Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to agree to that. Let me say this to Senator Kennedy. Let's say that in one-half hour we would yield to the Senator from New York 10 minutes. Is that fine?

Mr. D'AMATO. Could Senator Baucus' remarks be contained in morning business without interrupting the debate for up to 5 minutes?

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, might I ask unanimous consent that Senator Johnson from South Dakota be given 3 minutes to speak on this issue?

Mr. D'AMATO. I believe I was going to be recognized, and indeed I am attempting to accommodate this. I could speak for this 1 hour. I am attempting to accommodate the needs of my colleagues. That is why I yielded 10 minutes. I am prepared to yield 10 minutes to Senator Kennedy. The time is clicking off here.

Mr. D'AMATO. Yes.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be extended until 11:05, because we did not start nearly on time, and I further ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy be recognized now for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, be recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, be recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alaska be recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I believe my colleague from California has a question.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am glad my colleague raised that question. Let me say this: It is disingenuous to say that the women of America are being denied proper health care here when something so basic and elementary is being tied up by procedures. That is exactly what is taking place. This legislation would stop the kind of abuse we see taking place every day. I have women calling and saying they are being denied reconstructive surgery, being denied the kind of health care that everybody agrees on. We have found a methodology of paying for this, and it is not right to tie it to something so comprehensive and say, ``unless we get this one, we are not going to get the other.'' The women of America are being denied this. I intend to hold hostage, with my colleagues, important legislation that moves through until we get a vote on this--whether it is on a defense bill, a tobacco bill, appropriations bills. When we come down to the floor and--

Mr. D'AMATO. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I will withdraw my request and ask that I be given just 2 minutes, because I have yielded more time to more people. I want to set the stage.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me say that we have been thwarted time and time again, procedurally--by both sides, I might say. But now I find what took place today absolutely horrendous. Again, it is disingenuous to suggest that we would have to consider both when one is so clear cut, and the need is so necessary, and women are being denied. That is what is going on here. It is wrong. So when we have a bill that is going to be acted on, I will come to the floor-- I hope with a number of my colleagues--to offer this legislation as an amendment and get a vote. Let the people of America see this. The people are going to be so full of pride that we will not allow something that is so obviously necessary that they are going to hold it hostage, because that is what is taking place with this legislation. It has been held hostage, and it is disingenuous to come down here and say you have to take this great big piece of legislation or we can't even let the women of America have freedom from the fear that they will be denied that which they should have--reconstructive surgery and to stay in the hospital until their doctor says now is the time to go home, not a bean counter, someone who limits you to 24 or 48 hours. I hope my colleagues will join with me in this endeavor, making it a bipartisan fight to see that the women and families of America get justice.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Frank A. Cipriani, whose long and outstanding career as president of SUNY Farmingdale will be celebrated with much pomp on Wednesday, May 20, 1998. Dr. Cipriani's outstanding qualities of enlightened leadership and innovation brought unprecedented success to SUNY Farmingdale. Dr. Cipriani took the school from a two year agrarian institution to a four-year college, one of the largest of the nine Colleges of Technology in the New York State University system. His great success is readily visible on the SUNY Farmingdale Campus. Mr. Cipriani's other associations and affiliations are not as well known but are worthy of commendation. They include: Team Chairman for the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools Evaluation; Chairman of the Board, Regional Industrial Technical Education; Member, New York State-wide Job Training Partnership Council; Member, New York State Education Department's Advisory Council on Postsecondary Education; just to name a few of the associations and affiliations that demonstrate the special concern that Dr. Cipriani has for education. Born in New York of immigrant parents, Dr. Cipriani has been a New Yorker all of his life, with the exception of a stint in the United States Air Force. He attended PS 14 in Corona, Queens, and Brooklyn Technical High School, and holds the A.B. degree from Queens College and the M.A. and Ph.D. Degrees from New York University. Dr. Cipriani was an officer in the United States Air Force who achieved the rank of Captain and the rating of Navigator-Flight Instructor before receiving an honorable discharge. As a member of the American Society of Safety Engineers, he pursued his graduate studies while employed in the Engineering Department of an international insurance company. He speaks Italian and French fluently, and has been a strong advocate of international education and a strong supporter of a humanities component in technical education curricula. Dr. Cipriani is married to Judith M. Pellathy and has four children-- Maria, Frank, Michael and Dominique. His accomplishments are varied and great and we might say that Dr. Frank A. Cipriani is the salt of the earth. He has done much for SUNY Farmingdale and for the state of New York. It is no wonder that such a fine celebration is being prepared to commemorate his twenty years of service to such a fine institution. Frank, I salute you and wish you much health and happiness in the days to come.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to proudly announce two celebrations of major historical achievement. Our first event is the 50th Anniversary of His Ordination to the Service of Our Lord, the Pastor, Reverend Monsignor John R. Gabalski, P.A. The second event is the 125th Anniversary of St. Stanislaus R. C. Church, B.M. The first event will take place on Saturday, May 23, 1998, with a Mass of Thanksgiving in St. Stanislaus R. C. Church at 4:00 p.m. A banquet will follow at the Rt. Rev. Msgr. Peter J. Adamski Social Center, 389 Peckham Street, Buffalo New York. The second event will take place on Sunday, June 7, 1998 at 4:00 p.m. with a Mass of Thanksgiving with his Excellency, Bishop Henry J. Mansell, Ordinary, of the Diocese of Buffalo. A civic reception will follow at the Hearthstone Manor, 333 Dick Rd., Depew, New York. Rt. Rev. Msgr. Gabalski, P.A., attended school at SS. Cyril and Methodius Seminary Orchard Lake in February 1945 to May 1948 and was ordained on May 22, 1948 in Buffalo's St. Joseph New Cathedral by Most Rev. John F. O'Hara. The Reverend attended undergraduate studies at Canisius College for math; Norte Dame and Catholic University, Washington for adolescent psychology; and at Manhattanville, New York for music. In June 1948-August 1949 Msgr. Gabalski attended graduate school at De Paul University, Chicago for Polish and in 1949 received his M.A. in Polish. He also attended graduate studies in language at the University of Detroit and obtained a M.E. in education at Canisius in 1968. Msgr. Gabalski has accomplished many achievements too numerous to count and has spent much of his time volunteering with different organizations. He was a Pastor of Queen of Peace from June 1974 to February 1978. Moreover, Reverend Gabalski was a 16-year member at the Orchard Lake Michigan Schools and a faculty member and Director of the Diocesan Preparatory Seminary. Reverend Gabalski started pastoring St. Stanislaus in February 1978. We compliment Msgr. Gabalski with his accomplishments with the church and outside achievements. The second event is a great milestone in the history of St. Stanislaus R.C. Church which is the 5th oldest parish and the 1st oldest Polish parish in the Diocese of Buffalo. The nucleus of the first Polish parish in Western New York was formed in 1872 under the direction of the Rev. Ivannef Gartner and a recent immigrant, Joseph Kujawski. According to the 1870 United States census, there were no less than 135 natives of Poland within the city limits of Buffalo. John Pitass, on June 8, 1873, organized St. Stanislaus Parish at a meeting of the St. Stanislaus Society. St. Stanislaus B.M. School opened in April, 1874. On August 10, 1882 groundbreaking took place and in 1883 the first level of the church was built. The founding Pastor was Dean Pitass and Rev. Dr. Alexander Pitass was the second Pastor of St. Stanislaus. The third pastor, Rt. Rev. Peter J. Adamski, founded an all-girls high school and was succeeded by the fourth pastor Rev. Msgr. Chester A. Meloch in 1974 who began construction of the Resurrection Mausoleum at the St. Stanislaus Cemetery. After Msgr. Meloch retired, he was succeeded by Msgr. Gabalski. During the current pastor's tenor, the Marian Mausoleum was constructed at the cemetery, a unit of the Knights of Columbus was established at the parish, the Outreach Center was opened, and the Msgr. Adamski Village with apartments for seniors and private homes became a reality. We wish St. Stanislaus the best in their 125th anniversary to be celebrated in 1998.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President. I rise today to congratulate the Columbia University School of Social Work on the occasion of the Centennial of the oldest social work training program in the nation. Evolving from a summer program organized by the Charity Organization Society in New York, the School of Social Work has a long and distinguished history of pioneering research, informed advocacy and exceptional professional training. Throughout the century, Columbia's faculty, students and alumni have worked tirelessly to address both the causes and symptoms of our most pressing social problems. National movements, such as the White House Conference on Children and the National Urban League, have emerged from projects undertaken by the school's faculty and administrators in cooperation with professional and community organizations. The entire nation has benefitted from the work of people like Eveline Burns who works in Social Security; Mitchell I. Ginsberg who works with the Head Start program; Richard Cloward who works with welfare rights and voter registration; Alfred Kahn and Sheila B. Kamerman who works with cross- national studies of social services; and David Fanshel who works with children in foster care. It is a remarkable accomplishment that social workers have played key roles in every major social reform movement, from settlement houses to labor reform, from the New Deal to civil rights and voter registration. Many of the things we take for granted today such as Social Security, child labor laws, minimum wage, the 40-hour work week, and even Medicare came into existence simply because social workers saw injustice. Social workers did not simply talk about the problem but thought up solutions to the problems and then implemented their ideas into reality. Social workers are inspirational not only in their actions but also in their courage. As Columbia University School of Social Work, and indeed the social work profession, move into their second centuries, they will be challenged to respond to social change, new social problems, family change, and evolving societal commitments. Now more than ever, we will need well-trained and dedicated social workers to conduct cutting-edge research, administer social programs, and alleviate society's most intractable problems. It is with appreciation and admiration that I extend my best wishes to Columbia University School of Social Work on its Centennial and look forward to its future activity and achievement.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Graham on this very important amendment. Senator Graham and I recently introduced S. 1682, the Innocent Spouse Tax Relief Act of 1998, to bring long overdue relief to innocent spouses, predominately women, who become responsible for the tax liabilities of their spouses merely because they happened to sign a joint return. I am pleased that the distinguished Chairman of the Finance Committee agrees that the current law innocent spouse provisions are weak at best, and needs dramatic change. I commend him for his leadership in making that change. There were concerns, and rightly so, that some taxpayers may try to abuse the innocent spouse rules by knowingly signing false returns, or transferring assets for the purpose of avoiding the payment of tax, and then claim to be innocent. Obviously, no one would want to open the door to that type of fraud. As such, language was included in the bill that would prevent an individual from electing the innocent spouse provision if they had ``actual knowledge of any item giving rise to a deficiency.'' However, this language raised concern for Senator Graham and myself because the IRS or the courts could deny relief to an innocent spouse simply because he or she had ``actual knowledge'' after the fact. Our amendment will correct what would have been an unintended consequence. It will clarify that the ``actual knowledge'' standard be based on knowledge of an item at the time the return was signed, and that it was not signed under duress. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and provide relief to the 50,000 innocent spouses each year who are unfairly pursued by the IRS. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I have never objected to a person going forward for a minute or 2 minutes, but there is a way to try to accomplish this. I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO. No longer than 5 minutes. (By unanimous consent, the remarks of Mr. D'Amato are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, the reason I rise at this time is because certain matters have come to my attention and they are disturbing. Today, I have sent a letter to the President of the United States in regard to this. Mr. President, Israel is our closest ally, it is our most trusted friend among the nations of the Middle East. We have a long history of working together and supporting one another for the benefit of both nations and all of our people. Now as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Israel's independence, we should reaffirm our commitment to their peace and security and our support for their continuation as a strong, reliable, independent nation. I am proud of what Israel has accomplished over 50 years. I am proud of their commitment to freedom and justice. Israel should be praised for what it has accomplished and for doing so over a very long period of time in which it has faced terrorism from within and without its own borders. Israel has always fought its own battles. Its young have shed much blood to protect their freedom and they continue to this day to defend their right to exist. And their very right to exist is being threatened. Nations hostile to Israel throughout the region are a continuing threat to Israel's existence. And the Palestinian Authority to this day has yet to recognize Israel's legitimate right to exist. It is wrong for the Clinton administration to pressure Israel to forgo its own security needs at this critical time. It is just wrong. It is counterproductive. It is dangerous to a legitimate peace effort. The brave Israeli citizens who stand ready to defend their nation should be supported by us in every fashion. To place an ultimatum on Israel at this time undermines the peace process and it denies a good friend the right to determine its own security needs. It is not just bad policy; it is wrong. I urge President Clinton in the strongest terms to retract his ultimatum to Israel and to return America to our proper role as a friendly mediator in the search for peace and security for all nations in the Middle East. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I do not object, but I rise to make a point that I would hope it would be appropriate at this time to reserve the right, but I do not intend to object. I understand that oftentimes my colleagues work long and hard to craft legislation that they believe is in the best interests of their constituents and the people of this country, and that we do not always have the freedom and luxury for whatever the reason to offer such legislation. Indeed, I have been working with a number of my colleagues, Senator Feinstein and others, on a piece of legislation that I think is absolutely essential and should not be delayed; that every day it is delayed causes anguish for women throughout this country, for families without this country when they are denied basic treatment in terms of their medical needs. And I am talking about those who face cancer, breast cancer in particular, who are forced to leave a hospital because their insurance policy limits the length of stay and/ or they are denied basic treatment, reconstructive surgery. And, indeed, just within the past 6 weeks we have had two cases that have come to my attention personally in my State, but it is happening throughout this country, where medical plans deny them these basic rights, the right to reconstructive surgery after a radical mastectomy. I have taken the time and impinged upon and imposed upon the time of the two leaders here because I feel strongly about this, because this is taking place. I believe it is an unwarranted and unintended consequence that brought this upon us, by passage of the ERISA law, which keeps States from putting on these reasonable conditions. It says, basically, a woman should be entitled to this kind of coverage. Unfortunately, there are some who say we should not have mandates. It is unfortunate that we might have to, and do have to, mandate in this case because there are millions and millions of American women who do not have this basic protection and right. I am fully intending to, and I said to my colleagues on the Finance Committee that I would, offer this legislative proposal that would see to it that this grievous situation is rectified. I intended to do it here on the IRS reform bill, because this is a bill that will pass. This is a bill that is necessary. This is a bill that my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, have worked on long and hard. And it will be signed into law. I also know that if we ever get an opportunity to bring the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act to this floor it will pass overwhelmingly. For a number of reasons we have not been able to do that. The two leaders have indicated to me, and have asked me to withhold, because there are other laudable, and I am sure very worthy, amendments that my colleagues have agreed not to put forth. They have assured me they will seek to give us an opportunity--Senator Feinstein and myself and the other 20 cosponsors--to bring up this amendment. It is not a costly amendment but will save lives. It will save families. It will ensure that women get the proper kind of care they can and should be getting. It is unfortunate that we need this kind of legislation. They will attempt to give us an opportunity of some 2 hours this Tuesday to bring forth this legislation. On that basis, I will not object. But I have to tell my colleagues, it is a year and a half now. There is a lot of pain. A lot of people have been denied that which they should have had. A lot of people have been forced to go to appeals, to appeal through the boards that administer many of these programs, their self-insured programs, to get this basic right. I don't think that we want to, nor should we, continue this nor countenance this any longer. On the assurance that we are going to attempt and really make a good- faith effort to bring this to the floor Tuesday, I will withdraw any objection and go along. I thank my colleagues for recognizing the plight of families in America in attempting to work with us in a way that collectively we can solve that problem. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. If the majority leader might yield at this point just for an observation? I want my colleagues to understand that we are going to vote on this one way or the other. I am committed to it. I have, on a number of occasions now, so as to provide the opportunity for this body to do its business--no one Senator, including this Senator, should put himself or herself above the interests of the body. I have attempted to respect that. I mean that. I have not attempted to delay.

Mr. D'AMATO. Good, because I will wait for something all my colleagues want, and we may be here a long time. I don't think that is going to serve anybody's interest. I would like everyone to join in. If they can make this bill a better bill truly in that spirit, then let's do it. If it is just to weight it down and sink it, that is not something I am going to take as being responsible, and we will talk to that. Everybody has a right to do what they want out here in the open. People can judge whether they are being responsible or not. I hope in that spirit, because we have done a lot of good things together, I remind my colleagues on both sides, it is in that spirit I would like to approach it. I thank the majority leader for understanding and the minority leader. I look forward to working with them both.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today as we reach the end of our debate on NATO enlargement to restate my firm support for the Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty providing for the accession of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. NATO enlargement is the right thing to do. We must seize this opportunity now to help make Europe whole and free. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of enlargement. While NATO was born out of the Cold War to protect ourselves and our allies from the Soviet threat, it is also part of the broader U.S. policy to foster European integration after the end of World War II. The first step in this policy was the Marshall Plan, not NATO. But after Stalin's Iron Curtain divided Europe, and Soviet-installed puppet governments rejected Marshall Plan aid, it was clear that economic recovery and political cooperation could not proceed without a security shield. NATO provided that shield. The Soviet Union is gone. So are the Moscow-controlled puppet governments in central and eastern European states. Once again, we have a window of opportunity to complete the work we started at the end of World War II. We must not miss this historic chance to advance our policy of supporting European integration based on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. We have a chance to bring into the circle of Western democracies those states, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, that were denied this chance by Soviet occupation at the end of World War II. By voting for enlargement, we are again extending the hand that Stalin slapped away, affirming the promise of freedom and security for the Polish, Hungarian, and Czech peoples. As Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, better known as the Helsinki Commission, I have seen NATO candidate states take steps to resolve internal problems and external disputes that have been major features of national life within those states for generations. Human rights violations in those states have substantially decreased, and their membership in NATO and, in the future, the EU, will give us leverage to resolve remaining problems. But for the promise of the security guarantee that comes with NATO membership, I believe these problems and disputes would not only have remained unresolved, but would likely have given rise, over time, to confrontations between states that could have led to war. Thus, by that measure, NATO enlargement is already having positive results. Once NATO enlargement is realized, the political risk associated with economic reform in central and eastern European states will diminsh. This will make international investors more willing to provide capital to businesses in these states, creating jobs and improving economic health. Improved performance during and after transition to free market economies will help cement in place stable democratic governments. The combination of healthy economies and stable democratic governments will help the European Union expand to include these states. Thus, expansion of NATO's security shield is the first step, not the last step, toward further broad European integration. There have been many statements of caution about the impact of NATO enlargement on Russia. I firmly believe that Russian democracy will be better served by having healthy, stable, and prosperous democracies on its western border, than by leaving a gray zone between a steadily more integrated Europe and Russia. Since coming to the Senate in 1981, I have been a member of the Helsinki Commission. This work has brought me into contact with the Soviet dissident community, which over time has become the core of the Russian pro-reform and pro-democracy movement. From this long experience, I can tell you that a failure to expand NATO and the European Union to embrace every European state that can meet the established entrance requirements would be a victory for the anti- democratic forces in Russia. Especially if NATO enlargement were to fail because the United States would not agree to it, extremist politicians of all stripes from Russia through eastern and central Europe would take heart and encouragement. Democrats and free market reformers would be seriously damaged, and political and economic stability would be called into question. The influence of the United States would be greatly decreased, and our commitments would be open to doubt. When we cast our votes today, we need to keep in mind the probable highly negative consequences of what would, in effect, be a veto by the United States Senate of NATO expansion. NATO enlargement, European integration, and the advancement of political reform, democracy, individual freedom, and free market economics are all part of the same effort. What we do here today can make a major contribution to the security and prosperity of future generations of Americans. The opportunity to expand the circle of free and democratic countries can not be missed. This amendment to the North Atlantic Treaty should be approved. I will vote for it, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.