Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, may I say thank you again, Senator Byrd, for your vote and for your comments. They are always very enlightening.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Senator Daschle and I both want to join in once again commending and recognizing the tremendous record that Senator Byrd of West Virginia has made to the U.S. Senate. Senator Byrd just cast his 15,000th vote--15,000th vote. (Applause, Senators rising.) He continues to hold the Senate record of total number of votes cast. Therefore, out of the 1,843 Senators past and present, he is No. 1 in total number of votes cast. He broke the record when he cast his 12,134th vote on April 27, 1990. As an aside, Senator Thurmond is No. 2 on the all-time list at 14,863 votes. These Senators set a torrid pace that the rest of us probably would not even want to try to replicate. Thank you, Senator Byrd, for the example and the tremendous record you have set.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Let me say, you certainly have. You have been very responsible and you have been very cooperative, but you also made very clear your determination on this amendment. I understand that, and I am going to try to help you find a way to get it done.

Mr. LOTT. Thank you very much. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today we begin our second day of floor debate on legislation to rein in the Internal Revenue Service. As hearings demonstrated last week, once again, the IRS is an agency with real problems. I should note, again, it has a job to do. It is not an easy job. We acknowledge that. We also have to give credit to those IRS employees who work hard, do an honest job, and don't target people for unnecessary audits or try to set up laundering schemes, things of that nature. A lot of IRS employees have put their own jobs on the line and have endured a lot of harassment because they have said there are problems here. We heard from a number of them last week who came in. In fact, one lady came in, she is chief of a division, and complained about the slowness or inaction by the Deputy Commissioner of IRS where there has been misconduct within the IRS. It seems when complaints or problems develop and recommendations are made, they are put in a desk somewhere, or on a desk, and they seem to just disappear. It was an IRS agent who came and said the Deputy Commissioner is not following up on things. We had a panel of IRS agents who came in and talked about the problems they had found. IRS agents are the ones who pointed out there had been targeted audits of people like Senator Howard Baker. It was three IRS agents who were, in effect, punished or moved because they said there is a rogue agent here out of control doing something that is wrong and illegal. So a lot of IRS workers are the ones who have brought these matters to our attention. The most compelling testimony, though, last week, for me, involved small businessmen who had been raided unfairly. Some of them still, obviously, are emotionally distraught over what they had to endure. One of them was a man by the name of John Colaprete. Mr. Colaprete is a small businessman, a restaurant owner, in Virginia Beach, VA. He told the Senate Finance Committee how the IRS almost destroyed his business. This morning you will get a chance to hear his story in his own words. I am going to read his testimony because it was so compelling. I fear a lot of Senators did not hear his testimony, and a lot of the American people didn't hear it, but this is just one of the three. I know there are many others in the country. This is the type of thing that is being done by the Criminal Investigation Unit at IRS that has to be reined in. My name is John Colaprete. I'm from Virginia Beach, and I'm in the restaurant business. I'm also a husband, a father, and veteran, having served my country proudly as a U.S. Marine Corps captain from 1965 to 1969. I have never been in any sort of trouble with the law, and I believe that every American has an obligation to pay their fair share of income taxes. I have never failed to meet that obligation. I have always considered myself both patriotic and a law- abiding citizen. I will always be a law-abiding citizen. However, I feel I have literally been punished for upholding the laws of the nation I swore an allegiance to honor and defend. Four years ago, I employed a bookkeeper in my restaurant who eventually embezzled approximately $40,000.00 from the business. She went to prison for her crimes, but not before turning my life, and the lives of countless others, upside down. With the full cooperation of the Internal Revenue Service, this woman, a multiple felon, who already had an outstanding warrant for her arrest, managed not once but twice, to victimize me, my family, partners, employees, patrons and others in the business community who depended upon me and my business. This dance with the Devil began in March of 1994, when my partner and I became aware that we were being swindled by our bookkeeper. When we discovered substantial shortages in our accounts, we confronted her, and she admitted to stealing from our business. She told us she would make restitution. Unfortunately, rather than make restitution, she sought shelter with the IRS and told them a fantastic tale of money laundering, gun running and drug dealing by my partner and me. Little did I know that the IRS would spend less than 48 hours investigating my bookkeeper's allegations before conducting raids on my business, my home, and the home of my manager. Little did I know that the government I had so proudly served would accept these allegations to be true, despite the alarming lack of substantiation, probable cause, or proof of any sort whatsoever. Little did I know that the IRS, when faced with the outrageous claim that I had thousands of pounds of cocaine stored like cordwood in my office, would subscribe to a policy of Guilty Until Proven Innocent. Unfortunately, in the case of the IRS, I now know this is standard operating procedure when dealing with law-abiding taxpayers. This wasn't a matter of an honest mistake; in fact, a recently retired FBI agent divulged in a deposition taken for the case that I have pending against the IRS, that he had advised all involved to be skeptical about the claims of my accuser. The FBI specifically declined to become involved, and in the words of one of its agents, the whole story sounded like a ``Grade B'' movie. On the morning that both my home and business were raided-- raids executed solely on the word of my ex-bookkeeper--I was in a church for the occasion of my son's first holy communion. Armed agents, accompanied by drug-sniffing dogs, stormed my restaurant during breakfast, ordered patrons out of the restaurant and interrogated my employees. The IRS impounded my records, my cash registers, and my computers. Since the raids, we managed to get up and running, despite what can easily be perceived as our own government's best attempts to put us out of business. Today, I still wonder how such a thing can happen, but I know it does. And I'd like you to know that for every taxpayer like me--those who have survived armed assaults on our businesses and our homes--there are perhaps several thousands of taxpayers who, in fear, lick their wounds, tally their losses, and consider themselves lucky that the IRS has finally left them alone, their innocence notwithstanding. I have nothing to hide, and I will never consider myself lucky when I ponder the events of the last four years. As for the taxpayers who have suffered similar injustices at the hands of the IRS, I hear from these people every week. They seek me out and relate horror stories that, at one time, would have evoked from me nothing more than simple skepticism. I used to believe that such things could only happen in a Communist bloc country, or a police state. I don't believe that anymore. When the raid occurred at my home, the front foor was torn from the hinges. My dogs were impounded, along with my safe and 12 years of my personal income tax returns and supporting documents. When that safe was finally returned, an heirloom watch that I had received as a gift from my father was missing. In the aftermath of the raid, I returned to find my home in shambles. It was as if I had been burglarized, both in appearance and in the sense of having been grossly violated. While my restaurant and my home were being raided by armed agents of the Internal Revenue Service, a raid was also being conducted on the home of my manager. In that raid, my manager was pulled at gunpoint from the shower and forcibly restrained while he attempted to call an attorney. His teenage son was forced to the floor at gunpoint. His daughter, 14 years old at the time, had several friends over for a slumber party the night before. These young girls had to get dressed under the watchful eyes of male agents, despite the presence of female agents. The IRS agents stood in the doorway to the bedroom, refusing these young girls even a semblance of privacy. We were never charged with any crimes. After scrutinizing our records for four months, the IRS returned most of them. A rental truck pulled up in front of my business one day, and the items that were returned were basically dumped in a pile on the street for us to sort through. I never received an apology. Following the raids, I could get no answers as to why all of this occurred. I was met with ``No comment, Mr. Colaprete,'' at every turn. Freedom of information requests were ignored, ostensibly due to a backlog of such requests, and despite legally mandated time limits on such requests. Two newspapers in Virginia Beach made repeated requests under the Freedom of Information Act, only to have the Justice Department thumb its nose at those requests. When an investigative journalist began to get to the bottom of things, he was also subjected to the harassment of the IRS. He had an opportunity to interview Special Agent Carol Willman from the IRS office in Norfolk, Virginia. During that interview, Ms. Willman interrupted the reporter's inquiries with a demand for his Social Security number. Within the year, he was notified that the IRS wanted to audit his return. When a local publication reported this, the audit was abruptly canceled. An IRS agent stated at the time that the agency does not retaliate against citizens through the use of audits, but the facts would seem to indicate otherwise. The ex-bookkeeper, meanwhile, was kept in protective custody by the IRS in a motel up until the time of the raids. It is almost unimaginable that there could be such a level of incompetence at the IRS that they would not only take the word of this woman and begin any sort of investigation, but they would shield her from the authorities who were trying to arrest her. The woman who the IRS was protecting and on whom they had relied had already been convicted numerous times. In fact, the outstanding criminal charge pending against her at the time she approached the IRS was for a crime involving lying and stealing. Ironically, just a week before this woman approached the IRS, I had specifically gone to the police and filed a complaint against her, alleging that she had lied, stolen and embezzled from me. In the face of all of that, how could anyone, let alone a supposedly trained, professional inspector with the IRS, accept at face value what this woman was saying? Based on her word, she--Carol Willman--not only commenced an investigation, but completely shut down a business and turned the lives of innocent people upside down less than 48 hours after first being introduced to the woman. Is there such a competitive atmosphere within the IRS to add another feather in their cap that they would ignore not only basic investigative techniques, but the obvious flaws in this woman's character and simply accept her at face value? It is frightening that such a woman could have conned the IRS into believing that her employer, despite all appearances to the contrary, was a high-level gangster and then shield her from the law in the belief that she would lead them to a bigger fish--like me. To compound the Keystone Cop mistakes that had already been made, the IRS then allowed her to leave the jurisdiction of Virginia to go to North Carolina where she was only later sent to jail for embezzling from three other employers in that state. On the surface, it might appear that she acted alone, but that just isn't so. The IRS was her partner in crime--first, acting in concert to destroy my life, and then allowing her to flee the state and victimize others. I looked for answers and was rebuffed at every turn. I suffered a deep depression that lasted a year. I was immobilized and could not get out of bed some days. My neighbors shunned me. My wife, who is an artist, has not been able to pick up a paint brush in four years. My children were taunted at school and told that their father was a gangster and a drug dealer--a Mafioso. I raised my children with a zero tolerance for dishonesty, and now they must hear allegations that I am a tax cheat. I am here to tell you that I am none of those things. Relatively speaking, the trauma that has befallen me is mild, compared to what has happened to my manager. He has suffered severe depression, sought counseling from his pastor, literally been shunned by friends and acquaintances, and has yet to get his life back in order. He has been ruined financially and emotionally, with little or no hope of ever getting his life back to where it was prior to the raids. I'm also here to tell you that we cannot treat our citizens this way--not in America. I have been repeatedly victimized over the past four years, primarily by a government tax agency that is funded with my tax dollars. If Americans have a perception of the IRS as the Boogey Man, it is because the IRS itself has promoted that perception through policies that are fundamentally unconstitutional and illegal. This is not a partisan issue--it is a people issue and a freedom issue. I have a lawsuit pending against the IRS, and I will not rest until I have had my day in court. The IRS response to the lawsuit has been to cast doubt on my character by insinuating that they did, in fact, find evidence of wrongdoing, but they chose not to prosecute if. If I was guilty of anything, why would they ``choose'' not to prosecute? While any ``allegations'' will eventually be shown in court to be what they are, i.e., a smoke screen, until I can get into court to prove my case, these ``allegations'' linger in the community where I live and work and continue to compound my frustration. The system does not work for the American taxpayer. The total sense of violation that we have experienced has had a devastating effect on us all. In the wake of all of this, I find there is no system in place to defend me, or others like me. I'd like to believe that someone takes responsibility for what has happened--for what continues to happen every day in this country. If the example we are to set for our citizens is one of no accountability and no remorse, then our form of government--the oldest surviving democracy on the planet-- cannot survive much longer. A day doesn't go by that I don't wonder what harassment will occur next. I would like to know why this dark entity known as the IRS has come into my life and refused to leave. So who protects me in the system? Who cares about my constitutional rights? Not the courts. Not the IRS. I am hoping that the buck stops here--with you, Senator Roth and this Committee. I leave you with just three questions, Senators: (1) Why did this happen? (2) What will you do to see that it never happens again to innocent taxpaying Americans? We cannot employ inexperienced and immature people to play God with the lives of our taxpayers--IRS agents who decide that it's a beautiful day to go out and destroy someone's life; and finally, (3) Once this ordeal has ended and I have obtained a verdict in a court of law and a judgment against the IRS, what will you do to assure me that the IRS pays the judgment, rather than continue to beat me into submission through endless appeals and an outright refusal to pay the judgment that I obtain? In this great democracy, we have created this entity to collect taxes which we all agree must exist. However, we have empowered this agency to be subject to no one, to no laws, to no checks and balances, and all of us--including each and every one of you--are afraid of them! Why should we fear the very people we employ? When these hearings began last September, I was told that Senator Roth would conduct these hearings because he has no fear. After my ordeal, I have no fear any longer, but when Americans receive that letter with the logo of the IRS in the upper left hand corner, their pulse rate, heart beat and blood pressure rise. There is a genuine fear. This fear must stop. Mr. President, I want to open today's debate by sending messages to two groups of people. To Mr. Colaprete, to his family, to his manager, to the employees of his restaurant, and to the residents of Virginia Beach whose lives were harmed by the IRS, I want to say that I'm sorry. Since the IRS apparently thinks they do not need to apologize to you, I will. On behalf of myself and the United States Senate, I apologize for the harm that your government has done to you. I also want to say to Mr. Colaprete that it is our intent that this never happens again. The legislation we have before us is specifically designed to stop the kind of abuse you suffered, and we will continue to maintain a vigilant watch over this agency. To the agents at the IRS, who have been out of control, and to the management who is protecting those agents, I want to say watch out. We are on to you, and we will not let you do this sort of thing to the American people. That is our goal here, to provide some protections, some oversight that is free and separate from the IRS, a private citizen entity to look into their procedures and their conduct. It also is to give some relief to the taxpayers who now find quite often that the penalties and the interest far surpass the basic amount that was owed. This action is overdue. I want us to have a strong bill because I don't want us to come back 2 years from now and find out what we did, in fact, did not change the culture at IRS. I do believe that the new Commissioner, Mr. Rossotti, is trying hard to turn things around, but it is not all the agency's fault. The laws that we have on the books have been inadequate. In fact, I am not sure we can fix these laws. We may have to just scrap what we have and start over again. For now, until that is done, we must build in protections against this type of abuse of ordinary citizens and taxpayers. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2676, the IRS reform and restructuring bill, for debate only, prior to the policy luncheon recess, except for the offering of a managers' amendment if one is agreed to and worked out. I have the impression they have made good progress in that area. Members are encouraged to come to the floor to debate this IRS reform bill so the Senate can complete action as early as possible this week. It is certainly very important legislation. A lot of effort has been put into its development. I know Senators do want to make comments on it, but I hope they will not wait until later in the week. They have a golden opportunity this morning and this afternoon to go ahead and make statements they are prepared to offer. As a reminder, a rollcall vote is scheduled this evening at 5:30 on passage of H.R. 1385, the workforce development bill. There will be 1 hour of debate prior to that, beginning at 4:30. Any votes ordered with respect to the IRS reform bill will be stacked to occur following the 5:30 vote. I thank my colleagues for their attention to this. I hope we can have the type of cooperation this week that we received last week. Mr. President, I do have a statement I would like to make, but before I begin that, let me observe the absence of a quorum just for a moment.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as a member of the Finance Committee, once again, last week I found the hearings on IRS enlightening, in fact, horrifying. We had witness after witness come in and put their own jobs and reputations on the line--if they were IRS employees--to talk about the protection system of mismanagement and misconduct within IRS. We had small businessmen come forward and talk about businesses being raided--in one instance, I think by 64 gun-carrying IRS agents and U.S. marshals--when they had done nothing wrong. We heard great detail about the efforts that have been gone to by management to protect misconduct. Finally, we heard of targeting of political officials or public officials for audits or for, in one case, an effort to show that this person had been laundering money, and it was not true. Senator Howard Baker, the great former majority leader, came before the committee and told what he had experienced--by the way, even though he was under a lot of pressure not to do so. We clearly have a culture of intimidation and misconduct at the IRS. It is not something that has just developed; it has been growing and getting worse for the past 15 years. We need serious IRS reform. The House-passed legislation made a major step in the right direction last year, but we have found a lot more abuses. We have come up with more things that need to be done to make the IRS genuinely representative of what the people expect them to be--that is, to do their job, which is not easy, and to protect the truly hard-working and honest IRS agents who are doing their jobs every day, some who came forward and pointed out where problems have been. We have learned a lot and have come up with some good legislation. There will be some relevant amendments that will need to be offered and debated and voted on. I hope we can come to an agreement that will not allow this bill to become one that is attacked by poison pills or cause its delay or destruction. The American people want this IRS reform. I think to get off in a debate of unrelated issues--whether it is trade issues, many of which I may be for, or health issues, or whatever-- would be a big mistake. We ought to have a good debate this Monday and Tuesday. We ought to complete this IRS debate by Wednesday or Thursday night, at the latest. We were able to get our job done last week. I hope we can do it again this week. Now, in addition to those bills, on Thursday or Friday we may try to take up a couple of other issues. It will depend on how the debate goes. The agriculture research conference report is something we might try to get up Thursday night or Friday, or not later than next Monday. We also have pending before us a number of other important bills, including the higher education legislation and nuclear waste. So there are a number of bills that are waiting. Again, I ask for the cooperation of the Senators on both sides of the aisle to work with the chairman of the Finance Committee and ranking member to get an agreement on how we can proceed. Let's have a good debate, relevant amendments, and let's complete this job. Even the President, who originally resisted IRS reform, on his radio show Saturday said what has been happening at IRS is outrageous and that we should act on this legislation and get it to him as quickly as possible. I hope we will move forward, now that we have him involved in this effort, and complete this important legislation. Mr. President, I note that there are no Senators waiting to speak. I believe the managers of the legislation will be here at noon. From now until noon will be a period of morning business. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to say once again how much I appreciated the cooperation that I received from Senators on both sides of the aisle last week. I think last week was a very good week for the Senate. We completed the NATO enlargement debate, and I thought it was a good debate. I thought the Senate showed a great deal of seriousness and maturity in the way they handled the final phases and cast their votes on Thursday night. We also completed action on the supplemental appropriations bill, which has gone to the President. That way, we will have the funds we need for the defense of our country and to assist with natural disasters that have hit any number of States over the past few months. Also, on Friday, we did have debate on the workplace development bill--all debate except for the final 1 hour. All amendments were handled. I believe there were five or six amendments that had been pending. So Senator Jeffords, Senator DeWine, and others did a good job getting that debate done on Friday. We will pick that bill back up at 4:30 on Tuesday. There will be 1 hour of debate, followed by final passage on the Workplace Development Act at 5:30 on Tuesday. Following morning business this morning, the Senate will begin consideration then of H.R. 2676, the IRS reform and restructuring bill, for debate only. It is hoped that Members will come to the floor to offer opening statements and debate this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to comment briefly on one of the amendments that will be considered this morning, an amendment by Senator Craig of Idaho. Senator Craig is an outstanding Member of this body and one of my closest friends, but I reluctantly will oppose the amendment he offered. I think he knows that I opposed the President's decision to deploy U.S. Armed Forces to Bosnia in 1995. I continue to have major problems with the situation there and questions about what the end game is. But I don't look at Bosnia in a theoretical sense only or without considering the history of that part of the world. I have traveled to Brussels to meet with all of our NATO allies and discuss the situation in Bosnia. I spent the last 4th of July in Bosnia, Sarajevo, and Tuzla. I have looked at the situation firsthand. I spent many hours with administration officials and outside experts discussing the situation in Bosnia. I have grave concerns about the administration's completely open-ended commitment to remain in Bosnia. We were solemnly given dates and unequivocal assurances that U.S. troops would be out by December 1996. They weren't. Then it was July 1998. The President intends not to meet that date. The assurances we were given were wrong. The fact that the administration has been so often wrong raises questions about their overall policy. Do we want peace there? Yes. Have we been willing to make a commitment? Yes. But the question is, How much, how long, and for what? Is the situation under control there? What is happening in Kosovo? Did the administration turn a blind eye and ignore that problem and only now realize the ramifications, the implications, that Kosovo has in the region? There has been some progress in Bosnia. Many time lines and the agreements that were supposed to have been met, however, have not been met. We do need to continue to move forward and to encourage peace, democracy and freedom--not fighting and killing--in that part of the world. But the U.S. taxpayers have already spent some $8 billion in Bosnia since December of 1995. Our European allies have been reluctant to shoulder more of the burden. There are even credible reports that a French military officer tipped off the most notorious war criminal and helped him avoid apprehension. Basically, they say, You are the world leader; without you, it won't be done. We assume a very serious responsibility and maybe a certain degree of pride in that. But I think more needs to be done by our European allies and there needs to be a plan, some way of dealing with this problem, just like there should be a long-term plan in dealing with Saddam Hussein. There is no plan there, no plan to find a way to remove Saddam Hussein so the people in Iraq can be free. The pattern begins to be clear. I have been very careful as majority leader to try to rise above politics or partisan politics. I have taken a pounding from some sources for that. I did support the Chemical Weapons Treaty and I do support NATO. But there is a limit to how far I will go. I will not support the administration unconditionally-- particularly if there is no policy, no clear plan. I think that is the case in Iraq, where the policy of containment is not working. So what is next? Quite frankly, it falls to the Congress to try to say: How about this? Would you consider that? Develop a plan to do something, anything. We are prepared to do that if we have to because of the absence of action by the Administration. For all those reasons, I am concerned about the administration's policy in Bosnia. This issue should be addressed by the Senate on merits later on this year in the appropriations process. But we should not use it as a way to delay the decision to enlarge NATO. NATO enlargement is the right thing to do. But it should rise and fall on its own merits. We should not allow it to tangle up our decision into issues like Bosnia. I agree with Senator Craig's concerns, but I don't think this is the place to have the debate or action based on what may or may not be the future in Bosnia to determine what would happen in NATO. We should not make the legitimate aspirations of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic subject to our differences with the executive branch on Bosnia policy. I hope the Senate will defeat this amendment and move to conclusion and pass NATO enlargement. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the votes are final passage of the NATO enlargement treaty, and according to the rules of the Senate, Senators should be in their assigned desks and vote from their desks. That is in the rules. I have discussed it with Senator Byrd. We are all here. I think it would be an appropriate thing for us to do. The rules do require it. I also think it would help us expedite the vote. So, if the Senators would take their assigned desks, we will have a vote on the historic treaty. The second vote is final passage of the supplemental appropriations bill. Tomorrow, the Senate will debate the Workforce Development Act under a time agreement of no more than 4 hours. Several amendments will be offered. Consequently, those votes will be postponed to occur Tuesday, May 5, at 5:30. Monday, the Senate will begin consideration of the IRS reform bill. I know we will have a number of Senators who will wish to make opening statements. We will check with the managers and with the leadership to see about the possibility of amendments being offered. But if they are offered, they, too, would occur at 5:30 on Tuesday. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for a productive week. I congratulate the managers of this legislation. I thank the Senators who made it possible for us to complete this action tonight. I know some of those who are opposed to it would have liked to have delayed it over until next week, but I believe the time is right for us to vote. I thank all Senators for their help, and I thank Senator Daschle for his cooperation and I yield to Senator Byrd.

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Senator Byrd. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will be brief as we complete debate on the resolution of ratification providing our advice and consent to the addition of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Ths has been an excellent debate in the finest traditions of the Senate. We have spent more than 40 hours on the resolution over the course of 9 days. Almost 50 Senators have made statement, many of them on several occasions. The Senate has considered 20 amendments. We have adopted 12 and rejected 8. This is in addition to the 4 conditions and 7 declarations in the committee's Resolution. Many people deserve credit in this debate. The Chairman of Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, has shown great leadership. Senator Roth led the NATO Observer Group with energy and diligence. Senator Biden served as the lead Democrat to both and made valuable--and frequent--contributions to our debate. Senator Gordon Smith, Chair of the Europe Subcommittee played a central role. Many staff played key roles as well. Steve Biegun, Brian McKeon, Beth Wilson and Mike Haltzel of the Foreign Relations Committee can all now get on with their lives. Ian Brzezinski (BRA-zin-ski) with Senator Roth was always there for the Observer Group. The Congressional Research Service, especially Stan Sloan, on the floor now, provided invaluable services for members on both sides of the issue. Legislative Counsel Art Rynerson drafted virtually all of the language we have been debating. A number of issues have been raised in our consideration. We have addressed future enlargement, NATO's mission, costs, Bosnia and arms control. I believe all sides have had an opportunity to have their voices heard. Now it is time to cast our votes. Much has been said about Russia over the past week--how Russia will react to NATO enlargement and the impact on a wide range of bilateral issues. Both sides agree that Russian hard-liners should not have a veto over our course of action. But supporters and opponents of enlargement differ greatly over the impact on our relations with Russia. We have heard many estimates of how our vote will influence the tangled web of Russian politics and the disturbing course of Russian foreign policy. I do not think anyone can predict the impact with complete precision. But we can look at some basic facts. First, NATO poses no threat to Russia. No serious person inside or outside Russia believes NATO--with 16 or 19 members--jeopardizes Russia. The thought of Czech tanks rolling across the Russian steppes is ludicrous. Second, the average Russian is not concerned about NATO enlargement. A recent poll even shows the majority of Russians in Moscow support adding these three countries to NATO. Third, the Russians have delayed action on START II for years. NATO enlargement is only the latest in a long line of reasons given for their inaction. Fourth, Russian diplomacy in Brussels has not been affected by our debate here. Just yesterday, the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council discussed a wide range of issues. Alleged Russian concerns about enlargement were not an issue. Finally, long before NATO enlargement became a real possibility, Russia has engaged in a large number of foreign policy actions that harm our interests--from proliferation to Iran and violations of START I to subversion of its neighbors. NATO enlargement may provide an excuse for Russian adventurism, but will not provide a cause. Our principle concern with Russia must be Russian behavior--not the volatile mood swings of Russian domestic politics. Mr. President, this will be a historic vote. It is fitting that we are voting on including the Czech Republic in NATO sixty years after the sellout at Munich, fifty years after the communist coup in Prague, and thirty years after Soviet tanks crushed the winds of freedom in Czechoslovakia. That is the past and, as many Senators have pointed out, this vote is about the future. It is about what kind of a Europe we want to see. It is about what kind of allies we want in a continent where we have fought three great wars in this century. Expanding NATO is about ensuring this generation and future generations are not called to fight a fourth time. It is about a 21st century trans-Atlantic partnership that provides more freedom, more security and more opportunity for all of us. A few days ago, I received a letter from Polish Foreign Minister Geremek (GAR-a-mech). His words are an appropriate way to close debate: The consistent and visionary foreign policy of the United States has opened a historic window of opportunity. Just as in 1989, it was American leadership which was the decisive factor in ending the Cold War. . . . so today it is the U.S. Senate which will decide whether a new page is turned in history of the Transatlantic area and Eurasia. It will be a chapter testifying to the triumph of freedom and democracy and to the success of the biggest and most successful alliance in world history. It will strengthen the Alliance to the clear advantage of Europe and America. I thank all Senators for their cooperation in reaching this moment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes, and there are two remaining votes in this series, then, be limited to 10 minutes in length.

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am concerned about Amtrak's future. Though Congress has worked to ensure its continued existence, the Administration has yet to fulfill its statutory responsibilities which are necessary if Amtrak is to have any hope of turning into a viable operation. As my colleagues well know, the Senate has invested countless hours during the past several Congresses to enact legislation that would enable Amtrak to reinvent itself, both operationally and financially. After three long years, Congress achieved a bipartisan reform package that was signed into law by the President on December 2, 1997. This package, the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act, was touted as Amtrak's ``last chance.'' It provided significant changes, allowing Amtrak to operate more like a business. Congress expected Amtrak to immediately begin implementing the many reform provisions. Certain responsibilities concerning Amtrak's future were assumed by Amtrak's union and management employees, the American taxpayers, Congress and the Administration. For their part, Amtrak's employees agreed to negotiate employee benefits just like other segments of industry in exchange for financial security. The taxpayers contributed considerably--$2 billion for capital improvements in addition to the $22 billion already given to Amtrak to date. Congress fulfilled its part of the deal, too. The Congress appointed its members to the newly created Amtrak Reform Board. Further, the Senate recently adopted a provision in the budget resolution urging full funding for Amtrak to enable it to reach its goal of zero operating assistance by 2003. Who is missing from this effort? Mr. President, I content it is the Administration. In the past months, the Administration has missed numerous deadlines and issued contrary proposals. First, the law requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) Inspector General to begin an independent audit of Amtrak's financial situation. The audit was supposed to begin within a month of enactment, which would have been this past January. The DOT Inspector General has worked to abide by the statute, but the Secretary of DOT has refused to allow the audit to go forward. DOT's refusal prompted both the House and Senate Appropriations Committee to provide specific funding to cover the audit's expense. DOT knows that funding is on its way, yet the Secretary has refused to permit the IG to begin the process. Second, the law required the President to nominate a new 7-member Reform Board to replace Amtrak's current Board of Directors. Since the reform package required Amtrak to operate like a business. Congress and the Administration agreed that new leadership was imperative. After all, instilling a `new culture' among Amtrak employees and management necessitated that changes start from the top. The law requires the Reform Board to be in place by March 31, 1998-- almost 1 month ago--yet we still have not received a single nomination from the President. Most troublesome is the fact that if the new Reform Board has not assumed the responsibilities of the Amtrak Board of Directors before July 1st, Amtraks' authorization lapses. I do not think the Administration would want this to happen. Mr. President, in addition to the Administration's recent shortcomings, it has also failed to announce the names of individuals who will fill the Administration's three slots on the Amtrak Reform Council. Because the Council is expected to play a critical role in formulating passenger rail in the years ahead, I have encouraged the 8 members appointed by the Congress to begin their work. I understand the first meeting of the Council should occur in early May. The only action taken by the Administration thus far has been to propose a budget that underfunds Amtrak in fiscal year 1999. The Administration's budget submission seeks to take money away from capital expenditures and to use it to pay for Amtrak salaries and operating expenses. This diversion proposal is in direct violation of the statutory language in the law which established the capital funding subsidy.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, as if in legislative session, that the majority leader, after notification of the Democratic leader, may proceed, after disposition of the NATO treaty, to the conference report to accompany H.R. 3579, the supplemental appropriations bill, and, further, the reading of the conference report be waived. I further ask there be 1 hour of debate equally divided in the usual form, and following the expiration or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the adoption of the conference report, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LOTT. After disposition of the NATO treaty, with debate not to exceed 1 hour, and then a final vote.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the sister-city relationship between the City of Solleftea, Sweden and the City of Madison, Mississippi. This international partnership has provided opportunities for cultural and business exchanges, as well as providing Swedish and American citizens unique experiences to broaden cultural perspectives. The Sister-City Program was inaugurated by United States President Dwight David Eisenhower in 1956. This business and cultural exchange was chartered to foster greater friendship and understanding between the people of the United States and other countries through the medium of direct personal contact. Since its inception, over 1,200 American state and local governments have joined with 2,100 foreign partners to create a network of international friendship. The citizens of Solleftea and Madison have expressed their willingness and desire, through their respective councils, to become sister-cities and to adhere to the ideals set forth by President Eisenhower. These two cities also wish to encourage cultural exchanges that will lead to a lasting friendship between the communities. The sister-cities agreement was signed by Solleftea and Madison on June 27, 1997 in Sweden. Since this time, three Swedish companies have opened or plan to open businesses in the City of Madison. Hagloff, Inc., Minitube and Logosol are three Swedish companies that should be commended for their efforts to further the spirit of the June 1997 compact. The Solleftea and Madison friendship has served as a model for future sister-city partnerships. I commend the efforts of these two great cities and wish them continued success in the future.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I believe the Senator from Texas wishes to be recognized next, but just so the Senators will be on notice to what I think will happen now, the Senator from Texas wishes to speak a few minutes on the final disposition of this issue. Senator Smith will be recognized to offer an amendment. His amendment will be set aside, and Senator Inhofe will have an amendment he will offer. At the conclusion of their debate, then we would anticipate that there would be two or three votes that would occur, hopefully in sequence, so this could begin in a relatively short period of time. We do not have a time agreement, but we hope to reach conclusion before too late into the night.

Mr. LOTT. I believe, I say to the Senator, they would prefer that we not have a time agreement, but they do not anticipate taking a long time.

Mr. LOTT. Yes.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President. We want to extend our thanks this morning for the guest Chaplain's prayer, and we are delighted to have him as our guest in the Chamber this morning.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senate will resume now the consideration of the Craig amendment, numbered 2316, pending to the NATO enlargement treaty. Under the previous order, the time until 12 o'clock noon will be equally divided for debate on the Craig amendment. At 12:00 noon, Senator Moynihan will offer an amendment regarding the European Union under a 1-hour time agreement. Following that debate, Senator Warner will be recognized to offer an amendment relating to a 3-year pause under a 2-hour time agreement. At the hour of 3 o'clock this afternoon, the Senate will proceed to three consecutive stacked rollcall votes. The first vote will be on or in relation to the Moynihan amendment, to be followed by a vote on Senator Warner's amendment, to be followed by a vote on Senator Craig's amendment. These are three very important and very critical amendments. I hope the Senators will be able to listen to the debate and be here for the votes at 3 p.m. I hope all three amendments will be defeated. I will speak on that briefly in a moment. I remind my colleagues that last night we reached a unanimous consent agreement which limits amendments to the treaty. I know the chairman and the ranking member have been working hard to see that many of these amendments can be accepted or worked out in a way they can be accepted without a rollcall vote. As for those amendments that cannot be accepted by voice vote, I urge those Senators to work with the managers on the treaty to consider their amendments this afternoon under short time agreements. I think there are only two or three that are still sort of in that category. I hope that Senators will be reasonable. We have had a good debate, I think a high level of debate, on this important treaty issue. Senators have been able to make their case. Amendments have been considered, and others are being considered today. I think it is time we vote. We know the substance. We have had many, many hearings. We know the arguments. Let's bring it to a conclusion. I hope that no Senator will be dilatory in bringing up his or her amendment this afternoon. Bring amendments up quickly with a short time agreement so we can complete that vote tonight. It is time to vote. There are a number of Senators who would like to see this completed at a reasonable hour so they can attend to other very important matters, including a bipartisan delegation that is going overseas to see if some of our allies will not be more helpful to us in covering the costs of our Persian Gulf efforts with regard to Iraq. This is a very, very important trip. It has been encouraged by the joint leadership. I hope they can get away at a reasonable hour so they can maximize their time over the weekend. In the remainder of the week, the Senate may consider the supplemental appropriations conference report. I spoke to the chairman this morning. He believes we will have that ready to be acted on by the Senate this afternoon. In addition, there is an agreement for consideration of S. 1186, long in the process of being developed and agreed to. That is the Work Force Development Partnership Act. We have a time agreement with some amendments in order in that time agreement. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation in getting the lineup for the amendments this afternoon.