Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Santorum in introducing The Lyme Disease Initiative of 1999, companion legislation to a bill introduced by Representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey. The objective of this bill is simple--to put us on the path toward eradicating Lyme disease--a disease that is still unfamiliar to some Americans, but one that those of us from Connecticut and the Northeast know all too well. Last Congress I was pleased to introduce similar legislation, The Lyme Disease Initiative of 1998, and to see a critical component of that legislation enacted into law. Through an amendment that I offered to the FY 1999 Department of Defense (DoD) appropriations bill, an additional $3 million was directed toward the DoD's Lyme disease research efforts. This was an important step in the fight to increase our understanding of this condition, but clearly much more remains to be done. Almost every resident of my state has witnessed firsthand the devastating impact that this disease can have on its victims. As most of my constituents know, Lyme disease is a ``home-grown'' illness--it first achieved prominence in the 1980s in the state of Connecticut and got its name from the town of Lyme, CT. And today, Connecticut residents have the dubious distinction of being 10 times more likely to contract Lyme disease than the rest of the nation. To begin to address this crisis, this legislation would establish a five-year, $125 million blueprint for attacking the disease on all fronts by bolstering funding for better detection, prevention, surveillance, and public and physician education. Additionally, this legislation would require the primary federal agencies involved in Lyme disease research and education to substantially improve the coordination of their efforts, in an effort to minimize duplication and to enhance federal leadership. In my opinion, money to fund Lyme disease research and public education is money well spent. Studies indicate that long-term treatment of infected individuals often exceeds $100,000 per person--a phenomenal cost to society. Health problems experienced by those infected can include facial paralysis, joint swelling, loss of coordination, irregular heart-beat, liver malfunction, depression, and memory loss. Because Lyme disease mimics other conditions, patients often must visit multiple doctors before a proper diagnosis is made. This results in prolonged pain and suffering, unnecessary tests, costly and futile treatments, and devastating emotional consequences for victims and their families. Tragically, the number of Lyme disease cases reported to the CDC has sky- rocketed--from 500 in 1982 to 17,000 in 1998. In the last year alone, the number of infected individuals rose 25%. And these cases represent only the tip of the iceberg. Several new reports have found that the actual incidence of the disease may be ten times greater than current figures suggest. While continuing to fight for additional funding for research into this disease, it is also critical that we ensure that current and future federal resources for Lyme disease are used wisely and in the best interest of the individuals and families affected by this condition. To that end, I intend to ask the General Accounting Office to review current federal funding priorities for Lyme disease. I truly look forward to the day when Lyme disease no longer plagues our nation and view The Lyme Disease Initiative of 1999 as a critical step toward that goal. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``the Ending Discrimination Against Parents Act of 1999,'' on behalf of President Clinton, to prohibit employment discrimination against private and public employees because they are parents. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kennedy in this effort. Mr. President, today more than ever parents work. One may argue whether it is right or wrong--but the facts are clear. In 1998, 38 percent of all U.S. workers had children under the age of 18. Nearly one in five working parents is a single parent; moreover, a fifth of these are single fathers. Labor force participation has also increased in two parent families, with both parents often holding down jobs. Clearly, this has revolutionized our culture. Child care is a constant personal as well as public policy issue. Grocery stores and other retailers are open later--many catalogues offer round the clock service via the telephone or Internet. Take out meals and delivered pizza, which in the past were often reserved as a special weekend treat, are now commonplace on week nights. Cellular telephone companies even offer special family plans with unlimited calling among family members, for those families entirely on the go. Workplaces too have changed. Women and men work side by side in nearly every occupation. Many employers attract workers with on-site day care, flexible work arrangements and generous family leave. Take Your Daughter to work day has introduced millions of girls and boys to the world of work. But not all change has come easy. Many parents have made agonizing choices about work and family. Some have chosen to scale back their careers, move to less demanding jobs, pursue part-time work, or take a few years off. Others have continued in their careers without interruption relying on committed child care or the support of a partner. Each working parent has come to their own decision about how to move forward in their jobs and in their role as parents. And most employers are supportive of these decisions. They recognize that good employees are good employees regardless of their status as parents. Mr. President, this legislation is not about these employers. Frankly, it is not even about encouraging, much less requiring, work place accommodations of parents and their family obligations--as much as I support those efforts. It is, instead, about those hopefully rare cases where employers discriminate in their employment practices against parents. It is about eliminating bias not about guaranteeing accommodation. Specifically, the proposed statute would include parental status as a protected class with respect to employment discrimination. Parental status would cover parents of children under 18 years of age and children who remain under parental supervision because of a mental or physical disability, as well as those seeking legal custody of children and those who stand ``in loco parentis.'' The legislation would bar discrimination against parents in all aspects of employment, including recruitment, referral, hiring, promotions, discharge, training and other terms and conditions of employment. For example, this legislation would make illegal policies against hiring single parents. Employers would be prohibited from taking a mother or a father off a career-advancing path out of a belief that parents uniformly cannot meet the requirements of these jobs. Neither could employers hire less qualified non-parents over parents because of unfounded concerns about parents. Basic discrimination against parents would be barred. I want to be very clear, Mr. President, this legislation does not release working parents from any job performance requirements. Employers are free to make decisions based on an employee's job performance or ability to meet job requirements or qualifications--no matter what that employee's parental status is. Thus, an employer may discipline an employee who is late because of childcare issues. Similarly, an employer may reject an applicant for a job that requires extensive travel if that applicant is unwilling to travel because of his or her parental responsibilities. What the bill would prohibit is rejection of an applicant who is willing to travel based simply on the assumption that he or she, as a parent, will be unable to fulfill that commitment. Mr. President, this is unfortunately not a new problem for parents. Several states, including Alaska, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and South Dakota, and the District of Columbia have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination based on parental or familial status. There have also been several federal cases filed under gender discrimination statutes that have found discrimination based on parental status. In one case, an employer transferred a new mother recently back to work from maternity leave into a lower paying job, not based on her request or her performance, but because the employer simply felt it better suited a new mother. Beyond anecdotes and a few court cases, it is difficult to gauge the extent of this problem--rare or common--given the extremely limited avenues of redress open to parents currently. But no matter how rare--if it happens just once it is wrong. And working parents deserve better. This legislation makes sure they get it. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation, ``the Student Privacy Protection Act,'' to provide parents and their children with modest, but appropriate, privacy protection from questionable marketing research in the schools. There are few images as enduring as those we experienced as school- children: the teachers and chalkboards, the principal's office, children at play during recess, school libraries, and desks organized around a room. All define a school in our memories and continue to define schools today. Clearly, there have been changes and many of those for the good. Computers have become more common and are now in a majority of classrooms. Students with disabilities are routinely included in regular classes rather than segregated in separate classrooms or schools. However, some changes in my view have not been for the best. More and more schools and their classrooms are becoming commercialized. Schools, teachers and their students are daily barraged with commercial messages aimed at influencing the buying habits of children and their parents. A 1997 study from Texas A&M, estimated that children, aged 4-12 years, spent more than $24 billion themselves and influenced their parents to spend $187 billion. Marketing to children and youth is particularly powerful however, because students are not just current consumers, they will be consumers for decades to come. And just as we hope that what students learn in schools stays with them, marketers know their messages stick--be it drinking Coke or Pepsi, or wearing Nikes or Reeboks, these habits continue into adulthood. There is no question that advertising is everywhere in our society from billboards to bathroom stalls. But what is amazing is how prevalent it has become in our schools. Companies no longer just finance the local school's scoreboard or sponsor a little league team, major national companies advertise in school hallways, in classrooms, on the fields and, even, in curriculum which they have developed specifically to get their messages into classrooms. One major spaghetti sauce firm has encouraged science teachers to have their student test different sauces for thickness as part of their science classes. Film makers and television studios promote new releases with special curriculum tied to their movies or shows. In one school, a student was suspended for wearing a Pepsi T-shirt on the school's Coke Day. In another, credit card applications were sent home with elementary school students for their parents and the school collected a fee for every family that signed up. Mr. President, this is not to say that companies cannot and should not be active partners in our schools. Indeed, business leaders have been some of the strongest advocates for school improvement. Many corporations partner with schools to contribute to the educational mission of the schools, be it through mentoring programs or through donations of technology. Other businesses have become well-known for their scholarship support of promising students. And one cannot imagine a successful, relevant vocational education program without the participation of business. Each of these activities meets the central test of contributing to student learning. Unfortunately, too much commercial activity in our schools does not. These issues are not black and white. Channel One which is in many, many of our nation's secondary schools offers high quality programming on the news of the day and issues of importance. They provide televisions, VCR's, and satellite dishes along with other significant educational programming. But Channel One is a business; in exchange for all that is good comes advertising. Teachers, principals and parents are on the front lines of this issue; each day making decisions on what goes in and what stays out of classrooms. In my view, too often these decisions are made in the face of very limited resources. I believe most educators recognize the potential down-sides of exposing children to commercial messages--but too often they have no choice. They are faced with two poor choices: provide computers, current events or other activities with corporate advertising or not at all. The legislation I offer today does not second guess these hard decisions. This bill, which is a companion to legislation introduced in the other body by Congressman George Miller, would prohibit schools from letting students participate in various forms of market research without their parents' written permission. This bill would also provide for a study of the extent and effect of commercialism in our schools. This is, I believe, a modest proposal that deals with one of the most disturbing commercial trends in our schools. Existing school privacy laws protect official records and educational research. Current law leaves a loophole for companies to go into classroom and get information directly from children--information about family income, buying habits, preferences, etc. --without the consent of their parents. Marketers and advertisers use this information to target and better hone their message to reach youngsters and their families. This is not some scenario from a science fiction novel. Elementary school students in New Jersey filled out a 27-page booklet called ``My All About Me Journal'' as part of a marketing survey for a cable television channel. A technology firm provides schools with free computers and Internet access, but monitors students' web activity by age, gender and ZIP code. Children in a Massachusetts school did a cereal taste test and answered an opinion poll. This legislation does not presume that these activities are bad or unrelated to learning--it simply requires parents give their permission before their children participate. Mr. President, public education is not a new topic for discussion here on the Senate floor. But we rarely think about the actual words we use--``Public education''--and what they mean. These are schools that belong to us, to the public as a whole: schools that serve all children, schools that are the central element in their communities, and that are financed by all of us through our taxes--local, state and federal. This bill helps ensure that they remain true to their name. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today my colleague, Senator Leahy and I are introducing ``The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2000.'' We believe the time has come to lift the very archaic, counterproductive, and ill-conceived ban on Americans traveling to Cuba. Not only does this ban hinder rather than help our effort to spread democracy, it unnecessarily abridges the rights of ordinary Americans. The United States was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. Yet when it comes to Cuba, our Government abridges these rights with no greater rationale than political and rhetorical gain. Cuba lies just 90 miles from America's shore. Yet those 90 miles of water might as well be an entire ocean. We have made a land ripe for American influence forbidden territory. In doing so, we have enabled the Cuban regime to be a closed system with the Cuban people having little contact with their closest neighbors. Surely we do not ban travel to Cuba out of concern for the safety of Americans who might visit that island nation. Today Americans are free to travel to Iran, Sudan, Burma, Yugoslavia, North Korea--but not to Cuba. You can fly to North Korea; you can fly to Iran; you can travel freely. It seems to me if you can go to those countries, you ought not be denied the right to go to Cuba. If the Cubans want to stop Americans from visiting that country, that ought to be their business. But to say to an American citizen that you can travel to Iran, where they held American hostages for months on end, to North Korea, which has declared us to be an enemy of theirs completely, but that you cannot travel 90 miles off our shore to Cuba, is a mistake. To this day, some Iranian politicians believe the United States to be ``the Great Satan.'' We hear it all the time. Just two decades ago, Iran occupied our Embassy and took innocent American diplomats hostage. To this day, protesters in Tehran burn the American flag with the encouragement of some officials in that Government. Those few Americans who venture into such inhospitable surroundings often find themselves pelted by rocks and accosted by the public. Similarly, we do not ban travel to Sudan, a nation we attacked with cruise missiles last summer for its support of terrorism; to Burma, a nation with one of the most oppressive regimes in the world today; to North Korea, whose soldiers have peered at American servicemen through gun sights for decades; or Syria, which has one of the most egregious human rights records and is one of the foremost sponsors of terrorism. We believe that it is time to end the inconsistency with respect to U.S. travel restrictions to Cuba. We ban travel to Cuba, a nation which is neither at war with the United States nor a sponsor of international terrorist activities. Why do we ban travel? Ostensibly so that we can pressure Cuban authorities into making the transition to a democratic form of government. I fail to see how isolating the Cuban people from democratic values and ideals will foster the transition to democracy in that country. I fail to see how isolating the Cuban people from democratic values and from the influence of Americans when they go to that country to help bring about the change we all seek serves our own interests. The Cuban people are not currently permitted the freedom to travel enjoyed by many peoples around the world. However, because Fidel Castro does not permit Cubans to leave Cuba and come to this country is not justification for adopting a similar principle in this country that says Americans cannot travel freely. We have a Bill of Rights. We need to treasure and respect the fundamental rights that we embrace as American citizens. Travel is one of them. If other countries want to prohibit us from going there, then that is their business. But for us to say that citizens of Connecticut or Alabama cannot go where they like is not the kind of restraint we ought to put on people. If Americans can travel to North Korea, to the Sudan, to Iran, then I do not understand the justification for saying that they cannot travel to Cuba. I happen to believe that by allowing Americans to travel to Cuba, we can begin to change the political climate and bring about the changes we all seek in that country. Today, every single country in the Western Hemisphere is a democracy, with one exception: Cuba. American influence through person-to-person and cultural exchanges was a prime factor in this evolution from a hemisphere ruled predominantly by authoritarian or military regimes to one where democracy is the rule. Our current policy toward Cuba blocks these exchanges and prevents the United States from using our most potent weapon in our effort to combat totalitarian regimes, and that is our own people. They are the best ambassadors we have. Most totalitarian regimes bar Americans from coming into their countries for the very reasons I just mentioned. They are afraid the gospel of freedom will motivate their citizens to overthrow dictators, as they have done in dozens of nations over the last half century. Isn't it ironic that when it comes to Cuba we do the dictator's bidding for him in a sense? Cuba does not have to worry about America spreading democracy. Our own Government stops us from doing so. Let me review for my colleagues who may travel to Cuba under current Government regulations and under what circumstances. The following categories of people may travel to Cuba without applying to the Treasury Department for a specific license to travel. They are deemed to be authorized to travel under so-called general license: Government officials, regularly employed journalists, professional researchers who are ``full time professionals who travel to Cuba to conduct professional research in their professional areas'', Cuban Americans who have relatives in Cuba who are ill (but only once a year.) There are other categories of individuals who theoretically are eligible to travel to Cuba as well, but they must apply for a license from the Department of the Treasury and prove they fit a category in which travel to Cuba is permissible. What are these categories? The first is so called freelance journalists, provided they can prove they are journalists; they must also submit their itinerary for the proposed research. The second is Cuban Americans who are unfortunate enough to have more than one humanitarian emergency in a 12-month period and therefore cannot travel under a general license. The third is students and faculty from U.S. academic institutions that are accredited by an appropriate national or regional educational accrediting association who are participating in a ``structural education program.'' The fourth is members of U.S. religious organizations. The fifth is individuals participating in public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions and exhibitions. If that isn't complicated enough-- just because you think you may fall into one of the above enumerated categories does not necessarily mean you will actually be licensed by the U.S. Government to travel to Cuba. Under current regulations, who decides whether a researcher's work is legitimate? Who decides whether a freelance journalist is really conducting journalistic activities? Who decides whether or not a professor or student is participating in a ``structured educational program''? Who decides whether a religious person is really going to conduct religious activities? Government bureaucrats are making those decisions about what I believe should be personal rights of American citizens. It is truly unsettling, to put it mildly, when you think about it, and probably unconstitutional at its core. It is a real intrusion on the fundamental rights of American citizens. It also says something about what we as a Government think about our own people. Do we really believe that a journalist, a Government official, a Senator, a Congressman, a baseball player, a ballerina, a college professor or minister is somehow superior to other citizens who do not fall into those categories; that only these categories of people are ``good examples'' for the Cuban people to observe in order to understand American values? I do not think so. I find such a notion insulting. There is no better way to communicate America's values and ideals than by unleashing average American men and women to demonstrate by daily living what our great country stands for and the contrasts between what we stand for and what exists in Cuba today. I do not believe there was ever a sensible rationale for restricting Americans' right to travel to Cuba. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and an end to the cold war, I do not think any excuse remains today to ban this kind of travel. This argument that dollars and tourism will be used to prop up the regime is specious. The regime seems to have survived 38 years despite the Draconian U.S. embargo during that entire period. The notion that allowing Americans to spend a few dollars in Cuba is somehow going to give major aid and comfort to the Cuban regime is without basis, in my view. This spring, we got a taste of what people-to-people exchanges between the United States and Cuba might mean when the Baltimore Orioles and the Cuban National Team played a home-and-home series. The game brought players from two nations with the greatest love of baseball together for the first time in generations. It is time to bring the fans together. It is time to let Americans and Cubans meet in the baseball stands and on the streets of Havana. Political rhetoric is not sufficient reason to abridge the freedoms of American citizens. Nor is it sufficient reason to stand by a law which counteracts one of the basic premises of American foreign policy; namely, the spread of democracy. The time has come to allow Americans-- average Americans--to travel freely to Cuba. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation that Senator Leahy and I have introduced today. We will be working to ensure that the full Senate has an opportunity to debate and vote on this matter when the Senate convenes next year. I hope our colleagues will join with us at that time in restoring American citizens' rights to travel wherever they choose, including to the Island of Cuba.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I yield myself 4 minutes under the agreement. This chart explains the amendment I am offering. As most of my colleagues are aware, there is $43 billion in uncollected child support in this country. If we could collect a fraction of the child support that is outstanding, we could make a huge difference in the lives of children and families all across this country. Despite the good efforts of those who have authored this bill on bankruptcy, there is a major gap in this bill. The major gap affects the very people this number reflects for child support recipients. This bill places at a significant disadvantage women and children who may get caught up in the turmoil of a bankruptcy proceeding and leaves them at a significant disadvantage with respect to meeting the basic necessities in their lives. This morning's Washington Post made the case abundantly clear in the lead editorial. It said that the Congress should make sure that in the name of financial responsibility it does not unduly squeeze people who, because of job loss, family breakup, medical bills, et cetera, can't help themselves. These are the people affected by this amendment Senator Landrieu and I have offered and on which we will ask for your votes shortly. Children and families are the most vulnerable. The median income of a person who files for bankruptcy is around $17,000 a year; for a woman filing for bankruptcy, that number is a lot lower than $17,000 a year. Unfortunately, this bill does not appear to treat these people as we have for almost 100 years. Since the first bankruptcy law was passed in 1903, women and children came first in the line of distributable assets in bankruptcy. They are going to be protected no matter what other tragedy has befallen. No matter what other rights creditors may have, they will not be allowed to disadvantage innocent children and women who have to depend upon some income in order to provide for their families. Unfortunately, this bill leaves gaping holes in this area. The amendment we have offered has been endorsed by 180 organizations, every imaginable family organization in this country. It does the following four things: First, we say creditors can't seize or threaten to seize bona fide household goods, such as books, games, microwave ovens, and toys. As written today, S. 625 provides no protection against repossession of operations of business, coming into a home and removing such items from a family. Needless to say, that would be an unsettling, intimidating occurrence for families and children. I don't think this body wants to go on record ratifying these kinds of scare tactics. I appreciate Senator Grassley's support for this provision. Second, we say if people in bankruptcy are put on a budget and they cannot repay some of their debts, it ought to be a realistic budget. The bill puts them on a budget based on IRS guidelines for people who owe back taxes. Unfortunately, those guidelines ignore obligations such as child care, school supplies, and church tithes. We say the bankruptcy judge ought to be allowed to at least consider these kinds of valid, often necessary expenses when it comes to family needs. Third, we say money for kids should go to kids, not creditors. We mean that funds a parent receives for the benefit of children--like child support payments or earned income tax refunds--should not be divvied up among creditors. They ought to be reserved for the children. I want the manager of the bill to have a chance to make his argument against the amendment, and then I will respond.

Mr. DODD. Find for me the word ``children'' anywhere in this schedule. It does not show up, not once. There is no flexibility at all. It is very rigid in terms of how it applies. There is no consideration for the regions of the country where people live, whether you live in New York City or Iowa or Connecticut or the State of Ohio. It is a one-fix system, across the board. I appreciate the Chairman and others who have tried to do something on the means test. If you think it is so flexible, then merely adopt this amendment. What you have also left out, of course, is that you still allow for funds that a parent receives to the benefit of children to be dissipated. Things like child support payments and earned-income tax credits, which you do get if you are making $17,000 a year, should not be divided up among creditors. As the bill presently reads, that can happen. That is why 180 organizations are vehemently opposed to the present language of this bill. Let me go on. With regard to the seizing of household goods, again there is nothing in this bill, nor the managers' amendment that prohibits these repossession operations from coming in and taking toys and books and VCRs that may be necessary for the education of children. Lastly, the bill says if a consumer buys food, clothing, medicine, and similar items on credit within 90 days of a bankruptcy filing, and if the value of those items exceeds $250, then they are presumed to be luxuries and the person filing the bankruptcy has to hire a lawyer to defend such purchases, make the case they were not luxury items. That is what the bill says. That goes far beyond anything we have ever done in 100 years in bankruptcy law, to turn around and say the present law says $1,075 over 60 days. Our amendment says $400 per item or service in 60 days. The bill provides for a total of $250 in 90 days, while mine provides a more rational and reasonable itemized sum--per item or service--in 60 days. The managers' amendment does not say anything about that at all. This would be a travesty, an absolute travesty to say we are going to make families go into court and prove, when they went to Kmart and bought $251 worth of goods in the last 60 days, that they are not scam artists. Maybe there are some out there, but let's not let the millions of people who get caught in a bankruptcy proceeding because someone is sick and they lose a job, that somehow they are going to have to hire a lawyer and defend themselves for $250. This amendment is critical. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute?

Mr. DODD. This amendment is as critical as it gets to this bill. We are doing a lot to help the credit card companies. This is going to reduce the number of bankruptcies. But in our zeal to do that, do not allow this to happen. This would really be a major setback. Since 1903, we have put children and families in the exalted position of not allowing them to be brought in and damaged in bankruptcy proceedings. They are not going to get off scot-free. They have obligations to pay. But to say, somehow, we are putting families first because we have a flexible means test, disregarding all the other things that are in this bill, would be a major setback of significant proportions. The Washington Post editorial this morning is right on point. This is the amendment they were talking about. We urge our colleagues to support it. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Santorum in introducing The Lyme Disease Initiative of 1999, companion legislation to a bill introduced by Representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey. The objective of this bill is simple--to put us on the path toward eradicating Lyme disease--a disease that is still unfamiliar to some Americans, but one that those of us from Connecticut and the Northeast know all too well. Last Congress I was pleased to introduce similar legislation, The Lyme Disease Initiative of 1998, and to see a critical component of that legislation enacted into law. Through an amendment that I offered to the FY 1999 Department of Defense (DoD) appropriations bill, an additional $3 million was directed toward the DoD's Lyme disease research efforts. This was an important step in the fight to increase our understanding of this condition, but clearly much more remains to be done. Almost every resident of my state has witnessed firsthand the devastating impact that this disease can have on its victims. As most of my constituents know, Lyme disease is a ``home-grown'' illness--it first achieved prominence in the 1980s in the state of Connecticut and got its name from the town of Lyme, CT. And today, Connecticut residents have the dubious distinction of being 10 times more likely to contract Lyme disease than the rest of the nation. To begin to address this crisis, this legislation would establish a five-year, $125 million blueprint for attacking the disease on all fronts by bolstering funding for better detection, prevention, surveillance, and public and physician education. Additionally, this legislation would require the primary federal agencies involved in Lyme disease research and education to substantially improve the coordination of their efforts, in an effort to minimize duplication and to enhance federal leadership. In my opinion, money to fund Lyme disease research and public education is money well spent. Studies indicate that long-term treatment of infected individuals often exceeds $100,000 per person--a phenomenal cost to society. Health problems experienced by those infected can include facial paralysis, joint swelling, loss of coordination, irregular heart-beat, liver malfunction, depression, and memory loss. Because Lyme disease mimics other conditions, patients often must visit multiple doctors before a proper diagnosis is made. This results in prolonged pain and suffering, unnecessary tests, costly and futile treatments, and devastating emotional consequences for victims and their families. Tragically, the number of Lyme disease cases reported to the CDC has sky- rocketed--from 500 in 1982 to 17,000 in 1998. In the last year alone, the number of infected individuals rose 25%. And these cases represent only the tip of the iceberg. Several new reports have found that the actual incidence of the disease may be ten times greater than current figures suggest. While continuing to fight for additional funding for research into this disease, it is also critical that we ensure that current and future federal resources for Lyme disease are used wisely and in the best interest of the individuals and families affected by this condition. To that end, I intend to ask the General Accounting Office to review current federal funding priorities for Lyme disease. I truly look forward to the day when Lyme disease no longer plagues our nation and view The Lyme Disease Initiative of 1999 as a critical step toward that goal. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation, ``the Student Privacy Protection Act,'' to provide parents and their children with modest, but appropriate, privacy protection from questionable marketing research in the schools. There are few images as enduring as those we experienced as school- children: the teachers and chalkboards, the principal's office, children at play during recess, school libraries, and desks organized around a room. All define a school in our memories and continue to define schools today. Clearly, there have been changes and many of those for the good. Computers have become more common and are now in a majority of classrooms. Students with disabilities are routinely included in regular classes rather than segregated in separate classrooms or schools. However, some changes in my view have not been for the best. More and more schools and their classrooms are becoming commercialized. Schools, teachers and their students are daily barraged with commercial messages aimed at influencing the buying habits of children and their parents. A 1997 study from Texas A&M, estimated that children, aged 4-12 years, spent more than $24 billion themselves and influenced their parents to spend $187 billion. Marketing to children and youth is particularly powerful however, because students are not just current consumers, they will be consumers for decades to come. And just as we hope that what students learn in schools stays with them, marketers know their messages stick--be it drinking Coke or Pepsi, or wearing Nikes or Reeboks, these habits continue into adulthood. There is no question that advertising is everywhere in our society from billboards to bathroom stalls. But what is amazing is how prevalent it has become in our schools. Companies no longer just finance the local school's scoreboard or sponsor a little league team, major national companies advertise in school hallways, in classrooms, on the fields and, even, in curriculum which they have developed specifically to get their messages into classrooms. One major spaghetti sauce firm has encouraged science teachers to have their student test different sauces for thickness as part of their science classes. Film makers and television studios promote new releases with special curriculum tied to their movies or shows. In one school, a student was suspended for wearing a Pepsi T-shirt on the school's Coke Day. In another, credit card applications were sent home with elementary school students for their parents and the school collected a fee for every family that signed up. Mr. President, this is not to say that companies cannot and should not be active partners in our schools. Indeed, business leaders have been some of the strongest advocates for school improvement. Many corporations partner with schools to contribute to the educational mission of the schools, be it through mentoring programs or through donations of technology. Other businesses have become well-known for their scholarship support of promising students. And one cannot imagine a successful, relevant vocational education program without the participation of business. Each of these activities meets the central test of contributing to student learning. Unfortunately, too much commercial activity in our schools does not. These issues are not black and white. Channel One which is in many, many of our nation's secondary schools offers high quality programming on the news of the day and issues of importance. They provide televisions, VCR's, and satellite dishes along with other significant educational programming. But Channel One is a business; in exchange for all that is good comes advertising. Teachers, principals and parents are on the front lines of this issue; each day making decisions on what goes in and what stays out of classrooms. In my view, too often these decisions are made in the face of very limited resources. I believe most educators recognize the potential down-sides of exposing children to commercial messages--but too often they have no choice. They are faced with two poor choices: provide computers, current events or other activities with corporate advertising or not at all. The legislation I offer today does not second guess these hard decisions. This bill, which is a companion to legislation introduced in the other body by Congressman George Miller, would prohibit schools from letting students participate in various forms of market research without their parents' written permission. This bill would also provide for a study of the extent and effect of commercialism in our schools. This is, I believe, a modest proposal that deals with one of the most disturbing commercial trends in our schools. Existing school privacy laws protect official records and educational research. Current law leaves a loophole for companies to go into classroom and get information directly from children--information about family income, buying habits, preferences, etc. --without the consent of their parents. Marketers and advertisers use this information to target and better hone their message to reach youngsters and their families. This is not some scenario from a science fiction novel. Elementary school students in New Jersey filled out a 27-page booklet called ``My All About Me Journal'' as part of a marketing survey for a cable television channel. A technology firm provides schools with free computers and Internet access, but monitors students' web activity by age, gender and ZIP code. Children in a Massachusetts school did a cereal taste test and answered an opinion poll. This legislation does not presume that these activities are bad or unrelated to learning--it simply requires parents give their permission before their children participate. Mr. President, public education is not a new topic for discussion here on the Senate floor. But we rarely think about the actual words we use--``Public education''--and what they mean. These are schools that belong to us, to the public as a whole: schools that serve all children, schools that are the central element in their communities, and that are financed by all of us through our taxes--local, state and federal. This bill helps ensure that they remain true to their name. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today my colleague, Senator Leahy and I are introducing ``The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2000.'' We believe the time has come to lift the very archaic, counterproductive, and ill-conceived ban on Americans traveling to Cuba. Not only does this ban hinder rather than help our effort to spread democracy, it unnecessarily abridges the rights of ordinary Americans. The United States was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. Yet when it comes to Cuba, our Government abridges these rights with no greater rationale than political and rhetorical gain. Cuba lies just 90 miles from America's shore. Yet those 90 miles of water might as well be an entire ocean. We have made a land ripe for American influence forbidden territory. In doing so, we have enabled the Cuban regime to be a closed system with the Cuban people having little contact with their closest neighbors. Surely we do not ban travel to Cuba out of concern for the safety of Americans who might visit that island nation. Today Americans are free to travel to Iran, Sudan, Burma, Yugoslavia, North Korea--but not to Cuba. You can fly to North Korea; you can fly to Iran; you can travel freely. It seems to me if you can go to those countries, you ought not be denied the right to go to Cuba. If the Cubans want to stop Americans from visiting that country, that ought to be their business. But to say to an American citizen that you can travel to Iran, where they held American hostages for months on end, to North Korea, which has declared us to be an enemy of theirs completely, but that you cannot travel 90 miles off our shore to Cuba, is a mistake. To this day, some Iranian politicians believe the United States to be ``the Great Satan.'' We hear it all the time. Just two decades ago, Iran occupied our Embassy and took innocent American diplomats hostage. To this day, protesters in Tehran burn the American flag with the encouragement of some officials in that Government. Those few Americans who venture into such inhospitable surroundings often find themselves pelted by rocks and accosted by the public. Similarly, we do not ban travel to Sudan, a nation we attacked with cruise missiles last summer for its support of terrorism; to Burma, a nation with one of the most oppressive regimes in the world today; to North Korea, whose soldiers have peered at American servicemen through gun sights for decades; or Syria, which has one of the most egregious human rights records and is one of the foremost sponsors of terrorism. We believe that it is time to end the inconsistency with respect to U.S. travel restrictions to Cuba. We ban travel to Cuba, a nation which is neither at war with the United States nor a sponsor of international terrorist activities. Why do we ban travel? Ostensibly so that we can pressure Cuban authorities into making the transition to a democratic form of government. I fail to see how isolating the Cuban people from democratic values and ideals will foster the transition to democracy in that country. I fail to see how isolating the Cuban people from democratic values and from the influence of Americans when they go to that country to help bring about the change we all seek serves our own interests. The Cuban people are not currently permitted the freedom to travel enjoyed by many peoples around the world. However, because Fidel Castro does not permit Cubans to leave Cuba and come to this country is not justification for adopting a similar principle in this country that says Americans cannot travel freely. We have a Bill of Rights. We need to treasure and respect the fundamental rights that we embrace as American citizens. Travel is one of them. If other countries want to prohibit us from going there, then that is their business. But for us to say that citizens of Connecticut or Alabama cannot go where they like is not the kind of restraint we ought to put on people. If Americans can travel to North Korea, to the Sudan, to Iran, then I do not understand the justification for saying that they cannot travel to Cuba. I happen to believe that by allowing Americans to travel to Cuba, we can begin to change the political climate and bring about the changes we all seek in that country. Today, every single country in the Western Hemisphere is a democracy, with one exception: Cuba. American influence through person-to-person and cultural exchanges was a prime factor in this evolution from a hemisphere ruled predominantly by authoritarian or military regimes to one where democracy is the rule. Our current policy toward Cuba blocks these exchanges and prevents the United States from using our most potent weapon in our effort to combat totalitarian regimes, and that is our own people. They are the best ambassadors we have. Most totalitarian regimes bar Americans from coming into their countries for the very reasons I just mentioned. They are afraid the gospel of freedom will motivate their citizens to overthrow dictators, as they have done in dozens of nations over the last half century. Isn't it ironic that when it comes to Cuba we do the dictator's bidding for him in a sense? Cuba does not have to worry about America spreading democracy. Our own Government stops us from doing so. Let me review for my colleagues who may travel to Cuba under current Government regulations and under what circumstances. The following categories of people may travel to Cuba without applying to the Treasury Department for a specific license to travel. They are deemed to be authorized to travel under so-called general license: Government officials, regularly employed journalists, professional researchers who are ``full time professionals who travel to Cuba to conduct professional research in their professional areas'', Cuban Americans who have relatives in Cuba who are ill (but only once a year.) There are other categories of individuals who theoretically are eligible to travel to Cuba as well, but they must apply for a license from the Department of the Treasury and prove they fit a category in which travel to Cuba is permissible. What are these categories? The first is so called freelance journalists, provided they can prove they are journalists; they must also submit their itinerary for the proposed research. The second is Cuban Americans who are unfortunate enough to have more than one humanitarian emergency in a 12-month period and therefore cannot travel under a general license. The third is students and faculty from U.S. academic institutions that are accredited by an appropriate national or regional educational accrediting association who are participating in a ``structural education program.'' The fourth is members of U.S. religious organizations. The fifth is individuals participating in public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions and exhibitions. If that isn't complicated enough-- just because you think you may fall into one of the above enumerated categories does not necessarily mean you will actually be licensed by the U.S. Government to travel to Cuba. Under current regulations, who decides whether a researcher's work is legitimate? Who decides whether a freelance journalist is really conducting journalistic activities? Who decides whether or not a professor or student is participating in a ``structured educational program''? Who decides whether a religious person is really going to conduct religious activities? Government bureaucrats are making those decisions about what I believe should be personal rights of American citizens. It is truly unsettling, to put it mildly, when you think about it, and probably unconstitutional at its core. It is a real intrusion on the fundamental rights of American citizens. It also says something about what we as a Government think about our own people. Do we really believe that a journalist, a Government official, a Senator, a Congressman, a baseball player, a ballerina, a college professor or minister is somehow superior to other citizens who do not fall into those categories; that only these categories of people are ``good examples'' for the Cuban people to observe in order to understand American values? I do not think so. I find such a notion insulting. There is no better way to communicate America's values and ideals than by unleashing average American men and women to demonstrate by daily living what our great country stands for and the contrasts between what we stand for and what exists in Cuba today. I do not believe there was ever a sensible rationale for restricting Americans' right to travel to Cuba. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and an end to the cold war, I do not think any excuse remains today to ban this kind of travel. This argument that dollars and tourism will be used to prop up the regime is specious. The regime seems to have survived 38 years despite the Draconian U.S. embargo during that entire period. The notion that allowing Americans to spend a few dollars in Cuba is somehow going to give major aid and comfort to the Cuban regime is without basis, in my view. This spring, we got a taste of what people-to-people exchanges between the United States and Cuba might mean when the Baltimore Orioles and the Cuban National Team played a home-and-home series. The game brought players from two nations with the greatest love of baseball together for the first time in generations. It is time to bring the fans together. It is time to let Americans and Cubans meet in the baseball stands and on the streets of Havana. Political rhetoric is not sufficient reason to abridge the freedoms of American citizens. Nor is it sufficient reason to stand by a law which counteracts one of the basic premises of American foreign policy; namely, the spread of democracy. The time has come to allow Americans-- average Americans--to travel freely to Cuba. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation that Senator Leahy and I have introduced today. We will be working to ensure that the full Senate has an opportunity to debate and vote on this matter when the Senate convenes next year. I hope our colleagues will join with us at that time in restoring American citizens' rights to travel wherever they choose, including to the Island of Cuba.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong concerns about the provision of this amendment which authorizes vouchers for private schools. Nearly all year we have had an ongoing debate over education. We have discussed funding, flexibility, accountability and numerous other issues. And each side has claimed they were on the side of the angels-- the children and the schools--in these debates. But in these last few weeks the masks have finally slipped off-- Halloween is over and today we can see what direction my colleagues on the other side want to take education in this country. In appropriations, they are fighting hard, very hard, against a national commitment to reduce class size. We all, even my colleagues on the other side, know, through research and from the voices of teachers and parents across the country, that class size is a key barrier to achievement particularly in the early grades. Too many children in a class overwhelm even the best teacher--discipline issues, control, noise and lack of focus define these classes of 25-30 children. But no, the Republicans claim they just will not accept a continued federal focus in this area. On this bill, they will offer one amendment to block grant teacher training and professional development programs and reduce accountability in the critical area of improving teacher quality. And they have slipped into this ``drug'' amendment a major voucher program for private schools. Vouchers, block grants, and no class size--their position on education is clear. They are not for improving public schools for all children. They are not for parents or students or teachers. They instead are for their own special interests--they are for private schools, not neighborhood schools; for state bureaucracy, not a focus on class size; for revenue sharing, not accountability. This commitment to a few rather than all of our children is no where more clear than in the provision before us authorizing private vouchers. Our universal system of public education is one of the very cornerstones of our nation, our democracy and our culture. In every community, public schools are where America comes together in its rich diversity. For generations, educating the rich, poor, black, white, first-generation Americans--be they Irish, English, Japanese or Mexican-Americans--and all Americans has been the charge and challenge of our public schools. It is clearly not the easiest task. But its importance cannot be undervalued. These efforts are essential to our democracy which relies on an educated citizenry, to our communities which require understanding of diversity to function, and to our economy which thrives on highly educated and trained workers. Education--public education--is also the door to economic opportunity for all citizens individually. However, voucher proposals, like the one before us today, fundamentally undermine this ideal of public education. Supporters of these programs never argue they will serve all children. They simply argue it is a way for some children to get out of public schools. I do not argue that our public schools do not face challenges-- violence, disinvestment and declining revenues plague some of our schools, just as they do many other community institutions. And our schools are not ignoring these problems--even with limited resources. Many are digging themselves out of these problems to offer real hope and opportunities to students. James Comer in Connecticut has led a revolution in public schools across the country by supporting parents and improving education through community involvement and reinvestment in the schools. Public magnet and charter schools are flourishing offering students innovative curriculum and new choices within the public school system. School safety programs, violence prevention curriculum and character education initiatives are making real gains in the struggle against violence in our schools and larger communities. And these reform efforts are beginning to show results. Our schools are getting better. Student achievement is up in math, science and reading. The reach of technology has spread to nearly all of our schools. The dropout rate continues to decline. We clearly have a ways to go before all our schools are models of excellence, but our goal must be to lend a hand in these critical efforts, not withdraw our support for the schools that educate 90 percent of all students in America--public schools. And there is no question about it, private school vouchers will divert much needed dollars away from public schools. Our dollars are limited. We must focus them on improving opportunities for all children by improving the system that serves all children--the public schools. Proponents of private school choice argue that vouchers will open up new educational opportunities to low-income families and their children. In fact, vouchers offer private schools, not parent's choice. The private schools will pick and choose students, as they do now. Few will choose to serve students with low test scores, with disabilities or with discipline problems. Vouchers will not come close to covering the cost of tuition at the vast majority of private schools. There are also important accountability issues. Private institutions can fold in mid-year as nearly half a dozen have done in Milwaukee leaving taxpayers to pick up these pieces--only the pieces are children's lives and educations. Our public schools are not just about any one child; they are about all children and all of us. I do not have any children, but I pay property taxes and do so happily to support the education of the children I am counting on to be tomorrow's workers, thinkers, leaders, teachers and taxpayers. Our future is dependent on nurturing and developing the potential of every child to its fullest. Investing in our public schools is the best way to reach this goal. I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will further yield, nor does it mention any geography distinction. This is a standard price whether you live in Louisiana, Connecticut, California, New York City, Washington, DC--this is the same schedule for every person, regardless of where they live in the country; is that correct?

Mr. DODD. Lastly, as I mentioned, virtually all the advocacy groups involved with children and families are in support of this amendment. There is a letter that comes from many of them, including the YWCA, Women Work, Women Employed, Older Women's League, Equal Rights Advocates, who issued a nice letter in support of this. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights also has a letter in support of this amendment, along with several other amendments. It specifically mentioned this amendment. I ask unanimous consent both of these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I do not know what the schedule is for this. I know we are not going to vote this evening, obviously. I ask unanimous consent that prior to a vote on this amendment the proponents and opponents will have at least a couple of minutes on either side to explain this amendment to our colleagues, since it is a bit complicated. There are pieces to it. Two minutes may not be enough; maybe 3 minutes on a side to explain what is in this amendment prior to the vote, whenever that occurs, Mr. President.

Mr. DODD. I know other colleagues want to be heard. I thank the indulgence of my colleagues on the floor for listening to this debate.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to also express my concern in regard to this wool fabric issue. Like my colleague from Connecticut, I have great respect for the workers and employers in the textile sector in my state. In particular the Warren corporation was mentioned. Eleven years ago, this company invested over $40 million in an abandoned textile factory in Stafford Springs, Connecticut. For several years they operated at a loss as they fought for market share here in the U.S. However, they understood that if they produced a quality product at reasonable price, they would succeed. Today they are one of the most respected suppliers of fine grade wool fabrics in the world, and they are providing nearly 300 jobs in a depressed area of my state. This is the type of investment and the type of jobs that we want to attract to our region. As a result, we in Congress need to be very careful about proposals that would cut the legs out from under a company such as Warren. Instead of unilaterally cutting their tariffs, we should be searching for ways to further encourage such investment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, does that also apply to the Dodd amendment?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Fine. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. That is good. Let's go.

Mr. DODD. Further reserving the right to object.

Mr. DODD. Right.

Mr. DODD. However, if other amendments were to be debated or raised for purposes of debate, and then laid aside, the manager of the bill is suggesting that would be allowable in the unanimous consent request?

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, just so I understand it correctly, the two amendments that have been debated are the Durbin and Dodd amendments. We have debated those two amendments. This unanimous consent request, Mr. President, if I understand it correctly, would allow us some additional time to debate those two amendments between now and 5 o'clock, but the only amendments to be voted on at 5 o'clock are the Durbin and Dodd amendments?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I know this will be somewhat confusing to people watching the debate over the last 15 or 20 minutes, but this is an amendment offered by my distinguished friend and colleague from Utah of which I am a cosponsor. This is a very good amendment. We hope our colleagues will support it. Many parents have put aside money for college education in special accounts. This ought not to be the subject of first attack when creditors come after family income. I commend my colleague from Utah for trying to preserve and protect these resources which working families spend years trying to accumulate, and then get behind the 8 ball for problems that may not be of their own making, and all of a sudden the resources are subject to attack. This is a good amendment that will strengthen working families' ability to educate their children. I commend my colleague from Utah for offering it. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of it.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent I be able to speak for up to 2 minutes.