Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DODD. I think this proposal is a step in that direction. It makes sense. It deserves our broad-based support. I strongly urge our colleagues to join with us on the broader efforts to fundamentally change sanctions policy. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very briefly, I see my colleague from Ohio here, I want to add my voice to those who have spoken in praise of Senator Jeffords, the chairman of the committee, his staff, and the wonderful job they did in leading this piece of legislation and working with Senator Kennedy as the leading Democrat on our side. What we witnessed today is a wonderful example of how the legislative process ought to work. It is hard to imagine taking on a piece of legislation that has a 5-year lifespan to it, a higher education bill that affects so many millions of Americans. We did this in one day in large measure because the committee worked very closely together, Mr. President. A lot of work went into trying to resolve issues as a committee. There were a couple we couldn't, so we left those to our colleagues, which is the way it should be here when you can't come to a final resolution. That shows remarkable leadership on the part of the chairman and the ranking Democrat, that they can take a bill as complicated and as comprehensive as this, one as long in duration as this and bring it to the floor and, in the space of virtually 12 hours, provide the kind of unanimous--it may have been unanimous, I don't know what the vote was here--almost unanimous vote in support of the Higher Education Act for our Nation. I want others to know that this is a good example of how we ought to work here. I hope others will heed this example. For Dan Coats, who is not on the floor this evening, our colleague from Indiana, this will be the last higher education bill he will be involved in, as he made the decision to leave the U.S. Senate at the end of his term. Certainly, there will be other bills between now and when the session ends. I am certain Senator Coats feels a sense of pride, as he should, having played a major role in the last higher education bill he will be involved in in the U.S. Senate. I commend him for his efforts. Let me join in commending staff: Mark Powden for his fine work, Susan Hattan, Scott Giles, Jenny Smulson, Corey Heyman. Senator Kennedy's staff: Marianna Pierce did a wonderful job on the Democratic side working on this and keeping us well informed and trying to work out amendments during the committee process and on the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am reluctant to take the time. I am enjoying this going back and forth. I just wanted to add my voice on this. In fact, I think, what the Senator from Indiana may have just proposed, it is unfortunate that it is not in the form of an amendment here. Because I think a pilot program, as one who has supported allowing institutions to make the choices on direct loans and guaranteed loans, that is really the best way to work. Let the marketplace work this out. I would certainly be amenable to such an amendment here. I think what the Senator from Massachusetts is proposing and offering here is going to be a great asset to all of us. What we are doing right now is guessing. This is a guessing game, and it need not be a guessing game. So we are being asked arbitrarily here to sort of accept some numbers, disregarding what the larger economic picture is across the country. And by establishing this study with a pilot program, we can come back in 5 years. That is when we come back to this issue. In that window we will be in a far better position to make a determination as to what should be those rates and how the marketplace could work. Why shouldn't we take advantage of that? It doesn't lock us into a particular answer one way or the other. It just gives us the opportunity to try to see if we can't come up with a more reliable, predictable solution as to how these rates ought to be determined. Given the fact that we hear from the Congressional Budget Office that, under current rates, the banks have earned rates of return on student loans between 16 and 35 percent--by anyone's estimation that is excessive. That is their estimate. Analysts predict that we will lock in generous profits. CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, predicts that the rates of return under the interest rates in the bill will be between 10 and 25 percent. The Treasury Department calculates an average return under the bill of 16 percent. That is really excessive. So by allowing a pilot program in the marketplace deciding these factors, we are not allowing a situation that costs taxpayers a tremendous amount. We have done so much here to alleviate some of the pressures for students in this bill, it would be a tragedy not to take advantage of doing something for the taxpayers who underwrite this program. I urge we adopt this amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I pointed out earlier, I have not formed a final opinion on it. I raised the question because this was raised to me by my State. I am concerned--and I didn't expect this, so my colleague from New Mexico doesn't have a definitive answer--that there might be some criteria left open to the States to determine whether or not something classifies as major. It is not his intention to say to some State that he thinks falls into this category unwittingly they may be deprived of these funds because we didn't realize certain subject majors were not required. That is my concern. I reluctantly may have to vote against the amendment, but I am not enthusiastic about doing it because I like the idea behind it. I think it makes a lot of sense. John Silber, the distinguished former president of Boston University, wrote an article the other day, one of the op-ed pieces in one of our national papers that makes the case. We are turning out people really not qualified to be teaching in our classrooms. I am sympathetic to the idea to increase the teacher skills and knowledge base. I want to make sure in doing so, in our enthusiasm for that, we are not doing harmful things along the way. I share the enthusiasm. I share the appetite for it. It is almost 8 o'clock here, east coast time. I want to make sure that in voting for something like this I am not saying to 32 States that may have very differing views on what classifies as a major that we have to turn around and undo something here that would otherwise deprive these States of funds they need and are clearly moving in the area of improving content as well as teaching skills. I thank my colleague from New Mexico. I will listen to the debate. Maybe there will be something enlightening on this. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I am glad to yield to my colleague.

Mr. DODD. I appreciate the response on that. I do not have an amendment to offer because I don't feel competent to suggest what my State ought to require that there be major studies in. They have excluded certain areas. We require 3 semester hours in certain subject hours, 30 semester hours in others, a major in some and not in others. They have made a decision to have sort of a multiple approach to this thing, a varied approach on it. Far be it from me to stand here this evening and say Connecticut ought to require a major in certain areas where they don't require it. I have enough confidence in the people who have designed the program there to give them some flexibility. What I do not want, if I am supporting my colleague's amendment, is to find out if my State loses financial assistance because we have not provided major fields, or required a major in every subject matter although we have in others. Then I would feel remiss in terms of a number of areas. As I understand it, you would lose funding in international education, graduate education, funding for historically black colleges and universities, strengthening institutional grants that go to mainly community colleges. I don't want to be in the position, if I vote for this, to go back and find out I have just deprived my State of funding in those areas because the amendment, as crafted, would deny my State those benefits because in some areas majors are not required. That is my concern. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to inquire, I have some questions of my colleague from New Mexico. I have not formulated a final position myself on it. I was listening here to the debate and read some of the material about this. First of all, let me say I commend my colleagues from New Mexico and Mississippi. Even having a discussion of how we can improve the quality of our teachers who are working in our elementary and secondary schools is worthy. I compliment the chairman and managers. We do some major things in this bill to really try to assist teaching, such as loan forgiveness for people in the teaching professions, extended payment periods--a lot of things that really try to recognize the value of teachers. I see my colleague from Connecticut has arrived on the floor as well. I was going back over, in my own State of Connecticut, what criteria we have. On the list, we are listed as one of the States that requires a major. That is true, but only in a limited degree. We require majors in certain subject matters, not in every subject matter. For instance, in languages we do not require that you have a major in a language, English or a foreign language, in order to teach; the assumption being, if you were Hispanic or Latino and had acquired that skill, to major in it would require that you have teaching skills on how to teach the language, but not necessarily require a major in the field. We do in other areas. In the science and math areas we do require majors. The general sciences, history, social studies, business, we do require majors; in foreign languages and English we do not. We have a requirement here of a minimum of 30 semester hours of credit in the subject for which endorsement is sought. I don't know whether or not that constitutes a major or not. But it seems, here, we have sort of a mixed approach. We have some very fine teachers. Mr. President, 80 percent of our teachers have advanced degrees in Connecticut, and are normally rated as some of the best educated teachers in the country. So my first inquiry would be, I guess, if we do not require majors in every subject matter, would we be subject here? For instance, if someone did not have a major in a language, would Connecticut now have to require a major in that language, or would the 30 semester hours meet the standard? Or would the fact that we do in some and not in others meet the standard? Or would we be faced with having our program dollars cut unless we changed?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend our colleague from Minnesota for this amendment. I think it is a very thoughtful amendment, one that I think most Americans would feel very comfortable in backing and supporting. There was a significant debate, as we all recall, in this Chamber not that many months ago on the issue of welfare reform, and the desire to have people who collect public assistance find meaningful work. All of us supported the underlying principle of that concept. There were disagreements on how it should be achieved and on final passage of the bill. But the underlying desire to move people from welfare to work was certainly a laudable goal. What our colleague is suggesting here is that a person on welfare who enters an educational program to learn skills and training--that education experience ought to be considered on a par with a work experience. For persons acquiring skills and trying to improve the quality of their life, to enhance their opportunities, I think that ought to be applauded and encouraged. If a person is engaged in that effort here, certainly that individual deserves our support and backing. A person who acquires skills is going to be a person who will earn that income that will make him or herself independent, a good provider at home, a better citizen. All of us know of the vital importance of education. I made note earlier in the day that we now know factually that a person who earns a college degree today earns twice the income of a person with only a high school diploma. That was not the case only a few short years ago. A few short years ago, with a high school diploma, a set of good hands and a good heart, you could provide for your family, you could earn a good salary, a good wage, buy a home, educate your children, provide for their health needs. But today that is no longer the case. You have to have more education. In my view, if a person who has been on welfare, on public assistance, is entering an educational opportunity, as I said a moment ago, then that ought to be supported. So I strongly urge our colleagues here to support the Wellstone amendment. If there is one thing that we know works to end the cycle of poverty, it is education. A person who has those tools will be in a far better position to not only gain employment, but to remain employed and to understand and support democracy. I have often cited this quote, and I can't resist because sitting next to me is our dear friend and colleague from West Virginia. I have often used it and said to my audiences in my home State of Connecticut that Thomas Jefferson understood this concept 200 years ago when he said in a speech--I think I have the quote pretty close--``Any nation that expects to be ignorant and free expects what never was and never can be.'' He made those comments at the beginning of the 19th century. We are just a few short days from the end of the 20th century. Certainly, if it was true then, it is true today--that ``Any nation that expects to be ignorant and free expects what never was and never can be.'' As expensive as education is, ignorance is far more costly. We certainly know that people who are dependent on public assistance in most cases are people who lack educational skills. To strengthen our country, to create opportunity to improve an individual's chance to succeed in this country, I think the idea should be equating a person who is entering an educational process on the same footing as someone who is entering into a work experience. For those reasons, I support the amendment of our colleagues from Minnesota, and urge adoption of it by a strong vote in this body. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Alan H. ``Bud'' Selig, on his unanimous selection today to serve as baseball's ninth permanent commissioner. Alan ``Bud'' Selig is a very good friend of mine. Admittedly today's announcement is somewhat anti-climactic as Bud Selig's tenure has already surpassed that of four of his eight predecessors as commissioner. But this is truly a special day and a great accomplishment for a deserving and wonderful American. Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin and Bud were college classmates. Most college classmates would consider it a great success if later in life they were to share season tickets to a ballpark. This was a unique college roommate relationship in that both of them ended up being owners of major league franchises within their own city. I must admit that I can think of few college rooming groups in our Nation's history who have attained such success. Most roommates simply aspire to one day share a set of season-tickets, but for each roommate to own one of the home town professional sports teams must surely be unprecedented. While Bud may be an owner, he has always remained first and foremost, a fan, and that is why I think that he has been and will continue to be a successful commissioner. He understands the power of the game and the joy and disappointment that it can deliver to its fans. Bud, you have an important job ahead of you, and some large footsteps that you must walk in. But I have every confidence that you will serve in a manner worthy of the position and its history. Congratulations. When Milwaukee joined the major leagues in 1953, Bud became a Braves fan and subsequently the largest public stockholder in 1963. But he saw his beloved Braves move to Atlanta in 1965 and he then sold his stock. But in recognition of the importance of baseball to the city, Bud formed an organization to bring baseball back to Milwaukee. After several heartbreaking failures Bud was successful in 1970 when a Seattle bankruptcy court awarded the Seattle franchise to the investment group led by Bud Selig, and the modern-day Milwaukee Brewers were born. Bud has led the Brewers since the move to Milwaukee, and has upon his selection as commissioner placed his interest in a trust. His daughter Wendy is currently serving as the president of the club. Not only is Bud an asset to the game of baseball, but he is a pillar in his community. He is a member of the board of the Green Bay Packers football team and the University of Wisconsin medical school. He was a founder of athletes for youth, helped establish the child abuse prevention network and serves on the board for businesses against drunk driving. He is also a trustee of the Boys and Girls Club. From the day that he took the reigns of baseball's executive council he has been faced with serious and difficult issues. He presided over the 230-day strike that wiped out the World Series for the first time in 90 years and led to a sharp drop-off in attendance and popularity. But eventually, he was able to help secure a new collective bargaining agreement with the players association, and the game has been moving in the right direction ever since. Bud Selig has implemented a number of changes to the game that have been overwhelmingly popular with baseball's fans. As a Red Sox fan, I want to personally thank the commissioner for implementing the popular wild card system. When I look in the sports pages today to check the standings, I don't see Boston as being 11 games out of first place. Instead, I see them with a five game lead in the wild card race. For that, I and much of New England thank the new commissioner. He has also instigated interleague play that has brought tremendous excitement to cities all across America. For years, the Yankees-Mets or Cubs-White Sox debate took place in bar rooms and diners, but today it's taking place on the baseball diamond, where it should be. Thanks to Bud Selig's leadership, baseball fans are no longer talking about labor programs. Instead they're talking about the quest to surpass Roger Maris's 61 home runs or Hack Wilson's RBI record. They're talking about whether or not the Yankees can break the record for most wins in a season. They're talking about the playoff hopes of the Red Sox and the Mets. And not only are they talking about baseball, but they're also going to the ball park, as major league attendance has almost completely returned to its pre-strike levels. Today's vote is a testament to the job that Bud had done as interim commissioner. When he took the post in a temporary role in 1992, few people would have ever imagined that an owner could be approved as full-time commissioner. But Bud Selig is a commissioner for the future of baseball, and he will continue doing an admirable job tackling the problems of the modern game. Perhaps the biggest problems facing baseball today is the dichotomy between rich and poor teams. And few Commissioners could be as uniquely well-suited to address this issue. As the owner of a small-market team Bud Selig understands the difficulties that the Milwaukees and Montreals of the world have going up against teams like the Braves and the Yankees. He was instrumental in securing a revenue-sharing agreement between large and small market teams, and I am confident that he will continue seeking ways to address this issue. In addition to a valuable perspective, Bud Selig also possesses the leadership skills and demeanor that will be necessary to take baseball into the next century. He's a far cry from the iron-fist of Judge Kinnesaw Mountain Landis. Instead, Bud Selig rules by consensus, and his consensus building skills will help him provide the unified leadership that will keep baseball on the right track as it heads into the 21st century. On a personal note, I want to thank Bud Selig for his efforts to help expedite the move of the Yankees double-A farm team to Norwich, Connecticut. This ball club has played in Norwich for a few years now, and it has really helped to bring that community even closer together. They play in a beautiful ball park, that I'm proud to say is named after my father--Senator Thomas Dodd. The dedication of that stadium and the playing of the first minor league game in Norwich was a special day for me, and Bud Selig took the time from his busy schedule to spend that day with me and the people of Connecticut. And for that, I am thankful. So our deep and sincere congratulations to Bud. In closing, I would like to read a passage from one of Bud Selig's predecessors that highlights the significance of the job that he has just taken. A former Connecticut resident who served as commissioner of baseball, A. Bartlett Giamatti, who passed away, former president of Yale University, wrote: I believe baseball is a beautiful and exciting game, loved by millions--I among them--and I believe baseball an important, enduring American institution. It must assert and aspire to the highest principles--of integrity, of professionalism of performance, of fair play within its rules. It will come as no surprise that like any institution composed of human beings, this institution will not always fulfill its highest aspirations. I know of no worldly institution that does but this one, because it is so much a part of our history as a people, and because it has such a penchant on our national soul, has an obligation to the people for whom it is played to, its fans, and well- wishers to strive for excellence in all things to promote the highest ideals. I am told that I am an idealist. I hope so. I will continue to locate ideals I hold for myself and my country in the national game as well as in others of our national institutions. ``Bud'' Selig, I think, embraces those thoughts that Bartlett Giamatti expressed some years ago before his untimely and early death. I am very confident that we will all be proud of his tenure as commissioner of baseball. I wanted to take this moment to congratulate ``Bud'' Selig and his family this evening. It is a proud night for them, and certainly it is a good night for baseball and for America as well.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I will object for a moment.

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will proceed as I started earlier. I apologize to my colleagues for the minor interruption. I wanted to make a correction on that unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, There are few pieces of legislation as important to American families as the bill we take up today--the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. I have been pleased and honored to work with the chairman and the ranking member of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, and with Senator Coats of Indiana to put this bill together over the last year. I appreciate the tremendous effort of Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy and Senator Coats on this bill, which is going to move I think rather expeditiously. There will be some amendments, but it is a tribute to the efforts of the membership of this group and their staff that we have reached a point where we have this very, very important piece of legislation that has achieved as much harmony as it has. So I begin these brief remarks by commending them and the staff members who have put this bill together. And, together, we bring to the floor today a strong, bipartisan bill--a bill that American families need and deserve. Mr. President, America has long been known as the land of promise. We take great pride in that as Americans. Those words are used at every national holidays--``a land of promise.'' I think the foundation of that promise has been, during the more than two centuries of our existence as a nation, education. A democracy as complicated, as sophisticated, and as subtle as ours could not succeed without an educated population. Education is also the root of our economic strength. Without an educated population, you cannot remain on the cutting edge of industry and business. I think any successful national endeavor you talk about, Education is a critical factor in its success. It is the central theme that has created the kind of opportunity and success this Nation has enjoyed for so many years--particularly, I would add, higher education. This is no secret. Parents recognize that their child's success is, in no small measure, dependent on his or her educational achievement. Statistics bear this out. A person with a college degree earns twice as much as one with just a high school education. But this issue is not only a concern of families. Higher education has also, as I said a moment ago, defined and shaped America's economy in the post-World War II era. Our economy has grown on the strength of knowledge-based, highly skilled industries and workers. This would not have been possible without our unparalleled network of universities and colleges and our Federal commitment to ensuring access to these institutions of higher learning. Since the GI bill, millions of Americans have been able to attend college because of the assistance of their Federal Government. Today, in fact, 75 percent of all student aid is Federal. Unfortunately, families increasingly worry that college is slipping beyond their grasp as college costs rise and student debt mounts. Studies suggest that even with the nearly $35 billion of Federal aid available each year, affordability is a significant factor for those at all income levels. For middle-income families, college costs are shaping students' decisions about where to attain their higher education and what type of careers they intend to pursue. For the neediest of students in our country, affordability of education is already affecting the fundamental decision of whether to attend higher education at all. We cannot discuss the Higher Education Act, which is centrally about ensuring access to higher education, without discussing cost. I firmly believe that the choice of an institution, the choice of a career, and the choice of whether to attend college at all should not be based alone on the issue of cost--and for too many families today, it is. Let's face it. Families are increasingly unable to cope with the cost increases that we see in higher education. According to a survey conducted by the American Council on Education, the public worries a great deal about the cost of attending college. They believe that college is too expensive, and they think that the cost can be brought down without affecting academic quality. When asked what concerned them most about their children's well- being, respondents across this country in all income groups ranked paying for college as the second biggest concern. Their largest concern was use of illegal drugs. But right behind that was the cost of a higher education. Today, 4 years at one of our Nation's leading colleges can easily total well over $120,000. Estimates are that the family of a child born today who might enter college at age 18 in the year 2016 could easily be looking at a cost of well over $250,000 for 4 years of college education at one of our nation's leading universities. In nearly all families, a letter offering financial aid is as, if not more, important than the actual letter of accepting the student into the college of their choice. In the last 20 years, from 1977 to 1997, college costs--tuition, room and board--rose by an astounding 304 percent. During the same period, inflation rose by roughly half that figure, 165 percent. Let's look at just the tuition over the last 10 years. Mr. President, I want to refer to a chart that will maybe help explain this a bit more graphically. As this chart indicates, while inflation between 1987 and 1996 rose by 38 percent, public 4-year college education rose 132 percent; private 4-year institutions went up 99 percent; and public 2-year institution's cost rose 85 percent. Again, I come back to the Consumer Price Index. It went up 38 percent, and yet you see in tuition and fees rose at a significantly higher rate in every area of higher education, public and private, 2- and 4-year institutions as well. As a result of these increases in the price of attending college, more and more students and families are going into debt in order to finance postsecondary education. We take the first important steps in this bill, in my view, to make sure that the serious problem of rising college costs does not create a new class of haves and have-nots in terms of access to postsecondary education. In particular, we have adopted many of the recommendations of the Cost of College Commission formed by Congress last year. We streamlined regulatory requirements that may contribute to those costs. Most importantly, we adopted strong new disclosure requirements to assist families and policymakers with cost issues. Mr. President, let me tell you, we come back year after year to this bill and this issue. And we do what I think we ought to do--we increase the financing for Pell grants, which has been of tremendous help to millions; we try to deal with student loan issues and make these necessary burdens easier to bear. The Senator from Massachusetts, who knows this as well as anyone in this chamber, will tell you that he recalls it was not that many years ago when we had, in overall terms, 80 percent of our aid in grants; most students did not acquire debt as well as a diploma. We assisted students because we thought it was the right thing to do; there was a direct investment coming back. And 20 percent of our assistance to students was in the form of loans. Today, those numbers are reversed. Students now rely on loans for over 80 percent of their aid. And so we come back each year. We get involved in the student aid issue, the Pell grant issue, a lot of other factors. At some point, we have to come back to these institutions and say: Look, how does it happen? How is it that the Consumer Price Index goes up 38 percent and yet your public 4-year institution has risen 132 percent in the same 10-year period, in 20 years up 304 percent, as opposed to a CPI number of 165 percent? We can't come back here every 5 years and continue to monkey around with the student loan issue and to continue to try to come up with ways to meet the needs here as we watch debt accumulate and students making the choice to not go to college. We are seeing that today with a lot of needy students. They just decide they can't take on the financial burden. What a great outrage, what a great loss to all of us. So I am not suggesting there is any simple answer to this question, but one of the things that I like so much about this bill we have put together is that we are going to take a really hard look at this for the first time. This is not to suggest there may be some very clear answers as to why costs are rising. But this bill will finally help answer this central question. We take several specific steps in the key area. First, our bill ensures that families will have the information they need to become good consumers when it comes to higher education. Today, you may be able to find cost figures for different institutions, but often times they don't match up and are hard to compare. The American Council on Education survey also revealed that the public does not know how much financial aid is available to help pay college bills, where it does come from, or how to get it. These new disclosure provisions will provide families with timely, reliable, and comparable information on college costs as well as the availability of financial aid and educational loans for students who attend each institution so that they can exercise their power as consumers to choose institutions that are of high quality and of reasonable cost. Secondly, Mr. President, the bill requires new information for policymakers on costs, including trends across and within sectors. Over the next few years, the National Center for Education Statistics will conduct a national study to examine how expenditures at institutions of higher education change over time, how such expenditures relate to college costs and ultimately the price of tuition for students. This study will attempt to explain why the price to obtain a higher education for each student has increased so much faster than the price for the institutions to provide an education for each student. Let me explain it in this chart here, if I can. From 1987-1997, the price for a public institution to instruct each student increased by 57 percent, but during that same period of time the price for each student to attend a public institution increased by 132 percent. It is critical that this grave disparity be explained before policy makers can adequately address the issue of containing college costs. Finally, we ask the Bureau of Labor Statistics to establish a market basket for higher education that will finally give us some clue as to what costs are reasonable. These are crucial first steps that will help fill the knowledge gap on cost. But we must make sure these disclosure provisions work. The committee adopted an amendment that I offered to ensure that there are strong enforcement tools, such as a $25,000 fine to ensure that institutions cooperate in providing accurate information. Again, I don't have any reason to believe they won't. I am confident these institutions will want to participate in this kind of analysis. But just in case there are some who are reluctant, a little incentive is not a bad idea. These provisions on college costs put colleges on notice that we are watching and we are not going to let pricing policies put college beyond the reach of too many Americans. It is far too important to them and, quite candidly, as has been said before, it is vitally important to all of us in this Nation. This legislation also strengthens Federal financial aid programs which are lifelines to families who struggle with cost increases. We authorize an increase in the maximum Pell grant award and hope the appropriators and the budget committees will follow through with adequate funds. We also adjust the treatment of the neediest students' earnings to ensure that their families are not penalized in the award of aid because the students work, as I recommended in earlier legislation. We also expand campus-based aid programs like College Work-Study and low-cost Perkins Loans, to reach more students. We improve Federal student loan programs, providing extended repayment periods for students with large loan balances and by giving colleges more tools to help their students avoid expensive loans. Most significantly, students are also guaranteed a substantially lower student loan interest rate. As the average debt of a student mounts to nearly $12,000 on average across the country, the relief that this nearly 1 point reduction in interest rates offers should not be undervalued. Again, I commend the chairman and the ranking Democrat, Senator Kennedy, for being leaders on this issue and making a difference here that is going to save each student borrower in my State an average of $640. It could mean as much as $3,200 to those students who borrow for graduate and professional degrees. But for a family trying to make ends meet, $650 a year for a student loan is a lot of money. This will make a big, big difference. Not surprisingly, the issue of student loan interest rate has been the most controversial and closely followed issue in this bill. I am very pleased that the solution we put forward today ensures that students will receive the long-term benefit substantially lower rates. However, I am disappointed that this bill expects taxpayers to bear much of the cost with a new subsidy to banks. I am unsure whether subsidizing the banks' returns on student loans is ultimately the best way to ensure affordability for our nation's students. The legislation also takes important steps to address the needs of non-traditional students, whose participation in higher education is rising at an impressive rate. We include new authority for the Secretary to explore the potential of distance learning. In the past, distance education too often meant correspondence courses with little merit and high cost. Today, the Internet, the World Wide Web and other emerging technologies offer new opportunities for quality, interactive learning right from a student's home. However, current law provides little opportunity for institutions and their students to explore these exciting opportunities. This bill broadly expands these opportunities and directs the Secretary to undertake and carefully monitor a demonstration program in distance education. I think this provision will be vitally important in meeting the needs of nontraditional students pursuing higher education. The bill also includes another important initiative to increase access to post-secondary education--the Child Care Access Means Parents in Schools Act, which I authored with Senator Snowe. This bill will support campus-based child care centers meeting the needs of those nontraditional students who have children of their own. The face of college has changed. One of the key obstacles many of today's students face is locating affordable, quality child care. Campuses are a key place to meet this need. In Connecticut--I am sure it is true across the country--when you visit good college campuses, you find they build child care centers right into the campus design. This initiative will help strengthen these efforts and expand the reach of these critical programs. Finally, this bill addresses the training of teachers. Colleges, of course, are our Nation's laboratories for teachers. This bill offers significant new support in this area. We have all worked hard to resolve the competing concerns and differing approaches, and the result, I believe, is a strong, comprehensive teacher training program that support state level initiatives and local partnerships. This two- track approach will ensure that colleges and schools that work together to improve teacher training will be rewarded at the state level with recognition for achieving higher standards. In another important initiative for teachers, this bill offers loan forgiveness for teachers working in high poverty schools. This effort will provide high qualified teachers with a powerful incentive to share their talents, skills and knowledge with the neediest children. Beyond bringing student aid programs in line with today's realities, we take a key step to modernize and to improve the crucial student aid programs with the creation of a Performance-Based Organization within the Department of Education. This office will administer and deliver all Federal student aid. At nearly $35 billion a year, the complexity of this undertaking demands talent, energy, experience, and performance. This PBO, this Performance-Based Organization, will, I believe, ensure the Secretary of Education can recruit the best people for this job and retain them based on their performance. It is not a perfect bill. That probably has been said by others. But it really is a very sound effort to deal with cost and shore up federal financial assistance, to deal with the issue of the nontraditional students, and to deal with the issue of teaching in our country. It sets us on the right road for the 21st century--putting in place strong federal policy to help make the promise of higher education a reality for more American families.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I inquire of the distinguished Democratic leader if he is not aware of what the effect of this cloture motion may be on the product liability legislation? I raise that question of the Democratic leader because I am a cosponsor of this bill. I am one of a handful of Democrats who have supported the work of my good friend, Senator Gorton from the State of Washington, and Senator Jay Rockefeller, our colleague from West Virginia, who are the lead sponsors of this legislation. I raise the point with the Democratic leader; I go back to the days of Jack Danforth and working on a proposal some 10 years ago on product liability legislation, tort reform. As someone who authored, along with Senator Domenici, the securities litigation reform bill and uniform standards, I am very interested in seeing us get a bill done here. We have indications the White House is going to be supportive of this legislation. For the first time, we might be able to do something about this issue. I am inclined to agree with the managers and principal authors of this bill that we probably ought to keep this bill pretty clean. So I am sympathetic to that notion. But I cannot imagine at this point filing cloture on this bill. I disagree with the majority of my colleagues on this side who disagree with this bill, but I will fight with every power in me as a Member of this body to see to it that any Member has a right to raise amendments about this bill. I may vote against all the amendments, but if we reach a point here, Mr. President--and I say this to ask a question of the Democratic leader--if we reach the level where we end up becoming sort of a mirror image of the House, the other body, where we deprive the minority, as the rules of the House allow, to cut off debate where the will of the majority prevails, then we turn this institution into nothing more than a mirror image of the institution down the hall. But in this body it is something different. Here, the rights of the minority are to be protected. And so the right to offer amendments, to be heard, is sacrosanct when dealing with the U.S. Senate. So it is with a deep sense of regret that I inform my colleagues, who have worked hard on this bill, that I will oppose a cloture motion. I hope other Democrats who support this bill will do likewise, so that we can get back to the business of debating this bill, take the day or 2 that it needs to be debated here, let the amendments be offered, let us defeat them if we have a majority here, and get about the business of passing this legislation so that this Congress might deal with product liability legislation. I raise that, Mr. President, in the form of a question to my colleague, the Democratic leader, because I am saddened by this. Why are we filing cloture on this bill? We are coming this close to, for the first time, dealing with tort reform, really dealing with this issue, not in as comprehensive a way as some would like, but a real chance for the first time ever. And you are taking people like me who support this bill and asking me to vote in a way that would disallow my colleagues from offering amendments on this legislation and thereby killing this bill. It will destroy this bill on tort reform over this procedure. So I raise the question to the Democratic leader, if in fact it is not unwittingly maybe what the majority leader, who has offered the cloture motion, is achieving by forcing those of us who support this bill to oppose a cloture motion and then depriving us of legislation being heard and fully debated?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. (Mr. ALLARD assumed the Chair.)

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD. May I ask a parliamentary inquiry? What is the business of the Senate?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DODD. Let me begin my thanking my colleagues on both the minority and majority sides for their support of this amendment. I rise on behalf of military retirees, all of whom are due a pension and medical benefits at age 60, as all of my colleagues are well aware. This amendment directs the Secretary of the Army to eliminate by the end of this calendar year a serious backlog that has developed in the processing of pension applications by Army personnel. My awareness of this problem began, as I think my colleagues will appreciate, with a letter that I received from a constituent, Mr. Arthur Greenberg, of Hamden, CT. Mr. Greenberg, a Vietnam veteran, retired from the military in 1984. Mr. Greenberg submitted his pension application back in February, 6 months before his 60th birthday. Recently, he called to check on the status of his claim and was told that his pension claim would not be processed until 9 months after his 60th birthday. I assumed that this was just an isolated case and merely a problem to be corrected through the normal corrections in the bureaucracy. The Army informed me, however, that this is not an isolated case, and that its retirement benefits office presently holds a backlog of 2,000 cases out of a total of 5,000. So Mr. Greenberg's situation is not the exception but fast becoming the majority of cases, in terms of pensions to be received. In other words, 2,000 military retirees who have reached their 60th birthday and become eligible for pensions and medical benefits are waiting for those benefits to come. The number of military retirees who become pension eligible increases every year. In 1994, there were 6,700 pension packages that were submitted. In 1996, the number jumped to 8,700. By the end of this year, over 10,000 Army retirees will have asked for their pensions. To give you some sense of where this is headed, 10 years from now that number will be 29,000 applications for pensions and medical benefits. In the face of this steady increase in the number of pension-eligible retirees, the office that processes Army pensions has been reduced from as many as 40 personnel a couple of years ago to just 17 people today. I realize the Army must make personnel reductions, but in view of its increasing workload, the Army pension office should not be so drastically cut. Some retired soldiers who spent a career defending this country cannot easily afford to wait for several months to begin receiving their retirement benefits. Those benefits make a difference in the majority of these people's lives. From the first day of boot camp, the Army has demanded from those who go through that process that they be punctual and responsible. Now, however, they must camp out by their mailboxes while they wait on the Army to provide the benefits to which each of them is entitled and due. This amendment, very simply, directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to Congress regarding this backlog and eliminate the backlog no later than December 31, 1998. Furthermore, it requires the Defense Department to provide up to $1.7 million from existing funds to eliminate the backlog of Army pension claims--$1.1 million to update antiquated computer systems and another $600,000 to hire some additional 10 civilian personnel. That would get you up to 27--far short of the 40 we had before. By the way, I should say that the Army supports this amendment. They don't like the idea they cannot provide these benefits. But they believe these numbers would allow them to update their computer systems and hire the necessary personnel to process the claims. Then we can avoid, to put it mildly, the embarrassment of seeing these pensioners wait to get the dollars they are due. But, more important, the people who deserve these benefits will receive them on time. I am very grateful to our colleagues, both the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, as well as my colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, and the other members of the committee for their support of this amendment. I am grateful to them for allowing it to be considered and adopted, as I am told it will be, by approval of both sides. I yield to my colleague from Michigan, whom I see on the floor, for any comments he wishes to make on this.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I don't want to interrupt this flow, but I want to join very briefly. Mr. President, I stand here merely as a foot soldier in this discussion. However, I would like to take a moment to offer some comments on the Supreme Court's decision today to strike down the line- item veto as unconstitutional. I am proud to say that I was one of 29 Members who in March of 1995 cast a vote against the line-item veto, along with the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, and Senator Moynihan and 25 others on that day who expressed their opinion that they opposed this legislation--not as I recall, although others may have said, because they disagreed with the approach to deal with the budget issue. In my view, it had little or nothing to do with the budget process, but had everything to do with the issue that provoked the briefs to be filed, amicus curiae briefs, and the subsequent legal actions--that issue is the constitutionality of the line-item veto. I just wanted to point out that I was looking over the vote. And of the 29 people who voted against the line-item veto in March of 1995, six Members of that group of 29 have since left the Chamber. This list includes our distinguished colleagues Senators Hatfield, Johnston, Nunn, Pell, Pryor, and Simon. Two others who voted nay--Senators Bumpers and Glenn--will be leaving at the end of this Congress. The other day, someone counted some 100 different proposals which are being drafted or have been introduced that would amend the Constitution in one way or another. I am not questioning the intentions or even the desired goals that those constitutional proposals have in mind. But the framers and the founders of the document, which I happen to carry with me as well--a lesson I learned one day watching the distinguished colleague from West Virginia. I got my copy of the Constitution. I carry it in my pocket every single day, and have ever since, along with a copy of the Declaration of Independence, which is included here. It is our job here to do everything we can to advance the goals and desires of our society, particularly as we enter a new millennium and a new century. But the fundamental principles, values and ideals incorporated in the Constitution, the basic organic law of our country, are rooted in sound philosophical judgments. And the temptation, particularly in the midst of great difficulties--and certainly the budget crisis was no small difficulty with $300 billion of deficits a year, $4 trillion in debt--the temptation to want to come up with an answer to that was profound and significant. There will be other such crises, maybe not of that nature, but maybe of other natures that will come along, and the temptation will be to solve that problem and to do so by circumventing the values and principles incorporated into the Constitution. I only hope that we remind ourselves of what our forbearers had been struck with; and that is not to in any way denigrate or detract from the fundamental principles of the Constitution as we struggle through a very deliberative, painful, oftentimes annoying and frustrating process called democracy to address the issues of our day. I often point out to my constituents back home that as a country we have been through a great Civil War, two World Wars in this century, and a Great Depression when I am sure the temptations were great to amend or suspend parts of our Constitution, our Bill of Rights particularly. And we never saw fit to do so during all of those great crises. We never saw fit to do so. We thrive and are strong today as a nation without having made a single change in the Bill of Rights--not one change since those words were first crafted and drafted in 1789-- not a single word. Not a single syllable has been changed in the Bill of Rights. I hope that as we look forward to a new century and a new millennium, with all the unanticipated problems we face as a nation in the world, that we will not be tempted to be drawn ``to the flame''--to use the analogy of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia--to draw to that flame which could defeat it. And I will not put flame to this document and destroy the very principles and values which I think are the rationale and reason for why we have achieved the level of greatness that we have as a people. As one Member of this body, I suspect, speaking on behalf of the six who are no longer here, and those who are not here on the floor, we thank you immensely on behalf of our constituents, both past, present and in the future, for the three of you, along with Senator Hatfield who led this effort beyond the Chamber here and brought the matter to the highest court of our land. I also extend my gratitude to those six Supreme Court Justices for the decision they handed down today. With that, Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. And, again, I have said to him in meetings of our own committee, where we sat together and worked together so many times, Dan Coats is going to be missed in the Senate. He has been one terrific Senator, and Indiana can be very proud that they sent someone of his talent, ability, and tenacity. I would much rather have him as an ally than an opponent. I have been an ally of his and have been on the opposite side. Believe me, it is much more pleasant to have Dan Coats on your side. It is a privilege to say so on this floor, as I have on other occasions.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of myself, Senators Hagel, Biden and Roberts. The objective of this bill is to restore some rationality to what has become a very complex and problematic compilation of Congressionally imposed unilateral economic sanctions laws. The bill we are introducing today--the ``1998 Sanctions Rationalization Act'' would give the President the authority to delay, suspend or terminate a sanction that he believes not to be in the United States national interest. But it would also give Congress an opportunity to review each Presidential exercise such authority, and to enact a resolution of disapproval to maintain a particular sanction, under the expedited procedures, within thirty days of Presidential action. Mr. President, on June 4, I joined with Senator Lugar and others as a cosponsor of S. 1413--the Enhancement of Trade, Security, and Human Rights Through Sanctions Reform Act. This bill creates a framework for future consideration by the legislative and executive branches of unilateral economic sanctions. I applaud Senator Lugar for his vision in putting together this piece of legislation in cooperation with Congressman Lee Hamilton. I believe that the legislation I am introducing today complements the efforts of Senator Lugar and Congressman Hamilton by dealing with sanctions that are already imbedded in statute and which have come to threaten the ability of the President of the United States to conduct United States foreign policy in furtherance of U.S. national interests. Mr. President, U.S. sanctions--predominantly economic, but also political and sometimes even military penalties--are being employed more and more frequently for a variety of purposes. The United States, more than any other country, uses sanctions to further its many, sometimes conflicting, foreign policy objectives. We have used them among other things to discourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and transfer of ballistic missiles, to advance human rights, to end state supported terrorism, to discourage armed aggression, to protect the environment, to thwart drug trafficking, and in isolated instances to oust unacceptable governments. Some recently released statistics illustrate just how pervasive U.S. sanctions have become, and at what cost to the United States. Since World War II, the United States has imposed sanctions on roughly 100 occasions--more than sixty percent of those sanctions have occurred just since 1993. Between 1993-1996, sixty-one U.S. laws and executive orders have been enacted authorizing various types of unilateral economic sanctions against thirty-five countries in the name of foreign policy. The sanctioned countries encompass 42% of the world's population--roughly 2.3 billion potential consumers of U.S. goods and services. In our zeal to punish foreign governments for offensive behavior, we have managed to cut ourselves off from approximately 20% of the world's export markets. Our allies and trading partners think we are crazy. They have happily filled the American void, often times gaining mid to long term competitive advantages in these markets even after specific sanctions have been repealed, to the extent that happens. Rarely, if ever, Mr. President is a careful and thoughtful analysis done of the costs and benefits of the proposed sanction or the likelihood of its altering the sanctioned behavior. In most instances, the issue is rushed to the Senate or House floor, so that the Congress can express its outrage at some perceived misdeed that just appeared in print or live on CNN. To the best of my knowledge there has never been any systematic effort on the part of the Congress to review sanctions once imposed, to consider whether they have achieved their objectives or have turned out to be counterproductive. Unilateral economic sanctions have truly become the foreign policy ``flavor of the month'' imposed by the Congress, in the heat of the moment, often at the behest of special interest lobbies. Mr. President, we may make ourselves feel good by voting to cut off foreign access to United States markets, goods, people and ideas. We may even please the particular domestic constituency that has clamored for Congressional action. But in most instances we simply fool ourselves if we think that we have done much, if anything, to alter the behavior or policy of the government that has been targeted. In fact, we have probably made it easier for governments, particularly the authoritarian ones, to resist any internal pressures to change, because they can blame their domestic failures on U.S. sanctions policy. Since we don't appropriate funds to cover the actual private sector costs incurred when sanctions are imposed, some in the Congress have come to view them as a cost free way to influence the Administration's conduct of foreign policy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions are one of the most pernicious ``unfunded mandates'' that the Congress can impose on the private sector, with virtually no prior consultation or input from it. According to the Institute for International Economics, a Washington- based think tank, the cost of sanctions in 1995 alone was nearly $20 billion in lost exports and 200,000 lost American jobs. If we carry those costs forward by five years, these same sanctions would cost the American economy $100 billion in foregone exports and one million jobs. That is a high price to pay for a policy that is successful. More often than not U.S. sanctions fail to alter behavior or policies. The costs incurred due to sanctions are more than simply direct economic costs. There are indirect costs as well--tangible and intangible. The cost to us diplomatically and politically with our friends and allies can be extremely high. I suspect, for example, that United States officials have expended a great deal of our diplomatic capital in defusing the anger of European officials and other interested governments concerning the extra-territorial application of certain recently enacted sanctions law. Such capital is not inexhaustible, and should be husbanded for those occasions when international support is critical to the United States effectively dealing with a major national security or foreign policy challenge-- Iraq, Bosnia, Pakistan, India and even Kosovo come readily to mind. The time has come to call a halt to the indiscriminate use of unilateral sanctions as the foreign policy instrument of ``first resort.'' Perhaps we should consider the ``old fashioned'' way of conducting foreign policy--it's called diplomacy. While diplomacy may take longer to produce results and isn't as dramatic as voting to impose draconian measures against other countries, it more often than not gets us where we want to go. In saying that, I am not arguing that the United States should remove the sanctions option from its foreign policy arsenal, just as I would never suggest that we rule out the use of force as an option. Clearly there are occasions when sanctions or military force are the appropriate responses to a particular situation--Iraq for one. However, in recent years we have elected to exercise the sanctions option far too frequently, and in so doing we are undermining its continued effectiveness as a U.S. foreign policy tool. The United States, particularly the Congress must become more precise in the choice of sanctions, more realistic with respect to what is achievable, better informed of the potential costs to the U.S. economy and the American people, and more sensitive to the potential impact on innocent populations and on relations with other governments. It is especially problematic when Congress enacts sanctions and fails to include any flexibility in the statute to enable the President to respond effectively to what we all know is an ever changing political landscape. I believe that some of the measures enacted by the Congress are actually harmful to our long term foreign policy interests. A perfect example of this has occurred recently with respect to India and Pakistan. Because of the so called Pressler amendment, President Clinton had very little to offer in the way of ``carrots'' to Pakistan to dissuade it from following India in testing its nuclear weapons capabilities. The President has even less flexibility today to respond to the new threat that exists following both India's and Pakistan's defiance of the international community's pleadings to forgo testing. I say this because under existing nuclear non-proliferations statutes enacted by the Congress, sanctions are automatic and the President has no authority to lift them absent Congressional action to modify existing law. The international reaction to recent events in India and Pakistan has been very telling. Even our closest allies who share our concerns about nuclear proliferation have failed to follow our lead by imposing economic sanctions on India and Pakistan. Why? Because they do not believe that such an approach is likely to force India and Pakistan to sign onto international non-proliferations regimes. In fact, quite the opposite. It is likely to further isolate them, heightening domestic political pressure in both countries and encouraging each one to perfect even further their nuclear weapons capability and God forbid, even to consider using it against one another in a moment of paranoia. As I have said earlier, I do not believe that we should ever totally rule out the use of sanctions as a foreign policy instrument. But before we impose them we should be clear about what our foreign policy goals are. We should be selective in our choice of sanctions. They should be imposed for a finite time period, with an option to extend them, if the situation warrants it. We should also include a certain measure of flexibility in any Congressionally imposed sanctions to allow the Secretary of State and the President to fulfill their Constitutional obligations to conduct our nation's foreign policy--without their arms tied behind their backs. We should also endeavor to get other governments to join us in imposing sanctions. Multilaterally imposed sanctions have a far better likelihood of succeeding than those that are unilaterally imposed and they minimize the competitive disadvantages to the U.S. economy. This will mean that we must have patience as diplomatic efforts are undertaken to garner international support. If we find that we must go it alone, we should keep to a minimum the adverse effects of our sanctions on third countries, particularly friends and allies. We should also be more selective in the choice of sanctions we impose --opting for those that will be felt by the offending government officials, rather than those that are more general in scope and harm the general population--people who in most cases have little or no ability to influence the behavior of their government leaders. With economic sanctions fast becoming the very core of United States foreign policy, I believe that a more thoughtful and comprehensive approach to them is desperately needed before we do serious harm to our own national interests. The legislation introduced by Senator Lugar would provide such a framework in the context of future sanctions. The bill I am introducing today would create a similar framework of rationality with respect to existing sanctions regimes. I believe that the Lugar and Dodd bills, taken together, will help to sharpen the focus of the debate on this important subject. I believe such a focus is long overdue. I look forward to working with Senator Lugar and other interested Senators in forging a comprehensive legislative package that incorporates the approaches contained in the two bills so that our colleagues will have an opportunity to vote on these very important matters in the very near future.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment, along with Senators Lieberman, Chafee, Reed of Rhode Island and Lautenberg, to expand DoD's research into preventing and treating Lyme Disease and other tick-borne illnesses. Almost everyone in my state, including myself, has seen the devastating impact the Lyme Disease, in particular, can have on its victims. Most of you know that Lyme Disease has particular meaning for residents of Connecticut. While it wasn't discovered in my state, it did achieve prominence there in the early 1980s, and, in fact, is named after the town of Lyme, Connecticut. Like many northeastern states, CT experiences more than its share of the anguish that this condition inflicts--my constituents face a Lyme Disease rate that is 10 times the national average. The damage imposed by Lyme Disease on individuals and on families is heartbreaking. Health problems experienced by those infected can include facial paralysis, joint swelling, loss of coordination, irregular heart-beat, liver malfunction, depression, and memory loss. Unfortunately, Lyme Disease mimics other health conditions and patients must often visit multiple doctors before they're properly diagnosed. The result is prolonged pain and suffering, unnecessary tests, and costly treatments. Long term treatment expenses can exceed $100,000 per person--a phenomenal cost to society. But an even greater price is paid by the victims and their families. We can put no price tag on the emotional costs associated with this disease. Tragically, the number of Lyme Disease cases reported to the CDC has sky-rocketed--from 500 cases in 1982 to 16,000 cases in 1996. And these cases only represent 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. And due to the warm, wet winter caused by El Nino, infection rates are expected to reach record levels in the near future. The growing number of cases has led the Department of Defense to recognize that Lyme Disease and other tick-borne illnesses pose a potentially serious health threat to our troops, civilian employees, and residents at military installations all over the world--and thus a threat to our military readiness. Indeed, hundreds of troops have already been infected. And infection rates among enlistees are expected to rise along with those in the civilian population. And each time a soldier contracts Lyme Disease, he or she contracts a potentially debilitating illness that could compromise the overall readiness of our armed forces. While recently approved vaccines offer hope for significantly reducing the number of Lyme Disease cases in the long-term, we can't let down our guard. These vaccines aren't yet 100% effective and aren't approved at all for children or adolescents. Furthermore, the vaccines don't protect against other rapidly emerging tick-borne diseases. And, of course, these vaccines do nothing to help individuals who are already infected. To protect our troops, DoD must increase its surveillance of these diseases, improve its ability to diagnose and treat tick-borne illnesses, and expand its research into new options to prevent the spread of Lyme Disease. This amendment would direct the Defense Department to provide $3 million to put toward these goals. This sum would come out of existing Defense Department funds for medical research--funds which total some $250 million. The amendment leaves to the discretion of the Secretary how to best allocate such funds to as to make this necessary commitment to research. I truly look forward to the day when Lyme Disease no longer plagues our citizens and troops. It's time that we take Lyme Disease seriously and establish a concrete commitment to fighting this devastating disease. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.