Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to briefly discuss my support for the ISTEA conference report which I believe appropriately and rationally expands and improves our nation's transportation programs. Mr. President, this legislation is good news for Rhode Island, a state that unfortunately has some of the most significant infrastructure needs in our nation according to experts. Yet, many people might overlook the fact that this conference report also provides essential investments in our nation's mass transit programs. Indeed, I am pleased that the Banking Committee's transit title of the conference report contains $35 million for new capital transit programs in Rhode Island as well as $5.79 million for the purchase of urgently needed new buses by the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority. I want to personally thank Chairman D'Amato and Senator Sarbanes, particularly, for their assistance in addressing my state's transit priorities and their hard work in producing a very balanced transit program that will serve our country well. While there is much that is good in this bill, I am troubled by some of the budgetary offsets used to permit a higher level of transportation investment. Like many of my colleagues, I remain concerned that in order to accommodate essential infrastructure funding within the confines of strict budget caps, this legislation would endorse a plan to deny payments for veterans with service connected smoking-related illnesses. Indeed, earlier this year, I voted against this proposal, and I plan to work with like minded colleagues in the months ahead to see if we can reverse it. In addition, I am saddened that the ISTEA bill no longer contains a tougher national standard for driving under the influence of alcohol. All too often we hear of another senseless death due to drunk driving. A tougher standard for blood alcohol content or BAC would have been an excellent deterrent in the fight against drunk driving tragedies, and I regret that the Senate's strong support for this standard did not prevail in negotiations with the House of Representatives. Mr. President, like many pieces of legislation, this bill is not perfect. However, repairing my state's roads and bridges; ensuring that thousands of mass transit riders in Rhode Island continue to receive service; and improving safety on our roads; are worthwhile goals that I hope all my colleagues support.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am proud to join with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, submitting this resolution which addresses the unfolding events in Indonesia. On Thursday, President Suharto resigned his position after leading Indonesia for thirty-two years. His action was a response to civil unrest and economic turmoil which reached a crescendo in the past few weeks. President Suharto is to be commended for heeding the call of the Indonesian people for change, for avoiding further bloodshed, and for permitting a change of leadership in accordance with the constitutional processes of Indonesia. Now, it is time for change. The people of Indonesia and the world have called for it. The United States should do everything in its power to encourage and support the new political leadership of Indonesia to implement reforms. Most importantly, we are on the threshold of the chance to resolve the question of East Timor. In 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor. For over two decades that land has been wracked by fear, suppression, torture and death. Approximately one third of the population has been killed. The United Nations has called again and again for a just, comprehensive and internationally acceptable solution in East Timor, but to no avail. Mr. President, we must seize this opportunity. The oppression of East Timor must end. The people of East Timor have a right to self- determination. They, and the people of Indonesia, deserve to live securely in economic, political and physical freedom. Against overwhelming odds, the people of Indonesia and East Timor have bravely fought for their rights and caused a powerful leader to resign. The United States if obligated to support them and encourage the new leadership of Indonesia to institute genuine democratic and economic reforms, promote and protect the human rights of the citizens, and respect the right of the people of East Timor to self- determination. I join Senator Feingold in urging the Senate to adopt this resolution.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding me time. Yesterday, I had the privilege of attending a meeting, along with my colleagues, Senator Kennedy, Senator Conrad and Senator Lautenberg, with C. Everett Koop. And Dr. Koop had the right prescription for this aspect of the legislation. His prescription was quite simple: raise the price per pack by $1.50. As the preeminent public health official in this country, indeed in some respects America's family doctor, I believe his advice should be taken to heart by this body and we should move to support this amendment by Senator Kennedy. I am a very proud cosponsor of this amendment. Indeed, this is not a radical departure. Two committees of the Senate have already passed this amendment--the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Budget Committee. They have done so on a bipartisan basis. So what is at stake here is reaffirming and confirming what has been done already, what has been advocated by public health officials; and that is to raise the price per pack by $1.50. Study after study has confirmed the fact that this will make an important impact on the rate of teenage smoking. But these studies are less dramatic than the words of people who probably know best the effect of price and consumption with respect to tobacco products--the wards of the industry itself. In 1981, a Philip Morris internal document stated, and I quote: In any event, and for whatever reason, it is clear that price has a pronounced effect on the smoking prevalence of teenagers, and that the goals of reducing teenage smoking and balancing the budget would both be served by increasing the Federal excise tax on cigarettes. That is not Dr. Koop. That is not the proponents of this amendment. That is the tobacco industry, coolly, carefully assessing what price does to teenage smoking. And it reduces it. In 1987, another Philip Morris internal document lamented a decline in youth smoking caused by price increases, their price increases. The document stated: We don't need to have that happen again. So if the industry understands what will be affected by a price increase, we should understand also. But as I have indicated, research findings from various sources confirm the fact that a price increase will affect dramatically, decisively, and positively the decline of teenage smoking. In listening to this debate, one is struck by the different approaches one could take to the goal of reducing teenage smoking. I think there are just two basic ways you can do that. First, if we are really sincere about reducing teenage smoking, we can create an elaborate regulatory bureaucratic structure with agents in every community who would monitor teen smoking, with reports that would go back and forth about teen smoking, with supervision of the distribution network, and all sorts of ways to do it. Or we could use the market-- the most efficient device created by humanity to allocate goods and services--we could use the market. That is what this amendment proposes to do. It simply says, if we raise the price of cigarettes, we will cause a decline in teenage smoking--efficiently, dramatically, and effectively. So I argue, if anyone is a believer in the affect of the market on behavior, if anyone believes that price makes a difference--and I think that is the credo of both parties, but certainly the Republican Party-- you would be in favor of a market-oriented approach like this to curtail teen smoking. The only other alternative is that we are really not talking about curtailing teen smoking on the floor today; we are talking about something else. But if you believe that we are here to reduce teenage smoking, and you believe that the market can work wonders in terms of allocated goods and services, you should be supporting this amendment. Now, as I indicated, the evidence is replete from many different sources of this effect. Reports from the Institute of Medicine's National Academy of Sciences, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of the Treasury, the Surgeon General--all these indicate the correlation between price increases and reduced teenage smoking. A National Bureau of Economic Research study in 1996 found that young people were three times as sensitive to cigarette prices as older smokers. A 1997 study in Tobacco Control found a strong relationship between cigarette prices and youth smoking, with each 10-percent increase in price resulting in a 9-percent reduction in youth smoking. In its 1998 report, ``Taking Action to Reduce Tobacco Use,'' the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that: * * * the single most direct and reliable method for reducing consumption is to increase the price of tobacco products, thus encouraging the cessation and reducing the level of initiation of tobacco use. A National Cancer Institute expert panel in 1993 reported that ``a substantial increase in tobacco excise taxes may be the single most effective measure for decreasing tobacco consumption,'' and they also concluded that ``an excise tax reduces consumption by children and teenagers at least as much as it reduces consumption by adults.'' The 1994 Surgeon General's report, likewise, indicated a real price increase would significantly reduce cigarette smoking. All of this data, all of these studies, come to the same conclusion: If we want to reduce teenage smoking, if we want to use the efficient allocation mechanism of the market, we should raise the price to a significant level--$1.50 per pack. Now, all of these experiences are academic. We can have a battle of reports and analysis back and forth here. But we have a real-life example: In Canada, between 1979 and 1991, when real prices increased from $2.09 to $5.42, smoking rates among young people 15 to 19 years old fell from 42 percent to 16 percent while overall consumption of tobacco products also declined--a huge decrease. Now, this was a big sample, the country of Canada. Real price increases and real dramatic results in decreasing teenage smoking. And we have to do this because we all know and we all recite repeatedly the statistics: 50 million Americans addicted to tobacco; 1 out of every 3 of these individuals will die prematurely from tobacco-related diseases; three-quarters of them want to quit smoking, but they cannot because it is an addictive substance. The conclusion they have come to and we should is it is better that they never start. It is better that we take steps to curtail teenage smoking when there is a chance to divert a young person away from this addiction. We know that over 90 percent of smokers started before they were 18--again, a clarion call to us to take action to protect the youth of this country. Each year, 1 million children become regular smokers. And, as I said, one-third of them will die prematurely. There are 5 million kids under 18 currently alive today who will die from tobacco-related diseases across the country. It is disturbing, in my home State of Rhode Island, while smoking levels have flattened out with respect to the overall population, high school students seem to be smoking 25 percent more than they were just a few years ago. We have to act now. We have to use the most decisive tool we have, and that is price increases, to affect the behavior of young people so that we will not see them needlessly die from tobacco-related diseases. I support wholeheartedly and enthusiastically the effort by my colleagues to ensure that we have an increase that will do the job, that will have an effective way to curtail teen smoking. With that, I yield back my time to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Frank Caprio of Providence, Rhode Island, who will be honored at the 37th Annual Verrazzano Day Banquet this Saturday. A respected and admired Rhode Islander, Frank Caprio was born in Providence in 1936, the son of immigrants. His father peddled produce and delivered milk in the Federal Hill neighborhood, while his beloved mother cared for Frank, his two brothers, Antonio Jr. and Joseph, and dedicated herself to her Church and community. Frank Caprio epitomizes the American dream. From his humble beginnings, he is today a respected lawyer, successful businessman, and Chief Judge of the Providence Municipal Court. At Central High School he was an all-state wrestler who was encouraged to learn a trade, but he aspired to attain a college education. And he did. He worked his way through Providence College, earning his Bachelor of Arts. He later earned his education certificate from Rhode Island College. Frank taught American government by day and attended Suffolk Law School at night. Inspired by President Kennedy, he ran for Providence City Council in 1962 and served for eight years. He was a delegate to the Rhode Island Constitutional Convention in 1973, and he has been elected a delegate to the Democratic National Convention five times. Frank Caprio has practiced law for more than 30 years and has a remarkably diverse practice. He has served as special counsel to Cookson America, a fortune 500 corporation, and as legal counsel to the Providence Redevelopment Agency and the Rhode Island Department of Transportation. But perhaps Frank's most revered clients are neighbors and friends, many of humble means, who seek out Frank as their defender, advocate, and voice. They cherish his friendship and offer trust in return, which is a wonderful tribute to Frank and a testament to the way he has led his life. Through initiative, hard work and tireless energy, Frank has attained much success in business. He is a principal owner of the Coast Guard House, a historic waterfront restaurant in Narragansett and another popular restaurant, Casey's, in Wakefield. In addition to his success as a restaurateur, Frank is a principal owner of Cherry Hill Housing in Johnston. Despite all of his success in law, government, and business, Frank has always understood the importance of community and public service. He serves on the board of Federal Hill House and as a volunteer at Nickerson House. He is a fellow of the Rhode Island Community Food Bank, and is a member of both the Bishop's Council and the State Board of Governors for Higher Education. In honor of his own father, he established the Antonio ``Tup'' Caprio Scholarship at Suffolk University, and is the 1997-1998 Chairman of the Providence College Alumni Fund. He holds an Honorary Doctor of Law Degree from Suffolk and has been recognized by countless organizations for his spirit of community and his humanitarian efforts. Mr. President, I am pleased today to salute Frank Caprio on receiving the prestigious Annual Verrazzano Day award, and I extend best wishes to Frank, his wife, Joyce, and their wonderful family on this momentous occasion.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, my amendment would strike section 4 of the underlying legislation. This section proposes to amend the State Student Incentive Grant Program, the SSIG Program. I first want to recognize Senator Abraham's efforts on behalf of this legislation and to underscore that I understand the issue the Senator is attempting to address is the lack of suitable training in our country to provide the types of scientists and engineers which this legislation hopes to attract through immigration policies. But I would object to the importation of the SSIG Program into this legislation; to pull SSIG in is inappropriate. We all recognize we do have to educate and train more Americans to take up these high-tech jobs, but this immigration bill is not the right vehicle, and the SSIG Program is not the right approach to simply target high-tech training in the United States. I would like to briefly set the record straight with respect to SSIG, its status, and I hope its future. First, the State Student Incentive Grant Program is within the jurisdiction of the Labor and Human Resources Committee. We have been considering its reformation and improvement over the last several months, and we have made progress in that regard. We are on the verge, after deliberation in the committee, of bringing a bill to the floor which will make significant improvements to SSIG. I would like to also point out that the State Student Incentive Grant Program was initiated back in 1972 by Senator Jacob Javits of New York. It was created not as a way to bootstrap high-tech learning in the United States, but to meet a critical deficiency--the need to provide resources to low-income students to enable them to go to college in a vast array of programs, letting them make the decision of where their talent will carry them, but giving them the resources to go to college and stay in college. In its more than 20-year history, it has been a remarkably effective program. It takes Federal dollars and offers a one-for-one dollar match with the States to provide need-based grants to students. It has no federal overhead. It delivers money in the form of grants to low-income students that need these resources to go on to college. Now, if we are talking about providing more opportunities for Americans to be scientists, to be engineers, to do all the things that we want them to do and not have to rely upon foreign nationals coming into our country, SSIG is the wrong place to start. We should be starting in the elementary and secondary schools. We should be recognizing that in many of our schools, particularly low-income urban schools with high minority enrollments, 50 percent of those students are likely to have a science or math teacher who never concentrated on science or math in college. And that is one reason we are not developing, here in the United States, those skills necessary for this high-tech age. So, if we are really interested in having Americans qualify to take these jobs, bringing SSIG into this bill, hijacking it, Shanghaiing it into this bill is not going to do it. We have to start early and consistently to reach young people. I believe we have made progress in this regard. We have made progress, both in terms of identifying the need to improve elementary and secondary education, and, as I mentioned before, we have made progress working closely with my colleague, the Senator from Maine, Senator Collins, to improve SSIG. We have introduced, with 17 other Senators, a bipartisan proposal to reform SSIG. It is called the LEAP Act. This proposal will create a two-tiered proposal: Up to $35 million, there will continue to be a one-for-one match of Federal dollars to State dollars; but when we go beyond that amount, we will allow the States a great deal more flexibility, flexibility that they will have to recognize by matching $2 for every one Federal dollar. But within that more flexible regime of options, we have actually built in, at the request of Senator Abraham, the ability of States to develop scholarship programs that are targeted to mathematics and computer science and engineering. In effect, working very closely with the Senator, who is sincerely committed to improving the quality of education throughout this country, we have done in the LEAP Act in the Labor Committee what is purported to be done here in this legislation. Now, we are concerned--frankly, I am concerned--that if we act in this immigration bill, we might upset the progress we have made to date on the LEAP Act. We might, in fact, compromise its fundamental commitment not to one specific sector of study but to a broader social purpose--of giving low-income students the chance to go on to college. I hope we will not do that. I feel very strongly about SSIG. I felt very strongly last year--again, working with Senator Collins from Maine. We came to the floor, we literally saved this program from extinction with an overwhelming vote of 84 to 4 to maintain appropriations for SSIG. Having, in a sense, given renewed life to this legislation, I want the opportunity, with my colleagues, to ensure that we continue this program as a need-based program and not at this moment, for convenience, for an attempt to respond to a legitimate concern about training high-tech personnel, to distort the purpose, the goals, and the future of SSIG. I think, working together with my colleagues, we can maintain the integrity of SSIG and we can also, using the Higher Education Act, strengthen it, reform it, and make it adaptable and make it accessible to a new generation of American students. I have had the opportunity to work with Senator Abraham. We have, I think, mutual appreciation of the need for SSIG. I hope, working with him over the next several weeks as this measure goes forward, and given his commitment to work together on this whole topic of the State Student Incentive Grant Program--I am prepared at this moment to seek unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. REED. I think in that time we can dispose of the amendment.

Mr. REED. I yield to the Senator from Michigan, if he had a comment.

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 2415 (Purpose: To strike section 4, relating to education and training in science and technology)

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

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as this legislation makes clear, those rulings that reject the reckless standard, or the Second Circuit's pleading standard are clearly wrong and a threat to the security of our markets. Mr. President, with assurances that proper protections for investors will remain in place, I am pleased to support the 1998 Act, thus moving toward an efficient, national uniform standard for securities class action lawsuits. I trust that higher courts will adhere to current principles of legislative history and case law to rule that the pleading and scienter standards continue to protect investors and that we will remain true to our commitment and fix any error. Additionally, as expressed in votes during the mark-up of this legislation, I am concerned that the definition of class action, as currently included in the bill, is too broad. Specifically, by defining a class as those whose claims have been consolidated by a state court judge, the bill infringes upon the rights of individual investors to bring suit; a situation sponsors have sought to avoid. I hope that this issue can be resolved today on the floor. Finally, I have appreciated the expert analysis that the Chair, Commissioners, and staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission have provided on this issue. I thank them for their assistance.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as a supporter of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 I am pleased to support S. 1260, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998. The bill will create a uniform standard for securities class action lawsuits against corporations listed on the three largest national exchanges. Class action suits are frequently the only financially feasible means for small investors to recover damages. Yet, such lawsuits have also been subject to abuse, draining resources from corporations while inadequately representing the interests of investor plaintiffs. Mr. President, in 1995, I voted to curtail such abusive litigation. It was obvious then that some class action suits were being filed after a precipitous drop in the value of a corporation's stock, without citing specific evidence of fraud. These lawsuits inflict substantial costs upon corporations, harming the business and its shareholders. Unfortunately, since passage of federal procedures protecting corporations from such suits there has been some attempt by class action plaintiffs to circumvent these safeguards by filing similar lawsuits in state courts. Mr. President, this Act will preempt this circumvention, creating a national standard for class action suits involving nationally traded securities. I favor this legislation because it recognizes the national nature of our securities markets, provides for more efficient capital formation, and protects investors. However, Mr. President, it is essential to recognize that preemption marks a significant change concerning the obligations of Congress. When federal legislation was enacted to combat securities fraud in 1933 and 1934, federal law augmented existing state statutes. States were free to provide greater protections from fraud to their citizens, and many have. The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission has testified concerning the traditional system by which securities have been regulated: through both public and private lawsuits in both state and federal courts. Many of my colleagues voted for the 1995 legislation knowing that if federal standards failed to provide adequate investor protections, state suits would provide a necessary backup. With passage of this legislation, my colleagues and I have now accepted full and sole responsibility to ensure that fraud standards allow victimized investors to recoup lost funds. Only a meaningful right of action against those that defraud guarantees investor confidence in our national markets. A uniform national standard concerning fraud provides no benefit to markets if issuers can, with impunity, fail to ensure that consumers receive truthful, complete information on which to base investment decisions. Specifically, my support rests on the presumption that the liability standard was not altered by either the 1995 Act or this legislation. I strongly endorse the Report which accompanies this legislation, which states clearly that nothing in the 1995 legislation changed either the scienter standard or the previous pleading standards associated with the most stringent rules, those of the Second Circuit. The reason such standards were not changed in 1995 is that they are essential to providing adequate investor protection from fraud. I have been deeply troubled by the ruling of several federal district courts which, ignoring the clear legislative history of the 1995 Act, have either changed the requirements of scienter in a fraud case or have invalidated the proper pleading standard for a 10b-5 action. Mr. President, let me be clear: nothing in the act addressed the scienter standard: which has quite rightly been held by every Circuit to rule on the issue to include recklessness. With regard to proper pleadings: the PSLRA requires plaintiffs to plead specific facts ``giving rise to a strong inference'' that the defendants acted with the required state of mind. Prior to the 1995 legislation, some circuit courts allowed scienter to be averred generally. However, the PSLRA's heightened standard was specifically linked to the most stringent pleading standard at the time, that of the Second Circuit. That standard allows a plaintiff to establish a case by either pleading motive and opportunity or recklessness. Mr. President, I believe that SEC Chairman Levitt, who has a lifetime of experience as both an investor and regulator of markets, has been the most articulate concerning the need for a recklessness standard concerning the scienter requirement. In October 21, 1997 testimony before the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials of the House's Committee on Commerce, Chairman Levitt said: In my judgment, eliminating recklessness from the securities anti-fraud laws would be tantamount to eliminating manslaughter from the criminal laws. It would be like saying you have to prove intentional murder or the defendants gets off scot free. . . . If we were to lose the reckless standard, in my judgement, we would leave substantial numbers of the investing public naked to attacks by fraudsters and schemers. In testimony before the Banking Subcommittee Chair by Senator Gramm, on October 29, 1997, Chairman Levitt further articulated his position regarding the impact a loss of recklessness would have. He said: A uniform federal standard that did not include recklessness as a basis for liability would jeopardize the integrity of the securities markets, and would deal a crippling blow to defrauded investors with meritorious claims. A higher scienter standard would lessen the incentives for corporations to conduct a full inquiry into potentially troublesome or embarrassing areas, and thus would threaten the disclosure process that has made our markets a model for nations around the world. I think the danger that a loss of recklessness posses to our citizens and our markets is clear. Mr. President, equally important is a pleading standard that allows victimized investors to recover their losses. The reason for allowing a plaintiff to establish scienter through a pleading of motive and opportunity or recklessness is clear. As one New York Federal District Court has stated, ``a plaintiff realistically cannot be expected to plead a defendant's actual state of mind.'' Since the 1995 Act allows for a stay of discovery pending a defendant's motion to dismiss, requiring a plaintiff to establish actual knowledge of fraud or an intent to defraud in a complaint raises the bar far higher than most legitimately defrauded investors can meet. The SEC has been clear on this point and it has been well recognized by the supporters of both the 1995 and 1998 Acts that neither changed the preexisting standards. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Chairman of the Committee and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, a prime sponsor of this legislation, have today articulated their belief that including reckless behavior in the definition of fraud is essential to the protection of our markets. I join them in their pledge to sponsor legislation should such protections be threatened. As a result, the legislative history of both bills well establishes that the scienter standard, as well as the pleading standard of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, remains totally intact. Therefore, it is now clear that federal district court rulings that have held otherwise are clearly in error. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an analysis, preformed for me by the staff of the SEC, of cases adjudicated under the 1995 Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair. I rise in strong support of S. 1618, the Consumer Anti-Slamming Act of 1998, and I particularly commend Chairman McCain and ranking member Hollings for the bipartisan and professional manner in which they have considered this legislation. I am pleased to have been part of this process, and I thank them very much for considering my suggestions to improve this legislation. Last July 24, again with the assistance of Senators McCain and Hollings, I offered a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which outlined the issue involving slamming and proposed several suggested solutions. That resolution passed unanimously. Today, I support S. 1681 because it goes forward from that resolution to incorporate very pragmatic resolutions to the problem of slamming that is confronting so many consumers across this country. I would also like to thank the National Association of Attorneys General as well as the National Association of Regulatory Utilities Commissioners for their assistance. These organizations and their members are fighting this epidemic of slamming at the State level. They are doing a remarkable job, and they were very helpful to me in preparing my legislation and helping me understand the scope of this problem. We have taken great strides in our economy by deregulating many of our formerly regulated utilities, particularly the telephone companies, but all of that deregulation is for naught if we cannot give consumers real valid choice. And the problem with slamming is it denies consumers real choice. In effect, it tricks them into making choices that are not beneficial to them or collectively to our society and our economy. We have to do something about it. I am very pleased that this legislation takes very pragmatic and effective steps to stop this curse of slamming, the illegal switching of telephone services. And this is an enormous problem throughout our economy. It threatens to rob many, many consumers of the benefits of deregulation and of a free market for services like telephone service. The Federal Communications Commission indicates that slamming is their No. 1 reported fraud. In my home State of Rhode Island, it is the top consumer issue in terms of telephone service and other consumer issues. Yet all of these very impressive statistics may be just the tip of the iceberg, because press reports indicate that many, many more people are victims of slamming, but they do not have either the knowledge or the inclination under present rules and regulations to report these cases of slamming. Indeed, one regional telephone carrier estimated that 1 in 20 changes of telephone service is a result of fraud. Slamming is a multimillion-dollar fraud problem, and today, under the leadership of Senator McCain and Senator Hollings, we are addressing this problem head on. One of the aspects of the issue is that there are numerous consumers who are unaware of the fact that they are victims. Forty-one percent of these individuals, of those who have been affected by slamming, do not report the incidents to regulatory authorities or anyone. When a complaint is logged, it is usually logged with a local telephone carrier; in my case, in upper Rhode Island, it is Bell Atlantic. Now, these local carriers do try to resolve the problem, but often they do not have the tools or the ability to do so, and as a result, the consumer is left a victim of the slammer. When consumers do report these problems and try to take action, under the present regime it is usually a long and frustrating process to get any relief, if you get any relief at all. Now, State attorneys general and public utility commissions throughout this country are annually receiving hundreds of thousands of complaints. More than half the State attorneys general have tried to take steps to go to court to bring to justice these slammers using the fraud laws of their State. Unfortunately, these legal actions are cumbersome, lengthy, and often do not really reach the heart of the matter and bring the culprits to justice. A smaller percentage of victims of slamming will seek relief not at the State level but they will go to the Federal Communications Commission. Last year, 44,000 individuals brought slamming complaints to the FCC. That is a 175 percent increase over complaints in 1996. You can see this is an epidemic that needs to be dealt with decisively, and I am pleased that we are doing that. Now, the FCC does investigate these complaints, but they are hampered by a lack of proof concerning slamming. They are hampered by not having the kind of record that is necessary to prove definitively that an individual has been a victim of slamming. This legislation goes a long way to ensure that all of our regulatory authorities at every level of Government have the tools to ensure that they can root out slamming in our economy. First, this legislation places a more stringent requirement on phone companies before they can switch a consumer's service. The bill requires verification that the consumer, first, understands service will be changed; second, the consumer affirms his or her intent to change service and also indicates that he or she is authorized to switch service. We have heard lots of evidence of phone companies--slammers, really-- calling up, finding a 12- or 13-year-old child in the house, and talking to that child and using that as what they claim is appropriate authorization to switch service. Under this legislation, those types of practices will not be allowed. Also, the legislation requires that the entire verification process must be recorded and also provided to the consumer upon request, so that if it is a 12-year-old in the house that is giving the OK to switch, the parent can quickly determine that from the recorded record and make a correction. Now, the other protection that is provided here is that the bill requires that carriers inform a consumer in clear and unambiguous language within 15 days that a switch has been authorized. Many times, consumers do not realize their phone service has been switched until they get, 30 days later, a bill from a company that they have never heard of claiming that they are now their primary telephone carrier. Now, this whole verification process will go a very long way in preventing the abuses that we have seen. No longer can slammers use ambiguous or fraudulent verification scripts, essentially tricking consumers into agreeing. Additionally, slammers can't go ahead and conjure up and splice together different bits of pieces of an authorization or conversation to say, ``That is the proof you agreed to switch your service.'' Because of the requirement for a recorded record, that will not be possible. This bill clearly says and makes as a clear standard that without proper verification, without a record, the carrier is in violation of law if they switch services and there cannot be any more assertions by these carriers that, ``Well, someone told us it was OK in the house, but we don't have the record. Someone authorized it, but we don't know who it was.'' They are now in a position where they have to show clearly that they have the verification. Also, this legislation provides for avenues of redress for consumers. First, the consumer can take the issue up with the unauthorized carrier, and they are required to respond appropriately, within at least 4 months, in terms of justifying the switch or making some type of amends to the consumer. Second, a slamming victim can take their case to the Federal Communications Commission. Now, the FCC has additional authority to fine and to penalize slamming. Finally, a consumer who is frustrated can, once again, take his petition under State law to State commissions. Indeed, one aspect of the legislation that is very positive is, there is no preemption of State laws. We recognize that attorneys general and utility commissioners can and must have the ability to work hand and hand with the Federal Government to root out this problem of slamming. Altogether, this is very important legislation that provides the necessary consumer protections, that makes the goal and objective of deregulation in a market where consumers choose a reality, and puts up strong barriers against those who would trick consumers and rob them of the choice that deregulation offers, the choice of the best service for them, their free choice. Once again, let me commend Chairman McCain and ranking member Hollings for their work on this. I am hopeful that we can move expeditiously to passage and that this bill will shortly be law and we can protect the American consumer against slamming. I yield my time. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Conference Report on S. 1150, the Agricultural, Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. Certainly, there are a number of important issues addressed in this bill, but none more critical than the provisions that would restore food stamp benefits to many elderly, children, and disabled legal immigrants. While I am pleased that over 70 Senators joined the effort to bring this Conference Report to the floor, I am disappointed that action on such an important and bipartisan bill has been needlessly delayed. My colleagues have demonstrated overwhelming support for this Conference Report. Like many of my colleagues, I was deeply concerned about provisions of the 1996 welfare reform law which denied benefits to legal immigrants, particularly children, the disabled, and the elderly. The welfare reform law was necessary to help people move from dependency to work, but it was not perfect. That is why we worked to restore Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid to legal immigrants in last year's balanced budget agreement. With the Agricultural Research Conference Report, we take another important step to address the needs of our most vulnerable legal immigrants. Some states, including my home state of Rhode Island, have provided temporary benefits to fill the void created by the welfare reform law, but a permanent and uniform federal solution is needed for this group of immigrants. Under the Conference Report, food stamp benefits would be restored to those legal immigrants who were in the United States when the welfare reform law went into effect on August 22, 1996, if they met certain conditions such as: (1) they are or become disabled; (2) they are children; or (3) they were over 65 years old at the time the welfare reform law was enacted. In addition, the Conference Report restores food stamp eligibility to Hmong immigrants. While this Conference Report does not restore benefits to all legal immigrants, it is a positive and essential first step. Mr. President, our nation has prospered from the tremendous contributions of immigrants who have strengthened our economy and brought vitality to our communities. Today, we have the opportunity to restore benefits to children, elderly, and disabled legal immigrants-- many of whom have worked and paid U.S. taxes. I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit and support the Conference Report on S. 1150.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 2676, the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. This bill is the product of an extensive examination of the IRS that began with the June 1997 release of a report by the National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service, and ended with recent Finance Committee hearings on taxpayer abuse by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). I am pleased that H.R. 2676 incorporates a number of key recommendations from the National Commission's report, such as IRS restructuring and the establishment of an Oversight Board. I believe restructuring the IRS will enable the agency to meet the particular needs of taxpayers such as individuals, small businesses, large businesses, and tax-exempt organizations, and be more responsive to each group's particular concerns. In addition to incorporating recommendations from the Commission report, the bill includes provisions to address taxpayer abuse and mismanagement practices by IRS that came to light during the Finance Committee's hearings. I was, along with most other Americans, very disturbed by the anecdotes of taxpayer abuse that were presented at the hearings. To the extent that H.R. 2676 will address these problems, I am very pleased to support the bill. Notwithstanding my strong support for many of this bill's provisions, I do have concerns about its projected cost of $19.3 billion over 10 years. Mr. President, this is triple the cost of the House-passed version of H.R. 2676. Although the bill includes offsets which purport to make the bill revenue-neutral, these offsets are a ticking time bomb that will explode beyond the 10 year budget window. For example, a provision modifying IRA rollover rules will raise $8 billion between 2003 and 2007. However, this provision will cost the Treasury a yet-to- be determined amount of revenue after 2007. I find it difficult to vote on a proposal that we know will be costly in the long-term, without having a definitive sense of its budgetary impact. When coupling the rollover provision with provisions included in the Taxpayer Relief Act that are phased-in through 2007, such as capital gains tax cuts, ``back loaded'' IRAs, and estate tax cuts, it becomes clear that there will be significant pressures on the federal budget after 2007. I believe that these provisions could seriously compromise maintenance of a balanced budget. In addition, these provisions could greatly complicate our efforts to address the long-term solvency issues associated with the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. Finally, Mr. President, I have concerns that the bill could compromise the ability of the IRS to carry out its core mission-- enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code. For example, the enhanced appeal provisions in the bill may unintentionally make it easier for noncompliant taxpayers to avoid paying the appropriate taxes. Similarly, I am concerned that shifting the burden of proof in certain circumstances will undermine enforcement efforts and have the unintended consequence of making audits more intrusive. Mr. President, while I am supportive of H.R. 2676, I am hopeful that we can work in Conference to address the concerns that I have raised, which are share by the Administration. Ultimately, I believe it is possible to pass a strong IRS restructuring bill that can address taxpayer concerns, without busting the budget or undermining the mission of the IRS.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, it will be way under that.

Mr. REED. I will finish within 10 minutes, or maybe much less.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today we are engaged in a very important debate about the reform of the IRS, but there is another very crucial debate that we also must consider and recognize, and that is the debate about the future of our health care system in the United States-- particularly the managed care health care system, which is becoming so prominent in America today. I am particularly concerned that children should also be part of this debate and that they deserve the same consumer protections that many have talked about in the context of adult health care plans. Managed care, as we all recognize, plays a very important and critical role in our health care delivery system and has provided many benefits. But we also hear repeatedly about instances in which patients--particularly children--are not served as well as they should be by managed care. I recall one child who was brought to my attention in Rhode Island. A young child, Morgan Smith, was born in Rhode Island November of 1993. Shortly after her fourth birthday, Morgan was diagnosed with Rhabdomyosarcoma, a cancer that attacks any smooth muscle in the body, including blood vessels. They detected this cancer in Morgan's brain. She was indeed faced with a critical, life-threatening brain tumor. We are fortunate in Rhode Island because we have an excellent children's hospital, Hasbro Children's Hospital in Providence, which is the hospital where Morgan was diagnosed. The pediatric oncologists there determined that the best treatment for Morgan would be to go to the New England Regional Medical Center in Boston for specialized chemotherapy. Now, her mother, obviously, was willing to do anything to treat her child and have the best benefits for her child. At that point, the insurance company denied her the ability to bring her child to Boston and requested that they get a second opinion. They got that second opinion; it was the same as the first opinion. However, the HMO still refused to authorize the treatment necessary for that 4- year-old child to receive life-saving therapy in Boston. Mrs. Smith literally had to wage war against the HMO to make her point. At the time, she was absolutely crushed by the prospect of her young child being stricken with a life-threatening brain tumor. She determined on her own to go to Boston regardless of the consequences, risking her financial future, risking all of the resources that she had, while also having to provide for her other children. Nevertheless, she was bound and determined to provide for Morgan. Fortunately, this story has a happy ending. About a month after pleading by Mrs. Smith, and by others, the insurance company relented and she was granted permission to have the treatment conducted in Boston. And the child is doing very well. That is merely one example of the stories we are hearing constantly about managed care and its inability at times to provide the kind of care that most parents think they should get when they pay good money, or their employer pays good money, for these managed care plans. There have been studies in parts of the country suggesting that the managed care plans are not best suited, in many cases, for children. A study in California by Elizabeth Jameson at the University of California compared managed care plans with the State's Medicaid plan for children. Medicaid plans are sometimes stereotyped as the low-cost and, by inference, low-quality health care. This study, however, found that in many respects children in California's Medicaid Program were getting better pediatric care than those enrolled in managed care plans in the State. The study found, for example, that some of the managed care plans imposed restrictions on referrals to pediatric specialists. They also found that many plan providers were attempting to deal with very complicated pediatric conditions with which they had little experience. As a result of the anecdotal evidence, as a result of the statistical studies and surveys that have been done in parts of the country, I have introduced S. 1808, the Children's Health Insurance Accountability Act. It is designed to provide an opportunity for children's health to be considered and focused on in a managed care plan. This act would provide common sense protections for children in managed care plans-- protections, for example, that would ensure that a family has access to necessary pediatric services; that they would have appeal rights and special conditions with respect to children; that they would have quality programs that measure outcomes with respect to children and not just to adults; that there would be utilization review rules that be geared toward children and not just to adults; that there would be child-specific information in terms of the sale of these plans on care provided to children. There are so many parents who buy plans and think they have coverage for their kid, only to discover in a time of crisis that the coverage is not what they thought it was. My legislation would put that information up front. What I have done with respect to children is consistent with a much broader class of legislation that is attempting to reform managed care for the entire population of patients. The Health Care Bill of Rights, for example, introduced by my Democratic colleagues, is one such plan. My legislation is consistent with this overall thrust to ensure that managed care continues to operate for the benefit of patients, that operates by allowing physicians to provide advice, and not accountants, to control the diagnosis and the application of health care. With respect to children, again, the American people are strongly supportive of proposals to give better access through managed care for pediatric services. In a February 1998 poll by the firm of Lake, Sosin, Snell, Perry and Associates and the Tarrance Group--two pollsters, one Democrat and one Republican--it was found that 89 percent of adults surveyed favored having ``Congress require HMOs and other insurance companies to allow parents to choose a pediatrician as their child's primary care physician.'' And 90 percent favored having ``Congress require HMOs and other insurance companies to allow parents of children with special care needs, like cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis, or severe asthma, to choose a pediatric specialist to be their child's primary care physician.'' There is overwhelming public support for these provisions that will allow parents to truly and wisely choose coverage for their children and have the ability to have pediatric specialists care for their children. Again, this is consistent with a theme, a message, and a responsibility that we all have; that is, to move in this time decisively, with determination, to ensure that we reform the managed care system, that we provide the benefits of managed care in terms of preventive services; in terms of access to physicians, that we do it in a way that physicians know they are providing the best care for their patients and that the consumers of health care know that they can have access to good-quality care. The time to act is now. I join many of my colleagues on an almost daily basis in urging that we take up this matter quickly and that we move forward decisively and pass comprehensive managed care for all of our citizens, but particularly for our children. I thank you, Mr. President. I yield my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this morning I rise in support of the Workforce Investment Partnership Act. This bill was unanimously passed out of the Labor and Human Resources Committee. It is good and sensible legislation, crafted in a bipartisan fashion. I commend Subcommittee Chairman DeWine and Senator Wellstone as well as Chairman Jeffords and Ranking Member Kennedy for their excellent leadership. There is one section in this legislation of particular importance to me; one that I believe merits special attention. If this body is successful in passing S. 1886, this program will benefit greatly. The section I am referring to is Job Corps. Job Corps is America's only national residential education and training program for at risk youths. I emphasize only, Mr. President, because my colleagues need to be aware that there is no other program that annually assists more than 65,000 of this country's most disadvantaged young men and women to become meaningful and productive members of society. Job Corps is the largest and most comprehensive program that offers a second chance to those who would otherwise be left behind. The young men and women who make a commitment to themselves and the Job Corps program deserve our support. This program ensures them access to educational and vocational training, fully preparing them to meet the needs of this country's employers. Indeed, a recent survey of small businesses indicated that a lack of trained employees is the largest current impediment to business growth. As a result, the Job Corps program provides invaluable assistance not only to disadvantaged youth, but also to employers and the host communities of Job Corps centers, which benefit from community service projects completed by students. This bill represents a comprehensive Congressional effort to enhance all components of the Job Corps program. Great pains have been taken to create a continuum from the day a Job Corps student is recruited into the program to the day that student starts his or her job, and beyond. Mr. President, let me take a minute to expand on these improvements. Job Corps has been and continues to be a model for other education and training programs. The placement rate of the program is phenomenal: this year over 80% of Job Corps graduates will be placed in good paying jobs, enter the military, or go onto post-secondary education. The performance measurement standards of Job Corps have long been praised for being thorough and rigorous. These demanding standards have stimulated the program's ongoing self-assessment and improvement over the years. Thanks to this legislation, Job Corps' performance standards can serve as a model for other programs. With enactment of this bill, all programs under WIPA will be challenged to increase their performance and accountability to achieve the results Job Corps does. Mr. President, support for this legislation will help Job Corps become even better. First, with this legislation, Job Corps will become a core partner with one-stop training centers, making sure that every young, disadvantaged person walking into a neighborhood one-stop site will learn about this program and know it is an option. If the young person is ready to commit to his or her future, pledging not to drink or take drugs, the program is ready to offer an intensive, self-paced, state of the art education and training. Second, every Job Corps campus will form partnerships with the private sector in order to develop training programs suitable for available, local employment; identify job opportunities for students; and help integrate the Job Corps campus and facilities into the fabric of a community. Third, a stringent process will be put in place to ensure that poor performing centers are quickly identified and offered help to improve their performance. Finally, every year, Congress will receive a report on the program's performance that will include how many students graduated from each center and from which trade, how many were employed, their wages when hired, and what these students are making a year later. This kind of information will be instrumental to make sure we improve upon the success that has been Job Corps' for more than 30 years. Mr. President, in the Administration's current budget President Clinton has followed the initiative taken by Congress last year to moderately expand the program. Support for such expansion was demonstrated overwhelmingly when forty-one of my colleagues joined me in a letter to Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Harkin in support of this budget increase. Job Corps gains this breadth of support in Congress because Members are aware of the positive impact it has on literally millions of lives. This legislation improves upon a program with a demonstrated record of success. Therefore, Members can be confident that the program will continue to serve more disadvantaged young people with as high a rate of success. It is my hope, Mr. President, that soon the Job Corps program will become truly national, with a center in every state of our nation. My home state of Rhode Island is currently involved in the application process for a center. Our Governor, local elected officials, employers, educational institutions, and civic organizations have all committed to developing a high-performance center in our state. I have been actively working on the federal level to assist them. Thank you, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to support this worthy legislation. amendment no. 2329, as amended

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. For the last several days, this Senate has been considering the expansion of NATO, which is a complicated issue that has profound consequences for the world we live in and for the future and security of the United States. This decision which will shape the security structure of not just Europe, but the entire globe, for decades to come. It will also determine in large part whether new emerging democracies and free markets coming out of the shadow of totalitarianism will perish or flourish. It is not a decision that is without controversy, but it is a decision that I believe we must make in the affirmative, and I will support the expansion of NATO, the underlying legislation that we are debating today. NATO was originally created because unstable conditions in Europe threatened not only the peace of Europe but the security of the United States. In the late 1940s, Europe was still in shambles after World War II. Economies were crumbling, political systems had endured great pressure, and factions arose. There was a very real threat, in fact, that many countries would succumb to the blandishments of communism. The possibility of a Communist victory in Europe was all too real. Communiques between the Soviet Union and the West had broken down. Berlin had been blockaded. Tension was at an all-time high. Communists were battling for control in Greece, France, and Italy; a Communist coup had already taken place in Czechoslovakia. So when 12 countries came together to sign the North Atlantic Treaty Organization protocols, their goal was to protect the peace and stability of Europe and, indeed, the peace and stability of the world. The parties affirmed among themselves that their goal and their commitment was to ensure a peaceful and stable Europe, because within the context of that peace and stability they could begin to rebuild their economies and their democracies, and the strength of those democracies and those economies would truly preserve the peace. As the Foreign Relations Committee stated in its report to the Senate in 1949, NATO would, ``free the minds of men in many nations from a haunting sense of insecurity, and enable them to work and plan with that confidence in the future which is essential to economic recovery and progress.'' In the last 50 years, the signatories' handiwork has borne itself out nobly, effectively, and efficiently. This assurance of peace and security was--and it is important to note--not limited to the original signatories to this treaty. In fact, Article X of the treaty allows for the admittance of new members to NATO. And since it was signed in 1949, NATO has expanded to include Turkey, Greece, Germany, and Spain. In the 50 years since its inception, 50 years of progress and peace and stability in Europe, we have seen a remarkable revival in Western Europe. Their countries have been rebuilt. Their economies are thriving. Historical tensions between France and Germany have been channeled from hostility to cooperation. Although tensions still exist between some NATO partners, such as Greece and Turkey, NATO provides a forum and a place in which they can peacefully and amicably settle these disputes. It has been a resounding success. More importantly, NATO has stemmed the march of communism and contributed significantly to its collapse. Because the true goal of NATO is for European peace and security-- because it was not narrowly focused as any specific set of countries to the exclusion of others at its inception--I think it is appropriate that we consider the applications of those countries who are emerging from the shadow of the Soviet Union. I think it is, in fact, appropriate that we consider the countries of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic because they, too, need that sense of confidence, that sense of stability, that sense of peace that will allow them to build their economies and, perhaps more importantly, build their democracies, so that they, too, can participate in the free assembly of nations in one of the proudest forums, NATO. NATO membership will also help these countries modernize their militaries and better defend themselves. Now, I think most people would concede that this is an appropriate step in terms of the benefits I have listed. However, there are those who question this expansion, question it in terms of NATO having been conceived at a particular moment in history when a particular threat confronted Europe, the threat of an expansionist Soviet Union. Today, that has changed. The Soviet Union has collapsed, and, rightfully, people ask, ``Where is the threat that would motivate and suggest the enlargement of NATO?'' Well, there are still threats to peace, still threats to Europe, still threats to the world community of free nations. In 1991, NATO recognized these changing conditions and authored a new strategic concept. This concept places more emphasis on crisis management, on peacekeeping, and peace enforcement. And it is appropriate and significant to know that these countries who seek admission today-- Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary--are already participating with NATO in this new strategic approach. These countries have contributed approximately 1,500 soldiers to our peacekeeping operations in Bosnia through the Partnership for Peace program. The U.S. offices have been very impressed with the cooperation, the professionalism, and skill of the Hungarians in their operations at our base in Taszar, one of the major marshalling and staging points for our operations in Bosnia. All of these indicate that these countries are cooperating already, are seeking involvement, are seeking engagement, and I believe can benefit from association, integration, and participation in NATO. Also, the expansion of NATO would help to quell the tensions that exist, the historical rivalries that exist, among these new areas emerging from Communist domination. As Secretary Cohen stated, we would ``dampen nationalism and ethnic tensions by bringing new member states into NATO's security framework. The re-nationalization of defense, with a country obtaining weapons of mass destruction, `arming itself against an enemy, real or perceived,' could be averted by enlargement.'' This is an extremely valuable goal and objective. If we leave these countries to their own devices, they very well may feel threatened enough to re-arm themselves, to begin an arms race within that region, that sensitive region between the old NATO boundary line and the lines of the Commonwealth of Independent States. That, I think, would be a real mistake. There are signs already that the prospect of membership in NATO are beginning to provide very, very positive movements to resolve ancient and long-held tensions. For example, Hungary has entered into agreements with Slovakia and Romania, in 1995 and 1996 respectively, guaranteeing the rights of ethnic minorities. This is evidence that the prospect of NATO membership is already producing positive effects within these countries. Again, of great significance is the fact that NATO membership for these countries would, I hope and believe, eliminate the need for them to build up arms independently against perceived threats. If we don't act to accept these countries, they very well could start an arms race in the area that would be detrimental to the peace not only of Europe, but of the world, and add to the tensions in the areas that are sensitive, those areas around the borders of Russia. Having said all this, and having talked about the benefits that are, I think, obtainable through expansion of NATO, it would be, I think, incomplete to suggest that there are not factors which weigh on the other side. There are possible consequences that must be carefully watched with respect to the management of the enlargement of NATO. There are, in fact, valid reservations that have been made with respect to this expansion. One of the major issues that has consistently been brought forward and presented to us is the possible adverse reaction of Russia. Russia is sensitive to the growth of NATO. They have seen for centuries the progress of military forces invading Russia through the plains of Poland. They are sensitive to this. Their sensitivity has been manifested in many different ways. For example, the chairman of the upper House of Russia's Duma has said that START II won't be approved if NATO expands. In October of 1996, the Duma, in fact, passed a resolution opposing enlargement by a vote of 307-0. Russian officials contend that the ``Two plus Four'' treaty which united Germany in 1991 prohibits the expansion of NATO. Although the treaty does not contain such language, there is suggestion by some of our diplomats that, in fact, there was a verbal commitment not to expand NATO. All of these things manifest an opposition to NATO, but there are other signs indicating that Russia is prepared to accept this expansion, they are prepared to accept the integration of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. For example, in May of 1997, in Paris, NATO allies and Russia signed a ``Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security Between NATO and the Russian Federation.'' This Founding Act outlines the nature of the military presence in Eastern Europe upon expansion of NATO, and it also establishes a Permanent Joint Council between NATO and Russia to undertake consultations on matters of mutual interest. Russia also continues to perform under the agreement, START I. In fact, they are taking out and dismantling their nuclear platforms ahead of schedule under START I. Although we must be concerned with the reaction of Russia, I believe with respect to these three countries, Russia is prepared to accept expansion will not undermine our cooperative efforts to disarm the world and also be a force for cooperative peace in the world between the West and Russia. Now, there are signposts ahead which we must be very careful of. The rapid integration, for example, of the Baltic States would send a profound sense of shock to Russia. Any further expansion beyond these three countries must be watched terribly carefully. I think we must be careful as we move forward not to rapidly and precipitously increase membership in NATO. To do so would, I think, undercut the benefits which we are obtaining through this limited expansion to these three countries. Now, there is another issue which has been raised and which is also vitally important, and that is the cost of this expansion. We understand that numbers sometimes are in the eye of the beholder, and the cost figures that have been suggested for NATO expansion range across a very broad spectrum, from $19 billion over 15 years to a mere $1.5 billion over 10 years. Now, the CBO estimates are the most pessimistic. Their numbers for expansion would see total costs over 15 years for all of NATO expansion as roughly $61 billion to $125 billion, with our share about $5 billion to $19 billion. The Rand Corporation has weighed in. They have estimated over 15 years a total cost of $14 billion to $110 billion. The administration's costs also show a wide variability. Again, NATO itself has projected probably the lowest cost, $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion. All of this suggests that the issue of costs--and, more importantly, who pays for it--is vitally important to our considerations and is an issue we must continually watch and be very careful about. The bulk of these costs belong to those nations who are joining, but I think we have to question whether they have the economies to sustain such costs despite their best indications and willingness to do so. Our allies also must be a source of burden sharing as we go forward, but many of their comments suggest that they have an unwillingness to do more than what they are obligated to do. President Chirac has stated that, ``France has no intention of increasing its contribution to cover NATO enlargement.'' Even though all of the NATO countries accepted their NATO cost estimate, we recognize that estimate is most optimistic in terms of cost. We must be very concerned about this. But at this juncture, I think that will be a factor that, in and of itself, should not prevent the expansion from going forward. We have to assume that costs will be incurred. We have to vigorously, through our efforts, ensure that they are fairly borne by all parties. We have to also do that in the context of our own national defense priorities and an increasingly tight defense budget. But I believe we can work through these issues and we can, in fact, ensure that the costs are not excessive and, in fact, they are fairly borne. There is another set of issues that we face and that we should consider today, and that is the challenges of interoperability. The quality of NATO must be maintained. It is, today, the preeminent coalition force in the world. We have demonstrated that in Bosnia. But we are finding in these new entrants--Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary--armies that have aging Soviet equipment, armies that are heavy with high-ranking military officers without well-trained and, in many cases, noncommissioned officers. Another factor is that these countries' pilots will typically fly only 40 to 60 hours in a year, whereas NATO requires at least 180. Communications is an issue. The language of NATO is English, yet reports are that many countries have not yet provided the kind of training and upgrading that is necessary so that their officers can speak English fluently and can participate effectively in NATO. I think these obstacles can be overcome. NATO, in the past, has reached out and embraced new countries, many times embracing those countries that have equipment problems, that have different cultural and language bases than those in Western Europe. I think we can do it today. But, once again, we have to be very careful that we when do this, that we do it appropriately. Let me just, once again, emphasize a point that is very important. Today's expansion--the acceptance and integration of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic--I hope does not set off a rush to judgment with respect to other countries. These three countries have a history that is very closely related to Western Europe. These three countries have already shown their commitment to democracy, to free market economies. These three countries have much in common with the culture of Western Europe, which is at the core of the NATO experience. So I strongly suggest that whatever we do with respect to expansion today, we do not presume to rush into further expansion tomorrow. Quick entry of more members will compound all of the problems I talked about--problems of costs, interoperability, the north-south relationship within NATO. Today I will support the integration of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, but I would be very wary of the integration of other countries into NATO. In conclusion, I want to say that we have had a very thoughtful and principled debate on this issue. This is not an easy decision; it is a very important decision. Back in 1949, when the United States first joined NATO, it was also a momentous occasion, one that was noted in the biography of President Harry Truman by David McCullough. Back then, he wrote that joining NATO ``marked a radical departure with tradition--the first peacetime military alliance since the signing of the Constitution--but had such an agreement existed in 1914 and 1939, Truman was convinced, the world would have been spared two terrible wars.'' The past 50 years have proven President Truman right. NATO has allowed democracy and free markets to thrive, has allowed peace to be maintained within Europe, and that peace has inspired others within the former Soviet Union. Today we have another opportunity. I hope that the expansion of NATO, the entry of these three new countries into NATO, will provide the same stability, the same peace, well into the 21st century. Today, if we do in fact move forward and vote for the expansion, we take on a very solemn and important obligation, and that is to make this expansion work for peace and stability of the world, to ensure that we have not only the plan but the resources to ensure that NATO continues to be a force for peace in Europe and around the world. I believe we can do that. I believe we must do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the 83rd anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Old and young around the world today remember the Armenian holocaust. We remember that on this date in 1915, the Ottoman Empire and the successor Turkish nationalist regime began a brutal policy of deportation and murder. Over the next eight years, 1.5 million Armenians would be massacred at the hands of the Turks and another 500,000 would have their property confiscated and be driven from their homeland. Although it seems that the world stood silent while the Armenian population was devastated, a few witnesses did try to tell the terrible story. In 1919, Henry Morganthau, Sr., the American Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, published a memoir which extensively detailed what he had seen and heard in Turkey during the previous six years. Of the events of the genocide, Ambassador Morgenthau wrote, ``I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915.'' Last August, I had the opportunity to visit Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. I was able to see the treasures of that land firsthand and pay tribute to the indomitable spirit of the people of Armenia. One morning I toured the Genocide Monument and Museum in Yerevan and then stood by the eternal flame while a vocalist sang a haunting solo. It was the most moving moment of my visit. My trip to the Transcaucasus made it clear that despite having already undergone such terrible persecution and hardship, the people of the Armenian Republic still suffer today. The economy is struggling and the area has still not recovered from the 1988 earthquake. The Karabagh conflict remains unresolved and Turkey continues to blockade humanitarian aid to Armenia. However, the Armenian people remain resilient, hopeful, and an inspiration to others. In Armenia, they continue their quest for peace and democracy. Just last month, the residents of Armenia showed their commitment to democracy when they participated in the third presidential election since independence in 1991. In America, many communities, like those in my home state of Rhode Island, are enriched by the traditions of Armenians who have immigrated to our shores. Because Armenia is a part of our world and persons of Armenian descent are members of our community, we must remain committed to always remember the Armenian genocide. As Peter Balakian, author of the critically acclaimed ``Black Dog of Fate'', wrote: Commemoration is an essential process for the bereaved and for the inheritors of the legacy of genocide. It is a process of making meaning out of unthinkable horror and loss. The burden of bereavement can be alleviated if shared and witnessed by a larger community. Only then can redemption, hope and community be achieved. Menk panav chenk mornar.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to honor Brigadier General Joseph N. Waller on the occasion of his retirement from the Rhode Island Air National Guard. For the past thirty-one years, General Waller has dedicated himself to the citizens of our country and the Ocean state. He was first assigned to the 143rd Special Operations Squadron in July 1967 as a troop carrier pilot. The next year he was assigned as a tactical airlift pilot, a duty he performed for the next twenty-three years. During this time, he also served as a flight leader and instructor pilot. General Waller is a command pilot who has logged 4,500 flying hours. General Waller is noted not only for his piloting skills, but also for his leadership. In 1981, he was selected as commander of the 143rd Tactical Airlift Squadron. In December 1987, he was reassigned to Headquarters, Rhode Island National Guard and named Deputy Chief of Staff. Three years later he became Chief of Staff. The very next year he was elevated to the position of Assistant Adjutant General, the position he holds today. General Waller chairs the Eastern Region of the Air National Guard Long Range Planning Process and serves as the Air National Guard Assistant of Strategic Planning to the US Air Force Long Range Planning Office. He is well suited to these positions because during his thirty years in the Rhode Island National Guard, General Waller has witnessed and provided leadership through immense change. When General Waller first joined the Guard in the 1960s, the United States was immersed in turmoil both at home and abroad. The goals and role of the military in the states and overseas were confused and conflicted. During the next decade, the United States moved to an all volunteer force, fundamentally changing the nature of the Guard. Then in the 1980s, military goals and perspectives shifted again during an enormous buildup which peaked in 1985 with a record budget of $300 billion. Now, once again, the Guard is adjusting to new era of reduced force structure, budget constraints, and base closures. Members of the Guard no longer train one weekend a month and two weeks each summer. Instead, they participate 110-120 days a year and work side-by-side with their active duty colleagues on missions in countries around the world. General Waller has been through it all and has never wavered from the core values of the Guard: integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all that is done. General Waller is clearly an outstanding soldier. His military awards and decorations include the Legion of Merit; Meritorious Service Medal with two bronze oak leaf clusters; Air Force Commendation Medal; Air Force Achievement Medal; Outstanding Unit Award; Combat Readiness medal with three bronze oak leaf clusters; National Defense Service Medal with one star; Air Force Longevity Service Award Ribbon with one silver and three bronze oak leaf clusters; Armed Forces Reserve medal with gold hourglass; Small Arms Expert Markmanship Ribbon; Air Force Training Ribbon; Rhode Island Star with one oak leaf cluster; Rhode Island Defense Medal; and Rhode Island National Guard Service Medal with eagle and ``V'' device. General Waller is also an outstanding citizen. He is the devoted husband of Carol, the loving father of Wendy, Jay and Jill and the proud grandfather of three boys. Throughout the years he has also given to his community as a Boy Scout Master and a Sunday school teacher. General Waller rose from the enlisted ranks and has occupied and succeeded at virtually every level of command. He inspired and empowered those around him. He cares deeply for the Guard and the people in it. We are honored by the legacy he leaves behind and aspire to ensure that General Waller is always proud of the Guard in the future.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut. I think it illustrates two important points. First, the huge gap between what the Federal Government promised in terms of special education support to the States and what was delivered. Even though, as the Senator from Georgia pointed out, we are trying to do better, we can do much better. And using these resources rather than engaging in the private savings plan as the Senator from Georgia proposes, but using these resources to assist special education, I think, will be the best way to use these dollars. The second point I think the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut illustrates is the critical role that public education plays in our country, because these students--typically these disabled students--are all public education students. Private facilities don't take these individuals typically because they can't afford them and they think they are disruptive. That is the essence of private education. They can pick and choose. A public school cannot. We have committed ourselves in this Congress to ensure that every child in this country, regardless of ability or disability, has a free, excellent public education. But what that means in practice is that our public schools have to respond to large numbers of special education students, something to which private education does not respond. That is, I think, at the heart of this debate. If we are going to have a public school system that we expect to give education to all of our citizens, then we cannot siphon off resources to private education in the way that is proposed by these savings accounts. We have to match our orders and commands to the schools of America and to educate all of our citizens with resources. This amendment does that. It preserves a program that we have all stood up and said is vitally important to this country, both educationally and socially--and that is special education --and it does so by reinforcing public education. That is the way we should proceed. I commend the Senator from Connecticut for his efforts in regard to this amendment today.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me continue by again commending the Senator from Illinois. It goes right to the heart of what we do materially to aid the States and localities in the United States in providing for excellent public education and excellent education overall. The statistics that we have seen about crumbling schools in the United States is staggering. Just recently, the American Society of Civil Engineers concluded that our schools are in the worst condition of any of America's infrastructure. We know that because we go back to our States and to our communities every weekend and we see these buildings. Just yesterday I was in the Providence Street Elementary School in West Warwick, RI. The reason I went there is because this is an excellent elementary school, one of two elementary schools in Rhode Island accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges. I was talking to the principal and his staff. They do wonderful things. I asked them: What is the biggest problem in this school? They said, without hesitation, the facilities. The main building of the Providence Street School was built in 1914 onto a wooden structure. But in 1969 the school department acquired a parochial school across the street. The classes are operating in both of these schools. Schoolchildren--first graders, second graders, third graders, and fourth graders--have to cross a busy thoroughfare each and every day to change classes. There is no room in the old building, the 1914 building, to accommodate the new technology. The heating system does not work. Yet, this is a wonderful school. That is just an example of one school in my State. I could go on and on and on. In Woonsocket, the Harris School was built in 1876, the year that George Custer met his fate at Little Bighorn. It is still operating. The Thompson Middle School in Newport, RI, part of it was built in 1898. These schools need help. These communities need help. This is not just about improving the academic quality, which I think it could do dramatically; it is also assisting taxpayers. More and more of our constituents are coming up to us and telling us they cannot afford to support increased property taxes that support schools in their communities. If we want to do anything constructive, pragmatic, and useful to help not only the schools of America but the taxpayers of all the towns and cities of America, then we will support this legislation because it will directly assist them in their efforts. The proposal that Senator Moseley-Braun has submitted is an ingenious way to use Federal resources to promote public education at the local level. Once again, we require the initiative of the locality. They will have to decide what schools will be fixed up. They will have to go to their communities and ask for bond authority to do it. But we would by paying the interest to allow these communities to get the resources to make the investment to fix the schools, to provide the education which we know is at the heart not only of the individual progress of the next generation of Americans but the progress of our Nation, because without good schools, without schools that are at least sanitary, that at least have the ability to accept modern equipment, without this minimal level of adequacy, we cannot expect children to learn to be not only productive members of our economy in the 21st century but to be productive citizens of the 21st century. This is the way to proceed-- not by disseminating Federal resources in tax plans to aid private schools but by allowing the local communities to use their initiative to issue bonds with Federal help to fund, repair, and renovate schools. This is what our constituents want. This is what we must do to improve public education in this country. I thank the Senator for her recommendation of this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield my time.