percent of the 
     total amount made available to carry out this subpart in each 
     fiscal year shall be awarded to units of local government 
     with fewer than 100,000 residents.

     ``SEC. 2512. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--To request a grant under this subpart, 
     the chief executive of a State, unit of local government, 
     Indian tribe, or local educational agency shall submit an 
     application to the Director of the Bureau of Justice 
     Assistance in such form and containing such information as 
     the Director may reasonably require.
       ``(b) Regulations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of the Students Learning in Safe Schools Act of 
     1999, the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance shall 
     promulgate regulations to implement this section (including 
     the information that must be included and the requirements 
     that the States, units of local government, Indian tribes, 
     and local educational agencies must meet) in submitting the 
     applications required under this section.
       ``(2) Internet access.--The regulations promulgated under 
     this subsection shall provide for the availability of 
     applications for,

[[Page S5038]]

     and other information relating to, assistance under this 
     subpart on the Internet website of the Department of Justice, 
     in a manner that is closely linked to the information on that 
     Internet website concerning the program under part Q.
       ``(c) Eligibility.--A unit of local government that 
     receives funding under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant 
     program (described under the heading `Violent Crime Reduction 
     Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance' of the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 
     104-119)) during a fiscal year in which it submits an 
     application under this subpart shall not be eligible for a 
     grant under this subpart unless the chief executive officer 
     of such unit of local government certifies and provides an 
     explanation to the Director that the unit of local government 
     considered or will consider using funding received under the 
     block grant program for any or all of the costs relating to 
     the purchase of school safety equipment, but did not, or does 
     not expect to use such funds for such purpose.

     ``SEC. 2513. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subpart--
       ``(1) the term `Indian tribe' has the same meaning as in 
     section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e));
       ``(2) the term `school safety equipment' means metal 
     detectors, metal detecting wands, video cameras, and other 
     equipment designed to detect weapons and otherwise enhance 
     school safety;
       ``(3) the term `State' means each of the 50 States, the 
     District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
     United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the 
     Northern Mariana Islands; and
       ``(4) the term `unit of local government' means a county, 
     municipality, town, township, village, parish, borough, 
     school district, or other unit of general government below 
     the State level.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a) of 
     the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3793(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (23) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(23) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     part Y--
       ``(A) $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 
     2002 for grants under subpart A of that part; and
       ``(B) $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 
     2002 for grants under subpart B of that part.''.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING AMERICAN-MADE PRODUCTS 
                   AND EQUIPMENT.

       In the case of any equipment or products that may be 
     authorized to be purchased with financial assistance provided 
     using funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act, it is the sense of the Congress that entities receiving 
     the assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase 
     only American-made equipment and products, unless such 
     equipment or products are not readily available at reasonable 
     costs.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SCHOOL SECURITY.

       It is the sense of the Senate that recipients of assistance 
     under subpart B of part Y of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as added by this Act, 
     should, to the maximum extent practicable, seek to achieve a 
     balance between school security needs and the need for an 
     environment that is conducive to learning.

     SEC. 5. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.

       Section 202 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3722) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) School Safety Technology Development.--The Institute 
     shall conduct research and otherwise work to develop new 
     weapons detection technologies and safety systems that are 
     appropriate to school settings.''.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was happy to yield to the Senator from 
Colorado. He and I have had discussions of the terrible events that 
took place in Colorado. The distinguished Senator from Colorado and I 
wrote legislation on another area of law enforcement, relying on his 
experience and my experience in law enforcement. That was the 
bulletproof vests legislation which is now working very, very well.
  I mention this while the distinguished Senator from Colorado is still 
on the floor because we have had many discussions about law enforcement 
matters--most recently an event at the White House. It has been my 
experience, time and time again, the Senator from Colorado has given 
pragmatic and realistic solutions to law enforcement problems at a time 
when we can all get carried away by philosophical arguments. I found 
most law enforcement people tell me to save the philosophy for them to 
read in their retirement years--give them the pragmatic solutions today 
when they have to uphold the law.
  So I thank the Senator from Colorado.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
        Feingold, and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 998. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to prohibit 
the donation or service without charge of competitive foods of minimal 
nutritional value in schools participating in Federal meal service 
programs before the end of the last lunch period of the schools; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


            better nutrition for school children act of 1999

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to be joined by Senators 
Jeffords, Harkin, Kohl, and Feingold, and Representative Hinchey in the 
House of Representatives, in introducing the ``Better Nutrition for 
School Children Act of 1999.'' This bill seals a loophole undermining 
our children's nutritional health.
  One of the most important lessons we can teach our children is good 
health. Good health includes keeping our children tobacco and drug 
free, and includes nutrition education for healthy living.
  Every day, more than 26 million children participate in the National 
School Lunch Program. One-quarter of those children--approximately 
seven million--also participate in the National School Breakfast 
Program. According to a United States Department of Agriculture study, 
school children may consume between one-third and one-half of their 
daily nutrient intake at school. Knowing how important school meal 
programs are to the nutritional health of children, I am extremely 
concerned by reports of soft drinks being given to children before or 
during lunch.
  Current law prohibits the sale of soft drinks during lunch. This 
prohibition has been around for a long time. However, some schools are 
now getting around this prohibition by giving soda to children for 
free. This is a loophole--big enough to drive a soda truck through--
that hurts our children. The bill which we are introducing today would 
close this loophole so that soft drinks cannot be distributed--for free 
or for sale--during mealtime at schools participating in the National 
School Lunch Program. Also, the bill would prohibit giving away sodas 
before lunch.
  As a parent, I would be outraged to discover that my efforts at 
teaching my child good nutrition were being undermined by free sugar 
and caffeine laden soft drinks at school.
  Studies based on statistics from the USDA Continuing Surveys of Food 
Intakes by Individuals have shown that heavy soft drink consumption 
correlates with a low intake of magnesium, calcium, ascorbic acid, 
riboflavin and vitamin A. The loss of calcium is particularly alarming 
for teenage women, as calcium is crucial for building up bone mass to 
reduce the risk of osteoporosis later in life, and women build 92 
percent of their bone mass by age 18.
  Many sodas also contain caffeine, which is not only an addictive 
stimulant, but which also increases the excretion of calcium.
  In its Food Guide Pyramid for Young Children, which recommends good 
dietary habits for children, the United States Department of 
Agriculture continues to recommend serving children fruits, vegetables, 
grains, meat and dairy, while limiting children's intake of sweets - 
including soft drinks.
  Statistics regarding children's intake of soft drinks are alarming. 
For instance, teenage boys consume an average of 2\1/2\ soft drinks a 
day--which equals approximately 15 teaspoons of sugar--every day.
  While children's consumption of soft drinks has been on the rise, 
their consumption of milk has been on the decline. Statistics from the 
USDA demonstrate that whereas 20 years ago teens drank twice as much 
milk as soda, today they drink twice as much soda as milk. Unlike milk, 
soft drinks have minimal nutritional value and they contribute nothing 
to the health of kids. One need only compare the ingredient and 
nutrition labels on a Coke can versus a milk carton to see what a child 
loses when milk is replaced by a soft drink.
  The consequence of replacing milk with soda is clear: the declining 
nutritional health of our children. In her book Jane Brody's 
Nutritional Book, Jane Brody articulates this point in saying:

       Probably the most insidious undermining of good nutrition 
     in the early years comes

[[Page S5039]]

     from the soft drink industry. Catering to children's innate 
     preferences for a sweet taste, the industry has succeeded in 
     drawing millions of youngsters away from milk and natural 
     fruit juices and hooking them on pop and other artificially 
     flavored drinks that offer nothing of nutritional 
     significance besides calories.

  The Vermont State Board of Education's School Nutrition Policy 
Statement actually touches on this very issue. Among its 
recommendations to school districts for dietary guidelines and 
nutrition, the Board of Education advises:

       Certain foods which contribute little other than calories 
     should not be sold on school campuses. These foods include 
     carbonated beverages, nonfruit soft drinks, candies in which 
     the major ingredient is sugar, frozen nonfruit ice bars, and 
     chewing gum with sugar.

  It was only a few years ago that, as Chairman of the U.S. Senate 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, that I fought the 
soft drink behemoths--Coca-Cola and Pepsi--over vending machines in 
schools. I felt that schools should be encouraged to close down vending 
machines before and during lunch. I was unprepared for the wealth of 
opposition which ensued.
  However, despite the well-financed opposition by soda companies, the 
Nutrition and Health for Children Act was met with bipartisan support 
in Congress. Former Senator Bob Dole noted that ``too often a student 
gives up his half dollar and his appetite en route to the cafeteria'' 
and criticized the ``so-called plate waste, where young students and 
other students decide it is better to have a candy bar and a soft drink 
rather than eat some meal that is subsidized by the Federal 
Government.''
  Just as the Better Nutrition and Health for Children Act passed with 
bipartisan support in 1994, I am sure that the Better Nutrition for 
School Children Act of 1999 will pass with bipartisan support this 
year.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Better Nutrition for 
School Children Act of 1999 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 998

       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 ``Better Nutrition for School 
     Children Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to close the loophole that allows competitive foods of 
     minimum nutritional value that cannot be sold during meals in 
     schools participating in the school breakfast and lunch 
     programs to instead be donated or served without charge to 
     students during or before breakfast or lunch;
       (2) to protect 1 of the major purposes of the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.) and the 
     National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), which is 
     to promote better nutrition among school children 
     participating in the school breakfast and lunch programs; and
       (3) to promote better nutritional habits among school 
     children and improve the health of school children 
     participating in the school breakfast and lunch programs.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON DONATION OR SERVICE WITHOUT CHARGE OF 
                   COMPETITIVE FOODS OF MINIMAL NUTRITIONAL VALUE.

       Section 10 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 
     1779) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b) The'' and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Donation or Service Without Charge of Competitive 
     Foods of Minimal Nutritional Value.--
       ``(1) Sales.--The''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Donations or service without charge.--The regulations 
     shall prohibit the donation or service without charge of 
     competitive foods not approved by the Secretary under 
     paragraph (1) in a school participating in a meal service 
     program authorized under this Act or the National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) before the end of the last 
     lunch period of the school.''.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Leahy, 
Senator Feingold, Senator Kohl, and Senator Harkin as an original 
cosponsor of the Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999. This 
issue is so important to the health and well being of our nation's 
school children.
  The Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999 is about good 
nutrition--and a little about milk. The Vermont and Wisconsin Senators 
at times have a hard time agreeing on federal milk policy, but we all 
agree that good nutrition plays an important role in the health and 
education of our children.
  As chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, 
I recognize the importance of having a proper and nutritionally 
balanced diet in our school lunch programs. A well nourished child is a 
child more healthy, energized, focused and able to learn.
  When school children receive a large amount of their daily caloric 
intake from sugary soft drinks, they are not receiving the fruits, 
vegetables, vitamins, minerals, and perhaps most importantly--calcium 
that they need.
  Soda and other sugary junk foods squeeze more nutritious foods out of 
their diet. Since many school children may consume between one-third 
and one-half of their daily intake at school, it is important that we 
do not allow them to substitute good nutrition with empty calories.
  Mr. President, teens, in particular, should be drinking milk instead 
of soft drinks. Twenty years ago, teens drank twice as much milk as 
soda. Today, the average teenager drinks twice as much soda as milk.
  The Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999 helps close the 
empty calorie loophole. Soft drinks, sugar candies, cotton candy and 
the like are already banned from being sold during lunch. This bill 
would simply ban the free distribution of these ``competitive foods not 
approved by the Secretary'' before and during lunch at schools 
participating in the federal school lunch or breakfast programs.
  Mr. President, I commend Senator Leahy for his continued leadership 
in improving the nutrition of America's school children and will work 
with him and others to see that this bill becomes law.
 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Leahy, 
Senator Kohl, and Senator Jeffords to introduce this important 
legislation, the Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999. The 
Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999 will make our kid's 
nutrition--not some economic bottom line--the priority when it comes to 
our nation's school meal program.
  Mr. President, some schools in this country, particularly high 
school, are providing school-aged children with free soda as part of 
the school lunch program. This trend is troublesome for a number of 
reasons: One, it is contrary to the intent of the 1946 National School 
Lunch Act; Two, numerous studies have demonstrated that teenagers, 
particularly girls, are not consuming enough calcium to prevent 
osteoporosis in their later years; And, three, as a representative of 
Wisconsin, ``America's Dairyland,'' I am concerned that the increase in 
school time soda consumption will inevitably mean that our children 
drink less milk at school.
  Mr. President, in 1946, Congress first made nutrition for school aged 
children a priority when it passed the National School Lunch Act. This 
measure was designed to provide school children with high quality 
nutritious food during the school day. In 1977, because of concerns 
that our country's nutritional habits had begun to slide, Congress 
directed USDA to take steps to restrict school children's access to 
foods of low nutritional value when at school.
  The legality regulations USDA promulgates under the 1977 law, with 
regard to foods of nutritional value was challenged by the National 
Soft Drink Association. This law banned the sale of soft drink and 
other ``junk foods'' in school cafeterias during the lunch hour.
  Congressional debates on the 1977 law ``convey an unmistakable 
concern that `junk foods,' notably various types of candy bars, chewing 
gum and soft drinks, not be allowed to compete in participating 
schools.'' The Federal judge observed the ``logic and common sense, as 
well as several studies in the [rulemaking] record, suggest that 
irregular eating habits combined with ready access to junk food 
adversely affect federal nutritional objectives.''
  USDA current regulations prohibit the sale of foods of ``minimal 
nutritional value''--which include sodas, water ices, chewing gum, and 
certain candies--in the food service area during the lunch period in 
any school. The current regulations do not mention the distribution of 
free sodas, because, Mr. President, this idea never entered the

[[Page S5040]]

minds of lawmakers during consideration of the measure.
  Mr. President, we have found that in schools all over the country, 
free sodas are being passed out as part of the school lunch program. 
This practice evades the current Federal ban on the sale of sodas as 
part of school lunches. It's bad for kids, bad for farmers who are 
watching milk consumption and prices decline, and bad for teachers and 
school administrators who are left to deal with unruly and fidgety 
children during the day. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, giving 
away free sodas in school doesn't help anybody except soda companies.
  Mr. President, in a report published last year by the Center for 
Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) it was documented that one 
quarter of teenage boys who drink soda consume more than two 12-ounce 
cans per day, and that five percent drink five or more cans daily. This 
report was based on survey data from USDA and also indicated that in 
average, girls drink about one-third less--but the risks of soda 
consumption are potentially greater for girls. The report claims that 
doctors say soda has been pushing milk out of teenage diets and making 
girls more likely candidates for osteoporosis when they're older.
  The data indicated that these doctors are right. Choosing a soft 
drink instead of milk means that teens will have a lower level of 
calcium in their diets. Soft drinks provide 0% of a persons recommended 
daily allowance for calcium, while milk provides 30%. Low calcium 
intake contributes to osteoporosis, a disease leading to fragile and 
broken bones. Currently, 10 million Americans have osteoporosis while 
another 18 million have low bone mass and are at increased risk of 
osteoporosis. Women are more frequently affected than men. Considering 
the low calcium intake of today's teenage girls, osteoporosis rates may 
well rise in the near future.
  As I understand it, the risk of osteoporosis depends in part on how 
much bone mass is built early on in life. The CSPI report states that 
girls build 92 percent of their bone mass by age 18, but if they don't 
consume enough calcium in the teenage years, they cannot ``catch up'' 
later. This explains why experts recommend higher calcium intakes for 
youths 9 to 18 than for adults 19 to 50. Currently, teenage girls 
consume only 60 percent of the recommended amount; pop drinkers 
consuming almost one-fifth less calcium than non-consumers.
  The CSPI and a coalition of health advocates reported that 20 years 
ago, teens drank almost twice as much milk as soda pop; today, they 
consume twice as much soda as milk.
  Since 1973, soft drink consumption has risen dramatically. Americans 
now drink twice as much soda per person as they did 25 years ago. 
According to statistics from the Beverage Marketing Corp., annual soda 
consumption was 22.4 per person in 1970; in 1998, it was 56.1 gallons 
per person. Unfortunately, milk consumption has been on a steady 
decline. This trend is likely to continue--however, I do not feel that 
school administrators should encourage it. This country's dairy farmers 
have it hard enough. The recently announced Basic Formula Price (BFP) 
is lower than the cost of production in nearly every region of the 
country. We in dairy states are very concerned about our struggling 
producers. How can we stand by and watch as they struggle to locate and 
enter new markets abroad, while their base market--school meal 
programs--is being taken away?
  And how do the parents feel? Those that limit their children's intake 
of sodas and sweets at home see their efforts undermined when the 
school provides these items for free. This is a losing battle for them 
too!
  Mr. President, I'm not here to ban soda for school-age children--only 
to support a simple, sensible idea that any parent, any nutritionist, 
and any dairy farmer would favor--and that's giving our kids milk while 
they are in school. This bill restores common sense back to one aspect 
of our kids school nutrition programs. I urge my colleagues to support 
this Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999. It is supported 
by the National Education Association and the University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee School of Education. I ask that their letters of support be 
inserted into the Record.
  The material follows:
         University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, School of Education 
           Department of Curriculum and Instruction,
                                                      May 7, 1999.
     Senator Russell Feingold,
     Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feingold: I am writing to express my strong 
     support for the ``Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 
     1999.''
       My research shows that children are coming under increasing 
     pressure to consume large quantities of soda while in school. 
     For example, exclusive contracts between schools and bottling 
     firms are now popular. These contracts commonly contain 
     provisions that provide financial incentives to school 
     districts that reward them when consumption goals are met. In 
     other words the more of a bottling company's products are 
     purchased the more money the school gets. This places school 
     districts in the ethically dangerous position of promoting 
     the consumption of products that their own health and 
     nutrition curricula discourage students from consuming in 
     large quantities.
       The distribution of free soda as part of a school lunch 
     program, at least in my view, violates the spirit and intent 
     of the Child Nutrition Act of 1996. Such distributions are, 
     no doubt, useful to soda bottlers as means of promoting brand 
     recognition and establishing brand loyalty. And as such they 
     are little different from any number of ``free'' promotions 
     that are a common part of product marketing campaigns. 
     However, none of this has anything to do with promoting 
     children's health.
       I believe that schools must do their utmost to promote 
     healthful eating habits among their students. The ``Better 
     Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999'' is a useful and 
     necessary step to insure that school lunches are the 
     healthful, nutritious meals that legislators have always 
     intended that they be.
           Sincerely,

                                            Alex Molnar, Ph.D.

                                 Director, Center for the Analysis
     of Commercialism in Education.
                                  ____



                               National Education Association,

                                      Washington, DC, May 7, 1999.
     Senator Patrick Leahy
     Senator Russell Feingold,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Leahy and Feingold: On behalf of the National 
     Education Association's (NEA) 2.4 million members, we would 
     like to express our strong support for the Better Nutrition 
     for School Children Act of 1999, which would bar the 
     distribution of free soda in the School Lunch Program. NEA 
     believes that providing free soda to students contradicts the 
     nutritional goals of the School Program and can impede 
     academic success.
       Research clearly demonstrates the link between good 
     nutrition and learning. Children who are hungry or improperly 
     nourished face cognitive limitations which may impair their 
     ability to concentrate and learn. Preserving the nutritional 
     integrity of school meals, therefore, is critical ensuring 
     student achievement. This is particularly true for poor 
     children, who often rely on school lunch for one-third to 
     one-half of their daily nutritional intake.
       Providing free soda in the School Lunch Program is clearly 
     at odds with congressional intent to restrict access by 
     school children to foods of low nutritional integrity of the 
     School Lunch Program.
           Sincerely,
                                           Mary Elizabeth Teasley,
                         Director of Government Relations.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of 
the ``Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999.'' This 
legislation will stop the practice of giving students free sodas at 
lunch--sugar and caffeine filled drinks that are replacing the healthy 
milk and juices these kids should be drinking. A soda may keep a child 
awake through fifth period physics, but it will do nothing to fuel 
their growth into a healthy adult. We've been talking quite a bit 
lately about keeping our children safe during the school day. We must 
not forget we also have an obligation to keep them healthy, growing, 
and alert--an obligation met in great part with the national school 
lunch and breakfast programs.
  The vast majority of schools in Wisconsin and across the nation are 
our partners in ensuring that children learn to eat healthy, and they 
are proud to abide by current laws--and the spirit behind those laws-- 
prohibiting the sale of foods of minimal nutritional value in our 
schools. But while there is a ban on the sale of these sorts of foods 
during the school lunch period, there is no ban on giving them away for 
free. The Center for Science in the Public Interest recently cited 
several schools that are giving away donated sodas to students. This 
defies common sense. Kids should be drinking milk, water, and natural 
fruit juices--not sodas and other artificial drinks--as part of the 
school lunch program.
  Statistics from the Department of Agriculture show that 20 years ago,

[[Page S5041]]

teens drank twice as much milk as soft drinks; today, that trend has 
reversed. Teens are drinking 40 percent less milk than they drank 22 
years ago. Soft drinks contain a large amount of caffeine and sugar, 
and the American Medical Association has found that these sweetened 
drinks squeeze healthier foods out of childrens diets.
  The Better Nutrition for School Children Act will simply prohibit the 
donation of competitive foods of minimal nutritional value, including 
sodas, before the end of the last lunch period of school. Let me be 
clear: we are not banning sodas in schools. Students will still be able 
to purchase sodas, or receive free ones, once the school lunch period 
is over. But this bill assures that at least during mealtimes, school 
children will have access to healthy foods and drinks, like milk.
  This bill does not address the exclusive marketing contracts between 
schools and soft drink companies, but I do have concern over these as 
well. These contracts specify that a school will sell only a certain 
brand of sodas, and in return, the soda companies give the schools a 
share of the proceeds. I realize that school districts' budgets are 
stretched thin, but there has to be a better way of raising funds.
  Mr. President, the Better Nutrition for School Children Act will 
close the current loophole that allows the donation of sodas in our 
nation's schools. It will ensure that tax dollars invested in the 
school lunch program are spent wisely on nutritious foods and drinks 
that children actually consume--rather than throw away to make room for 
a free soda. I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this simple, 
yet vitally important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 999. A bill to amend chapter 18 of title 35, United States Code, 
to improve the ability of Federal agencies to patent and license 
federally owned inventions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


                    technology transfer act of 1999

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce S. 999, the 
``Technology Transfer Act of 1999.''
  The purpose of this bill is to help ensure that the fruits of 
federally conducted and supported research will be translated into new 
products and jobs that can benefit the American public.
  This bill is necessary in order to adopt a uniform policy across the 
federal government concerning the circumstances in which it is 
appropriate to grant an exclusive or partially exclusive license to 
intellectual property owned by the federal government. Essentially, 
this legislation codifies the most prudent, beneficial, and successful 
agency licensing policies that have evolved over the last few years.
  Each year the federal government makes a substantial investment in 
research and development. This year the federal government will 
dedicate about $79 billion toward research and development activities. 
Of this amount, about half--or $39 billion--is devoted to non-defense 
research. Much of this civilian R&D funding--over $15 billion in FY 
1999--is carried out by universities across our country.
  Every American citizen should take pride in this considerable 
financial commitment because it explains why our country is in the 
forefront in so many areas of basic science and applied technology.
  While there is intrinsic value in research for the sake of 
advancement of knowledge, another, more tangible, benefit occurs when 
the mysteries of science are translated into new technologies that 
protect and promote the public health and welfare and create jobs.
  While Utah may be a small state in terms of population, I am proud to 
say that our universities are carrying out a vigorous program of 
research. For example, the University of Utah, Brigham Young 
University, and Utah State University each carry out substantial 
programs of research and in the aggregate received over $200 million in 
federal research support in 1998.
  Last year the research efforts of these three schools resulted in the 
issuance of patents on 40 inventions.
  No doubt this high level of financial support and creative activity 
are major reasons why our state has developed a thriving medical 
products industry over the last two decades.
  According to a recent survey of the Utah Life Science Association 
there are currently 116 firms--employing a total of over 11,000 
people--engaged in the discovery and production of biomedical products 
in the state of Utah. Together, these firms produced revenues of $1.641 
billion last year.
  Not only does this economic enterprise mean jobs for Utahns but also 
innovative new products for Americans and our neighbors around the 
world.
  To give just one example, researchers at the University of Utah were 
co-discoverers of the BRCA 1 gene which is implicated in certain kinds 
of breast cancer. A start-up Salt Lake City biomedical research firm, 
Myriad Genetics, was also a partner in this ground breaking research, 
as were intramural researchers at the National Institutes of Health. 
Building upon this basic research, academic researchers at the Huntsman 
Cancer Center at the University of Utah and private sector scientists 
at Myriad are playing a lead role in developing diagnostic tests and 
therapeutics which are aimed at combating the devastation of breast 
cancer.
  The success we have achieved in institutions of higher learning in 
Utah is also occurring across our Nation.
  According to the latest data available from the Association of 
University Technology Managers (AUTM), in 1997, the efforts of U.S. 
universities, academic health centers, and certain other non-profit 
research entities resulted in over 11,000 invention disclosures, over 
4,200 new patent applications being filed, and over 2,600 issued 
patents.
  Also according to AUTM, in 1997, over 3,300 new licenses were 
executed and total licensing income reached nearly $700 million. An 
economic model developed by AUTM estimates that about 250,000 jobs are 
attributable to commercializing academic research.
  Government labs have also contributed to this success story. For 
example, in FY 1998 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) received 
nearly $40 million in royalty income. Also in 1998, NIH intramural labs 
reported 287 invention disclosures; filed 132 patent applications; were 
granted 171 patents; and, executed 215 licenses and 149 cooperative 
research and development agreements.

  In sharp contrast to the vibrant research and technology 
commercialization activities that are taking place in Utah and across 
our country today, the situation twenty years ago was vastly different. 
According to a 1978 survey, the federal government owned 78,000 patents 
but only 5 percent were ever licensed.
  Research and development is expensive, but it has been estimated that 
R&D accounts for only about 25% of the cost of bringing a new product 
to the market. Without adequate protection of intellectual property, it 
is simply not prudent for the private sector to invest in new 
technologies.
  In response to the problem of federally supported science languishing 
in the laboratory, the Congress passed a portfolio of legislation in 
the 1980s.
  The purpose of these measures was simple: to provide incentives in 
the intellectual property laws to help assure that federally-conducted 
and -supported research would be commercially developed so that the 
seeds of new ideas will be translated into the fruits of new products 
that can benefit the American public.
  My bill, S. 999, shares this goal and builds upon the previous 
intellectual property legislation in this area.
  The ``Patent and Trademark Act Amendments of 1980'' (Public Law 96-
517) is commonly termed the Bayh-Dole Act out of the well-earned 
respect for its two far-sighted cosponsors, Senator Birch Bayh and 
Senator Bob Dole.
  The Bayh-Dole Act created a uniform patent policy among the many 
federal agencies that fund research and increased incentives for 
universities to engage in government-supported research. Under the act, 
small businesses and nonprofit organizations, including universities, 
were permitted to retain ownership of patents stemming from federal 
funds. In turn, patent holders could grant licenses to companies to 
further develop and commercialize the patented invention.
  In 1986, Congress enacted the ``Federal Technology Transfer Act'' 
(Public Law 99-502). This law established new patenting, licensing and 
partnering policies for government laboratories. In concert with the 
philosophy of the

[[Page S5042]]

Bayh-Dole Act, the FTTA contemplates an activist role for government 
laboratories in assisting in the journey from the laboratory to the 
market place. The FTTA amended the earlier ``Stevenson-Wydler 
Technology Innovation Act of 1980'' (Public Law 96-480), which proved 
insufficient to meet its intended charge of making transfer of federal 
technology a duty of all federal laboratories. In addition to mandating 
a federal role in the technology transfer arena by strengthening the 
intellectual property laws in the areas of patenting and licensing, the 
FTTA created and embraced a unique device--the Cooperative Research and 
Development Agreement (CRADA)--which encourages a government/private 
sector partnership in the earliest stages of research.
  In devising S. 999, I have worked closely with several colleagues, 
most prominently Representative Connie Morella, Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Technology of the House Committee on Science. Chairman 
Morella, whose district is the home of the National Institutes of 
Health, has long been a leader in the area of technology policy. 
Chairman Morella and Representative George Brown, the thoughtful 
ranking member of the full Committee have often worked together in a 
bipartisan manner in this area and are cosponsors of H.R. 209, the 
House companion to S. 999.
  In this Chamber, Senator Rockefeller has a long and distinguished 
record in the area of technology policy. Together with Senator Frist, 
Senator Rockefeller introduced similar legislation last Congress and 
once again this year.
  I am working with all of these Members, as well as with Senator 
McCain, Chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
Committee, and the Senate and House leadership to secure passage of 
this important legislation. Working together, I believe that we have 
succeeded in building upon as well as correcting some problems 
identified with the legislative proposals made last Congress, S. 2120 
and H.R. 2544.
  S. 999 amends the patent code to make explicit when federal agencies 
should, and should not, grant exclusive licenses to its patented 
inventions.
  The bill permits an exclusive or partially exclusive license only if 
such a license is reasonable and necessary to attract the necessary 
private sector investment capital or otherwise promote the invention's 
utilization. The bill requires the agency to evaluate a potential 
licensee's development plans and level of capacity and commitment so 
that only the level of necessary exclusivity is granted. Once a license 
agreement is executed the bill requires a rigorous periodic evaluation 
of progress under the agreement and allows the government to terminate 
a license for non-performance of the terms of the license.
  The bill also requires that in granting patent licenses the 
government take into account possible effects on competition including 
any potential antitrust concerns. In the case of licensing inventions 
covered by foreign patents, the government is directed to consider the 
possible U.S. interest in foreign trade and commerce.
  In addition, the bill contains a domestic manufacturing requirement 
that is designed to keep jobs created through newly patented 
technologies in the United States. As well, the legislation contains a 
preference for issuing licenses to small businesses--the sector of the 
economy where most new jobs are created.
  Under the bill, the government would retain a nontransferable, 
irrevocable, paid-up license to practice the invention on behalf of the 
United States Government in the unlikely event this need should arise.
  Before any exclusive or partially exclusive license may be granted 
under the authority of the patent code, the agency, except in cases of 
inventions made under an existing CRADA, must give at least 15 days 
public notice and consider any comments that are submitted.
  The bill treats any confidential commercial information as part of an 
application or periodic performance report under normal Freedom of 
Information Act principles.
  Mr. President, the ``Technology Transfer Act of 1999'' builds upon 
earlier legislation in this critical area. I am honored to be following 
in the footsteps of our former Majority Leader, Senator Dole, and the 
former Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Birch Bayh--father of 
the new member of the Senate from Indiana.
  I am also pleased to follow in the footsteps of my predecessors on 
the Judiciary Committee, which was the locus of activity for the 
seminal 1980 legislation that amended the patent code and changed our 
nation's patent licensing policies.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support S. 999.
  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. 999

       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 ``Technology Transfer Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. LICENSING FEDERALLY OWNED OR PATENTED INVENTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 209 of title 35, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 209. Licensing federally patented or owned inventions

       ``(a) Authority.--A Federal agency may grant an exclusive 
     or partially exclusive license on a federally owned invention 
     under section 207(a)(2) only if--
       ``(1) granting the license is a reasonable and necessary 
     incentive to--
       ``(A) call forth the investment capital and expenditures 
     needed to bring the invention to practical application; or
       ``(B) otherwise promote the invention's utilization by the 
     public;
       ``(2) the Federal agency finds that the public will be 
     served by the granting of the license, as indicated by the 
     applicant's intentions, plans, and ability to bring the 
     invention to practical application or otherwise promote the 
     invention's utilization by the public, and that the proposed 
     scope of exclusivity is not greater than reasonably necessary 
     to provide the incentive for bringing the invention to 
     practical utilization, as proposed by the applicant, or 
     otherwise to promote the invention's utilization by the 
     public;
       ``(3) the applicant makes a commitment to achieve practical 
     utilization of the invention within a reasonable time, which 
     time may be extended by the agency upon the applicant's 
     request and the applicant's demonstration that the refusal of 
     such extension would be unreasonable;
       ``(4) granting the license will not tend to substantially 
     lessen competition or create or maintain a violation of the 
     Federal antitrust laws; and
       ``(5) in the case of an invention covered by a foreign 
     patent application or patent, the interests of the Federal 
     Government or United States industry in foreign commerce will 
     be enhanced.
       ``(b) Manufacture in United States.--A Federal agency shall 
     normally grant a license under section 207(a)(2) to use or 
     sell any federally owned invention in the United States only 
     to a licensee who agrees that any products embodying the 
     invention or produced through the use of the invention will 
     be manufactured substantially in the United States.
       ``(c) Small Business.--First preference for the granting of 
     any exclusive or partially exclusive licenses under section 
     207(a)(2) shall be given to small business firms having equal 
     or greater likelihood as other applicants to bring the 
     invention to practical application within a reasonable time.
       ``(d) Terms and Conditions.--Any licenses granted under 
     section 207(a)(2) shall contain such terms and conditions as 
     the granting agency considers appropriate. Such terms and 
     conditions shall include provisions--
       ``(1) retaining a nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up 
     license for any Federal agency to practice the invention or 
     have the invention practiced throughout the world by or on 
     behalf of the Government of the United States;
       ``(2) requiring periodic reporting on utilization of the 
     invention, and utilization efforts, by the licensee, but only 
     to the extent necessary to enable the Federal agency to 
     determine whether the terms of the license are being complied 
     with; and
       ``(3) empowering the Federal agency to terminate the 
     license in whole or in part if the agency determines that--
       ``(A) the licensee is not executing its commitment to 
     achieve practical utilization of the invention, including 
     commitments contained in any plan submitted in support of its 
     request for a license, and the licensee cannot otherwise 
     demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Federal agency that it 
     has taken, or can be expected to take within a reasonable 
     time, effective steps to achieve practical utilization of the 
     invention;
       ``(B) the licensee is in breach of an agreement described 
     in subsection (b);
       ``(C) termination is necessary to meet requirements for 
     public use specified by Federal regulations issued after the 
     date of the license, and such requirements are not reasonably 
     satisfied by the licensee; or

[[Page S5043]]

       ``(D) the licensee has been found by a court of competent 
     jurisdiction to have violated the Federal antitrust laws in 
     connection with its performance under the license agreement.
       ``(e) Treatment of Report Information.--Any report required 
     under subsection (d)(2) shall be treated by the Federal 
     agency as commercial and financial information obtained from 
     a person and is privileged and confidential and not subject 
     to disclosure under section 552 of title 5.
       ``(f) Public Notice.--No exclusive or partially exclusive 
     license may be granted under section 207(a)(2) unless public 
     notice of the intention to grant an exclusive or partially 
     exclusive license on a federally owned invention has been 
     provided in an appropriate manner at least 15 days before the 
     license is granted, and the Federal agency has considered all 
     comments received before the end of the comment period in 
     response to that public notice. This subsection shall not 
     apply to the licensing of inventions made under a cooperative 
     research and development agreement entered into under section 
     12 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 
     (15 U.S.C. 3710a).
       ``(g) Plan.--No Federal agency shall grant any license 
     under a patent or patent application on a federally owned 
     invention unless the person requesting the license has 
     supplied the agency with a plan for development or marketing 
     of the invention, except that any such plan shall be treated 
     by the Federal agency as commercial and financial information 
     obtained from a person and privileged and confidential and 
     not subject to disclosure under section 552 of title 5.''.
       (b) Amendments to Chapter 18 of Title 35, United States 
     Code.--Chapter 18 of title 35, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 200 by inserting ``without unduly 
     encumbering future research and discovery'' after ``free 
     competition and enterprise;'';
       (2) by amending section 202(e) to read as follows:
       ``(e) In any case when a Federal employee is a coinventor 
     of any invention made with a nonprofit organization, small 
     business firm, or a non-Federal inventor, the Federal agency 
     employing such coinventor may, for the purpose of 
     consolidating rights in the invention and if it finds that it 
     would expedite the development of the invention--
       ``(1) license or assign whatever rights it may acquire in 
     the subject invention to the nonprofit organization, small 
     business firm, or non-Federal inventor in accordance with 
     sections 200 through 204 (including this section); or
       ``(2) acquire any rights in the subject invention from the 
     nonprofit organization, small business firm, or non-Federal 
     inventor, but only to the extent the party from whom the 
     rights are acquired voluntarily enters into the transaction 
     and no other transaction under this chapter is conditioned on 
     such acquisition.''; and
       (3) in section 207(a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``patent applications, 
     patents, or other forms of protection obtained'' and 
     inserting ``inventions''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, including acquiring 
     rights for and administering royalties to the Federal 
     Government in any invention, but only to the extent the party 
     from whom the rights are acquired voluntarily enters into the 
     transaction, to facilitate the licensing of a federally owned 
     invention'' after ``or through contract''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to section 209 
     in the table of sections for chapter 18 of title 35, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``209. Licensing federally patented or owned inventions.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Mr. Nickles):
  S. 1000. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat 
certain dealer derivative financial instruments, hedging transactions, 
and supplies as ordinary assets; to the Committee on Finance.


COMMODITY DERIVATIVE DEALERS AND ORDINARY BUSINESS HEDGING TRANSACTIONS

 Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I, along with my distinguished 
colleague Senator Don Nickles, am introducing legislation today to 
clarify the tax treatment of commodity derivative dealers and of 
ordinary business hedging transactions. This legislation, which was 
proposed by the Administration in its Fiscal Year 2000 budget, is 
necessary to eliminate the existing tax uncertainties with respect to 
dealer derivative transactions and hedging transactions.
  Specifically, Internal Revenue Code section 1221 would be amended to 
include business hedging transaction in the list of ordinary assets and 
clarify that activities that ``manage'' rather than only ``reduce'' 
risk are hedging activities. In addition, derivative contracts held by 
derivative dealers would similarly be treated as ordinary assets. 
Current tax and business practices treat derivative contracts held by 
commodity derivatives dealers as ordinary property. Nevertheless, such 
derivative dealers are faced with uncertainties regarding the proper 
reporting of gains and losses from their dealer activities, unlike 
dealers in other transactions. Finally, supplies used in the provision 
of services for the production of ordinary property would be added to 
the list of ordinary assets in section 1221. Such supplies are so 
closely related to the taxpayer's business that ordinary character 
should apply.
  The Treasury Department has promulgated numerous regulations that 
affect derivatives contracts and our bill merely clarifies current law 
treatment of dealer activities. I urge my colleagues to support this 
important and much needed legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Byrd, Mr. 
        Brownback, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Cleland, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
        Bryan, Mr. Reed, and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 1001. A bill to establish the National Youth Violence Commission, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                 NATIONAL YOUTH VIOLENCE COMMISSION ACT

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, three weeks after the tragic shooting 
in Littleton, Colorado, we as a national community are still struggling 
to make sense of this horrific event and the other school massacres 
that preceded it. We are still searching for reasons why some of our 
children are slaughtering each other, and why there is generally so 
much violence surrounding our young people, not just in classrooms and 
schoolyards but on streetcorners and in homes across the country.
  In this discussion, we have heard many factors cited as possible 
causes, but few definitive conclusions or little consensus on exactly 
what or who is responsible for this alarming trend. In fact, one of the 
only things that most Americans seem to agree on is that this is an 
extremely complicated problem, and that there is not any one answer. 
They are right.
  The search for common ground and common solutions began in earnest 
yesterday with the summit meeting the President convened at the White 
House. At that meeting the President opened a much-needed dialogue with 
the entertainment and gun industries, yielding some important 
commitments from the gun makers, but little if anything from the 
entertainment industry. The President also laid out a promising plan 
for translating this conversation into action, calling for a national 
campaign to change the pervading culture of violence, to mobilize a 
sustained response to this threat from every segment of our society, 
much as we have done in the fight against teen pregnancy.
  We are here today to introduce legislation that we believe can make 
an important contribution to this national campaign, something that 
will help us better understand as we prepare to act. Our proposal would 
create a select national commission on youth violence, whose mandate 
would be to deliberately and dispassionately examine the many possible 
root causes of this crisis of youth violence, to help us understand why 
so many kids are turning into killers, and to help us reach consensus 
on how to curtail this recurring nightmare.
  This commission would be composed of a wide array of experts in the 
fields of law enforcement, school administration, teaching and 
counseling, parenting and family studies, and child and adolescent 
psychology, as well as Cabinet members and national religious leaders, 
to thoroughly study the different dimensions of this problem. After 
deliberating for a year, the commission would be directed to report its 
conclusions to the President and Congress and recommend a series of 
tangible steps we could take to reduce the level of youth violence and 
prevent other families and communities from feeling the searing pain 
and grief that has visited the people of Littleton for the last three 
weeks.
  Our proposal is not intended to forestall or preempt a more immediate 
response to what happened in Littleton. To the contrary, we each 
believe there are several steps that the Congress and different groups 
and industries could and should take now that would help us reduce not 
just the risk of another school massacre, but the daily death toll of 
youth violence across America. Several of us here, for example, have 
and will continue to push the entertainment industry to stop glorifying 
and romanticizing violence, and in particular to stop marketing murder 
and mayhem directly to kids.

[[Page S5044]]

  But we also believe that this extraordinary problem is not something 
that we can solve overnight, or with any single piece of legislation. A 
commission is no guarantee that we will find all the answers and bridge 
all the divisions, but we believe it provides as good a hope as any for 
thoughtfully doing so, and for making this national campaign a success.
  In the coming days, we will offer this proposal as an amendment to 
the juvenile justice bill. We will also be putting forward a companion 
amendment calling for a Surgeon General's report on the public health 
aspects of the youth violence epidemic, with a particular focus on the 
contributing effects of entertainment media violence on children. This 
proposal, which the President endorsed at Monday's summit, is intended 
to inform the commission's work and hopefully raise public awareness of 
the enormous role the entertainment culture plays in shaping the world 
our sons and daughters inhabit.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed into 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1001

       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 ``National Youth Violence 
     Commission Act''.

     SEC. 2. NATIONAL YOUTH VIOLENCE COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment of Commission.--There is established a 
     commission to be known as the National Youth Violence 
     Commission (hereinafter referred to in this Act as the 
     ``Commission''). The Commission shall--
       (1) be composed of 16 members appointed in accordance with 
     subsection (b); and
       (2) conduct its business in accordance with the provisions 
     of this Act.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) Persons eligible.--Except for those members who hold 
     the offices described under paragraph (2)(A), and those 
     members appointed under paragraph (2) (C)(ii) and (D)(iv), 
     the members of the Commission shall be individuals who have 
     expertise, by both experience and training, in matters to be 
     studied by the Commission under section 3. The members of the 
     Commission shall be well-known and respected among their 
     peers in their respective fields of expertise.
       (2) Appointments.--The members of the Commission shall be 
     appointed for the life of the Commission as follows:
       (A) Four shall be appointed by the President of the United 
     States, including--
       (i) the Surgeon General of the United States;
       (ii) the Attorney General of the United States;
       (iii) the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human 
     Services; and
       (iv) the Secretary of the Department of Education.
       (B) Four shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, including--
       (i) 1 member who meets the criteria for eligibility in 
     paragraph (1) in the field of law enforcement;
       (ii) 1 member who meets the criteria for eligibility in 
     paragraph (1) in the field of school administration, 
     teaching, or counseling;
       (iii) 1 member who meets the criteria for eligibility in 
     paragraph (1) in the field of parenting and family studies; 
     and
       (iv) 1 member who meets the criteria for eligibility in 
     paragraph (1) in the field of child or adolescent psychology.
       (C) Two shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives, including--
       (i) 1 member who meets the criteria for eligibility in 
     paragraph (1) in the field of law enforcement; and
       (ii) 1 member who is a recognized religious leader.
       (D) Four shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate, including--
       (i) 1 member who meets the criteria for eligibility in 
     paragraph (1) in the field of law enforcement;
       (ii) 1 member who meets the criteria for eligibility in 
     paragraph (1) in the field of school administration, 
     teaching, or counseling;
       (iii) 1 member who meets the criteria for eligibility in 
     paragraph (1) in the social sciences; and
       (iv) 1 member who is a recognized religious leader.
       (E) Two shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     Senate, including--
       (i) 1 member who meets the criteria for eligibility in 
     paragraph (1) in the field of school administration, 
     teaching, or counseling; and
       (ii) 1 member who meets the criteria for eligibility in 
     paragraph (1) in the field of parenting and family studies.
       (3) Completion of appointments; vacancies.--Not later than 
     30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     appointing authorities under paragraph (2) shall each make 
     their respective appointments. Any vacancy that occurs during 
     the life of the Commission shall not affect the powers of the 
     Commission, and shall be filled in the same manner as the 
     original appointment not later than 30 days after the vacancy 
     occurs.
       (4) Operation of the commission.--
       (A) Chairmanship.--The appointing authorities under 
     paragraph (2) shall jointly designate 1 member as the 
     Chairman of the Commission. In the event of a disagreement 
     among the appointing authorities, the Chairman shall be 
     determined by a majority vote of the appointing authorities. 
     The determination of which member shall be Chairman shall be 
     made not later than 15 days after the appointment of the last 
     member of the Commission, but in no case later than 45 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (B) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairman. The initial meeting of the Commission shall be 
     conducted not later than 30 days after the later of--
       (i) the date of the appointment of the last member of the 
     Commission; or
       (ii) the date on which appropriated funds are available for 
     the Commission.
       (C) Quorum; voting; rules.--A majority of the members of 
     the Commission shall constitute a quorum to conduct business, 
     but the Commission may establish a lesser quorum for 
     conducting hearings scheduled by the Commission. Each member 
     of the Commission shall have 1 vote, and the vote of each 
     member shall be accorded the same weight. The Commission may 
     establish by majority vote any other rules for the conduct of 
     the Commission's business, if such rules are not inconsistent 
     with this Act or other applicable law.

     SEC. 3. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--It shall be the duty of the Commission to 
     conduct a comprehensive factual study of incidents of youth 
     violence to determine the root causes of such violence.
       (2) Matters to be studied.--In determining the root causes 
     of incidents of youth violence, the Commission shall study 
     any matter that the Commission determines relevant to meeting 
     the requirements of paragraph (1), including at a minimum--
       (A) the level of involvement and awareness of teachers and 
     school administrators in the lives of their students and any 
     impact of such involvement and awareness on incidents of 
     youth violence;
       (B) trends in family relationships, the level of 
     involvement and awareness of parents in the lives of their 
     children, and any impact of such relationships, involvement, 
     and awareness on incidents of youth violence;
       (C) the alienation of youth from their schools, families, 
     and peer groups, and any impact of such alienation on 
     incidents of youth violence;
       (D) the availability of firearms to youth, including the 
     means by which they acquire such firearms, and any impact of 
     such availability on incidents of youth violence;
       (E) the effect upon youth of depictions of violence in the 
     media and any impact of such depictions on incidents of youth 
     violence; and
       (F) the availability to youth of information regarding the 
     construction of weapons, including explosive devices, and any 
     impact of such information on incidents of youth violence.
       (3) Testimony of parents and students.--In determining the 
     root causes of incidents of youth violence, the Commission 
     shall, pursuant to section 4(a), take the testimony of 
     parents and students to learn and memorialize their views and 
     experiences regarding incidents of youth violence.
       (b) Recommendations.--Based on the findings of the study 
     required under subsection (a), the Commission shall make 
     recommendations to the President and Congress to address the 
     causes of youth violence and reduce incidents of youth 
     violence. If the Surgeon General issues any report on media 
     and violence, the Commission shall consider the findings and 
     conclusions of such report in making recommendations under 
     this subsection.
       (c) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date on 
     which the Commission first meets, the Commission shall submit 
     to the President and Congress a comprehensive report of the 
     Commission's findings and conclusions, together with the 
     recommendations of the Commission.
       (2) Summaries.--The report under this subsection shall 
     include a summary of--
       (A) the reports submitted to the Commission by any entity 
     under contract for research under section 4(e); and
       (B) any other material relied on by the Commission in the 
     preparation of the Commission's report.

     SEC. 4. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit 
     and act at such times and places, administer such oaths, take 
     such testimony, and receive such evidence as the Commission 
     considers advisable to carry out its duties under section 3.
       (2) Witness expenses.--Witnesses requested to appear before 
     the Commission shall be paid the same fees as are paid to 
     witnesses under section 1821 of title 28, United States Code.
       (b) Subpoenas.--
       (1) In general.--If a person fails to supply information 
     requested by the Commission, the Commission may by majority 
     vote request the Attorney General of the United States to 
     require by subpoena the production of any written or recorded 
     information, document, report, answer, record, account,

[[Page S5045]]

     paper, computer file, or other data or documentary evidence 
     necessary to carry out the Commission's duties under section 
     3. The Commission shall transmit to the Attorney General a 
     confidential, written request for the issuance of any such 
     subpoena. The Attorney General shall issue the requested 
     subpoena if the request is reasonable and consistent with the 
     Commission's duties under section 3. A subpoena under this 
     paragraph may require the production of materials from any 
     place within the United States.
       (2) Interrogatories.--The Commission may, with respect only 
     to information necessary to understand any materials obtained 
     through a subpoena under paragraph (1), request the Attorney 
     General to issue a subpoena requiring the person producing 
     such materials to answer, either through a sworn deposition 
     or through written answers provided under oath (at the 
     election of the person upon whom the subpoena is served), to 
     interrogatories from the Commission regarding such 
     information. The Attorney General shall issue the requested 
     subpoena if the request is reasonable and consistent with the 
     Commission's duties under section 3. A complete recording or 
     transcription shall be made of any deposition made under this 
     paragraph.
       (3) Certification.--Each person who submits materials or 
     information to the Attorney General pursuant to a subpoena 
     issued under paragraph (1) or (2) shall certify to the 
     Attorney General the authenticity and completeness of all 
     materials or information submitted. The provisions of section 
     1001 of title 18, United States Code, shall apply to any 
     false statements made with respect to the certification 
     required under this paragraph.
       (4) Treatment of subpoenas.--Any subpoena issued by the 
     Attorney General under paragraph (1) or (2) shall comply with 
     the requirements for subpoenas issued by a United States 
     district court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
       (5) Failure to obey a subpoena.--If a person refuses to 
     obey a subpoena issued by the Attorney General under 
     paragraph (1) or (2), the Attorney General may apply to a 
     United States district court for an order requiring that 
     person to comply with such subpoena. The application may be 
     made within the judicial district in which that person is 
     found, resides, or transacts business. Any failure to obey 
     the order of the court may be punished by the court as civil 
     contempt.
       (c) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Commission may 
     secure directly from any Federal department or agency such 
     information as the Commission considers necessary to carry 
     out its duties under section 3. Upon the request of the 
     Commission, the head of such department or agency may furnish 
     such information to the Commission.
       (d) Information To Be Kept Confidential.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall be considered an 
     agency of the Federal Government for purposes of section 1905 
     of title 18, United States Code, and any individual employed 
     by any individual or entity under contract with the 
     Commission under subsection (e) shall be considered an 
     employee of the Commission for the purposes of section 1905 
     of title 18, United States Code.
       (2) Disclosure.--Information obtained by the Commission or 
     the Attorney General under this Act and shared with the 
     Commission, other than information available to the public, 
     shall not be disclosed to any person in any manner, except--
       (A) to Commission employees or employees of any individual 
     or entity under contract to the Commission under subsection 
     (e) for the purpose of receiving, reviewing, or processing 
     such information;
       (B) upon court order; or
       (C) when publicly released by the Commission in an 
     aggregate or summary form that does not directly or 
     indirectly disclose--
       (i) the identity of any person or business entity; or
       (ii) any information which could not be released under 
     section 1905 of title 18, United States Code.
       (e) Contracting for Research.--The Commission may enter 
     into contracts with any entity for research necessary to 
     carry out the Commission's duties under section 3.

     SEC. 5. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission 
     who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government 
     shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent 
     of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of 
     the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 
     which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties 
     of the Commission. All members of the Commission who are 
     officers or employees of the United States shall serve 
     without compensation in addition to that received for their 
     services as officers or employees of the United States.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of service for the Commission.
       (c) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairman of the Commission may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, 
     appoint and terminate an executive director and such other 
     additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the 
     Commission to perform its duties. The employment and 
     termination of an executive director shall be subject to 
     confirmation by a majority of the members of the Commission.
       (2) Compensation.--The executive director shall be 
     compensated at a rate not to exceed the rate payable for 
     level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 
     5, United States Code. The Chairman may fix the compensation 
     of other personnel without regard to the provisions of 
     chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, 
     United States Code, relating to classification of positions 
     and General Schedule pay rates, except that the rate of pay 
     for such personnel may not exceed the rate payable for level 
     V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
       (3) Detail of government employees.--Any Federal Government 
     employee, with the approval of the head of the appropriate 
     Federal agency, may be detailed to the Commission without 
     reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status, benefits, or privilege.
       (d) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
     The Chairman of the Commission may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, at rates for individuals not to exceed 
     the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of such title.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Commission 
     and any agency of the Federal Government assisting the 
     Commission in carrying out its duties under this Act such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this 
     Act. Any sums appropriated shall remain available, without 
     fiscal year limitation, until expended.

     SEC. 7. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.

       The Commission shall terminate 30 days after the Commission 
     submits the report under section 3(c).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MACK (for himself and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 1002. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for a prospective payment system for services furnished by 
psychiatric hospitals under the Medicare Program; to the Committee on 
Finance.


  medicare psychiatric hospital prospective payment system act of 1999

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague John 
Breaux in sponsoring the Medicare Psychiatric Hospital Prospective 
payment System Act of 1999.
  This legislation will ensure the continuance of available impatient 
psychiatric care by reforming how Medicare pays for services in free-
standing psychiatric hospitals and psychiatric units of general 
hospitals. It will establish a prospective payment system (PPS) 
Currently psychiatric hospitals are the only institutional providers of 
care under Medicare not scheduled to move to a PPS system.
  The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) made major changes in the way 
psychiatric hospitals are paid. It reduced incentive payments and 
imposed a limit on what will be paid. The result of this was that many 
of these providers were hit by a big cut in the first year with no 
transition period to adjust to the reductions. It is important that 
these cuts not be continued because patient care may be put at risk. A 
recent study found that 84% of psychiatric hospitals had payment 
reductions due to BBA. The average margin went from minus 3% to 
negative 8.7%.
  This legislation proposes to transition psychiatric inpatient 
providers to a PPS which will allow these institutions to be able to 
plan and adjust for the future and insure their ability to provide 
quality care. The proposal also provides a measure of financial relief 
by limiting payment reductions to no more than 5% in the next two 
years. This relief will then be paid back in a few years under PPS. 
After the third year, PPS will be in effect and per diem rates can be 
adjusted downward by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to pay 
back savings temporarily lost through the limitation of initial payment 
reductions. The goal is for the bill to be budget neutral over five 
years and fully comply with the BBA.
  The most important feature of this legislation is that it moves 
psychiatric facilities out of a cost based system and into a system 
where they will be paid prospectively, like most other Medicare 
Providers, and can manage their finances effectively to provide high 
quality psychiatric care.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this important piece 
of legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation 
be printed in the Record.

[[Page S5046]]

  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1002

       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 ``Medicare Psychiatric 
     Hospital Prospective Payment System Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. MEDICARE PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR PSYCHIATRIC 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) Establishment of Prospective Payment System.--Section 
     1886 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Prospective Payment System for Inpatient Psychiatric 
     Services.--
       ``(1) Amount of payment.--
       ``(A) During transition period.--Notwithstanding section 
     1814(b), but subject to the provisions of section 1813, the 
     amount of payment with respect to the operating and capital-
     related costs of inpatient hospital services of a psychiatric 
     facility (as defined in paragraph (7)(C)) for each day of 
     services furnished in a cost reporting period beginning on or 
     after October 1, 2000, and before October 1, 2003, is equal 
     to the sum of--
       ``(i) the TEFRA percentage (as defined in paragraph (7)(D)) 
     of the facility-specific per diem rate (determined under 
     paragraph (2)); and
       ``(ii) the PPS percentage (as defined in paragraph (7)(B)) 
     of the applicable Federal per diem rate (determined under 
     paragraph (3)).
       ``(B) Under fully implemented system.--Notwithstanding 
     section 1814(b), but subject to the provisions of section 
     1813, the amount of payment with respect to the operating and 
     capital-related costs of inpatient hospital services of a 
     psychiatric facility for each day of services furnished in a 
     cost reporting period beginning on or after October 1, 2003, 
     is equal to the applicable Federal per diem rate determined 
     under paragraph (3) for the facility for the fiscal year in 
     which the day of services occurs.
       ``(C) New facilities.--In the case of a psychiatric 
     facility that does not have a base fiscal year (as defined in 
     paragraph (7)(A)), payment for the operating and capital-
     related costs of inpatient hospital services shall be made 
     under this subsection using the applicable Federal per diem 
     rate.
       ``(2) Determination of facility-specific per diem rates.--
       ``(A) Base year.--The Secretary shall determine, on a per 
     diem basis, the allowable operating and capital-related costs 
     of inpatient hospital services for each psychiatric facility 
     for its cost reporting period (if any) beginning in the base 
     fiscal year (as defined in paragraph (7)(A)), such costs 
     determined as if subsection (b)(8) did not apply.
       ``(B) Updating.--The Secretary shall update the amount 
     determined under subparagraph (A) for each cost reporting 
     period after the cost reporting period beginning in the base 
     fiscal year and before October 1, 2003, by a factor equal to 
     the market basket percentage increase (as defined in 
     subsection (b)(3)(B)(iii)).
       ``(3) Determination of federal per diem rate.--
       ``(A) Base year.--The Secretary shall determine, on a per 
     diem basis, the allowable operating and capital-related costs 
     of inpatient hospital services for each psychiatric facility 
     for its cost reporting period (if any) beginning in the base 
     fiscal year (as defined in paragraph (7)(A)), such costs 
     determined as if subsection (b)(8) did not apply.
       ``(B) Updating to first fiscal year.--The Secretary shall 
     update the amount determined under subparagraph (A) for each 
     cost reporting period up to the first cost reporting period 
     to which this subsection applies by a factor equal to the 
     market basket percentage increase (as defined in subsection 
     (b)(3)(B)(iii)).
       ``(C) Computation of standardized per diem rate.--The 
     Secretary shall standardize the amount determined under 
     subparagraph (B) for each facility by--
       ``(i) adjusting for variations among facilities by area in 
     the average facility wage level per diem; and
       ``(ii) adjusting for variations in case mix per diem among 
     facilities (based on the patient classification system 
     established by the Secretary under paragraph (4)).
       ``(D) Computation of weighted average per diem rates.--
       ``(i) Separate rates for urban and rural areas.--Based on 
     the standardized amounts determined under subparagraph (C) 
     for each facility, the Secretary shall compute a separate 
     weighted average per diem rate--

       ``(I) for all psychiatric facilities located in an urban 
     area (as defined in subsection (d)(2)(D)); and
       ``(II) for all psychiatric facilities located in a rural 
     area (as defined in subsection (d)(2)(D)).

       ``(ii) For hospitals and units.--In the areas referred to 
     in clause (i), the Secretary may compute a separate weighted 
     average per diem rate for--

       ``(I) psychiatric hospitals; and
       ``(II) psychiatric units described in the matter following 
     clause (v) of subsection (d)(1)(B).

     If the Secretary establishes separate average weighted per 
     diem rates under this clause, the Secretary shall also 
     establish separate average per diem rates for psychiatric 
     facilities in such categories that are owned and operated by 
     an agency or instrumentality of Federal, State, or local 
     government and for psychiatric facilities other than such 
     facilities.
       ``(iii) Weighted average.--In computing the weighted 
     averages under clauses (i) and (ii), the standardized per 
     diem amount for each facility shall be weighted for each 
     facility by the number of days of inpatient hospital services 
     furnished during its cost reporting period beginning in the 
     base fiscal year.
       ``(E) Updating.--The weighted average per diem rates 
     determined under subparagraph (D) shall be updated for each 
     fiscal year after the first fiscal year to which this 
     subsection applies by a factor equal to the market basket 
     percentage increase (as defined in subsection 
     (b)(3)(B)(iii)).
       ``(F) Determination of federal per diem rate.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall compute for each 
     psychiatric facility for each fiscal year (beginning with 
     fiscal year 2001) a Federal per diem rate equal to the 
     applicable weighted average per diem rate determined under 
     subparagraph (E), adjusted for--

       ``(I) variations among facilities by area in the average 
     facility wage level per diem;
       ``(II) variations in case mix per diem among facilities 
     (based on the patient classification system established by 
     the Secretary under paragraph (4)); and
       ``(III) variations among facilities in the proportion of 
     low-income patients served by the facility.

       ``(ii) Other adjustments.--In computing Federal per diem 
     rates under this subparagraph, the Secretary may adjust for 
     outlier cases, the indirect costs of medical education, and 
     such other factors as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(iii) Budget neutrality.--The adjustments specified in 
     clauses (i)(I), (i)(III), and (ii) shall be implemented in a 
     manner that does not result in aggregate payments under this 
     subsection that are greater or less than those aggregate 
     payments that otherwise would have been made if such 
     adjustments did not apply.
       ``(4) Establishment of patient classification system.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish--
       ``(i) classes of patients of psychiatric facilities (in 
     this paragraph referred to as `case mix groups'), based on 
     such factors as the Secretary determines to be appropriate; 
     and
       ``(ii) a method of classifying specific patients in 
     psychiatric facilities within these groups.
       ``(B) Weighting factors.--For each case mix group, the 
     Secretary shall assign an appropriate weighting factor that 
     reflects the relative facility resources used with respect to 
     patients classified within that group compared to patients 
     classified within other such groups.
       ``(5) Data collection; utilization monitoring.--
       ``(A) Data collection.--The Secretary may require 
     psychiatric facilities to submit such data as is necessary to 
     implement the system established under this subsection.
       ``(B) Utilization monitoring.--The Secretary shall monitor 
     changes in the utilization of inpatient hospital services 
     furnished by psychiatric facilities under the system 
     established under this subsection and report to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress on such changes, together 
     with recommendations for legislation (if any) that is needed 
     to address unwarranted changes in such utilization.
       ``(6) Special adjustments.--Notwithstanding the preceding 
     provisions of this subsection, the Secretary shall reduce 
     aggregate payment amounts that would otherwise be payable 
     under this subsection for inpatient hospital services 
     furnished by a psychiatric facility during cost reporting 
     periods beginning in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 by such 
     uniform percentage as is necessary to assure that payments 
     under this subsection for such cost reporting periods are 
     reduced by an amount that is equal to the sum of--
       ``(A) the aggregate increase in payments under this title 
     during fiscal years 1999 and 2000, that is attributable to 
     the operation of subsection (b)(8); and
       ``(B) the aggregate increase in payments under this title 
     during fiscal years 2001 and 2002 that is attributable to the 
     application of the market basket percentage increase under 
     paragraphs (2)(B) and (3)(E) of this subsection in lieu of 
     the provisions of subclauses (VI) and (VII) of subsection 
     (b)(3)(B)(ii). Reductions under this paragraph shall not 
     affect computation of the amounts payable under this 
     subsection for cost reporting periods beginning in fiscal 
     years after fiscal year 2002.
       ``(7) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
       ``(A) The term `base fiscal year' means, with respect to a 
     hospital, the most recent fiscal year ending before the date 
     of enactment of this subsection for which audited cost report 
     data are available.
       ``(B) The term `PPS percentage' means--
       ``(i) with respect to cost reporting periods beginning on 
     or after October 1, 2000, and before October 1, 2001, 25 
     percent;
       ``(ii) with respect to cost reporting periods beginning on 
     or after October 1, 2001, and before October 1, 2002, 50 
     percent; and
       ``(iii) with respect to cost reporting periods beginning on 
     or after October 1, 2002, and before October 1, 2003, 75 
     percent.
       ``(C) The term `psychiatric facility' means--
       ``(i) a psychiatric hospital; and

[[Page S5047]]

       ``(ii) a psychiatric unit described in the matter following 
     clause (v) of subsection (d)(1)(B).
       ``(D) The term `TEFRA percentage' means--
       ``(i) with respect to cost reporting periods beginning on 
     or after October 1, 2000, and before October 1, 2001, 75 
     percent;
       ``(ii) with respect to cost reporting periods beginning on 
     or after October 1, 2001, and before October 1, 2002, 50 
     percent; and
       ``(iii) with respect to cost reporting periods beginning on 
     or after October 1, 2002, and before October 1, 2003, 25 
     percent.''.
       (b) Limit on Reductions Under Balanced Budget Act.--Section 
     1886(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(b)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Notwithstanding the amendments made by sections 4411, 
     4414, 4415, and 4416 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, in 
     the case of a psychiatric facility (as described in 
     subsection (l)(7(C)(ii)), the amount of payment for the 
     operating costs of inpatient hospital services for cost 
     reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 1998, and 
     before October 1, 2000, shall not be less than 95 percent of 
     the amount that would have been paid for such costs if such 
     amendments did not apply.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall apply as if included in the enactment of the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. 
        Bryan):
  S. 1003. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
increased tax incentives for the purchase of alternative fuel and 
electric vehicles, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


              the alternative fuels promotion act of 1999

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce today with my 
colleagues Senators Hatch, Crapo, and Bryan the Alternative Fuels 
Promotion Act. This is an important bipartisan piece of legislation 
providing tax incentives to help stimulate the still fledgling 
alternative fuel vehicle industry. It creates a $0.50 per gasoline 
equivalent gallon tax credit for natural gas, methanol, propane and 
hydrogen, thus almost leveling the tax treatment for all alternative 
fuels. The bill also contains provisions for extending the electric 
vehicle tax credit and augmenting it to encourage advanced technology 
vehicles. It also expands the existing tax deduction for alternative 
fuel fueling infrastructure to include the cost of installation. 
Finally, the bill gives states the authority to allow single occupant 
alternative fueled vehicles on high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes.
  I introduce this bill today because I believe that it is time for the 
next automobile revolution.
  I say revolution because as Webster's tells us, the word can mean ``a 
fundamental change in the way of thinking about something.''
  One compelling argument for pursuing fundamental change when it comes 
to automobiles is the fact that we still need to reduce this nation's 
dependence on imported oil, for obvious reasons. After all, Saddam 
Hussein didn't invade Kuwait to increase his supply of sand. We are at 
an historic high in our dependence on imported oil. Currently, we 
import approximately one half of the oil consumed in this nation. 
According to the Energy Information Administration, that level is 
expected to increase to more than sixty percent within the next decade, 
unless we do something dramatic to reverse the current trend. Even more 
foreboding is the fact that most of the oil we import is from the 
Middle East. It makes no sense for us to stand idly by as this volatile 
region of the world increases its potential stranglehold over the 
world's economy.
  It is also critical that we reduce the transportation sector's 
negative impact on air quality. We are in the midst of an alarming 
increase in reported asthma and other respiratory diseases. This 
problem is esepcially acute among children and senior citizens. While 
the automobile industry has made great strides in reducing emissions 
from cars and trucks, the improvement has been largely offset by the 
dramatically increasing number of cars, sport utility vehicles and 
trucks on the road and the increasing number of miles these vehicles 
are driven each year. Clearly, doing something to cut air pollution and 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, for example, requires enormous change 
in transportation.
  The options for bringing about change in the transportation sector 
are limited. We can pursue punitive new taxes, mandates, or 
regulations. This approach, I believe, would result in job losses and 
economic stagnation, situations that are not acceptable to either the 
American people or the Congress. I believe the best way to bring about 
the change we need is to provide incentives--to manufacturers to 
develop and sell clean technology--and to consumers to buy and use that 
technology.

  The domestic automobile manufacturers have been developing a full 
menu of clean, efficient vehicles for the 21st century. And unlike 
before, these vehicles are much closer to their gasoline-powered 
counterparts in terms of performance, safety, comfort, and cost. Just 
recently, two of our biggest automobile manufacturers unveiled their 
latest fuel-cell-powered vehicles--the alternative fuel vehicle 
considered by many to be the car of the 21st century. Much of the 
technology incorporated into such advanced transportation 
technologies--hybrids, electric vehicles with advanced batteries, fuel 
cell vehicles as well as bi-fuel and flex-fuel vehicles--are a direct 
result of the work government and industry have done together, in full 
partnership, through programs like the United States Advanced Battery 
Consortium and the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles.
  Perhaps most exciting is that some of these ``cars of the future'' 
are available today. Electric vehicles are being sold, albeit in small 
numbers, to fleets nationwide, and to select target markets in 
California and Arizona. Also, most major automakers have alternative 
fuel vehicles available for either fleet or private purchase.
  And there is encouraging news on the infrastructure front as well. 
Alternative fuel providers and electric utilities throughout the 
country are putting the infrastructure in place to support alternative 
fuel and electric vehicles in operation. By the end of 1998, nearly 300 
public charging sites with more than 600 chargers, as well as hundreds 
of home chargers, and a number of fleet installations, were established 
throughout California and Arizona. We need more of this to happen 
nationally. There are also more than 110 methanol stations nationwide 
supporting alternative and flex fuel vehicles. Also, compressed natural 
gas and other natural gas-based fuels are developing infrastructure as 
well. For example, in my state of West Virginia alone there are over 40 
compressed natural gas fueling stations.
  I think this is all evidence that we have indeed initiated an 
automotive revolution. Unfortunately, the market hasn't developed as 
quickly as we thought it would when we passed the Energy Policy Act of 
1992 with such high hopes. And perhaps we were too optimistic about 
what would be required by both government and industry to build a 
sustainable market for the technology.
  So, what can we do to speed things up? How can we make sure there are 
more vehicles available, get more people to buy them, and develop the 
infrastructure to sustain them?
  First, as I mentioned earlier, the alternative fuel and electric 
vehicle markets started more slowly than I think many of us expected. 
Therefore, we need to extend the phase-out dates of current tax 
credits. This would continue to help us ``jumpstart'' the market for 
electric vehicles, and lay out a longer-term incentive policy. Also, I 
feel that hard work and progress should be encouraged. Electric 
vehicles with extended range capability are the result of additional 
investments in research and technology. This behavior needs to be 
rewarded.
  Second, there needs to be more support for the development of an 
effective alternative fuel fueling infrastructure. For too long, we 
been caught in a `chicken and egg' cycle, with the infrastructure not 
available to support alternative fuel vehicles, and consumers not 
interested in the vehicles because there's not support infrastructure. 
We need to break this cycle by creating better tax incentives to help 
develop alternative fuel infrastructure. The current tax deductions for 
capitol equipment is not sufficient since a large portion of the 
overall cost may be associated with the actual cost of installation.

  Finally, we must make alternative fuels, like natural gas, methanol, 
propane and hydrogen, economically attractive to producers, 
distributors,

[[Page S5048]]

marketers and buyers. If consumers see affordable new fuels available 
at their local fueling stations, they will be much more likely to 
actually use an alternative fuel vehicle. Tax incentives have 
traditionally been very effective in encouraging consumers to try new 
technology. While changing consumer's behavior is not easy, I am 
confident that if people begin to see that alternative fuels are 
available and affordable, they will soon begin to use them. Without the 
economic drive at every link in the fuel chain any alternative fuel 
effort will not succeed.
  This is why today I along with my colleagues are introducing the 
Alternative Fuels Promotion Act.
  This bill contains provisions for extending the $4,000 tax credit for 
electric vehicles until 2010. It also grants an additional $5,000 tax 
credit for electric vehicles that meet a 100 mile range requirement. 
These provisions will help electric vehicle commercialization and 
research to move forward at a faster pace, and will mean that more 
people will be able to buy electric vehicles.
  However, few people will buy electric vehicles and other 
alternatively fueled vehicles if there is nowhere to refuel them. I 
want to encourage the development of these stations. Therefore, my bill 
expands the current tax deduction for alternative fuel fueling capital 
equipment to include the cost of installation. This will allow more 
infrastructure for electric and alternative fuel vehicles to be 
installed and used.
  The Alternative Fuels Promotion Act also makes clean-burning 
alternative fuels economically attractive. The bill provides a $0.50 
per gasoline equivalent gallon tax credit to the seller of compressed 
natural gas, liquefied natural gas, methanol, propane or hydrogen. This 
will allow these non-petroleum fuels to become more economically 
favorable to the consumer through lower prices at the pump. It also 
places these fuels on tax parity with other alternatives. By giving the 
tax credit to the seller of the fuel, it reduces the paperwork burden 
on the individual consumer, and allows for easier dispersal of the 
credit throughout the production/delivery/marketing chain so that all 
parties are interested in increasing the consumption of alternative 
fuels.
  Finally, the Alternative Fuel Promotion Act gives states the ability 
to decide if they want to allow single occupant alternative fuel and 
electric vehicles in HOV lanes. This is, I feel, a strong incentive 
that states should be allowed, but not required, to give to owners of 
these special vehicles.
  We know that when national policy works in support of the energies 
and potential of the private sector, far more progress can be made at a 
far faster rate. The private sector is leading the way in developing 
alternatives fuel vehicle technology. We need to provide consumers with 
a strong financial incentive to use this technology. Certainly, our 
continued dependence on foreign oil and the contribution of 
conventionally powered vehicles to air pollution should drive us to 
try. In my case, I see exciting prospects for new uses of West 
Virginia's natural resources and other economic benefits for my state--
along with other states. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill 
and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appear in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1003

       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 ``Alternative Fuels Promotion 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Senate finds the following:
       (1)(A) Since 1994, the United States has imported over half 
     its oil.
       (B) Without efforts to mitigate this dependence on foreign 
     oil, the percentage of oil imported is expected to grow to 
     all-time highs.
       (C) This reliance on foreign oil presents a national 
     security risk, which Congress should address through policy 
     changes designed to increase the use of domestically-
     available alternative transportation fuels.
       (2)(A) The importing of a majority of the oil used in the 
     United States contributes negatively to the balance of trade 
     of the United States.
       (B) Assuring the Nation's economic security demands the 
     development and promotion of domestically-available 
     alternative transportation fuels.
       (3)(A) The reliance on oil as a transportation fuel has 
     numerous negative environmental consequences, including 
     increasing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
       (B) Developing alternative transportation fuels will help 
     address these environmental impacts by reducing emissions.
       (4) In order to encourage installation of alternative 
     fueling infrastructure, and make alternative fuels 
     economically favorable to the producer, distributor, 
     marketer, and consumer, tax credits provided at the point of 
     distribution into an alternative fuel vehicle are necessary.
       (5)(A) In the short-term, United States alternative fuel 
     policy must be made fuel neutral.
       (B) Fuel neutrality will foster private innovation and 
     commercialization using the most technologically feasible and 
     economic fuels available.
       (C) This will allow market forces to decide the alternative 
     fuel winners and losers.
       (6)(A) Tax credits which have been in place have led to 
     increases in the quantity and quality of alternative fuel 
     technology available today.
       (B) Extending these credits is an efficient means of 
     promoting alternative fuel vehicles and alternative fueling 
     infrastructures.
       (7)(A) The Federal fleet is one of the best customers for 
     alternative fuel vehicles due to its combination of large 
     purchasing power, tight record keeping, geographic diversity, 
     and high fuel usage.
       (B) For these reasons, the National Energy Policy Act of 
     1991 required Federal fleets to purchase certain numbers of 
     alternatively-fueled vehicles.
       (C) In most cases, these requirements have not been met.
       (D) Efforts must be made to ensure that all Federal 
     agencies comply with Federal fleet purchase requirement laws 
     and executive orders.
                        TITLE I--TAX INCENTIVES

     SEC. 101. CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

       (a) Increased Credit for Vehicles Which Meet Certain Range 
     Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Section 30(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to allowance of credit) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--There shall be allowed as a credit 
     against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year 
     an amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(A) 10 percent of the cost of any qualified electric 
     vehicle placed in service by the taxpayer during the taxable 
     year, plus
       ``(B) in the case of any such vehicle also meeting the 
     requirement described in paragraph (2), $5,000.
       ``(2) Range requirement.--The requirement described in this 
     paragraph is a driving range of at least 100 miles--
       ``(A) on a single charge of the vehicle's rechargeable 
     batteries, fuel cells, or other portable source of electrical 
     current, and
       ``(B) measured pursuant to the urban dynamometer schedules 
     under appendix I to part 86 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 30(b)(1) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``subsection 
     (a)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)(1)(A)''.
       (b) Credit Extended Through 2010.--
       (1) In general.--Section 30(e) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to termination) is amended by striking 
     ``2004'' and inserting ``2010''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 30(b)(2) of such Code 
     (relating to phaseout) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``2002'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting 
     ``2008'',
       (B) by striking ``2003'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting 
     ``2009'', and
       (C) by striking ``2004'' in subparagraph (C) and inserting 
     ``2010''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 102. ADDITIONAL DEDUCTION FOR COST OF INSTALLATION OF 
                   ALTERNATIVE FUELING STATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 179A(b)(2) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified 
     clean-fuel vehicle refueling property) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(A) In general.--The aggregate cost which may be taken 
     into account under subsection (a)(1)(B) with respect to 
     qualified clean-fuel vehicle refueling property placed in 
     service during the taxable year at a location shall not 
     exceed the sum of--
       ``(i) with respect to costs not described in clause (ii), 
     the excess (if any) of--

       ``(I) $100,000, over
       ``(II) the aggregate amount of such costs taken into 
     account under subsection (a)(1)(B) by the taxpayer (or any 
     related person or predecessor) with respect to property 
     placed in service at such location for all preceding taxable 
     years, plus

       ``(ii) the lesser of--

       ``(I) the cost of the installation of such property, or
       ``(II) $30,000.''.

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 103. CREDIT FOR RETAIL SALE OF CLEAN BURNING FUELS AS 
                   MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL.

       (a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     business related credits) is amended by inserting after 
     section 40 the following:

[[Page S5049]]

     ``SEC. 40A. CREDIT FOR RETAIL SALE OF CLEAN BURNING FUELS AS 
                   MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL.

       ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the clean 
     burning fuel retail sales credit of any taxpayer for any 
     taxable year is 50 cents for each gasoline gallon equivalent 
     of clean burning fuel sold at retail by the taxpayer during 
     such year as a fuel to propel any qualified motor vehicle.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Clean burning fuel.--The term `clean burning fuel' 
     means natural gas, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural 
     gas, liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen, and any liquid at 
     least 85 percent of which consists of methanol.
       ``(2) Gasoline gallon equivalent.--The term `gasoline 
     gallon equivalent' means, with respect to any clean burning 
     fuel, the amount (determined by the Secretary) of such fuel 
     having a Btu content of 114,000.
       ``(3) Qualified motor vehicle.--The term `qualified motor 
     vehicle' means any motor vehicle (as defined in section 
     179A(e)) which meets any applicable Federal or State 
     emissions standards with respect to each fuel by which such 
     vehicle is designed to be propelled.
       ``(4) Sold at retail.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `sold at retail' means the 
     sale, for a purpose other than resale, after manufacture, 
     production, or importation.
       ``(B) Use treated as sale.--If any person uses clean 
     burning fuel as a fuel to propel any qualified motor vehicle 
     (including any use after importation) before such fuel is 
     sold at retail, then such use shall be treated in the same 
     manner as if such fuel were sold at retail as a fuel to 
     propel such a vehicle by such person.
       ``(c) No Double Benefit.--The amount of the credit 
     determined under subsection (a) shall be reduced by the 
     amount of any deduction or credit allowable under this 
     chapter for fuel taken into account in computing the amount 
     of such credit.
       ``(d) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any 
     fuel sold at retail after December 31, 2007.''.
       (b) Credit Treated as Business Credit.--Section 38(b) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to current year 
     business credit) is amended by striking ``plus'' at the end 
     of paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end of 
     paragraph (12) and inserting ``, plus'', and by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(13) the clean burning fuel retail sales credit 
     determined under section 40A(a).''.
       (c) Transitional Rule.--Section 39(d) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to transitional rules) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) No carryback of section 40A credit before effective 
     date.--No portion of the unused business credit for any 
     taxable year which is attributable to the clean burning fuel 
     retail sales credit determined under section 40A(a) may be 
     carried back to a taxable year ending before January 1, 
     1999.''.
       (d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 40 the following:

``Sec. 40A. Credit for retail sale of clean burning fuels as motor 
              vehicle fuel.''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to fuel sold at retail after December 31, 1999, 
     in taxable years ending after such date.
                     TITLE II--PROGRAM EFFICIENCIES

     SEC. 201. EXCEPTION TO HOV PASSENGER REQUIREMENTS FOR 
                   ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES.

       Section 102(a) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``(unless, at the discretion of the State 
     highway department, the vehicle operates on, or is fueled by, 
     an alternative fuel (as defined in section 301 of Public Law 
     102-486 (42 U.S.C. 13211(2)))'' after ``required''.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of 
the Alternative Fuels Promotion Act, together with my colleagues, 
Senators Rockefeller, Crapo, and Bryan. The legislation we introduce 
today will help to solve one of our Nation's most expensive problems--
air pollution.
  As air pollution was introduced at the beginning of this century, it 
is fitting that, at century's end, we should find solutions to this 
vexing problem.
  Automobiles are a major source of pollution in our urban areas. Past 
efforts to address this mobile-source pollution have been fraught with 
pitfalls; and, as a result, the effort to control automobile emissions 
has progressed in fits and starts. The Alternative Fuels Promotion Act 
avoids past mistakes, leaving behind command-and-control mandates from 
Congress and providing market-based incentives for consumers and for 
much needed infrastructure development.
  Mr. President, as we speak, my State of Utah is engaged in a mammoth 
road construction project on Interstate 15. This freeway runs right 
through Salt Lake City and through three counties in Utah that have 
struggled to meet national clean air standards.
  It might suggest that we should not improve or repair highways. Could 
it be that the availability of convenient and efficient roadways is in 
part responsible for our emissions problem? I doubt it. While the 
Eisenhower vision of a vast nation connected by interstate highways may 
have encouraged more people to commute or vacation by car, the fact is 
that vehicular traffic is increasing almost everywhere. One-car 
families have become two-car and three-car families.
  I do not believe that more cars crowded onto old and inefficient 
highways is the answer. In fact, slow-moving traffic is part of the 
problem.
  According to a recent study by Utah's Division of Air Quality, on-
road vehicles account for 22 percent of coarse particulate matter in 
Utah. Particulate matter can be harmful to those already suffering from 
chronic respiratory or heart disease, influenza, or asthma. Automobiles 
also account for 34 percent of hydrocarbon and 52 percent of nitrogen 
oxide emissions in my state. These two pollutants react in sunlight to 
form ozone, which in turn reduces lung function in humans and hurts our 
resistance to colds and asthma. Ozone may also lead to premature aging 
of lung tissue. In Utah, vehicles account for a whopping 87 percent of 
carbon monoxide emissions. Carbon monoxide can be harmful to persons 
with heart, respiratory, or circulatory ailments.
  Mr. President, while Utah has made important strides in improving air 
quality, more vehicular miles are driven every year. If we are to have 
cleaner air, we must encourage low emission alternative fuels or 
electric power.
  The need for alternative fuels will dramatically increase as the 
Environmental Protection Agency continues to implement its new, 
stricter clean air standards. With the tighter standards, some of 
Utah's counties will, once again, face non-attainment. Under the Clean 
Air Act, the EPA can impose sanctions on a state's highway fund if it 
determines a state has not adequately implemented plans to attain air 
quality standards, a sanction which, as I have suggested, may actually 
be counterproductive.
  Nevertheless, non-attainment can be a costly enterprise, whether due 
to the loss of federal highway money or to the expensive measures taken 
to reach attainment. And, as I have suggested, may be 
counterproductive.
  By the EPA's own estimates, the annual cost of achieving the new 
ozone standard in 2010 will be about $9.6 billion. Additionally, the 
EPA puts the annual cost of achieving the PM 2.5 standard at $37 
billion, making for a combined total cost of $47 billion annually. Mr. 
President, our most recent census count estimated that there are 65 
million families in the U.S. So, by the EPA's own account, implementing 
the new air quality standards will cost about $723 per family every 
year.
  Wouldn't it be wise, Mr. President, to invest some of that money in 
the development of alternative fuels?
  Take natural gas as an example. Natural gas is one of the cleanest 
burning fuels available. Add to this, methanol, propane has a variety 
of options that would allow Americans to continue to drive their cars, 
while dramatically cutting back on air pollution.
  Mr. President, research has brought us a number of excellent options 
to replace our dependency on traditional gasoline powered autos. It 
appears that our last obstacle remains bringing these alternatives to 
the marketplace. Past efforts to do so have failed to produce the 
hoped-for results because they have been too heavy on mandates and too 
weak on incentives to car buyers and to improve infrastructure.
  Clearly, if consumers are to begin buying alternative fuel vehicles, 
two elements must be in place: first, the price for vehicles and their 
fuel must be right; second, the consumer must feel confident that the 
infrastructure is in place with refueling stations widely available.

  This is where the Alternative Fuels Promotion Act comes into play. 
With this legislation, we take important steps forward to meet these 
goal without mandates. The only requirement in this bill is that 
federal agencies submit an annual report on their use of alternative 
fuel vehicles in their fleets.

[[Page S5050]]

  The Alternative Fuels Promotion Act encourages customers to purchase 
alternative fuels through a tax credit. Congress has already given 
ethanol users a tax credit of 54 cents per gallon. When adjusted for 
its energy capacity, ethanol's gasoline-gallon equivalent credit equals 
82 cents. Our legislation levels the playing field by extending a 50-
cent gasoline-gallon equivalent tax credit for the other alternative 
fuels, such as hydrogen, natural gas, propane, methanol, and 
electricity.
  There currently exists a tax credit for the purchase of electric 
vehicles. Our bill would extend the life of that credit, giving a 
continued incentive for companies to develop this technology. The 
current tax credit equals 10 percent of the purchase price of the 
vehicle, up to $4,000. Our legislation would extend the sunset date for 
this credit to 2010 and give an additional $5,000 credit toward any 
electric vehicle with a range over 100 miles.
  Mr. President, consumers will never be interested in alternative fuel 
vehicles until a strong infrastructure is developed. Under current law, 
there is a $100,000 tax deduction for the capital costs of equipment at 
alternative fuel stations. This legislation extends that benefit to 
construction and installation costs at a new filling station. Often 
constructions costs outweigh capital costs as a barrier to the 
installation of new alternative fuel stations.
  These measures will jump start a movement already under way toward 
increased use of alternative fuel vehicles. In California and Arizona 
there are already about 300 public charging sites for electric 
vehicles. Utah has led the way in natural gas infrastructure. An owner 
of a natural gas vehicle can crisscross my state from Logan in the 
north to St. George in the south, and from Salt Lake to the eastern 
border finding filling stations all along the way. This is progress, 
but much more needs to be done.
  Mr. President, I believe the momentum is building in this nation for 
a leap forward in the use of alternative fuel vehicles. There is broad 
agreement that our approach with this legislation is the proper course 
to help promote this step. In a letter to me, Utah's Clean Cities 
Coalition signaled its support for this measure. I quote, ``We believe 
that for the people living in urban Utah now is a good time to take 
strong action to encourage Utahns to buy alternative, clean-burning 
vehicles. We ask that you support the 50-cent per gallon tax credit.''
  This bill has also gained the support of the Wasatch Clean Air 
Coalition in Utah. They stated, ``We believe this tax credit would have 
a strong positive impact on our local air quality by encouraging the 
use of alternative fuels, and increasing the portion of cars on our 
roads fueled by alternative fuels.''
  Finally, the American Lung Association has told me that, ``Motor 
vehicles are a major source of pollution along the Wasatch Front. While 
automobiles do run cleaner these days, and while alternative forms of 
transportation are being considered, more needs to be done to address 
the current and future sources of emissions and poor air quality. One 
reasonable strategy to cut down on the amount of pollutants in the air 
is to increase the use of clean fuel vehicles. Vehicles that run on 
natural gas, propane or electric simply are cleaner burning than those 
fueled by gasoline or diesel. . . . This legislation will encourage an 
increased number of clean fuel vehicles on the road, and clean air for 
years to come.''
  Mr. President, I think we all know that 50 years down the road, we 
will not still be using petroleum fueled vehicles to the same extent we 
do today. This legislation is an attempt to bring the benefits of 
cleaner air to our citizens sooner, to free our cities from expensive 
EPA regulations, and to reduce our consumption of foreign oil. This 
legislation enables us to tackle these problems with incentives, not 
mandates. I urge my colleagues to join us in this future-minded 
approach to cleaning our air.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Alternative Fuels 
Promotion Act, which is introduced today by Senators Rockefeller, 
Hatch, Bryan, and myself.
  There are many reasons for my support of the Alternative Fuels 
Promotion Act offered today, in the Senate. A number of those reasons 
may not be immediately evident, given that the merits of alternative 
fuels are most often spoken in terms of environmental protection. While 
there are significant environmental benefits that can be gained from 
this bill, there are also benefits to be obtained in national security, 
promotion of the domestic oil industry, the encouragement of business 
development and innovation, and increased options for the consumer.
  Over half of the oil consumed in the United States is produced 
overseas. Internal combustion vehicles, cars, and trucks, are the 
primary market for this cheap and readily available source of energy. 
We, as a nation, have become complacent in our assumption that this 
stream of easily obtainable fuel will flow forever. It is time for this 
assumption to be challenged. Most of us have viewed this as simply an 
economic issue: buy what is cheapest and most available. However, this 
source of fuel is vulnerable to interruption by foreign governments 
through changing attitudes toward the U.S., foreign policy or military 
conflict. The United States should take positive and sure steps toward 
developing domestically available alternative sources of fuel in order 
that our economy and accustomed way of life cannot be threatened by the 
whims and troubles of those outside of our borders.
  The flood of foreign oil into the U.S. has left the domestic oil 
industry fighting for its life. Our support for alternative fueled 
vehicles should not be interpreted as a challenge or competition to the 
domestic oil industry. In direct contrast, it recognizes the importance 
of that industry of our national security. Petroleum products and 
fuels, including gasoline, will be needed far into the future for the 
transportation requirements of individuals, mass transportation, and 
conveyance of goods. The development of alternative fuels that are 
plentiful in this country, in conjunction with support for our domestic 
oil industry, will provide us a level of economic national security 
that we have not experienced for most of this century. By our efforts 
to revive the U.S. oil industry and the development of alternative 
fuels and vehicles, we will not be held hostage by foreign governments 
in gas lines again.
  The number of innovative alternative fuel technologies is 
encouraging. This bill supports the further development of vehicles 
that are powered by electricity, fuel cells, methanol, and various 
forms of natural gas. Tax incentives are already in place for other 
technologies such as ethanol. Support for all promising alternative 
fuels is warranted in order to give consumers options for choosing 
those vehicles that will best serve their needs; whether a company 
requires a fleet of natural gas powered buses to transport their 
employees of work sites, or an individual's preference for an electric 
vehicle for in-town use to commute to work or run errands.
  The enactment of tax incentives for emerging technologies is the 
logical way to encourage the development of cost effective alternative 
fueled vehicles, without the federal government mandating a preference. 
Leveling the tax incentive playing field within the alternative fuel 
energy sector will encourage partnerships between traditional providers 
of transportation and fuel products, and new companies with promising 
innovations. Instead of fighting change, traditional industry providers 
will participate in it and benefit from it. Increased market demand for 
alternative fuel vehicle technologies will also provide an opportunity 
and an incentive for the federal government to place greater emphasis 
on research and development in this industry sector. The results of 
which can then be leveraged into the private market.
  While the environmental benefits of cleaner burning fuels are often 
the most talked about and often the most evident; we should not 
discount the benefits that can be gained by developing our nation's 
energy independence.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS (for himself and Mr. Inhofe):
  S. 1004. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to reduce 
telephone rates, provide advanced telecommunications services to 
schools, libraries, and certain health care facilities, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

[[Page S5051]]

           SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES INTERNET ACCESS ACT OF 1999

 Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing 
today, along with Senator Inhofe, the Schools and Libraries Internet 
Access Act of 1999. This bill addresses a timely and critical issue, 
that of the implementation of the schools and libraries program. 
Recently, new charges began appearing on people's telephone bills. 
These are the charges which providers are assessing to pay for the 
expansion of ``universal service'' in the form of the ``schools and 
libraries'' program. This bill is especially timely since Chairman 
Kennard announced last week that he's calling for a $1 billion annual 
increase in the e-rate program. That's an additional Billion in taxes 
that would be enacted without any review or commentary in Congress, 
and, most importantly, without a vote by our citizens' representatives. 
Congress needs to step to the plate and provide specific funding for 
this program that we all feel is important for rural and low-income 
regions.
  I don't think anyone in the Senate ever thought that the limited 
language which we included in the 1996 Act would be used to create a 
massive new entitlement program through universal service. Universal 
service has historically meant the provision of telecommunications 
services to all Americans, regardless of geographical location. The FCC 
has expanded the definition of universal service to include broad-
ranging social programs, which has caused the Commission's progress 
toward maintaining universal service to be delayed. While such goals as 
providing Internet access to schools and libraries may be laudable, 
they were never meant to be part of universal service as it has 
traditionally been known. Indeed, a huge additional burden has been 
placed on rural states like Montana in meeting these newfound 
definitions.
  I want to make it clear, however, that I have always supported the 
goal of connecting all of our schools to the Internet, as well as the 
provision of advanced telecommunications services to rural health care 
centers. I just felt that it was wrong to fund these programs on the 
backs of American consumers. It is with this in mind that I have 
proposed using an outdated 3 percent excise tax on telephones to fund 
the schools and libraries and rural health care programs. Currently, 
none of the money collected by the tax goes to fund telephone service 
for Americans.
  This tax was designed to fund World War I and was instituted in an 
era where telephones were a luxury. Well, World War I should be paid 
for by now and phones are certainly no longer a luxury item. The 3 
percent tax was kept alive to provide revenue to offset the deficit. In 
today's climate of budgetary surplus, this justification no longer 
makes sense. My proposal calls for cutting the excise tax by two-thirds 
and using the remaining third to fund the schools and libraries program 
and the rural health care program.
  This proposal is a win/win solution. It's a win for consumers, since 
it would eliminate the need for new charges on telephone service. It's 
a win for taxpayers, who would see billions of dollars in current taxes 
eliminated. It's a win for our schools, libraries and rural health care 
centers, who would see their programs fully funded without threatening 
universal service. With the support of the other members of Congress 
and the leadership of the Senate, I believe this proposal can solve the 
current crisis we face in funding the schools and libraries and rural 
health care programs.
  The Schools and Libraries Internet Access Act of 1999 is an important 
effort to shape the future of online access. I strongly encourage my 
colleagues to support the passage of this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S. 1005. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to provide for 
national minimum sentences for individuals convicted of operating motor 
vehicles under the influence of alcohol; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


                      deadly driver reduction act

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am announcing new legislation 
that will go even further in taking drunk drivers off the road. This 
legislation means three strikes and, then, you lose your license.
  This would set nation-wide standards for license revocation for drunk 
drivers. Currently, states have a patchwork of laws that range from a 
fifteen day suspension to a ten year revocation for a third offense. 
This bill would require that all states adopt at least the following 
for each level of conviction, otherwise they would face a 10 percent 
cut in their highway funds.
  For the first offense, this bill calls for a six-month license 
revocation, $500 fine, and assessment of alcohol abuse. If a person's 
blood alcohol content (BAC) is .16 or greater, his or her punishment 
includes a ceiling of .05 BAC for the next five years, impoundment/
immobilization of his car for 30 days, an ignition interlock for 180 
days, and 10 days in jail or 60 hours of community service.
  For the second offense, the repeat offender receives a one year 
license revocation, a ceiling of .05 BAC for the next five years, 
impoundment/immobilization of his or her car for 60 days, ignition 
interlock for a year, 10 days jail or 60 hours of community service, 
and an assessment of alcohol abuse.
  And, finally, for the third offense, the repeat offender will lose 
his driver's license permanently.
  With a tough license-revocation law, we can save hundreds of lives 
each year. This is the next logical step in the fight against drunk 
driving. It will build on what we started in 1984, when Democrats and 
Republicans joined together to increase the drinking age to 21. Back 
then, the liquor lobby issued all kinds of dire warnings that the 
industry would not survive that legislation. But of course, the 
industry did survive. And more than 10,000 drunk-driving deaths were 
prevented.
  We need this legislation. Remember, drunk-driving deaths are not 
``accidents.'' They are the result of somebody's irresponsible and 
criminally reckless behavior.
  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. 1005

       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 ``Deadly Driver Reduction 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. NATIONAL MINIMUM SENTENCES FOR INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED 
                   OF OPERATING MOTOR VEHICLES WHILE UNDER THE 
                   INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL.

       (a) In General.--Section 164 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 164. National minimum sentences for individuals 
       convicted of operating motor vehicles while under the 
       influence of alcohol

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Blood alcohol concentration.--The term `blood alcohol 
     concentration' means grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of 
     blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
       ``(2) Driving under the influence.--The term `driving under 
     the influence' means operating a motor vehicle while having a 
     blood alcohol concentration above the limit established by 
     the State in which the motor vehicle is operated.
       ``(3) Motor vehicle.--The term `motor vehicle' means a 
     vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured 
     primarily for use on public highways, but does not include a 
     vehicle operated solely on a rail line or a commercial 
     vehicle.
       ``(4) Operate.--The term `operate', with respect to a motor 
     vehicle, means to drive or be in actual physical control of 
     the motor vehicle.
       ``(b) Withholding of Apportionments for Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) Fiscal year 2003.--The Secretary shall withhold 5 
     percent of the amount required to be apportioned to any State 
     under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of section 104(b) 
     on October 1, 2002, if the State does not meet the 
     requirements of paragraph (3) on that date.
       ``(2) Subsequent fiscal years.--The Secretary shall 
     withhold 10 percent (including any amounts withheld under 
     paragraph (1)) of the amount required to be apportioned to 
     any State under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of 
     section 104(b) on October 1, 2003, and on October 1 of each 
     fiscal year thereafter, if the State does not meet the 
     requirements of paragraph (3) on that date.
       ``(3) Requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State meets the requirements of this 
     paragraph if the State has enacted and is enforcing a law 
     that provides for a minimum sentence consistent with the 
     following and with subparagraph (B):
       ``(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), in the case of the 
     first conviction of an individual

[[Page S5052]]

     for driving under the influence, a sentence requiring--

       ``(I) revocation of the individual's driver's license for 6 
     months;
       ``(II) payment of a $500 fine by the individual; and
       ``(III)(aa) an assessment of the individual's degree of 
     alcohol abuse; and
       ``(bb) appropriate treatment.

       ``(ii) In the case of the first conviction of an individual 
     for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol 
     concentration of .16 or greater, a sentence requiring--

       ``(I) revocation of the individual's driver's license for 6 
     months, or for 2 years if, at the time of arrest, the 
     individual refused to take a breath test to determine the 
     individual's blood alcohol concentration;
       ``(II) imposition of a requirement on the individual 
     prohibiting the individual from operating a motor vehicle 
     with a blood alcohol concentration of .05 or greater for 5 
     years;
       ``(III) impoundment or immobilization of the individual's 
     motor vehicle for 30 days;
       ``(IV) imposition of a requirement on the individual 
     requiring the installation of an ignition interlock system on 
     the individual's motor vehicle for 180 days;
       ``(V) payment of a $750 fine by the individual;
       ``(VI) 10 days of imprisonment of, or 60 days of community 
     service by, the individual; and
       ``(VII)(aa) an assessment of the individual's degree of 
     alcohol abuse; and
       ``(bb) appropriate treatment.

       ``(iii) Except as provided in clause (iv), in the case of 
     the second conviction of an individual for driving under the 
     influence, a sentence requiring--

       ``(I) revocation of the individual's driver's license for 1 
     year, or for 2 years if, at the time of arrest, the 
     individual refused to take a breath test to determine the 
     individual's blood alcohol concentration;
       ``(II) imposition of a requirement on the individual 
     prohibiting the individual from operating a motor vehicle 
     with a blood alcohol concentration of .05 or greater for 5 
     years;
       ``(III) impoundment or immobilization of the individual's 
     motor vehicle for 60 days;
       ``(IV) imposition of a requirement on the individual 
     requiring the installation of an ignition interlock system on 
     the individual's motor vehicle for 1 year;
       ``(V) payment of a $1,000 fine by the individual;
       ``(VI) 10 days of imprisonment of, or 60 days of community 
     service by, the individual; and
       ``(VII)(aa) an assessment of the individual's degree of 
     alcohol abuse; and
       ``(bb) appropriate treatment.

       ``(iv) In the case of the third or subsequent conviction of 
     an individual for driving under the influence, or in the case 
     of a second such conviction if the individual's first such 
     conviction was a conviction described in clause (ii), a 
     sentence requiring permanent revocation of the individual's 
     driver's license.
       ``(B) Revocations.--A revocation of a driver's license 
     under subparagraph (A) shall not be subject to any exception 
     or condition, including an exception or condition to avoid 
     hardship to any individual.
       ``(c) Period of Availability; Effect of Compliance and 
     Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) Period of availability of withheld funds.--
       ``(A) Funds withheld on or before september 30, 2004.--Any 
     funds withheld under subsection (b) from apportionment to any 
     State on or before September 30, 2004, shall remain available 
     until the end of the third fiscal year following the fiscal 
     year for which the funds are authorized to be appropriated.
       ``(B) Funds withheld after september 30, 2004.--No funds 
     withheld under this section from apportionment to any State 
     after September 30, 2004, shall be available for 
     apportionment to the State.
       ``(2) Apportionment of withheld funds after compliance.--
     If, before the last day of the period for which funds 
     withheld under subsection (b) from apportionment are to 
     remain available for apportionment to a State under paragraph 
     (1)(A), the State meets the requirements of subsection 
     (b)(3), the Secretary shall, on the first day on which the 
     State meets the requirements, apportion to the State the 
     funds withheld under subsection (b) that remain available for 
     apportionment to the State.
       ``(3) Period of availability of subsequently apportioned 
     funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any funds apportioned under paragraph 
     (2) shall remain available for expenditure until the end of 
     the third fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the 
     funds are so apportioned.
       ``(B) Treatment of certain funds.--Any funds apportioned 
     under paragraph (2) that are not obligated at the end of the 
     period referred to in subparagraph (A) shall lapse.
       ``(4) Effect of noncompliance.--If, at the end of the 
     period for which funds withheld under subsection (b) from 
     apportionment are available for apportionment to a State 
     under paragraph (1)(A), the State does not meet the 
     requirements of subsection (b)(3), the funds shall lapse.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for subchapter I of 
     chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 164 and inserting the 
     following:

``164. National minimum sentences for individuals convicted of 
              operating motor vehicles while under the influence of 
              alcohol.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
        Kerry, and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 1006. A bill to end the use of conventional steel-jawed leghold 
traps on animals in the United States; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.

                          ____________________