Oceans and Human Health Reauthorization Act of 2010

Mr. President, over the past 15 months, the Federal Government has taken unprecedented actions to stabilize the U.S. economy. Unfortunately, these actions include the Federal Government acquiring direct ownership stakes in private companies, which exposes the American taxpayer to significant liabilities and creates a dangerous conflict of interest between the Federal Government and the private sector.

Thanks to the fact that the government has intervened in all these private companies, we now have about 500 banks, we have auto manufacturers, financial institutions, and insurance companies that the government now has an ownership interest in. President Obama has become a de facto CEO managing large segments of our economy, and Congress is now acting as a 535-Member board of directors.

I think it is fair to say when you combine business with politics, it inevitably leads to harmful conflicts of interest--which we are already beginning to see--because political decisions get substituted for business decisions.

As everyone in this Chamber knows all too well, government control of private business hampers investments. It hampers innovation, job creation. It diminishes the entrepreneurial spirit on which our economy is based.

Having the Federal Government call the shots for private industry is plain bad for business. It is bad for the economy, and it is bad for the American taxpayer.

So today I am introducing a piece of legislation, S. 1242, which gives the Federal Government an exit plan, a way of exiting the scene from the ownership that the Federal Government now has in all these various private companies in our economy. It essentially has four basic provisions.

The first provision is that upon enactment of the legislation, the Treasury Department may not purchase any additional ownership stake of private entities, such as warrants, preferred stock, or common stock purchased through the TARP program.

The second provision is this: The legislation would require the Treasury to sell any ownership stake of a private entity by July 1, 2010. Any revenue that comes in from the sale of those TARP assets would have to be used for debt reduction.

The third provision of the bill is that if the Treasury Secretary determines the assets are undervalued and there is a reasonable expectation that the assets will increase to their original purchase value, the Secretary may hold the assets for up to 1 additional year.

Finally, the fourth provision of the bill is that beyond July 1 of 2011, the Treasury Secretary may not hold any direct ownership of private companies unless Congress grants additional authority.

Essentially, what we are doing is saying that all this ownership interest the Federal Government now has acquired in all these private companies would have to be wound down, if you will, divested, by that July 1 deadline in the year 2010. If the Treasury Department determines that, in fact, doing so would impair the ability of the Treasury to recover the full value of those assets or if those assets are expected to appreciate, there is an additional year, up to a year of flexibility--essentially a waiver--from the July 1, 2010, deadline that would extend it to July 1, 2011. So it buys an additional year. But it does put a time certain out there, a deadline, if you will, by which the Federal Government has to dispose of and divest itself of all these ownership interests it has in our private economy.

The other issue I think is important is it prevents the Federal Government from acquiring an ownership stake going into the future. As I said before, any funds that are returned to the Treasury as a result of these assets being sold would have to be used for debt reduction. They cannot be recycled; they cannot be reused; they cannot go into some fund that is going to be used for additional acquisition of private sector assets.

I think the reason why this is important is if you look at what Secretary Geithner has said, he has indicated before that their intention is that when

some of these funds come back into the Treasury--and we saw this recently with banks that agreed to pay this money back--they are going to reuse it. I don't believe that is what was intended in the first place. I don't think this was at any point designed to become a slush fund that could be used for the acquisition of other assets; it was designed to be used--at least initially, the way it was presented--for the purchase of toxic assets, illiquid assets on the balance sheets of many of our financial institutions. It quickly evolved into something else. It became a fund that was used to acquire an equity stake, equity interest in many of these companies. So I don't think that was the purpose for which it was intended.

I think a lot of people who made votes assumed at the time it wouldn't be used to buy toxic assets. It ended up being used to buy an ownership interest in these companies, and I think, again, the American people are uncomfortable with the notion of the Federal Government owning a big share of our private economy. I also do not think it was intended in the first place to be used to buy the assets of other types of industries--essentially, to do industrial policy, as some people have referred to it--to acquire assets of auto manufacturers, for example; it was designed specifically for the financial services industry.

There is no real exit strategy out there. In fact, Secretary Geithner was asked in front of the Senate Banking Committee a couple weeks ago about whether there was a plan to dispose of some of these assets, and he said there isn't a plan; it is not necessary at this point.

Well, I think we need to have an exit strategy. Everybody talks about an exit strategy. The President needs an exit strategy in Iraq. It seems to me we need to have an exit strategy that would allow the American taxpayer to recover funds they have been investing through the TARP program in all these various companies that would get the Federal Government out of the way of these companies and out of the day-to-day decisionmaking and management of these companies. My bill would prohibit that as well, in addition to some of these other provisions I mentioned.

It would prohibit or bar the Federal Government from dictating to these companies with respect to hiring decisions when it comes to senior executives, when it comes to boards of directors, when it comes to where to relocate or locate or close certain plants. Those are decisions that should not be made by politicians in Washington. They should not be made by bureaucrats in Washington, DC. They ought to be business decisions and not political decisions.

The bill, as I said, is very straightforward.

There are a number of folks who have commented on, made observations about what is happening in the economy right now, and this sort of proliferation of companies in which the Federal Government now has an ownership share. I wish to read for my colleagues some of what has been said by folks who I think know a lot about the private economy and whether it is a good idea to have the Federal Government owning and controlling as much as they do currently of some of these companies. If you look at the various percentages, they are significant. Of course, we know most recently General Motors, a $50 billion investment there gets the taxpayer ownership interest to about 60 percent; Chrysler, about 12 percent; Citibank, about 36 percent, and you can go down the list of all these various private companies in which the government now has an ownership interest.

There was an editorial in the Kansas City Star that said that:

What's worrisome is that while the administration said it

isn't interested in running car companies, it has said little

on an exit strategy.

It went on to say:

Any government bailout of private industry should be

temporary and as brief as possible.

Anne Mulcahy, chief executive of Xerox--I am sure I just butchered the name--said recently:

I think all of us understand the need for the government to

intervene and to take the actions they did, but I also think

there's a need for an exit plan.

Jim Owens, who is the chief executive at Caterpillar, said:

I think that's fundamentally unhealthy. The Federal

Government needs to be in and out.

Google's Eric Schmidt noted that the U.S. stimulus package was designed to cover a 2-year period. He said:

It's very important that government get out of business and

let business do its thing. The most important thing to

remember, I think, is that jobs, wealth, are created in the

private sector. That's about capitalism.

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Paul Ingrassia argues:

. . . must have a clear exit timetable for the government

to sell its shares for both Chrysler and GM and get the

companies back in the hands of private investors. Mr. Obama

has an exit strategy for Iraq; he needs one for Detroit, too.

So there are a lot of people who have a lot of experience when it comes to running companies who have concluded that the government does, in fact, need an exit strategy. I think, as I said before, it is fair to say that one doesn't exist today, and when Secretary Geithner testified in front of the Senate Banking Committee a couple weeks back he admitted as much, that there isn't an exit plan.

What my bill does is it gives us an exit plan. It gives us an exit plan with a deadline, with a little flexibility in the deadline, some ability to provide a waiver for the Treasury Department that would allow for an additional year, if necessary; if those assets the government holds are considered to be assets that could appreciate over time and, therefore, yield a higher return for the Federal Government but, at some point, we have to say enough is enough. We have to put an end to this practice we have gotten involved with, this precedent we have now created of having the Federal Government own more and more of our private economy.

I would argue, again, that is not good for business, it is not good for the economy, it is not good for job creation; it stifles the entrepreneurial spirit which has built this country and made it great, and I don't think it does anything to create jobs and get our economy back on track.

I hope we will have an opportunity to debate this. It seems to me at least that in the days ahead there will be various bills that will be debated on the floor of the Senate that would give us a chance to debate this issue. I intend to offer this, if I can't get some interest in moving it as a freestanding bill, as an amendment to other vehicles that might be moving through the Senate in the days and the weeks and the months ahead. But I do think it is important. I think it is important to the American taxpayer. I think it is important to the American economy. I think it is important to American business that the Federal Government have an exit strategy. We have a plan whereby we can move and get away from this practice we have undertaken now with great regularity and great frequency of acquiring even more and more interests in American business.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Home and Community Balanced Incentives Act of 2009, together with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl. As we in the Senate embark on reforming America's health care system, we cannot forget those who are dependent on daily care in order to survive: those in long-term care. Long-term care provides health care and daily living services to the elderly and disabled population, providing them with the ability to live happy, productive lives that age, illness and disability would otherwise prevent.

In 2007, the U.S. spent close to $109 billion on long term institutional care services under the Medicaid program; in my state of Washington it was approximately $2 billion. This amount represents more than 30 percent of all Medicaid payments, and is a number we can easily reduce. This legislation seeks to rebalance how states handle long term care by providing the tools they need to shift people out of expensive institutional care facilities and into home and community based care, where they can remain vibrant, active members of their community.

As Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz once said: There is no place like home. I could not agree more, which is why I believe in providing individuals and

families with the option to remain in their home, where studies have shown the overall quality of life is far superior to that in an institutional facility. Additionally, home and community based care is far more cost efficient than institutional care; by diverting just 5 percent of the long term care community away from institutional care and into home and community based services, we would see a net savings of more than $10 billion dollars over five years. In a time when rising health care spending plays such a pivotal role in the health of the overall economy, these savings represent a giant step towards reining in unnecessary health care spending.

The Home and Community Balanced Incentives Act would achieve the goal of transitioning to home and community based services by offering states modest increases to their federal medical assistance payment, FMAP, for home and community based services. States would have to use these increases to develop the programs needed to provide effective home and community based services. These services will reduce barriers that currently prohibit people from accessing home and community based services.

This bill succeeds in not only saving the Medicaid program a significant amount of money, but it will empower families to make informed decisions about their long term care needs.

Specifically, this bill would: improve case management to help people remain in their homes and communities and out of nursing homes; provide consumer empowerment helping to put individuals in charge of their care; provide a coordinated transition structure for those wishing to leave institutional care and return to their homes and communities; create a clear and well coordinated system for providing long term care information and support; improve methodology for determining eligibility and tracking provider data on services and quality outcomes.

Senator Kohl and I are excited to introduce this important legislation and to begin working with our colleagues on improving the long term care system in America.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce Project 2020: Building on the Promise of Home and Community-Based Services Act with my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow. By the year 2020, almost 1 in 6 Americans will be over the age of 65 and the population of people over the age of 85, the fastest growing segment of the population, will double. Our current long term care financing structure is unsustainable as the population in need of such services rapidly increases. As such, we must turn our focus to reforming the long term care system to provide the best care available to this vulnerable population.

The average cost of a nursing home in this country is $70,000 a year, making this an unrealistic option for most Americans. In fact, most people who end up in a nursing home last just six months before they have spent so much they become poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. This situation is expensive for consumers, for states, and for the federal government. Fortunately, there is a clear answer. It costs Medicaid one third as much to provide someone with home and community based care as it would cost to care for them in a nursing home. In addition, most people want to stay in their own home or community whenever possible. An independent analysis conducted by the Lewin Group shows that Project 2020 would reach over 40 million Americans, while simultaneously reducing Medicare and Medicaid costs by more than $2.8 billion over 5 years.

Project 2020 addresses the urgent need to shift away from institutional care and towards home and community based services in three distinct ways: through enhanced nursing home diversion; by increasing the use of person-centered access to information; and by utilizing evidence-based disease and injury prevention. As I previously mentioned, increased nursing home diversion will not only provide significant savings to the Medicaid program, it will also allow families to stay together and let people be active members of their communities. Through the creation of a person-center access point to information, consumers, family members, and caregivers will be given the tools necessary to make well informed decisions about long term care. Finally, this bill will provide for programs that help consumers get proven education about avoiding preventable diseased and injuries, such as falls and malnutrition, which result in thousands of unnecessary hospitalizations every year.

As you can see, these three programs constitute a common-sense, multifaceted approach to improving the quality of life of individuals and their families, while providing a substantial amount of savings to the health care system.

I am pleased to introduce this important legislation along with my colleague Senator Stabenow and I look forward to working with the rest of my Senate colleagues to provide families with the long term care services and support they need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a bill to help promote and protect breastfeeding in the workplace.

The science is undisputable--babies who are breastfed the first 6 months of life have a greatly reduced risk for acute and chronic disease--yet only ten percent of all infants receive this nourishment that they need to remain healthy. One of the primary reasons for this is that working moms face real and serious challenges to expressing milk when they return to work.

Well, today is a day to change that. In Oregon, we have enacted strong legislation to make sure that working moms are afforded the time and space they need at work to express milk. In fact, my first event as a candidate for U.S. Senate was at a luncheon celebrating the success of Oregon's breastfeeding promotion law. I said that day that I would work to expand Oregon's efforts nationwide, and today we take the important first step towards enacting legislation to protect working moms across the country.

First, I want to thank Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York for her strong leadership on this issue. For years, she has been a champion for working moms everywhere, and I applaud her determination to make it easier for women.

We know that 72 percent of moms work full time, and that number is growing. In fact, according to the Center on Work and Family at Boston College, the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. workforce is women with children under three years of age.

Women who decide to breastfeed often face unique challenges and at times, social stigmas, for trying to give their baby the healthiest start in life.

In an environment where mothers return to work as early as 3 to 6 weeks post-partum, often driven by economic necessity, it is simply an act of human decency to protect their right to continue breastfeeding after they return to work to help meet their basic needs with regard to the care and nourishment of their children. But for most, it is an unachievable goal.

If we are to have any hope of increasing the number of babies being breastfed, we need to implement a strategy that addresses workplace conditions.

The Breastfeeding Promotion Act that Representative Maloney and I are introducing today is a measured step in this direction.

It protects breastfeeding women from discrimination in the workplace, provides tax credits to employers who make accommodations for breastfeeding moms, and most importantly, it affords working moms with the time, space, and privacy they need to express milk.

Many of these changes have been successfully implemented in my home State of Oregon where we have seen a tremendous difference in the experiences of mothers, as well as positive impacts for employers, as a result of this type of legislation.

Tonya Hirte, a senior customer service representative in Portland, said that before the law took effect, she had to express breast milk in a bathroom on a separate floor from her worksite, but that after implementation of the law, her company converted a storage closet into a private, simply-furnished room, bringing dignity to her experience as a mother, and helping her feel valued as an employee.

A Lane County employee said that having a breastfeeding-friendly workplace allowed her to focus better on her work, knowing her daughter's needs were being met emotionally and physically because the work breaks to express breast milk facilitated their breastfeeding relationship when they were together.

But it's not just the employees who are seeing positive changes as a result of the Oregon law. Jim Rochs, General Manager of Carinos Italian Restaurant in Bend, Oregon, says that they create a better team overall if they take care of one another. The time and space his employee needed to express breast milk was not difficult to provide.

Gretchen Peterson, Human Resources Manager for Hanna Andersson clothing design, manufacturer and retail store, said that ``legislation to encourage longer-term breastfeeding by eliminating potential workplace barriers has been successfully passed and implemented in Oregon with no negative impact to business.'' She goes on to say, ``Without this opportunity, our employees may have made the choice to stay at home or choose to work for another company which would have caused a significant disruption to our business.''

Research from the Maternal Child Health Bureau demonstrates a significant return on investment when businesses support worksite lactation programs.

The Mutual of Omaha insurance company conducted a study that found health care costs for newborns to be three times lower for babies whose mothers participate in their company's maternity and lactation program. Per person health care costs were $2,146 more for employees who did not participate in the program, with a yearly savings of $115,881 in health care claims for the breastfeeding mothers and babies.

This is truly a public health issue. Encouraging breastfeeding for working mothers will help alleviate the negative effects of low breastfeeding rates, including a 21 percent greater infant mortality rate for babies not exclusively breastfed for 6 months, and

greater risk over a lifetime for many illnesses including asthma, diabetes, obesity, and certain cancers.

Finally, the timing could not be better as we ramp up our efforts to reform our health care system and work to contain costs. A 2001 USDA study found that if half of the babies in the U.S. were exclusively breastfed for 6 months, we would realize a savings of $3.6 billion in health care costs for the three leading childhood illnesses alone. According to the U.S. Breastfeeding Committee, if we replicate that study based on current breastfeeding statistics, the savings could reach nearly $14 billion in health care costs for all childhood illnesses.

Colleagues, I look forward to passing the Breastfeeding Promotion Act to help make it easier for moms to breastfeed, which will lead to healthier babies, stronger families, and happier workers.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with several of my colleagues, the Algae-based Renewable Fuel Promotion Act.

The energy, environmental, and food supply challenges confronting our nation are immense. The United States imports roughly 60 percent of the crude oil consumed domestically, much of it from unstable parts of the world. As global demand continues to rise, price shocks in oil markets are increasingly common, causing economic pain and hardship for American consumers. Our overwhelming reliance on traditional fossil fuels contributes to unsustainable greenhouse gas emissions levels and the damaging effects of global warming. Ethanol made from corn or soybean--also called first generation biofuels--serve an important function in diversifying our energy base, but their benefits are largely offset by their adverse effects on food prices and the environment.

Addressing these challenges requires a multi-faceted strategy that invests in renewable and alternative energy sources, green technology, and conservation measures. If we succeed, the payoff will be a cleaner, healthier, and more economically prosperous future.

I was pleased that the economic stimulus legislation enacted earlier this year included important investments in renewable energy and green technology programs. It also included a number of expanded tax incentives, including tax credits for renewable energy sources, such as wind, geothermal, hydropower, and biomass; energy-efficient home improvements; and plug-in electric vehicles, to name just a few.

The legislation I am introducing today with six of my colleagues in the Senate--three on each side of the aisle--builds on these investments and incentives by recognizing the powerful potential of a new and emerging energy source, algae.

After years of basic research at the academic and governmental level, new algae-based fuels are poised to move from the experimentation stage to commercial development. These fuels have the potential to make a significant contribution to our energy future. Algae are one of nature's most prolific and efficient photosynthetic organisms. They have a short growing cycle, high oil content, and can require little land or potable water. An algae-based fuel needs only sunlight, CO2, and in some cases, other nutrient inputs to produce biomass that can be converted into readily usable liquid transportation fuels--gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel. Unlike some of the other energy sources currently under development, algae-based fuels are ``drop-in'' fuels, that is to say, they can be incorporated into our existing energy infrastructure, including our pipelines, terminals, and our fleet of trucks, cars and jets.

For example, over the past several months, commercial airlines have flown four successful test flights using a variety of biofuel jet fuel blends, including a Continental Airlines flight using a blend of algae- and jatropha-derived biofuel and a Japan Airlines flight using a similar blend that also included camelina.

Moreover, some algae-based fuel production processes even sequester and consume CO2. Algae production facilities can use CO2 emitted by a coal-fired electric utility as a feedstock for the production of the fuel. As a result, algae-based fuels can help transform the energy landscape by shifting our energy consumption to a renewable, home-grown fuel that is carbon neutral or better.

Unfortunately, current Federal tax policy inhibits the production of algae-based fuels by failing to provide a level playing--field relative to other alternative and renewable fuels. Tax incentives currently apply to the production of liquefied petroleum gas, compressed or liquefied natural gas, ethanol, liquefied hydrogen, biodiesel, liquid fuels derived from coal, and other alternative fuels. Many of these incentives were added to the tax code well before recent technological developments demonstrated the extraordinary promise of algae as a renewable fuel source. In order to ensure that Federal tax incentives stimulate the most promising and environmentally beneficial energy sources available, the tax code should be updated to incorporate and promote algae-based fuel production.

The Algae-based Renewable Fuel Promotion Act would make two modest changes to the tax code to promote the development and commercialization of algae-based fuels in the U.S. First, the bill would expand the $1.01 per gallon income tax credit for cellulosic biofuels to cover algae-based biofuels. The bill retains the current law December 31, 2012, expiration date for the cellulosic biofuel producer credit. Second, the bill would extend the capital investment tax incentives for cellulosic biofuels to cover equipment used to produce algae-based fuels. Specifically, the bill would modify the 50 percent bonus depreciation provision for property used to produce cellulosic biofuel by extending the provision to qualified algae-based biofuel plant property. The bill retains the current law requirement that qualified property must be placed in service before January 1, 2013. By ensuring that algae-based fuels fully benefit under Federal tax policies that promote renewable and alternative fuels, the legislation will encourage investment in this sustainable energy source and make an important contribution to our energy landscape for years to come.

Algae-based fuels are just one of the many renewable and alternative energy sources under development by aggressive and entrepreneurial start-up firms. These firms seek to capitalize on the commercial opportunities presented by the transition away from reliance on fossil fuels. It is critical that we regularly review the tax code to ensure

that it encourages and promotes the most promising renewable energy sources available. The Algae-based Renewable Fuel Promotion Act is one step in this direction. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help seniors navigate through a complicated and often overwhelming health care delivery system. Because of the fragmented nature of our healthcare system, we often fail to provide patients, their families, and caregivers with the necessary tools, information, and support to age well and with dignity in the setting of their preference. I believe that if we provide patients with better information about advance care planning in non-crisis situations, they will make decisions for themselves and their families that result in better care and better quality of life.

Our health care system is in need of sweeping reforms that will not only provide broader coverage but will also increase value and efficient access to quality care. As we provide meaningful reforms for the healthcare system, we should take the opportunity to refine and enhance those parts of the Medicare system that work well for seniors.

Currently, Medicare beneficiaries with advanced illnesses have a good option in the Medicare hospice benefit to receive care, family support, and counseling during the last six months of life. For those who are ill or in need of advanced illness care, but are not eligible for the hospice benefit, there are very few options for counseling and services that would help them make informed choices about their care options. Often, they are left in the dark about their treatment alternatives and without the support they and their family members need to prepare and plan for the care they want and need. Frankly, it is unconscionable to leave it to families to resolve these extraordinarily difficult decisions, often in moments of crisis, without appropriate information, materials and supportive services. The Senior Navigation and Planning Act of 2009 will help seniors and their families navigate through an extremely complex system and will help them make informed medical decisions.

My legislation would provide access to an advanced illness care management benefit, increase the awareness of advance care planning through a national education campaign and clearinghouse, reduce legal hurdles to the enforcement of advance directives, create incentives for hospitals and physicians to get accredited and certified in palliative care, increase compliance with medical orders and discharge instructions, educate entities including faith-based organizations on advance care planning issues, and increase integration and coordination between the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Collectively, these initiatives will create a more accessible environment for seniors to receive the care they need, when they need it, in the setting they prefer.

Specifically, the advanced illness care management benefit would allow Medicare beneficiaries who have been diagnosed with a life expectancy of 18 months or less to have access to the guidance and expertise of a hospice team and receive services such as consultations on palliative care, advance care planning that is patient-centered, and counseling, respite, and care giving training for their family members. This new advanced illness care management benefit will provide seniors with the support they need to make informed decisions.

This initiative builds upon the efforts of the hospice community and the private sector. For example, United Health Group has created an Advanced Illness model in their benefit design and offers this program to the seniors they serve in Medicare Advantage and Special Needs Plans. They have found by providing access to the hospice and palliative care teams earlier, patients experience an increase in the quality of their life and duplicative or futile care is reduced. Aetna and Kaiser Permanente have also implemented these types of programs with similar results.

In addition to the impact a lack of advance care planning and access to supportive services has on a patient's quality of life, inadequate access to advance care planning services contributes to 27 percent of Medicare costs spent in the last year of life. Advanced illness, palliative, and hospice care have been shown to improve quality of care at a reduced cost. Specifically, studies demonstrate that if an additional 2 percent of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries received palliative care, direct cost savings to the Medicare program would be $1.57 billion. Given health care costs are growing at an alarming rate and that seniors may not be getting the necessary information they need to make appropriate treatment decisions, we need to act now to provide them with access to advanced illness and advance care planning services.

I believe that rather than deny or withhold healthcare services, overall health reform should include a thoughtful process that informs patients, their families, and caregivers on how to navigate and think through decisions about when and how long to pursue treatments at the end-of-life. By doing this, we will provide a culture in which all of us will have the ability to age well, with dignity, in the setting of our choosing.

It is my hope that this legislation will be incorporated into the broader health care reform effort that is underway in the Finance and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committees. I look forward to working with Chairmen Baucus and Kennedy to implement these meaningful reforms so seniors have access to the information and services they need to receive the care they deserve.