[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 21 (Wednesday, March 1, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1025-S1029]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GRAMS (for himself and Mr. Allard):
  S. 2126. A bill to ensure that the fiscal year 2000 on-budget surplus 
is used to reduce publicly held debt; to the Committee on the Budget 
and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the 
order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one Committee 
reports, the other Committee have thirty days to report or be 
discharged.


            save our surplus for debt reduction act of 2000

 Mr. GRAMS. 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. 2126

       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 ``Save Our Surplus for Debt 
     Reduction Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Congressional Budget Office currently estimates 
     that the Government will have a $23,000,000,000 nonsocial 
     security surplus (on-budget surplus) in fiscal year 2000;
       (2) Government spending in fiscal year 2000 will increase 
     faster than the rate of inflation for a total of over 
     $1,750,000,000,000;
       (3) Government publicly held debt in fiscal year 2000 will 
     be reduced by over $150,000,000,000, yet debt held by the 
     public will remain in excess of $3,450,000,000,000 and cost 
     over $200,000,000,000 in annual interest payments;
       (4) Government revenues in fiscal year 2000 will be 20.3 
     percent of the Gross Domestic Product, which is the highest 
     level since World War II; and
       (5) nearly 40,000,000 citizens currently rely on social 
     security and medicare, yet as more Americans retire over the 
     next decade, these programs will begin running deficits and 
     jeopardize their retirement.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to ensure that 
     the fiscal year 2000 on-budget surplus is used to reduce 
     publicly held debt.

     SEC. 3. REDUCTION OF PUBLICLY HELD DEBT.

       (a) Point of Order Against Certain Legislation.--Except as 
     provided by subsection (b), it shall not be in order in the 
     House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, 
     joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report 
     if--
       (1) the enactment of that bill or resolution as reported;
       (2) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
       (3) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the form 
     recommended in that conference report;
     would cause a decrease in the on-budget surplus for fiscal 
     year 2000.
       (b) Exception.--The point of order set forth in subsection 
     (a) shall not apply to a bill, joint resolution, amendment, 
     motion, or conference report if it--
       (1) reduces revenues;
       (2) implements structural social security reform; or
       (3) implements structural medicare reform.
       (c) Waivers and Appeals in the Senate.--
       (1) Waivers.--Subsection (a) may be waived or suspended in 
     the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of 
     the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (2) Appeals.--
       (A) Limitations.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions 
     of the Chair relating to subsection (a) shall be limited to 1 
     hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the 
     mover and the manager of the bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report, as the case may be.
       (B) Supermajority.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of 
     the Members, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the 
     Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 
     point of order raised under subsection (a).

     SEC. 4. SUNSET PROVISION.

       The provisions of this Act shall cease to have any force or 
     effect on October 1, 2000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK:
  S. 2127. A bill to exempt agreements relating to voluntary guidelines 
governing telecast material, movies, video games, Internet content, and 
music lyrics from the applicability of the antitrust laws, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                   children's protection act of 2000

 Mr. BROWNBACK. 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. 2127

       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 ``Children's Protection Act of 
     2000''.

      SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Television is seen and heard in nearly every United 
     States home and is a uniquely pervasive presence in the daily 
     lives of Americans. The average American home has 2.5 
     televisions, and a television is turned on in the average 
     American home 7 hours every day.
       (2) Television plays a particularly significant role in the 
     lives of children. Figures provided by Nielsen Research show 
     that children between the ages of 2 years and 11 years spend 
     an average of 21 hours in front of a television each week.
       (3) Television has an enormous capability to influence 
     perceptions, especially those of children, of the values and 
     behaviors that are common and acceptable in society.
       (4) The influence of television is so great that its images 
     and messages often can be harmful to the development of 
     children. Social science research amply documents a strong 
     correlation between the exposure of children to televised 
     violence and a number of behavioral and psychological 
     problems.
       (5) Hundreds of studies have proven conclusively that 
     children who are consistently exposed to violence on 
     television have a higher tendency to exhibit violent and 
     aggressive behavior, both as children and later in life.
       (6) Such studies also show that repeated exposure to 
     violent programming causes children to become desensitized to 
     and more accepting of real-life violence and to grow more 
     fearful and less trusting of their surroundings.
       (7) A growing body of social science research indicates 
     that sexual content on television can also have a significant 
     influence on the attitudes and behaviors of young viewers. 
     This research suggests that heavy exposure to programming 
     with strong sexual content contributes to the early 
     commencement of sexual activity among teenagers.
       (8) Members of the National Association of Broadcasters 
     (NAB) adhered for many years to a comprehensive code of 
     conduct that was based on an understanding of the influence 
     exerted by television and on a widely held sense of 
     responsibility for using that influence carefully.
       (9) This code of conduct, the Television Code of the 
     National Association of Broadcasters, articulated this sense 
     of responsibility as follows:
       (A) ``In selecting program subjects and themes, great care 
     must be exercised to be sure that the treatment and 
     presentation are made in good faith and not for the purpose 
     of sensationalism or to shock or exploit the audience or 
     appeal to prurient interests or morbid curiosity.''.
       (B) ``Broadcasters have a special responsibility toward 
     children. Programs designed primarily for children should 
     take into account the range of interests and needs of 
     children, from instructional and cultural material to a wide 
     variety of entertainment material. In their totality, 
     programs should contribute to the sound, balanced development 
     of children to help them achieve a sense of the world at 
     large and informed adjustments to their society.''.
       (C) ``Violence, physical, or psychological, may only be 
     projected in responsibly handled contexts, not used 
     exploitatively. Programs involving violence present the 
     consequences of it to its victims and perpetrators. 
     Presentation of the details of violence should avoid the 
     excessive, the gratuitous and the instructional.''.
       (D) ``The presentation of marriage, family, and similarly 
     important human relationships, and material with sexual 
     connotations, shall not be treated exploitatively or 
     irresponsibly, but with sensitivity.''.
       (E) ``Above and beyond the requirements of the law, 
     broadcasters must consider the family atmosphere in which 
     many of their programs are viewed. There shall be no graphic 
     portrayal of sexual acts by sight or sound. The portrayal of 
     implied sexual acts must be essential to the plot and 
     presented in a responsible and tasteful manner.''.

[[Page S1026]]

       (10) The National Association of Broadcasters abandoned the 
     code of conduct in 1983 after three provisions of the code 
     restricting the sale of advertising were challenged by the 
     Department of Justice on antitrust grounds and a Federal 
     district court issued a summary judgment against the National 
     Association of Broadcasters regarding one of the provisions 
     on those grounds. However, none of the programming standards 
     of the code were challenged.
       (11) While the code of conduct was in effect, its 
     programming standards were never found to have violated any 
     antitrust law.
       (12) Since the National Association of Broadcasters 
     abandoned the code of conduct, programming standards on 
     broadcast and cable television have deteriorated 
     dramatically.
       (13) In the absence of effective programming standards, 
     public concern about the impact of television on children, 
     and on society as a whole, has risen substantially. Polls 
     routinely show that more than 80 percent of Americans are 
     worried by the increasingly graphic nature of sex, violence, 
     and vulgarity on television and by the amount of programming 
     that openly sanctions or glorifies criminal, antisocial, and 
     degrading behavior.
       (14) At the urging of Congress, the television industry has 
     taken some steps to respond to public concerns about 
     programming standards and content. The broadcast television 
     industry agreed in 1992 to adopt a set of voluntary 
     guidelines designed to ``proscribe gratuitous or excessive 
     portrayals of violence''. Shortly thereafter, both the 
     broadcast and cable television industries agreed to conduct 
     independent studies of the violent content in their 
     programming and make those reports public.
       (15) In 1996, the television industry as a whole made a 
     commitment to develop a comprehensive rating system to label 
     programming that may be harmful or inappropriate for 
     children. That system was implemented at the beginning of 
     1999.
       (16) Despite these efforts to respond to public concern 
     about the impact of television on children, millions of 
     Americans, especially parents with young children, remain 
     angry and frustrated at the sinking standards of television 
     programming, the reluctance of the industry to police itself, 
     and the harmful influence of television on the well-being of 
     the children and the values of the United States.
       (17) The Department of Justice issued a ruling in 1993 
     indicating that additional efforts by the television industry 
     to develop and implement voluntary programming guidelines 
     would not violate the antitrust laws. The ruling states that 
     ``such activities may be likened to traditional standard 
     setting efforts that do not necessarily restrain competition 
     and may have significant procompetitive benefits. . . Such 
     guidelines could serve to disseminate valuable information on 
     program content to both advertisers and television viewers. 
     Accurate information can enhance the demand for, and increase 
     the output of, an industry's products or services.''.
       (18) The Children's Television Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-
     437) states that television broadcasters in the United States 
     have a clear obligation to meet the educational and 
     informational needs of children.
       (19) Several independent analyses have demonstrated that 
     the television broadcasters in the United States have not 
     fulfilled their obligations under the Children's Television 
     Act of 1990 and have not noticeably expanded the amount of 
     educational and informational programming directed at young 
     viewers since the enactment of that Act.
       (20) The popularity of video and personal computer (PC) 
     games is growing steadily among children. Although most 
     popular video and personal computer games are educational or 
     harmless in nature, many of the most popular are extremely 
     violent. One recent study by Strategic Record Research found 
     that 64 percent of teenagers played video or personal 
     computer games on a regular basis. Other surveys of children 
     as young as elementary school age found that almost half of 
     them list violent computer games among their favorites.
       (21) Violent video games often present violence in a 
     glamorized light. Game players are often cast in the role of 
     shooter, with points scored for each ``kill''. Similarly, 
     advertising for such games often touts violent content as a 
     selling point--the more graphic and extreme, the better.
       (22) As the popularity and graphic nature of such video 
     games grows, so do their potential to negatively influence 
     impressionable children.
       (23) Music is another extremely pervasive and popular form 
     of entertainment. American children and teenagers listen to 
     music more than any other demographic group. The Journal of 
     American Medicine reported that between the 7th and 12th 
     grades the average teenager listens to 10,500 hours of rock 
     or rap music, just slightly less than the entire number of 
     hours spent in the classroom from kindergarten through high 
     school.
       (24) Teens are among the heaviest purchasers of music, and 
     are most likely to favor music genres that depict, and often 
     appear to glamorize violence.
       (25) Music has a powerful ability to influence perceptions, 
     attitudes, and emotional state. The use of music as therapy 
     indicates its potential to increase emotional, psychological. 
     and physical health. That influence can be used for ill as 
     well.

      SEC. 3. PURPOSES; CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to permit the 
     entertainment industry--
       (1) to work collaboratively to respond to growing public 
     concern about television programming, movies, video games, 
     Internet content, and music lyrics, and the harmful influence 
     of such programming, movies, games, content, and lyrics on 
     children;
       (2) to develop a set of voluntary programming guidelines 
     similar to those contained in the Television Code of the 
     National Association of Broadcasters; and
       (3) to implement the guidelines in a manner that alleviates 
     the negative impact of television programming, movies, video 
     games, Internet content, and music lyrics on the development 
     of children in the United States and stimulates the 
     development and broadcast of educational and informational 
     programming for such children.
       (b) Construction.--This Act may not be construed as--
       (1) providing the Federal Government with any authority to 
     restrict television programming, movies, video games, 
     Internet content, or music lyrics that is in addition to the 
     authority to restrict such programming, movies, games, 
     content, or lyrics under law as of the date of the enactment 
     of this Act; or
       (2) approving any action of the Federal Government to 
     restrict such programming, movies, games, content, or lyrics 
     that is in addition to any actions undertaken for that 
     purpose by the Federal Government under law as of such date.

      SEC. 4. EXEMPTION OF VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS ON GUIDELINES FOR 
                   CERTAIN ENTERTAINMENT MATERIAL FROM 
                   APPLICABILITY OF ANTITRUST LAWS.

       (a) Exemption.--Subject to subsection (b), the antitrust 
     laws shall not apply to any joint discussion, consideration, 
     review, action, or agreement by or among persons in the 
     entertainment industry for the purpose of developing and 
     disseminating voluntary guidelines designed--
       (1) to alleviate the negative impact of telecast material, 
     movies, video games, Internet content, and music lyrics 
     containing violence, sexual content, criminal behavior, or 
     other subjects that are not appropriate for children; or
       (2) to promote telecast material that is educational, 
     informational, or otherwise beneficial to the development of 
     children.
       (b) Limitation.--The exemption provided in subsection (a) 
     shall not apply to any joint discussion, consideration, 
     review, action, or agreement which--
       (1) results in a boycott of any person; or
       (2) concerns the purchase or sale of advertising, including 
     (without limitation) restrictions on the number of products 
     that may be advertised in a commercial, the number of times a 
     program may be interrupted for commercials, and the number of 
     consecutive commercials permitted within each interruption.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Antitrust laws.--The term ``antitrust laws'' has the 
     meaning given such term in the first section of the Clayton 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 12) and includes section 5 of the Federal 
     Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
       (2) Internet.--The term ``Internet'' means the combination 
     of computer facilities and electromagnetic transmission 
     media, and related equipment and software, comprising the 
     interconnected worldwide network of computer networks that 
     employ the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol or 
     any successor protocol to transmit information.
       (3) Movies.--The term ``movies'' means theatrical motion 
     pictures.
       (4) Person in the entertainment industry.--The term 
     ``person in the entertainment industry'' means a television 
     network, any entity which produces or distributes television 
     programming (including theatrical motion pictures), the 
     National Cable Television Association, the Association of 
     Independent Television Stations, Incorporated, the National 
     Association of Broadcasters, the Motion Picture Association 
     of America, each of the affiliate organizations of the 
     television networks, the Interactive Digital Software 
     Association, any entity which produces or distributes video 
     games, the Recording Industry Association of America, and any 
     entity which produces or distributes music, and includes any 
     individual acting on behalf of such person.
       (5) Telecast.--The term ``telecast'' means any program 
     broadcast by a television broadcast station or transmitted by 
     a cable television system.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Frist, and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 2132. A bill to create incentives for private sector research 
related to developing vaccines against widespread diseases and ensure 
that such vaccines are affordable and widely distributed; to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations.


              vaccines for the new millennium act of 2000

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
Vaccines for the New Millennium Act of 2000. I have the honor of being 
joined by the distinguished chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, 
Senator Frist, and my friend, the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray. 
This bill addresses a catastrophic problem that needs our immediate 
attention.

[[Page S1027]]

  The proportions of the AIDS calamity in Africa are stupefying. More 
than 33 million people are infected with HIV--95 percent of them in 
sub-Saharan Africa. This disease will kill more than 2.5 million this 
year. It has already orphaned 11 million children, and it will orphan 
40 million by 2010. These numbers are incomprehensible. To put in 
perspective, nearly 60 people will become infected with HIV in the time 
it takes me to testify today.
  In addition, tuberculosis will kill close to 2 million this year, and 
a person dies from malaria every thirty seconds. No nation--but 
particularly ours--as rich as we are in talent, technology and money--
can fail to help turn this around.
  We should remember: borders do not matter when you are dealing with 
contagion.
  These epidemics are out of control. And if we are to reverse this 
death spiral, we need to institute bold new measures. We must provide 
new global health infrastructures which look at long-term solutions for 
disease eradication. And, until they are established, we must provide 
much-needed short-term financing for disease prevention and treatment.
  Mr. President, a number of my colleagues have shown great leadership 
in trying to find a solution to the health emergencies in the 
developing countries.
  I applaud the work of my friend, Senator Durbin with whom I have 
joined on a number of bills this year. I also recognize and support the 
efforts of Senator Boxer and Senator Smith for their work on the Global 
AIDS Plan. Senator Moynihan and Senator Feingold also have an important 
plan to prevent vertical transmission of HIV from mother to child. I 
have supported all these plans.
  Mr. President, I think we need to acknowledge the scope of this 
epidemic requires a bold response which looks beyond just preventing 
and treating this disease. The epidemiology of this disease dictates 
lifetime adherence to preventive measures. I am fully supportive of 
prevention programs--I have seen their very positive effect in the AIDS 
Action Committee in Boston and in AIDS Project Worcester. The Outer 
Cape also has a tremendous program which I support every year in 
Provincetown and these are echoed in small towns across Massachusetts 
which have accessed CDC grants and instituted the absolute best of 
community-based programs. I have also been an early and consistent 
supporter of the Ryan White program which comes up for reauthorization 
this year.
  But, Mr. President, we need a vaccine--for the United States and for 
the developing world.
  Vaccines are the most cost-effective weapon in the arsenal of modern 
medicine to stop the spread of contagious disease, and they offer a 
relatively inexpensive means of lowering a society's overall cost of 
medical care. Prime examples of the success are the three million 
children whose lives are saved each year as a result of early childhood 
immunizations against diphtheria, polio, pertussis, tetanus, measles, 
and tuberculosis.
  Mr. President, consider the alternatives we have now. Pharmaceutical 
products, like the highly touted antiviral ``cocktail'' for treating 
AIDS patients can cost, on average, as much as $15,000 a year. That is 
a princely sum for even wealthy countries but clearly, for nations with 
per capita incomes of $700 or $800 like Malawi, such treatments and 
drugs are nowhere in the real of affordability. They also require 
enormous infrastructure investments and medical compliance which is 
difficult to adhere to in this country let alone developing societies.
  For these nations, finding an affordable vaccine for AIDS is really 
the only option that offers them an opportunity for gaining control 
over the AIDS epidemic.
  Unfortunately, of the $2.4 billion or so spent on overall AIDS 
research last year, only a fraction was spent on AIDS vaccine research.
  The World Bank estimates that perhaps between $280 million and $350 
million was spend worldwide on finding a vaccine for AIDS in 1999, or 
somewhere between 10 and 15 percent of the total amount spent on AIDS 
research.
  Furthermore, of the $300 million or so spent on HIV vaccine research, 
less than $50 million came from private sector research and development 
budgets. Simply put, our biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries do 
not believe that investing in AIDS vaccine research is a good 
investment.
  So, Mr. President, we have a responsibility, an obligation, to change 
this perception. Investing in an AIDS vaccine is one of the best 
investments we as a nation can make. And for Africa, it is the only 
hope for survival.
  And while continued and expanded investments in our research engines 
are vitally important--I am referring to AIDS research at the National 
Institutes of Health--the time has come for us to explore additional 
strategies for stimulating private sector AIDS vaccine research and 
development.
  We must look for innovative financing mechanisms. We must instill the 
financial incentives for our pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors 
to engage in areas that have previously ignored.
  Mr. President, I was amazed to learn that of the $56 billion a year 
spent globally on health research, well over 90 percent is spent on 
research into health problems that concern only 10 percent of the 
world's population.
  Amazingly, of the 1,200 new drugs commercialized between 1975 and 
1997, only 13 were for tropical diseases--diseases such as malaria and 
tuberculosis which combined kill close to 3 million people a year.
  Why is it that pharmaceutical companies don't invest in these 
diseases? Because there is no hope for finding a vaccine for malaria? 
No hope for finding an affordable vaccine for tuberculosis or HIV? Is 
the science just insurmountable?
  Absolutely not.
  Companies don't invest in these diseases because they don't foresee a 
profit. A malaria vaccine, while offering the potential to save 
millions of lives, does not offer the same return to shareholders as 
the return from Viagra, Lipitor, Prozac, or other blockbusters here in 
the United States. I don't blame the pharmaceutical industry for 
concern about their shareholders, but I believe it is morally 
imperative to jumpstart research into vaccines as quickly as possible.
  What then, is the answer? Should we turn our back on these diseases 
as a casualty of the way free markets function? Should we dump billions 
into new government bureaucracies to tackle these problems? The answer 
on both counts is no. We as a nation, and as a responsible member of 
the international community, should create the market incentives to 
encourage our pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, the best and 
brightest companies in the world, to invest in those diseases which are 
a scourge to the world.
  What we need to do is give pharmaceutical companies the financial 
incentives to achieve what we know is possible and let them work their 
magic--these are the same engines of growth and technological progress 
which have helped extend life expectancy beyond what was imaginable at 
the turn of the century. Now, let's help them turn their attention to 
those diseases which kill millions upon millions in developing 
countries.
  I think this type of public-private partnership is the most efficient 
means of addressing the world's growing health care pandemics. How 
would it world specifically?
  The legislation I introduce today, the ``Vaccines for the New 
Millennium Act,'' provides a number of market incentives to encourage 
private sector investment in lifesaving vaccines. These incentives can 
be classified in one of two ways. Some of them provide a ``push'' 
mechanism--lowering the cost of R&D at the front end. Others provide a 
``pull'' mechanism, demonstrating that a market will exist if the 
pharmaceutical companies provide the product.
  On the push side, first, the bill expands on the research and 
development tax credit by increasing the credit rate from 20 percent to 
50 percent for research related to developing vaccines for AIDS, 
malaria, tuberculosis, or any infectious disease which kills over 1 
million people a year. The tax credit is incremental such that the 
credit applies to research spending which exceeds a base amount. In 
effect, the credit rewards incremental increases in lifesaving vaccine 
research--thus giving our drug companies an incentive for more focus on 
lifesaving vaccines.

[[Page S1028]]

  Second, the bill allows small biotechnology companies which do not 
have tax liability to pass a smaller tax credit through to investors. 
Firms with assets under $50 million may choose to pass through a 25 
percent tax credit to investors who provide financing for research and 
development on one of the priority vaccines. The credit would apply to 
stock issued after the date of enactment and used within 18 months to 
pay for qualified vaccine research expenses.
  Both of these proposals have been endorsed by a combination of public 
health advocacy groups and industry--including AIDS Action Council, the 
Global Health Council, the American Public Health Association and the 
AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition.
  Third, the bill authorizes voluntary contributions to the Global 
Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations and the International AIDS 
Vaccine Initiative. The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations 
is an international partnership recently established to expand and 
improve access to existing safe and cost-effective vaccines. It is 
being supported by a number of nations and international donors, 
including an incredibly generous founding gift by the Bill and Melinda 
Gates Foundation. A similar provision was included in the President's 
budget. By working to improve the delivery of existing vaccines, the 
Global Alliance not only offers the opportunity to save lives, it will 
improve health delivery systems for the distribution of future 
vaccines.
  Fourth, the bill authorizes voluntary contributions to the 
International AIDS Vaccine Initiative. In effect, the initiative 
provides financing to industry in return for international access to 
the vaccine. For example, under a typical IAVI/industry agreement, IAVI 
will provide financing in exchange for an agreement with the 
manufacturer to sell the vaccine to developing countries at very 
reasonable prices. Once again, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation 
provides a large portion of IAVI's funding.
  To further accelerate the invention and production of lifesaving 
vaccines, the bill includes a tax credit proposed in the President's 
budget. Under the proposal, every dollar paid by a qualifying 
organization to buy a lifesaving vaccine would be matched by a dollar 
of tax credits--thereby doubling the purchasing power of nonprofit 
organizations and others that purchase vaccines for developing 
countries. The credit only applies to vaccines not yet developed, thus 
demonstrating the existence of a market if drug companies fill the 
void. The credit would apply to vaccines for AIDS, malaria, 
tuberculosis, or any other disease which kills over 1 million people 
annually.
  The bill also establishes a Lifesaving Vaccine Purchase Fund. This 
approach has been advocated most prominently by Harvard economist 
Jeffrey Sachs, a witness on the third panel.
  Under my proposal, Congress would authorize and advance appropriate 
$100 million a year, over ten years, to a fund for the purchase and 
distribution of newly-developed vaccines for AIDS, malaria, and 
tuberculosis. The first appropriation would not occur until a vaccine 
has been licensed and approved. In effect, by establishing a guaranteed 
market, the proposal would provide a real incentive for additional 
private sector research. However, the money would not be spent until 
the vaccine was developed, thus postponing any cost to the government.
  Finally, the bill directs the Administration to initiate negotiations 
with officials of foreign governments for the establishment of an 
international vaccine purchase fund that would purchase and distribute 
in developing countries vaccines for malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, or any 
infectious disease which kills over 1 million people. It is assumed 
that if such an agreement is reached, the domestic fund described above 
would be integrated into the multilateral agreement.
  This is a comprehensive plan, Mr. President, which I have worked on 
for two years. This past weekend, it was endorsed as a positive step by 
academics, pharmaceutical executives and governmental leaders at a 
high-level conference convened by the University of California at San 
Francisco, World Bank and the Global Forum for Health Research.
  Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi will introduce identical companion 
legislation in the House and it is my hope that our colleagues will 
give it equally serious attention.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. DeWine, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
        Durbin, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Smith of 
        Oregon, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 2137. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Education to make 
grants to educational organizations to carry out educational programs 
about the Holocaust; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


                   holocaust education assistance act

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senator DeWine and I are 
introducing a bill to provide funds to educational organizations to 
teach the history of the Holocaust. It is entitled the Holocaust 
Education Assistance Act. Cosponsoring the bill are Senators Smith of 
Oregon, Moynihan, Lautenberg, Schumer, Boxer, Wellstone, and Durbin.
  This bill authorizes $2 million each year for fiscal years 2001-2005 
for a competitive grant program under which schools, museums and other 
non-profit organizations could compete for grants to train teachers, 
conduct seminars and develop educational materials on the Holocaust. It 
is the companion bill to H.R. 3105, introduced by Representatives 
Maloney, Horn, Waxman, and others.
  The Holocaust is one of the most horrific events in human history. In 
the 1930s and 1940s, the German Nazi regime systematically slaughtered 
more than 6,000,000 Jews and other minorities under the guise of 
achieving a ``racially pure'' society. Hopefully, this bill can help 
ensure that the next generation of Americans learns some of the crucial 
lessons of the Holocaust. The most fundamental of these lessons is that 
racial and ethnic-based hatred endangers each of us, and that the 
violation of one person's rights threatens the freedom of all of us.

  Five states mandate that the Holocaust be taught in schools. They are 
California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey and New York. Eleven others 
recommend or encourage teaching the Holocaust in school. They are 
Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington. The 
bill is needed because most teachers have little training and few 
resources to teach the history of the Holocaust. This bill does not 
mandate anything, but it does create a funding source for schools and 
communities that choose to teach youngsters about this horrible chapter 
of human history.
  In my state, the following groups support the bill:

       Holocaust Center of Northern California.
       Los Angeles City Human Relations Commission.
       Simon Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance.
       The Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern 
     California.

  The following national organizations support the Holocaust Education 
Assistance Act:

       Agudath Israel of America.
       American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors.
       American Jewish Committee.
       American Society for Yad Vashem, Inc.
       Anti-Defamation League.
       Association of Holocaust Organizations.
       Braun Holocaust Institute.
       Facing History and Ourselves.
       Hatikvah Holocaust Education Resource Center.
       Institute for Public Affairs of the Orthodox Union.
       Museum of Jewish Heritage.
       National Catholic Center for Holocaust Education.
       Rabbinical Council of America.
       Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism.
       Simon Wiesenthal Center Museum of Tolerance.
       United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism.
       World Jewish Congress.

  The following regional organizations support the Holocaust Education 
Assistance Act:

       Florida Holocaust Museum.
       Hawaii Holocaust Center.
       Holocaust Memorial Foundation of Illinois.
       Holocaust Memorial Resource and Education Center of Central 
     Florida.
       Holocaust Resource Center & Archives, Queensboro Community 
     College.
       Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Philadelphia.
       Jewish Community Relations Council of New York.
       New Mexico Holocaust and Intolerance Museum and Study 
     Center.

[[Page S1029]]

       Tennessee Holocaust Commission.
       Tennessee Jewish Federation.
       West Virginia Holocaust Education Commission.

  As we enter the new century, we must remain vigilant to ensure that 
we do not forget the lessons of the last century. The admonition that 
``those who forget history are doomed to repeat it'' is as true today 
as ever. After the Holocaust, survivors and others vowed not to let 
another such tragedy go unchallenged. Rallying behind the cry: ``Never 
again!'', Holocaust survivors made a promise to the memories of their 
mothers, fathers, husbands, wives and children. This bill provides a 
way for us to join with Holocaust survivors in keeping that promise. It 
ensures that future generations of Americans will remember that bigotry 
against any group poses a menace to society at large, and that the 
violation of an individual's rights places every person's freedom in 
peril.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

                          ____________________