Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I just only clarify this because that is the understanding. I appreciate very much the distinguished majority leader's assurances in that regard. Mr. President, as I said a moment ago, this is the product of several days' worth of work. I thank the majority leader for his leadership and the cooperation he has shown in bringing us to this point. I also thank Senators Biden, Leahy, Levin, Kerry, Bingaman, and many others who had so much to do on our side with this effort. I think it's a very good agreement and appreciate the cooperation from all of our colleagues. I have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I support the Coverdell-Glenn substitute amendment to establish criminal penalties for unauthorized inspection of tax returns and tax information. Penalties already exist for unauthorized disclosure of these documents. It is only fair and reasonable that these be extended to unauthorized inspection as well, particularly in light of the recent revelations involving misbehavior by some IRS employees. Tax filings are privileged, private information. Taxpayers have a right to know that the information they provide the IRS will be seen only by those who process it in the normal course of Government business. I would like to salute Senator Glenn, in particular, for his steadfast advocacy of this legislation over the years. The distinguished Senator from Ohio was ahead of his time when, years ago, he proposed the changes incorporated into the legislation before the Senate today. On behalf of the taxpayers of my State, I would like to thank him for his leadership on this important issue. I also want to thank Senator Coverdell and others who have been involved in this effort. I don't know that there is much opposition at all to their mutually effective work in addressing the problem that needs to be addressed at the earliest possible date. Unfortunately, as anyone who watches the news knows, we have a set of circumstances in the upper Midwest that also requires immediate action. Severe flooding, brought on by the most severe winter in the history of the region, has devastated hundreds of communities throughout the States of Minnesota and South and North Dakota. In my home State of South Dakota, there have been only 2 days this year in which a Presidential Disaster Declaration has not been in effect for the entire State. Despite the best efforts of FEMA and the administration to respond, State and local governments have been financially devastated by the costs associated with these disasters. The ongoing flooding that is currently occurring is having an even greater financial effect on families and individuals. In Watertown, SD, and other communities in the region, thousands of residents have been evacuated from their homes due to rising flood waters. Many of these evacuated homeowners have now discovered that they are unable to obtain benefits from their flood insurance, even though they purchased flood insurance and are now flooded out and lost their homes, their farms, and their businesses. Just last week, when many of us were home, we pledged immediate response in an effort to resolve the problem that they have as quickly as possible. I simply cannot pass up the opportunity, legislatively, to attempt to find a way to reconcile that pledge with my responsibilities here on the Senate floor. So it is in keeping with that effort that I ask unanimous consent that as part of the Coverdell amendment, we allow this small change, which the administration is completely in support of. There is very, very minimal budgetary exposure involved, and it would be an extraordinary measure of assistance to many people who, today, are not only without insurance coverage, but are also without homes. So I simply ask unanimous consent that this small change in the flood insurance law be accommodated in the Coverdell amendment. Then I will have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have no objection at all to proceeding with consideration of the legislation. As I indicated, I think Senators Coverdell and Glenn ought to be complimented for their work in trying to address this matter. There is a difference between proceeding to the bill and proceeding under the unanimous-consent request, as propounded by the majority leader. I, of course, would object to the unanimous consent request but would have no objection to proceeding to the bill in an effort to begin debate.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, be recognized for up to 10 minutes of morning business following the remarks of Senator Hatch.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Access to Medical Treatment Act. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Harkin, Hatch, Grassley, Reid, Abraham, Inouye, Baucus, Craig, Kempthorne, and Thomas in this effort to allow greater freedom of choice in the realm of medical treatments. I was introduced to the alternative medical treatment debate the same way many Americans are: through personal experience. Actually, in my case it was the experience of a personal friend: Berkley Bedell. Berkley Bedell, as many of you know, is a former Congressman from Iowa's 6th District. He is also--since his battle with Lyme disease several years ago--a tireless advocate for improving access to alternative treatments. As some may remember, Congressman Bedell was ill with Lyme disease when he left the House at the end of the 100th Congress. Having tried several unsuccessful rounds of conventional treatment consisting of heavy doses of antibiotics over approximately 4 years, he turned to an alternative treatment that he believes cured his disease. This treatment consisted on its most basic level of nothing more than drinking processed whey from a cow's milk. After about 2 months of taking regular doses of this processed whey, his symptoms disappeared. Despite Congressman Bedell's amazing recovery, and the fact that this same treatment appeared to be effective in treating other cases of Lyme disease, the treatment can no longer be administered because it has not gone through the FDA approval process. Congressman Bedell's story--and others I have heard since--have convinced me of two things: first, that our health care system actually discourages the development and use of alternative medical treatments; and second, that this myopic outlook does not serve the best interest of the American people. As I looked into the potential of alternative therapies, I was struck by what appears to be a deep-seated skepticism of alternative treatments within the medical establishment that may be impeding their use. It is clear to me that the public would benefit by greater debate about the value of alternative medical treatments, and it is to stimulate that debate and ultimately remove barriers to potentially effective treatments that I have reintroduced the Access to Medical Treatment Act. This legislation would allow individual patients and their physicians to use certain alternative and complementary therapies not approved by the FDA. A companion measure has been introduced in the House by Representative DeFazio and 43 of his colleagues. Mr. President, it has been my experience that efforts to expand access to alternative treatments often produce strong emotional reactions--on both sides of the issue. Sometimes, those reactions are so strong they detract from the merits of the debate. Therefore, let me clarify the intent of the Access to Medical Treatment Act. This bill is intended to promote greater access to alternative therapies under the supervision of licensed health practitioners and under carefully circumscribed guidelines. Hopefully, it will stimulate a constructive discussion of how best to achieve this objective. I appreciate the natural inclination to be wary of uncharted waters, and I am not suggesting that caution be thrown to the wind in the case of alternative therapies. Some have expressed concern that this bill could have the unintended effect of opening the door to unscrupulous entrepreneurs who seek to make profit on the despair of the sick. I don't minimize that concern. How to guard against such an unintended consequence is an issue we will want to examine closely and address. What I am suggesting, however, is that this concern should not blind us to the benefit and potential of alternative medicine. It is not a reason to shrink from the challenge of expanding access to alternative therapies. Alternative therapies constitute a legitimate field of endeavor that is an accepted part of medicine taught in at least 22 of the Nation's 125 medical schools, including such prestigious institutions as Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, Albert Einstein, Mount Sinai, UCLA, and the University of Maryland. At the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine, scientists are working to expand our knowledge of alternative therapies and their safe and effective use. And the State medical licensing boards now have a committee discussing alternative medicine. I encourage that panel to explore how safe access to alternative medicine might be increased. Additionally, more and more Americans are turning to alternative therapies in those frustrating instances in which conventional treatments seem to be ineffective in combating illness and disease. In 1990 alone, the New England Journal of Medicine found that Americans spent nearly $14 billion on alternative therapies, and made more visits to alternative practitioners than they did to primary care doctors. American consumers are turning to these therapies because they are perceived to be a less expensive and more prevention-based alternative to conventional treatments. Given the popularity of alternative therapies among the American public, it will be asked why this legislation is necessary. If a particular alternative treatment is effective and desired by patients, then why can't it simply go through the standard FDA approval process? The answer is that the time and expense currently required to gain FDA approval of a treatment makes it very difficult for all but large pharmaceutical companies to undertake such an arduous and costly endeavor. The heavy demands and requirements of the FDA approval process, and the time and expense involved in meeting them, serve to limit access to the potentially innovative contributions of individual practitioners, scientists, smaller companies, and others who do not have the financial resources to traverse the painstakingly detailed path to certification. Thus, the current system has the unfortunate effect of both discouraging the exploration of life-saving treatments and preventing low-cost treatments from gaining access to the market. The Access to Medical Treatment Act attempts to open the door to promising treatments that may not have huge financial backing. I want to be absolutely clear, however, that this legislation will not dismantle the FDA, undermine its authority or appreciably change current medical practices. It is not meant to attack the FDA or its approval process. It is meant to complement it. The FDA should--and would under this legislation--remain solely responsible for protecting the health of the Nation from unsafe and impure drugs. The heavy demands and requirements placed upon treatments before they gain FDA approval are important, and I firmly believe that treatments receiving the Federal Government's stamp of approval should be proven safe and effective. The real question posed by this legislation is whether it is in the public interest to simply forgo the potential benefits of alternative treatments because of economies of scale, or whether, working with the FDA, it makes sense to explore ways to bring such treatments to the marketplace. Mr. President, the Access to Medical Treatment Act proposes one way to extend freedom of choice to medical consumers under carefully controlled situations. It suggests that individuals--especially those who face life-threatening afflictions for which conventional treatments have proven ineffective--should have the option of trying an alternative treatment, so long as they have been fully informed of the nature of the treatment, potential side effects and any other information necessary to fully meet FDA informed consent requirements. This is a choice that is rightly left to the consumer, and not dictated by the Federal Government. The bill requires that a treatment be administered by a properly licensed health care practitioner who has personally examined the patient. It requires the practitioner to comply fully with FDA informed consent requirements. And it strictly regulates the circumstances under which claims regarding the efficacy of a treatment can be made. No advertising claims can be made about the efficacy of a treatment by a manufacturer, distributor, or other seller of the treatment. Claims may be made by the practitioner administering the treatment, but only so long as he or she has not received any financial benefit from the manufacturer, distributor, or other seller of the treatment. No statement made by a practitioner about his or her administration of a treatment may be used by a manufacturer, distributor, or other seller to advance the sale of such treatment. What this means is that there can be no marketing of any treatment administered under this bill. As such, there should be little incentive for anyone to try to use this bill as a bypass to the process of obtaining FDA approval. Also, because only properly licensed practitioners are able to make any claims at all about the efficacy of a treatment, there should be little room for so-called quack medicine. In short, if an individual or a company wants to earn a profit off their product, they would be wise to go through the standard FDA approval process rather than utilizing this legislation. In essence, this legislation addresses the fundamental balance between two seemingly irreconcilable interests: the protection of patients from dangerous treatments and those who would advocate unsafe and ineffective medicine--and the preservation of the consumer's freedom to choose alternative therapies. The complexity of this policy challenge should not discourage us from seeking to solve it. I am convinced that the public good will be served by a serious attempt to reconcile these contradictory interests, and I am hopeful the discussion generated by introduction of this legislation will help point the way to its resolution. I welcome anyone who would like to join me in promoting this important debate to cosponsor this legislation. I also welcome alternative suggestions for accomplishing this objective. As I mentioned previously, I am sympathetic to the concern about the need to protect patients against unscrupulous practitioners. Individuals are often at their most vulnerable when they are in desperate need of medical treatment. That is why it is absolutely critical that a proposal of this nature include strong protections to ensure that patients are not subject to charlatans who would prey on their misfortunate and fears for personal gain. The Access to Medical Treatment Act contains such protections. Mr. President, this legislation represents an honest attempt to focus serious attention on the value of alternative treatments and overcome current obstacles to their safe development and utilization. If there is a better way to make alternative therapies available to people safely, let's find that way. But let's continue this discussion and get the job done. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Access to Medical Treatment Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Dorgan on the introduction of legislation authorizing the Internal Revenue Service to waive interest on late payments of taxes in Presidentially- declared disaster areas. The IRS currently has authority to waive penalties for late tax filings following natural disasters. Last week, it did so in the Dakotas and part of Minnesota in response to the severe flooding in the region. However, the IRS does not now have parallel authority for waiving interest in these circumstances. A number of South Dakotans have raised questions about the disparate treatment of penalties and interest. If taxpayers deserve more time to file and pay their taxes due to a natural disaster, why should they be charged 9 percent interest, a rate many would consider punitive, on these same taxes? Senator Dorgan's bill would address this apparent anomaly in our tax laws and help numerous flood victims who are too busy securing their homes, businesses, and communities to file on time. Some of these people have been physically prevented from obtaining tax forms by the rising flood waters. For this reason, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Dorgan's legislation, and I thank him for his leadership on this pressing matter.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I also rise to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have participated in the debate that has just now been completed. This is really the way it ought to be. This was a very difficult, emotional, contentious issue, an issue that involved Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the aisle on either side of the issue. It is appropriate that at times like this we commend both sides, both leaders for their civility and for the way in which this issue was presented to this body. It was a good debate, a debate in my view that brought out the very complex nature of this legislation. So on behalf of all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, I commend Senator Murkowski and the senior Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], and especially our colleagues from Nevada, Mr. Reid and Mr. Bryan. They all represented themselves well. They did the debate proud. I think it portends well for future debates on just as complex and controversial issues. I commend our Senators and appreciate very much the manner with which they conducted themselves in the last week. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the majority leader for his expeditious handling of this matter. This has only recently been presented as a problem to the body, and I think the manner in which the majority leader is handling it represents sensitivity to the issue and a recognition for the need for some practical application of our current rules. And so I am very supportive of the effort that he and his colleagues are making in this regard, and I hope that we can see this matter resolved successfully today.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I thank my colleagues, especially Senator Coverdell, for working with us to try to resolve this matter. The language that we now have incorporated, or will have incorporated, in the resolution is certainly acceptable. I hope we can have a good debate and pass this legislation this afternoon. It is important we do it today, but it is also important this legislation, involving flood victims, be passed today. This will accommodate our need in that regard. I thank Senator Coverdell and the majority leader for their cooperation. I have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Dorgan on the introduction of legislation authorizing the Internal Revenue Service to waive interest on late payments of taxes in Presidentially- declared disaster areas. The IRS currently has authority to waive penalties for late tax filings following natural disasters. Last week, it did so in the Dakotas and part of Minnesota in response to the severe flooding in the region. However, the IRS does not now have parallel authority for waiving interest in these circumstances. A number of South Dakotans have raised questions about the disparate treatment of penalties and interest. If taxpayers deserve more time to file and pay their taxes due to a natural disaster, why should they be charged 9 percent interest, a rate many would consider punitive, on these same taxes? Senator Dorgan's bill would address this apparent anomaly in our tax laws and help numerous flood victims who are too busy securing their homes, businesses, and communities to file on time. Some of these people have been physically prevented from obtaining tax forms by the rising flood waters. For this reason, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Dorgan's legislation, and I thank him for his leadership on this pressing matter.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Access to Medical Treatment Act. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Harkin, Hatch, Grassley, Reid, Abraham, Inouye, Baucus, Craig, Kempthorne, and Thomas in this effort to allow greater freedom of choice in the realm of medical treatments. I was introduced to the alternative medical treatment debate the same way many Americans are: through personal experience. Actually, in my case it was the experience of a personal friend: Berkley Bedell. Berkley Bedell, as many of you know, is a former Congressman from Iowa's 6th District. He is also--since his battle with Lyme disease several years ago--a tireless advocate for improving access to alternative treatments. As some may remember, Congressman Bedell was ill with Lyme disease when he left the House at the end of the 100th Congress. Having tried several unsuccessful rounds of conventional treatment consisting of heavy doses of antibiotics over approximately 4 years, he turned to an alternative treatment that he believes cured his disease. This treatment consisted on its most basic level of nothing more than drinking processed whey from a cow's milk. After about 2 months of taking regular doses of this processed whey, his symptoms disappeared. Despite Congressman Bedell's amazing recovery, and the fact that this same treatment appeared to be effective in treating other cases of Lyme disease, the treatment can no longer be administered because it has not gone through the FDA approval process. Congressman Bedell's story--and others I have heard since--have convinced me of two things: first, that our health care system actually discourages the development and use of alternative medical treatments; and second, that this myopic outlook does not serve the best interest of the American people. As I looked into the potential of alternative therapies, I was struck by what appears to be a deep-seated skepticism of alternative treatments within the medical establishment that may be impeding their use. It is clear to me that the public would benefit by greater debate about the value of alternative medical treatments, and it is to stimulate that debate and ultimately remove barriers to potentially effective treatments that I have reintroduced the Access to Medical Treatment Act. This legislation would allow individual patients and their physicians to use certain alternative and complementary therapies not approved by the FDA. A companion measure has been introduced in the House by Representative DeFazio and 43 of his colleagues. Mr. President, it has been my experience that efforts to expand access to alternative treatments often produce strong emotional reactions--on both sides of the issue. Sometimes, those reactions are so strong they detract from the merits of the debate. Therefore, let me clarify the intent of the Access to Medical Treatment Act. This bill is intended to promote greater access to alternative therapies under the supervision of licensed health practitioners and under carefully circumscribed guidelines. Hopefully, it will stimulate a constructive discussion of how best to achieve this objective. I appreciate the natural inclination to be wary of uncharted waters, and I am not suggesting that caution be thrown to the wind in the case of alternative therapies. Some have expressed concern that this bill could have the unintended effect of opening the door to unscrupulous entrepreneurs who seek to make profit on the despair of the sick. I don't minimize that concern. How to guard against such an unintended consequence is an issue we will want to examine closely and address. What I am suggesting, however, is that this concern should not blind us to the benefit and potential of alternative medicine. It is not a reason to shrink from the challenge of expanding access to alternative therapies. Alternative therapies constitute a legitimate field of endeavor that is an accepted part of medicine taught in at least 22 of the Nation's 125 medical schools, including such prestigious institutions as Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, Albert Einstein, Mount Sinai, UCLA, and the University of Maryland. At the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine, scientists are working to expand our knowledge of alternative therapies and their safe and effective use. And the State medical licensing boards now have a committee discussing alternative medicine. I encourage that panel to explore how safe access to alternative medicine might be increased. Additionally, more and more Americans are turning to alternative therapies in those frustrating instances in which conventional treatments seem to be ineffective in combating illness and disease. In 1990 alone, the New England Journal of Medicine found that Americans spent nearly $14 billion on alternative therapies, and made more visits to alternative practitioners than they did to primary care doctors. American consumers are turning to these therapies because they are perceived to be a less expensive and more prevention-based alternative to conventional treatments. Given the popularity of alternative therapies among the American public, it will be asked why this legislation is necessary. If a particular alternative treatment is effective and desired by patients, then why can't it simply go through the standard FDA approval process? The answer is that the time and expense currently required to gain FDA approval of a treatment makes it very difficult for all but large pharmaceutical companies to undertake such an arduous and costly endeavor. The heavy demands and requirements of the FDA approval process, and the time and expense involved in meeting them, serve to limit access to the potentially innovative contributions of individual practitioners, scientists, smaller companies, and others who do not have the financial resources to traverse the painstakingly detailed path to certification. Thus, the current system has the unfortunate effect of both discouraging the exploration of life-saving treatments and preventing low-cost treatments from gaining access to the market. The Access to Medical Treatment Act attempts to open the door to promising treatments that may not have huge financial backing. I want to be absolutely clear, however, that this legislation will not dismantle the FDA, undermine its authority or appreciably change current medical practices. It is not meant to attack the FDA or its approval process. It is meant to complement it. The FDA should--and would under this legislation--remain solely responsible for protecting the health of the Nation from unsafe and impure drugs. The heavy demands and requirements placed upon treatments before they gain FDA approval are important, and I firmly believe that treatments receiving the Federal Government's stamp of approval should be proven safe and effective. The real question posed by this legislation is whether it is in the public interest to simply forgo the potential benefits of alternative treatments because of economies of scale, or whether, working with the FDA, it makes sense to explore ways to bring such treatments to the marketplace. Mr. President, the Access to Medical Treatment Act proposes one way to extend freedom of choice to medical consumers under carefully controlled situations. It suggests that individuals--especially those who face life-threatening afflictions for which conventional treatments have proven ineffective--should have the option of trying an alternative treatment, so long as they have been fully informed of the nature of the treatment, potential side effects and any other information necessary to fully meet FDA informed consent requirements. This is a choice that is rightly left to the consumer, and not dictated by the Federal Government. The bill requires that a treatment be administered by a properly licensed health care practitioner who has personally examined the patient. It requires the practitioner to comply fully with FDA informed consent requirements. And it strictly regulates the circumstances under which claims regarding the efficacy of a treatment can be made. No advertising claims can be made about the efficacy of a treatment by a manufacturer, distributor, or other seller of the treatment. Claims may be made by the practitioner administering the treatment, but only so long as he or she has not received any financial benefit from the manufacturer, distributor, or other seller of the treatment. No statement made by a practitioner about his or her administration of a treatment may be used by a manufacturer, distributor, or other seller to advance the sale of such treatment. What this means is that there can be no marketing of any treatment administered under this bill. As such, there should be little incentive for anyone to try to use this bill as a bypass to the process of obtaining FDA approval. Also, because only properly licensed practitioners are able to make any claims at all about the efficacy of a treatment, there should be little room for so-called quack medicine. In short, if an individual or a company wants to earn a profit off their product, they would be wise to go through the standard FDA approval process rather than utilizing this legislation. In essence, this legislation addresses the fundamental balance between two seemingly irreconcilable interests: the protection of patients from dangerous treatments and those who would advocate unsafe and ineffective medicine--and the preservation of the consumer's freedom to choose alternative therapies. The complexity of this policy challenge should not discourage us from seeking to solve it. I am convinced that the public good will be served by a serious attempt to reconcile these contradictory interests, and I am hopeful the discussion generated by introduction of this legislation will help point the way to its resolution. I welcome anyone who would like to join me in promoting this important debate to cosponsor this legislation. I also welcome alternative suggestions for accomplishing this objective. As I mentioned previously, I am sympathetic to the concern about the need to protect patients against unscrupulous practitioners. Individuals are often at their most vulnerable when they are in desperate need of medical treatment. That is why it is absolutely critical that a proposal of this nature include strong protections to ensure that patients are not subject to charlatans who would prey on their misfortunate and fears for personal gain. The Access to Medical Treatment Act contains such protections. Mr. President, this legislation represents an honest attempt to focus serious attention on the value of alternative treatments and overcome current obstacles to their safe development and utilization. If there is a better way to make alternative therapies available to people safely, let's find that way. But let's continue this discussion and get the job done. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Access to Medical Treatment Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. No.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, be recognized for 3 minutes following the next vote.

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I do so only to suggest that we stack the two votes and that they be held no later than 6:45.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think it would be helpful if, in the next 45 minutes, we worked out the final arrangement for the vote to be taken on Tuesday. I amend my request to see if we can finish the votes at 6:30. I think if you take the time both Senators require, we could accommodate the Senators and still finish by 6:30. I amend my request in that regard.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct on the two amendments.

Mr. DASCHLE. At 6:30.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today we recognize the date upon which slavery finally came to an end in the United States, June 19, 1865, also known as ``Juneteenth Independence Day.'' It was only on this day that slaves in the Southwest finally learned of the end of slavery. Since that time, for over 130 years, the descendants of slaves have celebrated this day in honor of the many unfortunate people who lived and suffered under slavery. Their suffering can never be repaired, but their memory can serve to ensure that no such inhumanity is ever perpetrated again on American soil. We commemorate Juneteenth Independence Day to honor the struggles of these slaves and former slaves, to acknowledge their suffering and so that we may never forget even the worst aspects of our Nation's history. But this day and this resolution in honor of the end of slavery should also make us feel proud, proud that we as a Nation have come so far toward advancing the goals of freedom and justice for all of our citizens. While we must continue ever forward in the search for justice, we should be thankful that the tireless efforts of vigilant Americans have enabled us to achieve a society built on Democratic principles and the recognition that all men and women are created equal.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on behalf of the administration, I am introducing, with Senator Kennedy, the Hope and Opportunity for Postsecondary Education [HOPE] Act of 1997. This legislation includes the President's higher education tax and spending proposals to help make a college education more affordable for American families. During the last decade, college costs have soared. Federal student aid programs have been instrumental in helping many people get a good education. But aid to students has not kept pace with the cost. In the 1970's, Pell grants made up 77 percent of the cost of going to college; today they make up only about 30 percent of the cost. Many of these students, and those who don't qualify for assistance, are taking on larger and larger amounts of debt. This has many consequences both for the student and for the Nation. Concerns about high levels of indebtedness affects students' choices about where to go to school or what to study and, for some, makes it impossible to get a degree at all. This means we are not developing the talents of our people to the fullest, and that has significant costs for our Nation. Access to higher education is clearly the key to our future. Not only do we know that those who attend college earn higher incomes, but having a well-educated work force is also important for our Nation's overall economic growth and ability to compete in the global marketplace. I applaud the President for his initiatives in this area--his plan is a good and thoughtful one. He deserves a lot of credit for taking on this important issue and insisting that it be part of the national agenda. His bill helps people from a wide range of backgrounds who need help, from middle-class families who are struggling to make ends meet to people from low-income families who are trying to escape poverty and make decent lives for themselves. He does this by increasing the maximum Pell grant to $3,000 and he reduces student loan interest costs. I do want to say that I have some concerns about aspects of this bill. I believe we have an important opportunity to help lower income people further by making the tax credit be refundable. We did that in S. 12, legislation introduced earlier this year by Senate Democrats. I also believe that we should allow the credit to be combined with other aid, again as we did in S. 12. Despite these concerns, I am pleased to introduce this legislation for the administration, because I believe it helps us move forward to find ways to improve the affordability of education in this country. This is not a partisan issue: all families worry about the cost of college. We ought to find common ground to make a college education more affordable. It's time to hold hearings so that we can examine these issues and advance the public dialog. Higher education is too important to the future of this Nation to divide us. I am committed to this goal and look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to find solutions to this problem. Senator Kennedy and I are also introducing, by request, a separate piece of legislation that includes the non-tax-related provisions of the HOPE legislation. We are doing this because, historically, these programs have been in the Labor Committee's jurisdiction, and we want to make sure the Labor Committee considers them fully. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the administration's letter of transmittal, and a section-by-section analysis of the HOPE legislation be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is it the understanding of Senators on both sides of the aisle that this would not require a rollcall vote?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in the unlikely event that a rollcall vote is necessary, that it would take place following the final vote on the nuclear waste bill next Tuesday.

Mr. DASCHLE. I make that unanimous-consent request, but I don't think it will be necessary.

Mr. DASCHLE. I had no objection.