William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Lugar, to submit a Resolution to state the sense of the Senate that Thailand remains one of America's most important partners and closest friends, and that Bangkok has been making important strides in executing its responsibilities under its arrangements with the International Monetary Fund. Mr. President, America's friendship with Thailand is our longest- standing in Asia. Our first Envoy to Thailand negotiated a Treaty of Amity and Commerce with that country in 1833. Thailand was the first country afflicted with the so-called Asian contagion, and the first to receive IMF assistance. However, at the time the IMF put the package together for Thailand in August, 1977, Asia's regional economy looked far different than it does today. Let me give one compelling example of how things have changed: Last year, both Korea and Indonesia were economically secure enough to pledge so-called ``second line of defense'' contingency loans to Thailand. The point is, Mr. President, many of the assumptions that the IMF used in formulating the conditions for Thailand's package are no longer applicable. Despite the changes, however, the new Government of Thailand has been making important progress in fulfilling its IMF obligations. Already Thailand has taken steps to improve financial and economic transparency and cut its budget. I recently visited Thailand and was very impressed by the new leadership in Bangkok, by the steps they have taken thus far and by their resolve in fulfilling their IMF obligations. Mr. President, I believe I am safe in saying that all of us in this chamber--and Americans all across this land--are great admirers of Thailand and Thai culture. I remain optimistic about Thailand's future. Given the Thai people's energy and initiative, the country's remarkable history, and its record of economic success, I hope and expect to see Thailand's return to prosperity in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. The Finance Committee is aware of that potential situation. We will monitor the situation and work with you and the Administration to make adjustments in the operation of the contingency fund if necessary.

Mr. ROTH. Yes. That is true. States that qualify for payments in one year would pay back a prorated share in the next.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, a little over a week ago, I stood to introduce the Finance Committee's fast track bill. On that occasion, I made it clear that fast track authority is important to America's future. I advocated the need for American leadership if we are to make progress in expanding economic opportunities for individuals and families here at home. I emphasized that America has always been a trading nation. From colonial times to the creation of the post-World War II international economic order, the United States has pressed for open commerce, free of discriminatory preferences and trade-distorting barriers. From battles with Barbary pirates on the shores of Tripoli to the arduous negotiations that led to the signing of the Uruguay round agreements in Marrakesh, Morocco, we have promoted and defended open, fair, and unfettered trade. The United States has been a driving force for expanding world trade and the prosperity it yields, particularly over the last six decades. From the creation of the GATT, to the initiation of each successive round of multilateral trade negotiations, to the political will to conclude the Uruguay round, America has taken the lead. We have pursued this course in our own economic and political self- interest. In purely economic terms, the United States is the world's largest trading state and the largest beneficiary of the international trading system. We lead the world in both exports and imports. Thirty percent of our current annual economic growth depends on exports. Eleven million jobs are directly tied to those export sales. According to the Federal Reserve, our two-way trade, both exports and imports, have played a major role in the 7 years of sustained, noninflationary economic growth we enjoy today. And no other nation in the world is so well positioned to bless its citizens through open trade than America. Our Nation, better than any other, is situated to succeed in a global economy. We have the diversity of cultures, the most advanced technology, the most efficient capital markets, and a corporate sector that is constantly innovating and has already gone through substantial restructuring that is necessary for global competition. We have a single currency, a common language, and the important blessing of geography: we are a nation--a continent--that looks both to Europe and to Asia. No other nation is so well positioned to reap the blessings of a global economy. As Thomas L. Friedman suggested in the New York Times, America, as a nation, almost appears to have been designed to compete in such a world. Having said this, let me be clear that we have not pursued the goal of liberalizing trade solely because it is in our own economic interest to do so. We have pursued that goal because it is in our political and security interests as well. It is worth noting, in the shadow of the Veterans Day remembrance, that conflicts over trade in the 1930's deepened the Great Depression profoundly and fostered the political movements that gave us the Second World War. Our own revolution was fought in large part because of the constraints Great Britain imposed on the colonies' trade. Indeed, it is difficult to recall any great conflict in which trade did not play a part. In my view, prosperity is the surest means to secure peace, both because it strengthens our capacity to maintain our defense and because it reduces the causes of conflicts that lead to war. In this Chamber, we have had a spirited debate that has raised a number of significant issues--from alleged flaws in our trade agreements, to the causes and consequences of the trade deficit, to the issues of labor standards and the environment. We have benefited from this exchange of views on both sides. And, I was heartened by the vote in the Senate to move to proceed to debate the Finance Committee's bill extending fast track negotiating authority--a vote that commanded a majority of Members from both sides of the aisle. As heartened as I was by our vote, I was as disappointed in the President's decision to ask that the measure not be put to a vote in the House. It is clear, from all reports, that the President was unable to move a sufficient number of Members of his own party to join in the effort to promote American economic and political interests abroad. My first thought on hearing of the President's decision, however, was not about the past. My first thought was for the future. I say this because I happen to believe that we are on the edge of an era of unparalleled prosperity, not just in the United States, but throughout the world. But the realization of such prosperity will depend on conditions. It will depend on our making the right kinds of choices. It will depend on our ability to advance the cause of open markets and the freedom to compete fairly throughout the world. Walter Lippman coined the term the ``American Century'' to apply to the decades from the turn of the century during which the United States grew to a position of unrivaled economic, political, and cultural strength. I happen to believe that we are now entering a second ``American Century,'' if we have the courage to embrace the challenges and opportunities of international leadership that our greater destiny offers us. We will not advance our own cause if we shirk that responsibility. Nor will we serve the generations of Americans that follow us if we shrink from an expansive vision of what we can accomplish together if we, as Americans, remain united in a common purpose. In the abstract and arcane world of international trade, there is little that is not subject to debate and differing points of view. One exception, however, is that for the world to make progress, the United States must lead. This is the essence of the fast track debate--whether we would offer the President the means by which he can exercise American leadership on the trade front. Absent fast track, he will not have a seat at the table. The rules of the road will be written without our full participation. History tells us that, when that happens, the world does not move in the direction of open, unfettered commerce, but in the direction of preferential trading systems often designed to exclude the United States. There are a series of negotiations on the horizon within the WTO and other forums. They will redefine the rules in areas like agriculture, financial services, and basic customs rules applicable to every product imported into, or exported from, the United States. They will proceed without us and in a direction we will not like if the President lacks the authority to engage and lead. And if that is the case, we are certain to lose a great deal. For example, Charlene Barshefsky reminds us that in the area of negotiating market access to government procurement, there is over a trillion dollars at stake in Asia alone. In services, there is over a $1.2 trillion global market, and in agriculture over $600 billion. I doubt whether the farmers of America will believe that it will be a sufficient response to say that we failed to act on fast track because we did not understand the true cause of our trade deficit and therefore left it to others to define the rules that will govern our agricultural trade into the 21st century. For that reason--for what is at stake for Americans, for our families, for jobs--high paying jobs--I want to see us return to the issue of trade negotiating authority in the coming session of Congress. I want to see both Houses of Congress move on as broad a front as possible to secure our economic future. Because of what is at stake, we must make progress where we can, regardless of how broad a consensus we can ultimately achieve. We need to address the reality of these impending items on the international agenda and define the strategy the United States will promote in each. That does not give us the luxury of waiting until a final consensus has been reached on every issue raised in our recent debates. We need to be able to make an impact now and I will be working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that we do. As for building a stronger bipartisan consensus for the long run on trade, my sense from our debates is that there are a number of important issues that need to be examined. They need to be examined in a way that would excise the politics and help us all understand the dynamics at work in an increasingly global economy. We need to develop a mechanism for addressing these issues, helping us resolve our collective concerns, and allowing us to move forward in a way that will benefit all working Americans. I intend to work closely with my colleagues toward this end in the coming months. Let me conclude with words of praise for each and every Member of this body. I believe that we have shown incredible leadership ourselves on an issue of the utmost importance to America. I know we share a common goal of a stronger American economy that benefits all working men and women. In the months ahead, let us unite in an effort to resolve the differences between ourselves in order to remove the roadblocks that stand between us and that common goal. Let us pull together in this coming session of Congress to redefine the debate in terms of the progress we can make together toward our ultimate objective. Based on the Senate's record in the past, I have great confidence that we can and will take that step forward to embrace a brighter American future. I thank my colleagues for their efforts over the recent weeks, and look forward to the opportunity to rejoin them in pursuit of the greater good for all Americans in this coming session. Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until the hour of 6 p.m. under the same terms as previously ordered.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 3:30 p.m.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 4 o'clock p.m.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to object to the unanimous-consent request made by my distinguished colleague, Senator Bob Kerrey. The process of his seeking a UC agreement and my objecting is into its fourth day now. I do want to say publicly that I appreciate the civil and courteous manner in which the process has unfolded. It is my opinion that what unites Senator Kerrey and me is more significant than what divides us. His successful commission has done essential work in uncovering weaknesses and shortcomings within the IRS. The 3 days of hearings we held in the Finance Committee disclosed others. Both of us are well aware of the changes that must be made within the agency. Senator Kerrey is right when he says the vast majority of our colleagues would vote to pass the legislation which passed the House by a vote of 426 to 4. Indeed, when one looks at the abuses and inefficiency of the IRS, it is hard to resist the argument that any reform is better than no reform at all. Senator Kerrey is correct in saying that the legislation he proposes would make important reforms to the IRS, but he is also right in saying that the legislation is not complete. It has weaknesses, and I must emphasize very, very serious weaknesses. Mr. President, the simple truth is that I am not willing to compromise on real reform. I am not willing to rush into legislation that does not go far enough to address the changes that must take place within the agency, especially when rushing in will adversely impact the potential of passing real reform later. The fact is, this reform falls short of what we need to accomplish. The New York Times reports that ``tax experts across the country say the practical benefits of the [legislation advocated by Senator Kerrey] will be minor.'' According to Stuart E. Seigel, a former chief counsel of the IRS, ``Most of the bill's provisions are very limited and will not have a significant impact on most taxpayers.'' Senator Kerrey suggests that each day the Senate delays in passing what the New York Times calls minor changes, some 150,000 people will be affected as they continue to receive notices from the IRS. Yet, another report in the Times makes it clear that ``the provisions in [this `watered down'] bill are [so] narrowly drawn [that it] would affect relatively few people.'' Senator Kerrey himself has made it clear that ``this [bill] doesn't go far enough.'' The Wall Street Journal of November 3, 1997. And Newsweek reports that the strong measures aimed at reform have been eviscerated. The question all of this begs is simple: Why compromise? If Senator Kerrey suggests this bill doesn't go far enough, if we have a growing consensus among tax practitioners, taxpayers, and the media that the bill is deficient, and if we have the conviction in Congress and the sentiment at home that something significant must be done, why are we willing to compromise? The bottom line, Mr. President, is that I am not willing to compromise. Some would suggest that half a loaf is better than none; that we can come back and stiffen up this legislation later. Well, we know where that will lead. If we pass this reform legislation, then those who are not anxious to pass further reforms will resist a new bill. The truth is that we will get only one real chance to reform the IRS, and we had better do it right. There are several significant issues we need to address. We should begin by giving the oversight board called for in this legislation, and if we adopt such a board, the authority to look at audit and collection activities. More than 70 percent of Americans think poor treatment in audits occurs fairly regularly, yet this legislation expressly prohibits the oversight board from having jurisdiction over audits and enforcement. This is just the beginning, Mr. President. Let's include a provision to ensure that all taxpayers have due process and that the IRS does not abusively use its liens-and-seizure authority. Let's give the taxpayer advocate greater independence. Likewise, the IRS should have the benefit of an independent inspector general. Let's strengthen the legislation to require signatures on all IRS-generated correspondence, and let's curb the use of false identifications by agency employees and ban the use of statistics and goals in determining their performance. These changes are only a beginning of what needs to be done. Yet, the legislation advocated by my distinguished colleague does not address even these most fundamental needs. If we are unprepared at this time to add these things, then let's be patient. Let's not pass a bill that Senator Kerrey has already suggested ``doesn't go far enough.''

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would like to see if it is possible for us to reach agreement on your amendment. I think in general principle we can work with you. But I do think there are some significant changes that have to be made, including the makeup of the commission itself. So it would be my understanding that tonight, at the staff level, we could probably work and see if we cannot reach agreement and try to do that so we can complete it at the earliest possible time. But my understanding is that the distinguished junior Senator from Rhode Island would seek to introduce his amendment, but it would be with the understanding that there would be no votes on that amendment tonight but merely to introduce it.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota, and I do so for two principal reasons. But before I discuss those reasons, I would like to point out that in my judgment the truth is that trade policy has very little to do with our trade deficit. My esteemed colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, has made that point himself. Our trade deficit is a function of simple arithmetic. We consume more than we produce and save, and the difference is basically our trade deficit. It is also true that when we are growing as rapidly as we are, and our trading partners are not, we are likely to import more and export less. Because they prefer to hold dollars as a hedge or as an investment, our trading partners are essentially financing our ability to live beyond our means. Now, I do not mean to underestimate the need to get our economic house in order. Getting our budget deficit under control is a significant step in that direction. What I have said does not mean that we should not do everything we can to ensure that our trade policy does not contribute to our trade deficit. We should and must insist that our trading partners open their markets to our goods. The defeat of fast track would do nothing but hinder that effort. It would offer our trading partners an excuse not to negotiate with us. It would offer them an excuse to maintain their barriers to trade and exacerbate whatever impact our trading policies may in fact have on our trade deficit. We should instead be looking for every weapon in our arsenal to ensure that we open markets and keep them open. Fast track is one of those weapons. I do not see the point of unilaterally disarming if you are seriously concerned about doing something about the trade deficit. Now, Mr. President, as I said, I do oppose the amendment by the Senator from North Dakota, and I do so for two principal reasons. First, we face many challenges on the international economic front. The trade deficit is one of them but certainly not the only one, nor even necessarily the most significant in my view. To me, the broader question, and, frankly, the one that is most likely to affect our economic future, is how we come to grips with the increasing globalization of the world economy. The world economy is undergoing fundamental changes that have deep importance for our economic future, and we must decide whether we embrace that challenge or try to hide from it. While I do not disagree that it would be useful to look at the underlying causes of the trade deficit in that context, there certainly are many other issues of greater significance that have been raised in this debate alone that would deserve similar attention by such a high- powered group as that described in the Senator's amendment. Second, we should also understand that the amendment will require a hard look at whether we have our own economic house in order. Since the root cause of the deficit includes our domestic economic policies, we will be asking the commission to delve deeply into our fiscal and monetary policies. My point is that there already are a number of governmental institutions that are involved in these processes where there is expertise on these matters such as the Treasury, the Commerce Department, the Federal Reserve, as well as our congressional committees. I wonder whether the commission is needed given the resources we already have available. Third, I am always concerned when we raise a proposal for a commission or another advisory board that we not use them as a reason to avoid the responsibilities we have in Congress for addressing these issues. Plainly, we have the resources here in Congress to examine these questions in depth, and I am certain we would want to explore those possibilities before establishing yet another blue ribbon commission. If the question is how do we eliminate the trade deficit and our trade policy is part of the answer, then the first step we should take is to pass this legislation. This bill is, after all, about breaking down trade barriers abroad, and that is undeniably a step in the right direction in eliminating trade deficits. As a consequence, while the concept may have merit in some sense, I oppose the amendment as offered and will ask my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, I yield back the floor.

Mr. ROTH. With that understanding, that is satisfactory to me. So we will lay your amendment aside.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, let me start out by saying that I am a strong supporter of the environmental laws. Frankly, I would be willing to put my record as such up against any other Member of the U.S. Senate. And, as a supporter of environmental laws, I am, of course, anxious to see other countries, especially the developing countries, adopt similar policies to protect and strengthen the environment. But, having said that, I must say that I am forced to oppose the amendment offered by our distinguished junior Senator from Rhode Island. His proposal would include authority, under fast track, to negotiate environmental standards and enforce those standards through trade sanctions. Fast track was never intended as a means to rewrite fundamental aspects of our domestic laws, such as the environmental laws. I would point out that the basic rule of international trade is, of course, one of nondiscrimination. Where our laws fail to meet that test, and do not otherwise benefit from an exception to a trade agreement, we are obliged to eliminate the discriminatory aspects of our law. That does not mean we have to weaken our laws. It does not mean that we have to lower our standards. It simply means that our laws have to treat imported goods and services as they do competing U.S. products, in terms of the applicable taxes, the regulatory standards, and the other conditions of sale. Fast track was designed solely for the purpose of allowing, when needed, the conforming of our laws to our trade agreement obligations and the basic rule of nondiscrimination. The purpose of fast track is not to craft legislation or regulatory standards from whole cloth, and then run them through the legislative process under the guise of a trade agreement. I would have thought that all sides in the debate over trade and the environment could agree on that much. This bill would not allow the President to negotiate trade agreements that either raise or lower our environmental standards. I would, of course, point out that the President does have that general authority. And of course any agreement reached by his negotiation is subject to the normal process of the Congress.

Mr. ROTH. That is correct. The normal process would be that it would be subject to amendment.

Mr. ROTH. Let me point out to the distinguished Senator from Maryland that since 1974 it has been the practice and policy of the Congress to give the President authority to negotiate agreements with the assurance that whatever he negotiates, so long as it meets the goals, the objectives of the legislation, can be brought to the Congress to be acted upon without amendment. So it is a special exception that has been used for purposes of trade negotiation. And there is a very good reason for that. The good reason for that is, if we go way back, I think it was in 1974, it became obvious that if we were going to continue to lower barriers to open the opportunity to trade, that some device had to be made to make certain that what the President negotiated would be considered by the Congress and that there would be a vote upon it. And that is exactly what has been done, down through the years since 1974. It has been the practice to give the President authority to negotiate, setting forth the goals and objectives of those negotiations and with the assurance that he could tell the other countries that that agreement would come to the Congress and be voted. So, yes, it is an exception, a special process to meet the conditions. I would point out that it seems to me, with all the problems we have, our economy is doing extraordinarily well today, and has been for the last 7 years. We have the lowest unemployment. Inflation is down. I think something like 30 percent of our growth is dependent upon exports. So I think it has been a worthwhile policy and one that ought to be continued. In the past, Democratic Congresses have given it to Republican Presidents and I propose that this Republican Congress give a Democratic President the same authority.

Mr. ROTH. I would just say to my distinguished colleague, that our economy has been doing extremely well and has been for the last 7 years. So we must be doing something right. Yes, the deficit joint account has risen in amount. But at the same time, we are enjoying a growth, a prosperity without inflation, with very low unemployment. So I think we are doing something right and I think it is important to ensure that the economy continues to grow and prosper. I think that means it is important that we give this President, as we have past Presidents, the necessary authority for fast track. Let me point out once again that fast track was designed solely for the purpose of allowing us, when needed, to conform our laws to our trade agreement obligations and the basic rules of nondiscrimination. The purpose of fast track is not to craft legislation or regulatory standards from whole cloth and then run them through the legislative process under the guise of a trade agreement. As I said earlier, I would have thought that all sides in the debate over trade and environment could, indeed, agree on that much. This bill would not allow the President to negotiate trade agreements that either raise or lower our environmental standards. I believe that ensures that fast track will only be used for the purpose for which it was originally intended, implementing trade agreements, and not authorizing a departure from the ordinary course of Senate deliberations that is absolutely necessary to achieve that end. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. REED addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, let me start out by saying that any agreement that raises environmental standards in a foreign country does not, of course, need fast-track authority because it does not need any authority. To make environmental standards subject to fast track, therefore, means that changes to United States environmental laws would be subject to an up-or-down vote with no amendments. Frankly, I am too much of a supporter of our standards to allow them to be changed in this manner. Let me point out that, in any event, as I did make some mention, the President does have authority now to negotiate whatever he chooses in the area of environmental laws. Of course, under the Constitution, he is responsible for negotiating international agreements, or he could negotiate agreements that raise standards abroad or at home, or lower, such as he chooses. But once he reaches an agreement with another country or countries, if it affects domestic law he, of course, has to bring it to Congress for action. Of course, under the ordinary process, that legislation can be amended. It does seem to me that, as a general rule, whether it is environmental, health, safety or whatever, we do want to have the process be the normal process where a matter comes up in both Houses and can be amended according to the rules of either House. I point out that if someone wants to have fast track in a particular area beyond trade, that can be done. We had, as a matter of fact, given what is, in effect, fast track to base closing, because it was decided that it was important in order to close any bases that the executive branch propose what bases would close and Congress could vote it up or down but not amend. So we made another exception in that case. It can also be pointed out that somewhat the same was done in respect to the Budget Committee. The budget has to be acted upon within a certain number of hours. There can be some amendments, but it is very limited compared with what normally is the process in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. ROTH. Yes.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee desires to be recognized at this time. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today, it is my pleasure to support and urge passage of the Promotion of Adoption, Safety, and Support for Abused and Neglected Children Act or the PASS Act for short. This legislation contains the right combination of reforms to dramatically change the child welfare system for the better. The foster care system reflects a part of modern society which prompts us to ask many questions of ourselves and each other. It is a mirror which can be troubling to look into. Today, we join the tens of thousands of loving foster care and adoptive families and dedicated professionals who are daily witnesses of the successes and failures in a system through which millions of people pass each year. Each report to a child protective service agency involves a victim and a perpetrator--in most cases, a child and his or her parent. A case may take a single day or many years to close. Many of these cases are complex and that the length of time in foster care has an effect on the child. Between 1985 and 1995, the number of children in foster care increased from 276,000 to 494,000, an increase of nearly 80 percent. Much of this increase is due to the hurricane-force waves of drug abuse which continue to unleash their destructive powers on communities and families. Those who believe for even a foolish moment that drug use is a victimless crime are proven wrong by the recent trends in the child welfare system. One need only to look inside the hospital crib of an abandoned crack baby to understand the truth. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that 100,000 children currently in foster care cannot return home without jeopardizing their health, safety, and development. There is great concern that more children are staying in foster care for longer periods of time. The very laws which are intended to protect children may in practice work against their best interests. The child welfare system itself is complex and is composed of many parts and programs. Although the Federal Government has assumed a greater share of the cost of these programs in recent years, State and local governments still provide the majority of the resources for the child welfare system. In fiscal year 1997, the Federal Government contributed approximately $5 billion to the child welfare system. Of this amount, 85 percent was spent through title IV-E programs. CBO estimates that under current law, outlays for foster care and adoption assistance will increase by more than 50 percent from $3.9 billion in fiscal year 1997 to $5.9 billion in 2002. Federal funds are used to subsidize about half of the children in foster care and about two-thirds of the children receiving adoption assistance payments. The Promotion of Adoption, Safety, and Support for Abused and Neglected Children Act includes much needed reform to the child welfare system. The PASS Act provides that in determining ``reasonable efforts,'' the child's health and safety shall be the paramount concern. It clarifies circumstances, including murder, voluntary manslaughter, and felony assault under which ``reasonable efforts'' to reunite families are not required. It requires the States to initiate or join proceedings to terminate parental rights if a child has been in foster care for 12 of the most recent 18 months. The PASS Act strengthens the ``permanency plan'' for children in foster care. It requires criminal background checks for prospective foster care and adoptive parents and any other adults residing in the household and employees of foster care institutions. The amendment specifies circumstances when approval shall not be granted. The PASS Act provides adoption incentive payments to the States to increase the number of children which may total $6,000 per child. It expands the number of child welfare demonstration projects. The amendment also reauthorizes and expands the Family Preservation and Support Services program and includes reforms to this program. It renames the program to the Promoting Adoptive, Safe, and Stable Families program. Funding is increased by $50 million. The amendment adds adoption promotion and time-limited family reunification services to the program. It removes geographic barriers to adoption. The PASS Act requires States to provide for health insurance coverage for adopted children with special needs. It continues eligibility for adoption assistance payments for children whose initial adoption has been disrupted. It provides for an annual report on the State performance in protecting children. The PASS Act requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to recommend to Congress a new incentive system based on State performance within 6 months. The PASS Act once again calls upon our State partners to address the problems of a system in much need of reform. This will be the first significant reform of the child welfare system since 1980. We have enacted sweeping welfare reform and Medicaid reform legislation. We have created a new partnership with the States through the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The PASS Act calls upon the States to channel their efforts to the child welfare system with the same commitment, creativity, and innovation which led to last year's historic welfare reform legislation. Last year we worked to free millions of families from the trap of welfare dependency. Let us now work together to ensure that no children will be left without the opportunity to be a part of a loving, safe, and stable family. There are a number of Senators who deserve our special thanks and recognition for their tireless efforts to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor today. Without naming them all, let me just thank them and congratulate them for a job well done. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I object for the moment. I would like to discuss the matter with the leader before we proceed.

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

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this is the third day in a row that the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, has asked for a unanimous- consent agreement to pass the House IRS restructuring bill. And for the third day in a row, I have, again, objected. Moving this bill today by unanimous consent is the politically expedient thing to do. It is the easy thing to do, and if we approve this legislation now, we could all go home and try to convince our constituents that we solved all the problems with the IRS and they wouldn't have to worry again. But this would not be true. This bill, while it is a good start, does not address the very egregious problems that the Senate Finance Committee exposed in our September hearings. The most significant reform in this bill is the creation of an oversight board. But, Mr. President, the board does not have the power to look at audit and collection issues where the most help is needed for the taxpayer. It falls short on many accountability issues that were raised at our hearings, basic issues such as requiring employees to sign correspondence to taxpayers. It does not alter the power that agents have to abusively slap liens and levies on taxpayers. It does not ensure taxpayers their due-process rights. Those are only a few of the missing links. The restructuring commission and the Ways and Means Committee did good work, but what they have done is only a beginning. We need to go further. Some have said let's pass this now and then come back and do more next year. Well, Mr. President, we know where that will lead. If we pass this reform legislation, legislation that even Senator Kerrey admits has important omissions, those who are not anxious to pass it will rise up and cry that we have already passed reform legislation. When we attempt to strengthen it, they will say that we need no further reform or that we must give this effort a few years to see that it works. The truth is, we will basically get only one real chance to reform the IRS, and for the taxpayer, we must get it right. I yield the floor. Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, our colleague, Senator Joe Biden, addressed the Permanent Representatives to the North Atlantic Council, the so called NAC, during their visit to the United States last month. His speech was an impressive overview of the state of debate here in the United States on NATO enlargement and how that debate is being affected the debate in Europe on issues of transatlantic security. Among these are, of course, the effort to foster reconciliation and peace in the Balkans. The next coming months will feature a number of important events concerning NATO enlargement, including the NAC ministerial in mid- December which will yield protocols of accession into NATO for Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Keeping in mind the debate that we will have early next year on NATO enlargement, I encourage my colleagues to read Senator Binden's statement. It is one that should also be closely read by our colleagues in the executive branch. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Biden's outstanding speech on NATO enlargement be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I wish to address the great efforts that this Chamber has undertaken on the matter of NATO enlargement--the extension of the alliance membership to the democracies of Central and Eastern Europe. It is sometimes charged that Congress has provided serious consideration to this matter. Anyone who makes this argument has not paid attention to the legislation Congress passed on this matter over the last 3 years and have clearly ignored the activities of our committees, particularly the extensive amount of hearings that have been held over the last 2 months. Our leadership on both sides of the aisle is to be commended for the time and effort they have dedicated to this important matter. Allow me to quickly review the highlights of Congress' role in the NATO enlargement issue. It is important to remember that Congress, in a most bipartisan manner, has led the charge for NATO enlargement. In 1994, the 104th Congress, then led by a Democratic majority, passed the NATO Enlargement Participation Act, an initiative of then- Senator Hank Brown. This act not only endorsed NATO enlargement, but also called upon the President to establish programs to assist selected Central European democracies prepare for the burdens and responsibilities of alliance membership. This was a bipartisan initiative, one that found strong support in both parties. I might add that NATO enlargement was even a key pillar in the GOP's Contract With America. In 1996, the Senate passed by recorded vote of 81-16 the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act, a bill that explicitly endorsed NATO membership for Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovenia. This summer the alliance finally heeded the urging of Congress. Last July, at the Madrid summit, the North Atlantic Council invited Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to accession negotiations that will culminate in protocols of accessions that should be approved and signed this December at the annual NAC ministerial. I might add that I had the honor serving as a member of the President's delegation to the Madrid summit along with Senators Joe Biden, Gordon Smith, and Barbara Mikulski. We attended in our capacity as members of the Senate's NATO Observer Group. Our role in this historic summit reflected the bipartisan support behind NATO's policy of enlargement and the degree of consultation and communication occurring on this issue between Congress and the administration. Since the Madrid summit, and particularly over the last 2 months, this Chamber has focused on NATO enlargement in a manner I believe unprecedented for any realm of issues. I and Senator Joe Biden have had the privilege of facilitating 16 NATO Observer Group meetings with administration officials, experts, and foreign officials including NATO Secretary General, Javier Solana. I want to especially commend the leadership of the Senate committees, whose statutory jurisdictions are far broader, for directing so much of their energies to this matter. Over the last 2 months alone, the Foreign Relations Committee, the Appropriations Committee, and the Senate Budget Committee have held a total of nine hearings on NATO enlargement. They have addressed such issues as the geopolitical rational behind this initiative, the affect it has on Russia's evolution as international actor and as a democracy, the financial costs, and the military implications, among other issues, and the pro's and con's that one hears on these matters. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the meetings and hearings that have been conducted by these three Senate committees on NATO enlargement.