Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that, at 4:30 on Tuesday, there be 60 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form for closing remarks prior to the vote on the passage of the bill. I further ask unanimous consent that, following passage of the bill, the Senate insist on its amendment and request a conference with the House and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate. I finally ask unanimous consent that S. 1186 be placed back on the calendar.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Labor Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1385, the Employment Training and Literacy Act, and the Senate proceed to its consideration. I further ask unanimous consent that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1186, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill be read a third time, and a vote occur on passage of H.R. 1385 on Tuesday, May 5, at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Domenici.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. First, let me commend my ranking member, Senator Kennedy, whom I have worked with for many, many years, for giving the detail and the emphasis on the importance of this legislation, especially with respect to combining with the other training programs, vocational rehabilitation, which is an important step that this bill creates to make sure that we bring the disability community more closely aligned into the workplace and to give them the rights to further their employment opportunities that they well deserve. Amendment No. 2329 (Purpose: To improve the bill)

Mr. JEFFORDS. I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the immediate consideration of an amendment by Senator Lautenberg, which is at the desk.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first, I thank my friend from Missouri for his amendments which he so forthrightly and quickly disposed of so that we can move forward on this very important piece of legislation. Amendment No. 2333 to Amendment No. 2329 (Purpose: To provide for a right for certain large units of general local government to submit appeals concerning designation as local areas)

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would not object to the Senator from Missouri speaking in morning business for a period, I believe, of up to 10 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask for a vote at this time. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to proceed as in morning business for a period not exceeding 5 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS. We have checked with the minority. It is acceptable to both sides. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I now yield, in accordance with the order, to Senator Ashcroft to offer his amendments.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague Senator DeWine in offering S. 1579, the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, as reported out of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, as an amendment to S. 1186 as amended by the Committee substitute. By attaching S. 1579 to the workforce legislation we will facilitate its consideration. However, I want to make clear that the Rehabilitation Act, when these amendments become law, will remain a freestanding statute. S. 1579 will open up more employment opportunities to individuals with disabilities. It will also provide State vocational rehabilitation agencies and others who provide employment-related assistance to individuals with disabilities with the tools they need to provide appropriate, timely help to individuals with disabilities who want to work. Provisions in this bill and in S. 1186 bring us closer to a seamless system for job training and employment assistance. Without compromising the integrity of a State's vocational rehabilitation program, the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 link vocational rehabilitation services to those services that are available under current State workforce systems and those that will be available under the Workforce Investment Partnership Act of 1998. Linkage provisions are found in sections pertaining to the findings and purposes of the legislation, definitions, program administration, reports, information dissemination, and State plan requirements, including those concerning data reporting. Complementary and parallel provisions promoting linkage between vocational rehabilitation agencies and State workforce systems also are included in the Workforce Investment Partnership Act of 1998. As the result of these linkage provisions individual with disabilities who want to work will not be turned away or denied assistance by a State's workforce system, of which the vocational rehabilitation program will be an integral component. There will be no wrong door to the system, no revolving door. Instead, there will be appropriate assistance. The amendments simplify access to vocational rehabilitation services. The State plan requirements have been rewritten to simplify administration of the vocational rehabilitation program. The amendments reduce the 36 State plan requirements in current law to 24 and require the submission of one State plan, with amendments thereafter under certain circumstances. The bill allows, when a State is operating under an order of selection, for the State to offer core services to individuals with disabilities who do not meet a State's criteria for full services from the vocational rehabilitation agency. The legislation gives vocational rehabilitation agencies the ability to secure financial support from other entities who could or should pay for certain services needed by an individual with a disability, who is being assisted by the vocational rehabilitation agency to prepare for or secure a job. The bill requires State vocational rehabilitation agencies and State Rehabilitation Councils to jointly--develop and conduct a comprehensive needs assessment every three years, and annually, to set and report on employment goals for individuals with disabilities. They streamline the administration and access to the vocational rehabilitation program. The bill simplifies procedures for eligibility by allowing consideration of existing evaluation information in determining an individuals's eligibility for vocational rehabilitation services. The bill strengthens eligible individuals's roles in developing their individualized rehabilitation employment plans. The bill also amends other titles in the Rehabilitation Act. Title II, which authorizes the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, is amended to require that all funding priorities of the Institute be derived from a five-year plan that will be subjected to public comment and then submitted to Congress. The bill expands the authority of the Institute to allow funding of initiatives related to the quality assurance of assistive technology and the effectiveness of alternative medicine when used to treat individuals with disabilities. The legislation streamlines and updates title III of the Act, which authorizes training and demonstration activities, by clearly delineating funding priorities, simplifying the notification of interested parties about upcoming grant opportunities, and permitting funding for training of personnel in one-stop centers so that they will be more able to appropriately and effectively assist individuals with disabilities seeking employment-related assistance through such centers. S. 1579 strengthens section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act pertaining to the accessibility of electronic and information technology for individuals with disabilities employed or served by Federal agencies. S. 1579 amends title VI of the Act by adding a new initiative, Projects in Telecommuting and Self-Employment for Individuals with Disabilities, and by permitting Projects with Industry to assist eligible individuals without waiting for referrals or eligibility status determinations from vocational rehabilitation agencies and to provide training and/or placement services. Vermonters with disabilities benefited from the 1992 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act. Vermonters with disabilities will benefit from these 1998 amendments. In Vermont, one out of every eight residents is disabled. The Division of Vocational Rehabilitation has enabled many Vermonters with disabilities to exercise the choices in setting employment goals and selecting service providers to help them achieve those goals. In 1996, Vermont's vocational rehabilitation program provided an array of services to almost 5,000 Vermonters, while directly assisting 850 individuals with disabilities to become successfully employed. In 1996 Vermont consumers of vocational rehabilitation services who secured employment enjoy an average increase in income exceeding $8,000 per year. Seventy-three percent of these individuals entered the workforce earning more than minimum wage. Seventy-eight percent of these Vermonters who were assisted by the Vermont Division of Rehabilitation in 1996 remain employed today. In addition, the Vermont Consumer Choice Project has allowed my State to create organizational structures, policies and practices that have resulted in a greater degree of informed choice for individuals seeking and receiving vocational rehabilitation services. Throughout S. 1579 there are references to traditionally underserved populations. I want to bring special attention to one such population that I am particularly aware of in my home state of Vermont: farmers with disabilities. In America an estimated 11 million people with disabilities live in rural areas. In the agricultural arena, an estimated 500,000 farmers and ranchers nationwide have physical disabilities that limit their ability to perform one or more work-related tasks. Each year, over 200,000 persons employed in agriculture are injured on the job, with many incurring a permanent disability as a result. Thousands more in the agricultural community experience disability as a result of non- farm injuries, illnesses, and chronic health conditions. These individuals consistently encounter barriers to receiving appropriate vocational rehabilitation services. Providing vocational rehabilitation services in rural environments can be challenging, but we clearly need to do more to serve these individuals who contribute so much to American society. State vocational rehabilitation agencies have large caseloads. Given these large case loads, it is often challenging to adequately serve individuals with disabilities in rural areas. Moreover, there are few rehabilitation professionals who are knowledgeable about various occupations in rural America or about how to successfully adapt or modify those work environments. Since 1991, the AgrAbility Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture has helped thousands of farmers, ranchers, and farm workers to accommodate their disabilities in order to work safely and efficiently in agricultural production. A program that has existed in my home state of Vermont for nearly 30 years was one of the models on which the AgrAbility program was based. This program is a jointly operated by the Vermont Rehabilitation Service and the Cooperative Extension Service. It has helped hundreds of farmers accommodate their disabilities and remain productive. The lessons that we have learned in Vermont and through the AgrAbility program nationally need to be infused into the vocational rehabilitation system. Currently, nineteen States are served by AgrAbility projects, and at least a dozen additional States are pursuing funding. AgrAbility projects are conducted as partnerships between university-based State extension service agencies and nonprofit disability organizations, including Easter Seal societies, United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Goodwill societies and Independent Living Centers. These AgrAbility projects can provide State vocational rehabilitation agencies with a wide range of training and technical assistance to improve and expand vocational rehabilitation services to people with disabilities seeking to maintain their work in agriculture. In closing, I would like to acknowledge that we would not have been able to offer our colleagues this bipartisan, consensus-based legislation without Senator Frist's efforts in 1995 with regard to S. 143 and the efforts of many hard working staff including, Aaron Grau with Senator DeWine, Elizabeth Aldridge with the Senate Legislative Counsel, Connie Gardner with Senator Kennedy, Roger Wolfson with Senator Wellstone, Sharon Masling with Senator Harkin, Jim Fenton with Senator Dodd, Pat Morrissey, Sherry Kaiman, and Heidi Mohlman of my staff. In addition, I wish to recognize the cooperation and technical assistance that we received from Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Judith Heumann, and Fredric Schroeder, Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Education and their staff. I also wish to thank the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, Task Force on Employment and Training, for its timely input on legislative proposals and its assistance on disseminating discussion drafts. Finally, I wish to extend a special thanks to Bob Rabe, Director of the Ohio Rehabilitation Commission and Chair of the Reauthorization Task Force of the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR) and Diane Dalmasse, the Director of the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation in Vermont for helping us to understand how the amendments will affect the delivery of vocational rehabilitation services. As I said on January 28, 1998 when my colleagues and I introduced this legislation, having a job and liking it are the bottom line. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting S. 1579 as an amendment to the Workforce Investment Partnership Act of 1998. Passing it will mean more jobs and better jobs for individuals with disabilities. Mr. President, I also want to commend a staff member who has been with the Congress in one body or the other for many years who contributed very greatly to bringing about a consensus on this piece of legislation, Pat Morrissey. At this time, Mr. President, I believe the amendment on both sides is acceptable and we could have a vote on it at this time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is an amendment in the nature of a substitute and it is the work of the committee. So we have already really defined in our statement, Senator Kennedy and myself, the contents of that amendment. Mr. President, I emphasize that this was a committee piece of work, and what happened is amazing in a sense, if you understand my committee, which has probably the largest divergence and philosophical persuasion. We were able to sit down and work together and come up with a piece of legislation which passed the committee unanimously, and as I think things will develop, will show that we probably will get a similar consideration on the floor. I yield to Senator DeWine, after first commending him and also his cohort, Senator Wellstone, for the incredible amount of work they put in. Senator Kennedy and I are the leaders of the committee, but it is the subcommittee that really did the majority of the work here. I want to commend them for the tremendous capacity to work together. As I said, there is some divergence in the philosophical opinion between the two men. But it proved to be of great advantage to the whole body here by coming out with an excellent piece of work. I now yield the floor to Senator DeWine.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the Workforce Investment Partnership Act, S. 1186. This legislation incorporates job training, vocational education, and adult education--three programs. Last year we passed welfare reform, which has no hope of success unless individuals have the appropriate education and training to compete in the workforce. We will never successfully reduce the welfare rolls unless we give people the tools to enter the workforce. Vocational education, adult education, and job training are how we give people those tools. This bill creates a system where all three of these key areas work together. Separate funding streams and administration are maintained. I repeat that. Separate funding streams and administration are maintained for each of these activities, in recognition that each activity serves a distinct function. At the same time, the important interrelationship among these activities has too often been ignored. Policy in each area has generally been considered in a vacuum, leading to disappointment and frustration to job seekers and employers alike. For this reason, Senator DeWine, Senator Kennedy, Senator Wellstone, and I have written legislation which will assist States in coordinating policies related to job training and training-related education. States that are moving forward in their workforce development efforts believe that all of the education and training players create an agenda which reflects an education and training partnership instead of having these two critical areas living individually, in solitary confinement. Senator Kennedy and I have been working on job training legislation for over 2 decades. I count the Job Training Partnership Act, which I coauthored along with Representative Hawkins and Senators Kennedy, Hatch, and Quayle, as a significant legislative accomplishment. Today, 16 years later, it is clear that the Job Training Partnership Act is not sufficient to meet the increasing demands made on our education and training system. This Nation has failed to implement strategies which will enable our workforce to meet the demands made by an ever changing international economy. Our international competitors have been leaders in making the important link between education and work. The United States is beginning to make some progress, although it is clearly not yet nationwide. I have seen examples of this progress in a few States, including my home State of Vermont. Vergennes Union High School has an excellent biotech program that was established through a partnership between the business community and the local school district. They were talking about things we hadn't even heard of a few years ago in their high school class. In addition, Essex Technical Center offers an array of programs that serve all students, ranging from at-risk youths to adults. Another State that is an exemplary leader in workforce development is Mississippi. Two years ago, I visited Mississippi and was overwhelmed by their academic, financial, and overall community commitment to revitalize their vocational education-tech prep system. This program is so successful that the Mississippi legislature passed an increase in their sales tax to expand that initiative. This has been very beneficial to the Mississippi economy. Businesses not only stay in Mississippi, but major companies are relocating to Mississippi, because of the skilled workforce that is in place because of these improvements. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act builds upon an excellent workforce development system that is evolving in Vermont, Mississippi, and in other States throughout the Nation. S. 1186 will enable States to have greater flexibility to promote coordination between vocational education, adult education, and training. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act gives States, local communities, and employers both the assistance and the incentives to train individuals--to train individuals for real jobs. The two key points of the Workforce Investment Partnership Act are the establishment of tough accountability measures and a rallying of the private and public sectors to implement an education and training delivery system that enables all members of our society to receive the education and training they need at any point in their lifetime--I repeat that, at any point in their lifetime. As I mentioned, accountability is a key feature of S. 1186. Those States that exceed their performance measures--the accountability mechanisms in all three titles--will be eligible for additional funding from the Department of Education and Labor, which can then be used for innovative activities related to the programs authorized under S. 1186. I believe this bill, which unanimously passed the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee and has the support of the business community, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Alliance of Businesses, the Chamber of Commerce, and the administration, is one of the most important initiatives the Senate will consider this year. Year after year, report after report indicates that we do not have an adequately trained workforce. The following statistics illustrate this point: A Committee for Economic Development study estimates that each year's class of high school dropouts costs over $200 billion in lost incomes and taxes over the lifetimes of those students. I would like to note that my friend from Ohio, Senator DeWine, has done an outstanding job in this legislation in taking the lead on the youth provisions which will hopefully improve this very, very terrible statistic. American employers spend over $200 billion a year in remedial education and training for their employees--over $200 billion a year in remedial education and training for their employees. I point out that Europe spends about the same amount, but they spend it with their schools so that they don't have to wait an extra 2 years to be entering into the workforce. This Nation presently has 190,000 positions unfilled in the technology area because of a lack of skilled workers. Those skills could be taught, almost all of them, in the high schools, but kids have to wait until they get out of high school under the present system, although some schools, as I mentioned earlier, like Vergennes, are moving in that area to provide those skills which are reachable with the talents of our young people in high school rather than waiting to go to further skill training. The business community, Federal, State, and local governments must support education and training systems which allow all members of society to enter the training system and receive the education and training they need at any point in their lifetime, whether it be the high school student pursuing a biotech career, the adult who is desperate to trade a welfare check for a paycheck, the dislocated worker who needs to learn new skills to enhance his or her marketability, the vocational rehabilitation client who needs training assistance, or the incumbent worker who requires additional education and training to keep pace with the ever-evolving global economy. S. 1186 lays a foundation for achieving that goal. Before I turn to my colleagues, I would like to express my deep appreciation to Senators Kennedy, DeWine, and Wellstone and their staffs and also a special thank you to the Congressional Research Service and the Senate legislative counsel staff for all of their hard work in this bipartisan initiative. I thank each of them for their time and effort in getting S. 1186 to this point. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I had hoped to be in Burlington, VT, this morning meeting with a group of high school students. They have been studying tobacco use among adults and teens and talking about the proposed tobacco settlement in their health and civics classes. I regret that I am not able to be in Vermont to talk with them. But I do want to take this opportunity to express my support for prompt consideration of tobacco legislation. When I look around the classrooms here in D.C. with students here in D.C.--when I read in the Brent School, or when I meet students at home, as I had planned to today--I see dozens of faces alive with potential. I see those kids as the soccer and track stars. I wonder which ones enjoy science and which ones are the budding artists. To me, each of these kids represents an unknown but a promising future. To the tobacco industry, every single one of these kids represents nothing more than a replacement smoker. The tobacco industry's goal is to turn each of these young athletes and budding scientists into a smoker. We know now that the tobacco industry has plotted to capture the cub scout and the kindergarten market. We have documentation that the tobacco industry has studied the behavior of children as young as 5 to determine how susceptible they are. And their scheming has worked. Every day, every week of every year, 3,000 children become addicted to cigarettes. A third of them will die early from smoking, and those who go on to raise families will endanger their children through low birthweight complications and secondhand smoke. Vermont and other States have done much to combat teen smoking. I applaud the parents, teachers, and State health officials who have led the battle against big tobacco at the local level. It is time now for Congress to do something too. Ever since the Attorneys General announced their proposed settlement last June, Congress has been talking to experts and debating the best approach to reduce teen smoking. But the time for talking is behind us. And time is running out. It is critical that the Senate act on tobacco legislation in the coming weeks. We cannot allow politics to stand in the way of this rare opportunity. This issue is too important and too complicated to leave to the last minute. As chairman of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, I have held seven hearings on the question of what tobacco policy would be best for this country. We heard from the experts that there is no silver bullet that will solve the problem of teen smoking. But that is no excuse for inactivity. Smoking kills 400,000 people a year, and it is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. Nine out of ten smokers became addicted as teenagers. My home State of Vermont, unfortunately, is not immune from the problem. Our teen smoking rate is higher--higher--than the national average. More than one in every three Vermont high school students are regular smokers. More than 12,000 Vermont teens currently under age 18 will die prematurely from tobacco-related disease. That is like wiping the towns of Underhill, Jericho, Richmond, and Huntington right off the map--wiping them right off the map. Despite the best efforts of parents, educators, and health professionals around the State over the past few years, more and more teenagers are deciding to smoke. Unless we act now to help them quit, most of these kids will continue to smoke into adulthood. I pledge to Vermonters that I will do everything I can to enact comprehensive tobacco legislation this year. In February, I introduced the Prevent Addiction To Smoking Among Teens Act, the PAST Act, to enact and improve upon the public health provisions of the tobacco settlement. Last month, the Senate Commerce Committee passed comprehensive legislation which incorporated many of the public health provisions originally proposed in the PAST Act. As tobacco legislation moves through the Senate, I will continue my fight to ensure that we keep our eyes on the goal of improving the public health and preventing kids from smoking. Congress needs to pass legislation which will prevent kids from smoking. Even though there is no silver bullet, we do know of many approaches which have proven effective, particularly when used in combination. A national tobacco policy must give the Food and Drug Administration full authority to regulate tobacco, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, and the State health departments, and others in the fight to convince high school students not to smoke, and to treat those who have decided to do so, as well as we can, to get them to stop. We need to make teen smoking a thing of the past. I cannot think of a better graduation present for high school seniors in Vermont and around the country than to stop teenage smoking. Mr. President, thank you very much. I yield back the balance of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will begin consideration of S. 1186, the job training partnership bill, also known as the Workforce Investment Partnership Act. This will be taken up under a previous consent agreement. That agreement allows for 4 hours of debate divided equally among several amendments to be offered to the job training bill. At the conclusion of the consideration of S. 1186, the Senate will begin a period of morning business, with Senator Coverdell controlling 1 hour and Senator Daschle or his designee controlling 1 hour. Members are reminded that no rollcall votes will occur during today's session, and any votes ordered with respect to the job training bill will be postponed, to occur at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 5. As a further reminder, on Monday, May 4, the Senate will begin consideration of the IRS reform bill. It is hoped that Members will come to the floor on Monday to debate and to offer amendments to this important piece of legislation. Once again, as with the job training bill, any votes ordered with respect to the IRS reform bill will be stacked, to occur at 5:30 on Tuesday. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, almost 10 years ago, the wall that had divided Europe for more than a generation suddenly crumbled. Brave, freedom-loving people in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia took matters into their own hands, eventually toppling their communist governments. East Germans attacked their wall with gusto, and in a matter of months, Germany was reunited. Ever since that time, there has been talk in Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary of joining the West in a more formal way, to solidify their break from the East, to recognize their conversion to democracy and free markets, and to insure against future aggression from the East. NATO membership was seen as one way to do this. Eastern Europe also recognized that economic development was critical to their success and sought economic integration with the West and access to its markets. Membership in the European Economic Union was a high priority for most states. While the West spoke glowingly of the transformations taking place in the East, it soon became clear that there would be only meager amounts of foreign assistance and economic investment for the East, and access to new markets would remain limited. Western Europe and North America were wrestling with their own economic difficulties and fighting popular expectations that the end of the Cold War would bring reduced financial commitments abroad. Increasingly, it became clear to many Eastern European governments that joining NATO was their best chance of getting membership in a western ``club''. NATO membership would address the historical and emotional anxieties of many East Europeans left by decades of domination and oppression by the East, and would provide western aid to modernize their militaries. While it wasn't what they needed most, at least it was something. As the prospects of membership in the Economic Union faded, many East European governments jumped at the 1995 NATO announcement that it would consider taking in new members. NATO, led by the United States, was faced with the difficult task of deciding which countries would qualify for membership immediately and which ones would be refused, pending further political, economic and military maturation. The stakes were high, and in some cases, the disappointment was great. The United States made it clear to all who were not accepted that there would be other chances to join in the near future, that the door to membership would remain open. No clear vision of the shape or boundaries of NATO emerged from this exercise. The decision to enlarge NATO also altered the context for the newly formed Partnership for Peace (PFP). Rather than concentrating on the quality of PFP discussions and ways that it could enhance regional security, the focus shifted instead to the benefits of full NATO membership. Rather than easing the tensions caused by the Cold War dividing line through the heart of Europe, enlarging NATO revived those tensions, once again creating a sense of ``us'' versus ``them'', and reducing the ability of the PFP to address the void left by the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Americans feel the strong emotional pull of the countries who want to join NATO. We want to do what we can to reward them for their struggles and solidify their political, social and economic gains. We have little ability to pry open European markets, and few financial resources to commit to economic development programs. So NATO membership at first glance seems the obvious thing to do. I have some very deep reservations about this course of action. For one, NATO membership will not provide what the new democracies of Eastern Europe need most--economic and political development. Secondly, NATO expansion may well jeopardize critical U.S. national security concerns that require close cooperation with Russia. Additionally, moving to expand NATO at this time cuts short the potential development of the PFP into a more innovative structure for handling the very diverse military concerns of its members who now span the globe from the Arctic Ocean to Central Asia to the Pacific Ocean. We also must recognize that estimates of the cost of NATO expansion vary widely, and it is likely that the American taxpayer will get stuck picking up a very sizable percentage of the costs. Finally, I do not believe that the American public has given sufficient attention to the question that is being asked of the Senate: Should we extend our very best security guarantee to more nations? Are we ready to commit US troops to the unconditional defense of even more territory? The Senate should not act until it is sure that the American people support this commitment. Now is not the time to make this move. Let's think for a moment about the most immediate threat facing both Europe and the United States. It is not really a Russian attack upon Eastern Europe. The war in Chechnya showed that the Russian military is not even capable of putting down internal rebellion. Yet this is what NATO is designed to protect against. A very real and pressing threat to U.S. and European security is the leakage of Russian weapons of mass destruction. An expanded NATO gives us no advantage in countering this threat, while at the same time cutting back on the degree of cooperation we will get out of Russia in addressing these threats. If we want to work with the Russian military, we must convince them that we are not escalating the threat against them. Much as we might say that NATO is not an aggressive alliance aimed at Russia, Cold War perceptions do not dissipate that quickly, and if Russia feels increasingly threatened, it will be even more reluctant to scale back its military capabilities, to ratify START II and to cooperate in other arms control initiatives. And these are things that matter very much to U.S. national security. We have increasingly found that the resolution of most thorny international crises require some assistance from Russia. The standoff with Saddam Hussein over UN weapons inspections was the most recent example. Bosnia will continue to demand active US-Russian cooperation, and other efforts such as reducing the spread of nuclear weapons in South Asia will be enhanced if we have Russian assistance. The decision to move NATO closer to the borders of Russia may well have one other unintended and dangerous consequence--driving Russia into a closer relationship with China. China will continue to emerge as a greater presence on the international scene. And I believe we will have even more serious disagreements with its leadership. Russia is a part of this strategic equation. Our job now is to convince Russia that it shares our concerns vis a vis China, and that it is not in Russia's best interest to turn a blind eye to dangerous Chinese behaviors. But it Russia feels that a closer relationship with the West will not bring it greater security, then this will be a very difficult argument to make. Mr. President, Senate ratification of this enlargement of NATO is just the first step. Other countries are now very anxious to get ``in'' and eventually more of them are going to meet the stated qualifications for membership. Yet every new addition beyond the three before us today brings more trouble, both in terms of Russian reaction and challenges to the cohesion of the NATO structure. If NATO is unable to act decisively on matters that we feel are central to our security, it will be of diminishing use to us in the future. I am quite concerned that by accepting these three countries today, we are increasing the pressure on others to join. Putting top priority on developing a close military relationship with NATO is not what these new democracies need right now. They should be focusing primarily on their economic, social and political development. I fear that we do them a disservice by holding up NATO membership as the best way to be ``tied'' to the West. After all, having a stable democracy and strong economic ties with one's neighbors has proven to be the most successful way to ward off both military and political strife. If we proceed to invite Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to join NATO, I believe we must be very cautious about any additional rounds. I have proposed an addition to the document before us that would require the Administration to report regularly to Congress on the status of discussions with other countries about joining NATO. Hopefully this will allow us to be more involved in the process before any new invitations are extended. I appreciate the Managers acceptance of my amendment. And I trust that the vigorous debate we have had on this issue will encourage much greater caution by the Administration and NATO in extending future invitations. I know some Senators objected earlier to efforts to postpone consideration of this treaty. Yet, no matter where my Colleagues come down on this issue, I trust they all now will agree with me that U.S. foreign policy and the American public have benefited from the fuller debate we have had as a result. In closing, Mr. President, let me say that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic deserve to be recognized for the great strides they have made in recent years. But I am not convinced that immediate full membership in NATO is the right answer for them or for us. And I am very concerned that the process this treaty sets in motion is one that we may well ultimately come to regret.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to retired U.S. Senator Bob T. Stafford. The Central Vermont-New Hampshire Valley Chapter of the American Red Cross is honoring Bob with its most prestigious award at a dinner to be held at the Capitol Plaza Hotel in Montpelier, Vermont on May 7, 1998. He will receive the Chapter's Volunteer of the Year Award, in recognition for his six years of service on the Board of Directors and his sterling leadership of the its capital campaign, ``Building for the 21st Century.'' Bob was elected to the Board of Directors in 1992, and has served on a number of committees, including financial development and the executive committees, as well as chair of the capital campaign committee. He led the last committee by identifying and acquiring major lead gift pledges for the $1 million campaign, initiated in 1997. Before joining the Red Cross Chapter's Board, he provided leadership for several significant disaster fund-raising campaigns, including the effort to raise funds to support recovery operations during the 1992 flood that ravaged downtown Montpelier. He was also honorary chair of several special events to raise funds to support the operating expenses of the Chapter. In addition to these honors, the Chapter is hosting the dinner as a celebration and recognition of the longtime service of the state of Vermont. Bob has served the state of Vermont as Attorney General, Lieutenant Governor, Governor, U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator. His name is now revered by college students throughout the country for his development and support of legislation creating student loans and his leadership in efforts to preserve the environment. His support of vocational education is memorialized in his home town of Rutland, where the Stafford Technical Center serves the needs of hundreds of Rutland County students. His name is also affixed to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Act, which allows various federal agencies to make preliminary advance preparations in response to disasters before their official declarations. I am pleased that my friend and former colleague is being recognized for this longstanding efforts in support of the community. Bob represents the best of Vermont and has set the example we should all strive to emulate.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Vermont's home health agencies are a model of efficiency for the nation. For the past seven consecutive years, the average Medicare expenditure for home health care in Vermont has been the lowest in the nation. This efficiency was achieved by exclusive reliance on 13 nonprofit agencies which provide care without sacrificing quality, and which adhere strictly to Medicare requirements and guidelines. Today, I am cosponsoring The Medicare Home Health Equity Act of 1998, with my good friend Senator Collins, in order to preserve this high-quality, low-cost home health system from possible insolvency. At this moment, Vermont is facing an unprecedented crisis in its home health care system. This is not a crisis of their own making, and the home health agencies had little, if any, advance warning that disaster was imminent. The crisis that befalls Vermont's home health care agencies, and many others throughout the country, arose from the decision made by Congress, as a part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), to adopt a Medicare prospective payment system for home health care. There is compelling rationale and general agreement for moving Medicare to a prospective payment system (PPS) in the home health care sector. Under a national, prospective payment system, low-cost agencies will fare well, as they have already learned how to manage their resources wisely. However, the interim system created by the BBA for the transition to a PPS is fundamentally flawed and rewards high-cost agencies. Under the Interim Payment System, reimbursement limits for home health care are heavily weighted toward an agency's historical costs. This means that until a prospective payment system can be designed and implemented, the lowest cost agencies will face the most significant caps on their Medicare payments. Where a prospective payment system aims to level the playing field for agencies that care for similarly situated patients, the interim system preserves and reinforces significant disparities across agencies. Although high-cost agencies will face reductions in payments under the interim system, these will be the agencies in the best position to make those cuts. Low-cost agencies with budgets that are already lean have no place to turn. It would be a national tragedy if those low-cost agencies cannot survive the transition to a prospective system. I commend the efforts of my good friend Senator Collins for bringing this bill forward. it was a difficult task to craft a remedy that allows committed and responsible home health agencies to survive and also maintain budget neutrality. The Medicare Home Health Equity Act of 1998 would alter the interim payment formula by basing payment caps on a blend of national and regional averages. In this way, we can move toward a more uniform level of reimbursement and allow home health care agencies in the same locale to operate under the same constraints. Furthermore, this legislation can be implemented quickly. This is important, because the regulations defining the interim payment system were not published until January of this year--nearly four months after the payment system was in force. The situation is serious. We must provide relief to home health agencies and peace of mind to the clients who are under their care. Last August, I voted in support of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I was proud of the changes we made to preserve Medicare benefits for the present and for future generations. Today, I urge my colleagues to enact The Medicare Home Health Equity Act of 1998 and correct the unintended consequences of the BBA's interim payment system reimbursement limits on low-cost home health agencies.