Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bi-partisan legislation which will allow states the option of providing Medicaid coverage to women who have been diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer through the federal government's breast and cervical cancer early detection program. Currently, the CDC breast and cervical cancer program provides low- income, uninsured women with coverage for cancer screening, covering mammographies and pap smears. While this program begins to fill a crucial need, this legislation allows Congress to make this program even better. The result has often been that uninsured women are diagnosed with cancer and then left to scramble to find treatment. In 1990 Congress passed a bill that was a breakthrough for the early detection of breast and cervical cancer in women. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act of 1990 authorized the Center for Disease control to increase screening services for women who are low-income. From July of 1991 to March of 1997, CDC's program provide mammography screening to over 500,000 women and diagnosed nearly 3,500 cases of breast cancer. During this same period, the program provided over 700,000 Pap tests and found more than 300 cases of invasive cervical cancer. This is good news for the early detection of cancers in women. But the bad news is that all women are not getting treated for cancer. Screening does not prevent cancer deaths; it must be coupled with treatment. Congress tried to ensure that women would get treatment, by requiring that state programs seek out services for the women they screen. But wherever I've traveled in New York, I've been hearing reports that programs are over burdened. Volunteers are working over time. Program administrators are having to rely on public hospitals and charity care. Women are having to hold bake sales to get treatment. This is wrong. It's not what Congress intended when it passed the Cancer Prevention Act in 1990. Now, a newly published study of the program documents that approaches for delivering treatment services are fragmented, and in danger of breaking down. I am very concerned, Mr. President, that the program is over burdened and needs help. The women of America need this program. Early detection saves lives. However, Mr. President, if we are unable to treat the women who are diagnosed with breast cancer, we have failed them. I commend the local programs that are working hard to line up treatment services for women. These programs are doing whatever they can to see that women with cancer get care. But the fact is that these solutions are labor-intensive and have long-range consequences of the program itself. The CDC study shows that programs are having a hard time recruiting new providers and must limit the number of women screened. Today the program serves only 12 to 15% of all women who are eligible nationally. And this percentage is likely to decrease. The study also shows that fewer physicians will be able to offer free or reduced-fee services in the future, because of changes in the health- care system. My point is, and the study shows, that whatever fragile delivery systems for treatment are in place now are in jeopardy and overburdened. Women are not getting the treatment they need. In June 1997, Senator Moynihan and I were successful in including an amendment in the Budget Resolution that addressed this and would have solved this problem. Unfortunately, that amendment was passed by the Senate but later died in conference. Mr. President, we must not let these women fall through the cracks any longer. This legislation provides a mechanism to fix the problem that these under served women face. Mr. President, I began the fight in 1992 for more research funding for breast cancer. With the help of the National Breast Cancer Coalition and the women of New York--women like Barbara Balaban, Geri Barish, and Doctor Susan Love, Senator Harkin and I started a research program in the Army that has grown to over $750 million and continues to provide research dollars for the latest, cutting edge technologies and research. We must not abandon the women of America who are diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer, only to find that there is no way to pay for their treatment. Congress has responded to the call for more research money for breast cancer, we must now continue that fight to provide increased treatment for every woman diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer. The National Breast Cancer Coalition has made me very aware of the problems that women are facing regarding treatment after diagnosis under the CDC program. And I am concerned that the problem is getting worse. We make speeches and wear pink ribbons to show our commitment to fight breast cancer--but now is the time to act to support a simple amendment that will make real contribution to the fight against breast cancer. It will save lives and ensure that women, when diagnosed through the federal program, will not have to hold bake sales to get treatment. I join my colleagues, Senator Moynihan, Senator Snowe, and Senator Mikulski, in sponsoring legislation that will establish a mechanism for women's treatment. This is a targeted measure that will allow states the option of providing Medicaid to women who have participated in the CDC program and have been diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer. I am determined to solve this problem before Congress is adjourned this year. It is irresponsible of the federal government to do otherwise. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bi-partisan legislation which will allow states the option of providing Medicaid coverage to women who have been diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer through the federal government's breast and cervical cancer early detection program. Currently, the CDC breast and cervical cancer program provides low- income, uninsured women with coverage for cancer screening, covering mammographies and pap smears. While this program begins to fill a crucial need, this legislation allows Congress to make this program even better. The result has often been that uninsured women are diagnosed with cancer and then left to scramble to find treatment. In 1990 Congress passed a bill that was a breakthrough for the early detection of breast and cervical cancer in women. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act of 1990 authorized the Center for Disease control to increase screening services for women who are low-income. From July of 1991 to March of 1997, CDC's program provide mammography screening to over 500,000 women and diagnosed nearly 3,500 cases of breast cancer. During this same period, the program provided over 700,000 Pap tests and found more than 300 cases of invasive cervical cancer. This is good news for the early detection of cancers in women. But the bad news is that all women are not getting treated for cancer. Screening does not prevent cancer deaths; it must be coupled with treatment. Congress tried to ensure that women would get treatment, by requiring that state programs seek out services for the women they screen. But wherever I've traveled in New York, I've been hearing reports that programs are over burdened. Volunteers are working over time. Program administrators are having to rely on public hospitals and charity care. Women are having to hold bake sales to get treatment. This is wrong. It's not what Congress intended when it passed the Cancer Prevention Act in 1990. Now, a newly published study of the program documents that approaches for delivering treatment services are fragmented, and in danger of breaking down. I am very concerned, Mr. President, that the program is over burdened and needs help. The women of America need this program. Early detection saves lives. However, Mr. President, if we are unable to treat the women who are diagnosed with breast cancer, we have failed them. I commend the local programs that are working hard to line up treatment services for women. These programs are doing whatever they can to see that women with cancer get care. But the fact is that these solutions are labor-intensive and have long-range consequences of the program itself. The CDC study shows that programs are having a hard time recruiting new providers and must limit the number of women screened. Today the program serves only 12 to 15% of all women who are eligible nationally. And this percentage is likely to decrease. The study also shows that fewer physicians will be able to offer free or reduced-fee services in the future, because of changes in the health- care system. My point is, and the study shows, that whatever fragile delivery systems for treatment are in place now are in jeopardy and overburdened. Women are not getting the treatment they need. In June 1997, Senator Moynihan and I were successful in including an amendment in the Budget Resolution that addressed this and would have solved this problem. Unfortunately, that amendment was passed by the Senate but later died in conference. Mr. President, we must not let these women fall through the cracks any longer. This legislation provides a mechanism to fix the problem that these under served women face. Mr. President, I began the fight in 1992 for more research funding for breast cancer. With the help of the National Breast Cancer Coalition and the women of New York--women like Barbara Balaban, Geri Barish, and Doctor Susan Love, Senator Harkin and I started a research program in the Army that has grown to over $750 million and continues to provide research dollars for the latest, cutting edge technologies and research. We must not abandon the women of America who are diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer, only to find that there is no way to pay for their treatment. Congress has responded to the call for more research money for breast cancer, we must now continue that fight to provide increased treatment for every woman diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer. The National Breast Cancer Coalition has made me very aware of the problems that women are facing regarding treatment after diagnosis under the CDC program. And I am concerned that the problem is getting worse. We make speeches and wear pink ribbons to show our commitment to fight breast cancer--but now is the time to act to support a simple amendment that will make real contribution to the fight against breast cancer. It will save lives and ensure that women, when diagnosed through the federal program, will not have to hold bake sales to get treatment. I join my colleagues, Senator Moynihan, Senator Snowe, and Senator Mikulski, in sponsoring legislation that will establish a mechanism for women's treatment. This is a targeted measure that will allow states the option of providing Medicaid to women who have participated in the CDC program and have been diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer. I am determined to solve this problem before Congress is adjourned this year. It is irresponsible of the federal government to do otherwise. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Federal Home Loan Bank System Restructuring Act of 1998'' to eliminate the last vestiges of a bureaucratic structure which contributed to the downfall of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's, and cost American taxpayers $125 billion. I am referring to the structural weakness inherent in a regulatory system which allows the combination of basic safety and soundness oversight with management and governance functions. This structural weakness exists today in the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB) which oversees the Federal Home Loan Bank System. Moreover, the FHFB appears to be the only regulatory agency where the responsibility for safety and soundness regulation has not been separated from management and governance functions. I am very pleased that Senator Richard Shelby has joined as a co- sponsor because he is the Senate's leading proponent of regulatory reform and eliminating outdated and unnecessary regulation. Mr. President, throughout most of its history, the Federal Home Loan Bank System was regulated by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, the same agency responsible for regulating the thrift industry. In 1989, Congress passed the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) to abolish the Bank Board and create the Federal Housing Finance Board (``FHFB'') to assume responsibility for the regulation and supervision of the Federal Home Loan Bank System (FHLB System). FIRREA provided the FHFB with the authority to supervise the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks), ensure that the FHLBanks carry out their mission of housing finance, ensure the FHLBanks remain adequately capitalized and able to raise funds in the capital markets, and ensure the FHLBanks operate in a safe and sound manner. Safety and soundness regulation became the primary duty of the FHFB as a result of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. In that Act, Congress also recognized problems at the Federal Housing Finance Board and specifically identified this structural flaw as a serious problem. In search of a solution to this problem and information concerning the future of the Federal Home Loan Banks in the context of changing markets for housing finance, Congress mandated several studies. In the study conducted by the FHFB, the agency itself expressed concern about its dual role: ``The roles of regulation and governance residing in one entity are not compatible and, indeed, represent a long standing, well-understood inherent conflict when joined''. [The Report on the Structure and Role of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, The Federal Housing Finance Board, submitted to Congress on April 28, 1993, page 153.] The FHFB recognized that concerns about shareholder dividends and profitability should not be in competition with concerns over safety and soundness and the availability of housing finance for American taxpayers. Mr. President, this bill would eliminate this serious and dangerous conflict by transferring functions from the FHFB to the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This is the current system of regulation designed by Congress for the other two housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSEs)--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In addition, consolidating safety and soundness regulation in one regulatory is consistent with the core recommendations of GAO and HUD-- that the conflict with the FHFB be resolved through the creation of a single housing-related GSE. Even the Chairman of the FHFB, in testimony before a House Banking Subcommittee last July, endorsed the GAO's recommendation for a single independent safety and soundness regulator for the Federal Home Loan Banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He acknowledged that consolidation will yield more effective regulation. Mr. President, consolidating regulation of the housing GSE's is also consistent with the Administration's objective of reducing government by eliminating unnecessary, duplicative or redundant regulation--an objective we all share. By placing FHFB's safety and soundness functions with OFHEO, administration costs would be cut and regulatory consistencies would be realized as a result of the complementary nature of the housing finance roles played by the Federal Home Loan Banks, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. Another important public benefit of consolidating oversight of the housing missions of these agencies within HUD is to enable HUD to more effectively assess and respond to the nation's affordable housing needs. Mr. President, the legislation would abolish the conflicting dual roles of the FHFB, streamline an overburdened bureaucratic process, and insure that those entities with the mission of promoting housing finance--Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Federal Home Loan Banks--are meeting that challenge in the most effective way possible. We owe nothing less to the working families most in need of our assistance than to insure the system is working for them. Mr. President, this bill would address the regulation of the Federal Home Loan Bank System by transferring its safety and soundness functions to OFHEO and mission oversight to HUD. It does not--and is not intended to--address other policy issues pertaining to the future role of the Federal Home Loan Banks which remain under consideration by the Banking Committee, Improving the level of affordable housing, ensuring effective, efficient and objective regulation, cutting the fat out of the government, and managing the taxpayers' dollars wisely--that is what this bill is all about. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Federal Home Loan Bank System Restructuring Act of 1998'' to eliminate the last vestiges of a bureaucratic structure which contributed to the downfall of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's, and cost American taxpayers $125 billion. I am referring to the structural weakness inherent in a regulatory system which allows the combination of basic safety and soundness oversight with management and governance functions. This structural weakness exists today in the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB) which oversees the Federal Home Loan Bank System. Moreover, the FHFB appears to be the only regulatory agency where the responsibility for safety and soundness regulation has not been separated from management and governance functions. I am very pleased that Senator Richard Shelby has joined as a co- sponsor because he is the Senate's leading proponent of regulatory reform and eliminating outdated and unnecessary regulation. Mr. President, throughout most of its history, the Federal Home Loan Bank System was regulated by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, the same agency responsible for regulating the thrift industry. In 1989, Congress passed the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) to abolish the Bank Board and create the Federal Housing Finance Board (``FHFB'') to assume responsibility for the regulation and supervision of the Federal Home Loan Bank System (FHLB System). FIRREA provided the FHFB with the authority to supervise the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks), ensure that the FHLBanks carry out their mission of housing finance, ensure the FHLBanks remain adequately capitalized and able to raise funds in the capital markets, and ensure the FHLBanks operate in a safe and sound manner. Safety and soundness regulation became the primary duty of the FHFB as a result of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. In that Act, Congress also recognized problems at the Federal Housing Finance Board and specifically identified this structural flaw as a serious problem. In search of a solution to this problem and information concerning the future of the Federal Home Loan Banks in the context of changing markets for housing finance, Congress mandated several studies. In the study conducted by the FHFB, the agency itself expressed concern about its dual role: ``The roles of regulation and governance residing in one entity are not compatible and, indeed, represent a long standing, well-understood inherent conflict when joined''. [The Report on the Structure and Role of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, The Federal Housing Finance Board, submitted to Congress on April 28, 1993, page 153.] The FHFB recognized that concerns about shareholder dividends and profitability should not be in competition with concerns over safety and soundness and the availability of housing finance for American taxpayers. Mr. President, this bill would eliminate this serious and dangerous conflict by transferring functions from the FHFB to the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This is the current system of regulation designed by Congress for the other two housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSEs)--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In addition, consolidating safety and soundness regulation in one regulatory is consistent with the core recommendations of GAO and HUD-- that the conflict with the FHFB be resolved through the creation of a single housing-related GSE. Even the Chairman of the FHFB, in testimony before a House Banking Subcommittee last July, endorsed the GAO's recommendation for a single independent safety and soundness regulator for the Federal Home Loan Banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He acknowledged that consolidation will yield more effective regulation. Mr. President, consolidating regulation of the housing GSE's is also consistent with the Administration's objective of reducing government by eliminating unnecessary, duplicative or redundant regulation--an objective we all share. By placing FHFB's safety and soundness functions with OFHEO, administration costs would be cut and regulatory consistencies would be realized as a result of the complementary nature of the housing finance roles played by the Federal Home Loan Banks, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. Another important public benefit of consolidating oversight of the housing missions of these agencies within HUD is to enable HUD to more effectively assess and respond to the nation's affordable housing needs. Mr. President, the legislation would abolish the conflicting dual roles of the FHFB, streamline an overburdened bureaucratic process, and insure that those entities with the mission of promoting housing finance--Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Federal Home Loan Banks--are meeting that challenge in the most effective way possible. We owe nothing less to the working families most in need of our assistance than to insure the system is working for them. Mr. President, this bill would address the regulation of the Federal Home Loan Bank System by transferring its safety and soundness functions to OFHEO and mission oversight to HUD. It does not--and is not intended to--address other policy issues pertaining to the future role of the Federal Home Loan Banks which remain under consideration by the Banking Committee, Improving the level of affordable housing, ensuring effective, efficient and objective regulation, cutting the fat out of the government, and managing the taxpayers' dollars wisely--that is what this bill is all about. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, April 24th is the day we remember the horrors inflicted upon the Armenians in Turkey during World War I and afterward. Today, we express our solidarity with Armenians everywhere, and reflect upon the meaning of their suffering and sacrifice. We mourn the dead, and express our condolences to their living descendants. During that terrible tragedy, about 1.5 million people were killed. The massacres and deportations of the Armenians during that period were a forerunner of subsequent horrors perpetrated against other peoples. The Armenians were the first victims of genocide in this century, when civilian populations, defined by ethnicity, race or religion, have been targeted by soldiers or paramilitary groups, and in some cases, by sovereign states using all their instruments of military power to destroy a people. We mark this day so as never to forget what happened, and to strengthen our conviction to prevent any recurrences in the future. Not only against Armenians, but against any people. During and after World War I, Armenians did not have a state of their own. Today, independent Armenia defends Armenians everywhere, and they, in turn, protect the interests of their ancient homeland. Armenia is a country of great promise, despite its many troubles. We fervently hope that the efforts of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Minsk Group will be successful and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will be resolved peacefully. We pray that we may see a prosperous Armenia living in peace with all its neighbors, continuing to teach the world lessons, as a light unto the nations.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that will benefit consumers and small businessmen and women who must travel by air. The bill I am introducing today, the Consumer Access to Travel Information Act of 1998, will reverse an increasingly anti-consumer, anti-competitive trend in airline travel across the country. For three years, the major airlines have been moving to gain more control over the airline travel ticket distribution system. While this effort may seem harmless, the ramifications to consumers are significant. Currently, most air travelers get their information from one of the 33,000 travel agencies around the country. These agencies provide consumers with unbiased and comprehensive air travel information, i.e., the best flight at the cheapest fare. Without that independent source of travel information, there is no doubt that consumers will be paying more, in many cases, substantially more for air travel. The Consumer Access to Travel Information Act of 1998 is a reasonable, and balanced bill that is significant not only for what it does, but also for what it doesn't do. This legislation would simply require the Secretary of Transportation to investigate the behavior of major airlines, including discriminatory and predatory practices of airlines which target travel agents, other independent distributors, and small airlines. This is authority that the Secretary currently has under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, but has thus far not elected to use. This bill makes certain this investigation is undertaken. If it is determined that anti-competitive, discriminatory or predatory practices exist, the Secretary must report to Congress those steps the Department intends to take to address such practices. What this legislation does not do is regulate the airline industry. In fact, this legislation is a wake up call for the industry. As the for-profit hospital and HMO industries discovered, if consumers are disregarded, and anti-competitive activities are encouraged, the heavy hand of regulators and anti-trust remedies will soon follow. This investigation by DOT may bring to light practices that the airlines themselves may not even realize exist. It is far better to have DOT look into these issues and have them addressed now, than to have Congress begin pursuing more proactive legislative remedies in the future. Travel agents provide critical services to air travelers, and air travelers depend heavily upon travel agents to provide an accurate, broad selection of schedules, fare quotes, and ticketing services for all airlines. Agents quote schedules and fares, and provide ticketing services, to consumers on major U.S. airlines, small U.S. airlines, large and small international airlines, and start-up airlines. The travel agency community and other independent ticket distributors are the only efficient, independent and comprehensive sources of information for airline travel options. Travel agencies and other independent distributors comprise a considerable portion of the small business sector in the United States, employing over 250,000 people. Over 50% of travel agencies are owned by women or minorities. Every industry study conducted since the 1960's has concluded that travel agents can process reservation and ticketing transactions in any medium more efficiently than can airlines. Just this year, one of the world's largest and most efficient airlines announced the closing of all of its U.S. ticket offices in favor of the efficiencies of the U.S. travel agency industry. So why are multi-billion dollar airlines putting the squeeze on the mom and pop travel agencies? Unfortunately, the answer lies beyond just sucking more revenue from the travel agent. The biggest threat to the current airline oligopoly is the young, upstart airlines. Wherever these airlines operate, the major air carriers' prices are competitive. Wherever these airlines do not operate, the consumer pays monopoly prices. Small domestic airlines, many international airlines, and start-up airlines heavily depend upon the travel agency distribution system. There is no alternate distribution system available to these types of airlines. A less ubiquitous, less independent travel agency means less business for, and less competition from, the smaller airlines. As part of the effort to consolidate their market power, the airlines began to focus on the ticket distribution system. Twice in the last three years, the major airlines have initiated and supported reductions in travel agent commissions on the sale of air travel. In February alone, total travel agent commissions on domestic travel dropped 21%. More reductions from airlines, and greater travel agent losses, are expected. The number of travel agencies has decreased for the first time since World War II, and many more closings are expected as agency operating reserves are exhausted. As travel agents are forced out of the industry and airlines secure more direct consumer business, consumer alternatives will continue to decrease, resulting in significantly higher consumer travel costs. Major airlines have generally misrepresented the reason for agency commission cuts, citing a need to reduce expenses and pass savings on to consumers. In fact, airline ticket prices have steadily increased, there have been no consumer benefits, airlines are posting record profits quarter-after-quarter, and consumers are paying the highest airfares in history. Commissions are not the only way in which the airlines are using anti-competitive practices to pressure the travel agents. For example, confidential business information generated by travel agents, such as marketing, bookings, and sales data, is routinely shared by the airlines. Considering airlines regard themselves as competitors of travel agents, this is an intolerable situation for the travel agents. Another example of unfair treatment is the use of promotions, concessions, and benefits that airlines can pass on to consumers that are denied to travel agents. In addition the airlines operate the Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC), which controls both who can become a travel agent and the settlement of funds between travel agents and the airlines. Internet travel servicing, one ticket distribution alternative which holds great promise for consumers, is also being dominated by the major air carriers. As a practical matter, travel agents have already been excluded by airlines from selling tickets booked by electronic means. As with conventional distribution, Internet consumers have very limited ability to view consolidated electronic schedule and fare information, much less interpret the rules, restrictions and penalties attached to such lower fares as might be found. That is why, Mr. President, Congress must pass the Consumer Access to Travel Information Act of 1998 before consumers are hurt further, and before there is an overwhelming cry to reregulate air travel. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that will benefit consumers and small businessmen and women who must travel by air. The bill I am introducing today, the Consumer Access to Travel Information Act of 1998, will reverse an increasingly anti-consumer, anti-competitive trend in airline travel across the country. For three years, the major airlines have been moving to gain more control over the airline travel ticket distribution system. While this effort may seem harmless, the ramifications to consumers are significant. Currently, most air travelers get their information from one of the 33,000 travel agencies around the country. These agencies provide consumers with unbiased and comprehensive air travel information, i.e., the best flight at the cheapest fare. Without that independent source of travel information, there is no doubt that consumers will be paying more, in many cases, substantially more for air travel. The Consumer Access to Travel Information Act of 1998 is a reasonable, and balanced bill that is significant not only for what it does, but also for what it doesn't do. This legislation would simply require the Secretary of Transportation to investigate the behavior of major airlines, including discriminatory and predatory practices of airlines which target travel agents, other independent distributors, and small airlines. This is authority that the Secretary currently has under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, but has thus far not elected to use. This bill makes certain this investigation is undertaken. If it is determined that anti-competitive, discriminatory or predatory practices exist, the Secretary must report to Congress those steps the Department intends to take to address such practices. What this legislation does not do is regulate the airline industry. In fact, this legislation is a wake up call for the industry. As the for-profit hospital and HMO industries discovered, if consumers are disregarded, and anti-competitive activities are encouraged, the heavy hand of regulators and anti-trust remedies will soon follow. This investigation by DOT may bring to light practices that the airlines themselves may not even realize exist. It is far better to have DOT look into these issues and have them addressed now, than to have Congress begin pursuing more proactive legislative remedies in the future. Travel agents provide critical services to air travelers, and air travelers depend heavily upon travel agents to provide an accurate, broad selection of schedules, fare quotes, and ticketing services for all airlines. Agents quote schedules and fares, and provide ticketing services, to consumers on major U.S. airlines, small U.S. airlines, large and small international airlines, and start-up airlines. The travel agency community and other independent ticket distributors are the only efficient, independent and comprehensive sources of information for airline travel options. Travel agencies and other independent distributors comprise a considerable portion of the small business sector in the United States, employing over 250,000 people. Over 50% of travel agencies are owned by women or minorities. Every industry study conducted since the 1960's has concluded that travel agents can process reservation and ticketing transactions in any medium more efficiently than can airlines. Just this year, one of the world's largest and most efficient airlines announced the closing of all of its U.S. ticket offices in favor of the efficiencies of the U.S. travel agency industry. So why are multi-billion dollar airlines putting the squeeze on the mom and pop travel agencies? Unfortunately, the answer lies beyond just sucking more revenue from the travel agent. The biggest threat to the current airline oligopoly is the young, upstart airlines. Wherever these airlines operate, the major air carriers' prices are competitive. Wherever these airlines do not operate, the consumer pays monopoly prices. Small domestic airlines, many international airlines, and start-up airlines heavily depend upon the travel agency distribution system. There is no alternate distribution system available to these types of airlines. A less ubiquitous, less independent travel agency means less business for, and less competition from, the smaller airlines. As part of the effort to consolidate their market power, the airlines began to focus on the ticket distribution system. Twice in the last three years, the major airlines have initiated and supported reductions in travel agent commissions on the sale of air travel. In February alone, total travel agent commissions on domestic travel dropped 21%. More reductions from airlines, and greater travel agent losses, are expected. The number of travel agencies has decreased for the first time since World War II, and many more closings are expected as agency operating reserves are exhausted. As travel agents are forced out of the industry and airlines secure more direct consumer business, consumer alternatives will continue to decrease, resulting in significantly higher consumer travel costs. Major airlines have generally misrepresented the reason for agency commission cuts, citing a need to reduce expenses and pass savings on to consumers. In fact, airline ticket prices have steadily increased, there have been no consumer benefits, airlines are posting record profits quarter-after-quarter, and consumers are paying the highest airfares in history. Commissions are not the only way in which the airlines are using anti-competitive practices to pressure the travel agents. For example, confidential business information generated by travel agents, such as marketing, bookings, and sales data, is routinely shared by the airlines. Considering airlines regard themselves as competitors of travel agents, this is an intolerable situation for the travel agents. Another example of unfair treatment is the use of promotions, concessions, and benefits that airlines can pass on to consumers that are denied to travel agents. In addition the airlines operate the Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC), which controls both who can become a travel agent and the settlement of funds between travel agents and the airlines. Internet travel servicing, one ticket distribution alternative which holds great promise for consumers, is also being dominated by the major air carriers. As a practical matter, travel agents have already been excluded by airlines from selling tickets booked by electronic means. As with conventional distribution, Internet consumers have very limited ability to view consolidated electronic schedule and fare information, much less interpret the rules, restrictions and penalties attached to such lower fares as might be found. That is why, Mr. President, Congress must pass the Consumer Access to Travel Information Act of 1998 before consumers are hurt further, and before there is an overwhelming cry to reregulate air travel. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me simply say that the objective of these reforms is to put our children first, to promote excellence in education, to reward the truly outstanding teachers who create magic in the classroom, give them merit pay, and see to it that we have a level of competence in terms of teaching what our children require. Mr. President, let me say that we do not mandate that States and local districts come into this with the funds that will be provided for merit pay and teacher testing.

Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO

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

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, in about half an hour or 45 minutes I will have the pleasure of being able to offer an amendment to the pending bill, along with my friend and colleague, Senator Mack of Florida, that will, I believe, help reform education. I believe the most important battle that America faces is to provide an opportunity for our youngsters to get a decent education, to get the best education possible. Reform of our education system is one of America's priorities. Indeed, our amendment will reform the evaluation of public school teachers in America and, most importantly, will reward the best teachers with additional salary. Reforming our education system is the most important issue facing our Nation. This is a fight for America's children. When we look at reforming our public schools, one thing must always be kept foremost in our efforts: We must put our children first--not anyone's interest, but the interest of our children. Our children are the best and the brightest. They are our most precious resource. That is what our legislative proposal will be about. This amendment is about promoting excellence in teaching, for the benefit of our children. Before I get into the details of the amendment, I want to speak a little bit about excellent teachers and how they help our children learn. When my dad entered elementary school quite a few years ago, he didn't speak a word of English. Indeed, very few spoke English in the poor, immigrant community in which he grew up. But he had teachers who were dedicated to giving the best education to those children who came from all kinds of diverse backgrounds. After many years of hard work, summer schools included, my dad graduated. He went on to a State teachers' college where he majored, of all things, in English. My dad was able to achieve this amazing progress because he was inspired by his public school teachers who created magic in the classroom. That same inspiration takes place today in many classrooms throughout America. Public school teachers still make a difference for millions of our children. Truly outstanding teachers are the unsung heroes of our communities. Unfortunately, however, this magic does not take place for every child in every classroom, and that is a tragedy. Today, in most of our Nation's public schools, there is no financial incentive for those truly outstanding teachers. We should change that. Outstanding teachers who help our children achieve educational success should be rewarded with merit pay. That is just good common sense. It works in business. It works in other areas. And it should be part of our educational system. Another commonsense measure is teacher competence testing. Again, most teachers are very dedicated, and most teachers are up to the job. But some are not. In some cases, you have teachers who are competent in their area of specialty who are teaching other subjects in which they lack competence. When that happens, our children are the ones who suffer. We need to know that those who teach our children are competent in the subjects they teach. We need competency testing for all teachers. Our children deserve nothing less than the best. Our legislation will provide incentives for States and localities to adopt both of these vital measures: merit pay and competency testing. The amendment is called ``Measures to Encourage Results in Teaching.'' It is the MERIT Act. Incentives are provided through the Eisenhower Professional Development Program. The amendment sets aside 50 percent of the funds appropriated over fiscal year 1999 levels and then distributes it to States that have established teacher testing and merit pay plans. Last year, fiscal year 1998, Congress appropriated $335 million for this program to subsidize training for teachers, an increase of $25 million from the year before. I support this effort to train teachers. But I also believe that we have to be able to ensure that teachers are actually improving their teaching skills and children are benefiting. Teacher testing will accomplish this goal. I also want to reward teachers whose training creates magic in the classroom. Merit pay will accomplish this goal. Under this amendment, as the Eisenhower Professional Development Program funding increases, so will each State and local Government's share. However, 50 percent of the increase will be reserved for those States that put in place merit pay and teacher testing. Mr. President, it is time to meet the challenges of massive, fundamental reform in education. Congress has repeatedly tried to address the inadequacies in our schools by providing funding. I support more funding for education. But we also have to recognize that funding alone will not make American schools competitive in the global economy. There needs to be significant reforms--and merit pay and teacher testing should be part of those reforms. The fight to reform our public education system is a fight for America's future. Our children are depending on us. I urge my colleagues to support this measure, to guarantee that all students have the right to be taught by educated, confidence and qualified teachers--and to reward the truly outstanding teachers with merit pay, those teachers who do create magic in the classroom. Let's not let the status quo diminish the dream of our parents and grandparents. The American people know the importance of this fight. The fight to reform our public schools is a fight for America's future. Our children are depending on us. And I know that if we once again give our children the best teachers and the best schools, there is no limit to what they can achieve. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I want to commend my friend and colleague, Senator Mack, for his work in this area. Indeed, he just did not sit behind a desk and dream up a theory; he went out to see; he went out to see that there are programs that do work. And reforming our education system is the most important issue facing this Nation. I think the parents and grandparents know that the public education system can do better. This is a fight for our children, and I think what we should be focusing on is putting the interests of our children first. That is the question. And we should not let the status quo diminish the dream of our parents and our grandparents. The American people know the importance of this fight. The fight to reform our public schools is a fight for our future. And why shouldn't we say the best and the brightest teachers--those who make magic in the classroom; those who make a difference--should be rewarded with merit pay? There are some who are opposed to this. Well, I have to tell you, we cannot pay teachers enough, those great and gifted teachers. This is one way to realize and to give them that kind of recognition that they are entitled to. Secondly, a provision of this amendment that is most important says we need teacher competency testing. Indeed, we see all too often where teachers are moved into areas that they do not have the excellence and the competence to teach. A great English teacher, for example, being moved into an area of science or mathematics may not be up to that particular job. That is why we say--and, by the way, we do not impose this; this is something that States can opt into. We do not believe in big brother Government coming in and saying, ``This is the standard that you have to use for determining a competence.'' That is up to the State and the local districts to develop the standards for competency testing. But in all sectors of life there are levels of competence that are expected. Indeed, when it comes to the most important area, that of educating our children, should we do any less? I do not think so. In all areas of life, in terms of competition, including the business world, there is merit pay. We hear about stock options for the successful entrepreneur. In corporate America, we hear of bonuses for achieving certain levels. Why should we not do the same? Bring those areas of the private sector into public education that work for the benefit of our children. And if we have truly outstanding and dedicated teachers, then why not reward them? Why not merit pay? Indeed, the teachers that make magic in our classrooms are sorely needed. It is about time we began to recognize their efforts. They are truly extraordinary. I believe that when we look at many of the educational institutions today, particularly in our inner cities, we see distress, we see a system that needs the kinds of reforms that this bill will begin to bring into the system. And so while it is not a cure-all, I believe it is a powerful step forward to giving our children the opportunity they deserve. I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment and urge my colleagues to be open minded about it. Do not permit the special interest groups to put the kind of pressure that will have them voting against the interests of our children. It is about time we put the interests of our children first. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to pay homage to Ms. Florence Kirkner. Today, we focus on Ms. Kirkner's 50 years of volunteering with the National Ski Patrol. The National Ski Patrol was formed 60 years ago as a volunteer organization that has been granted a Congressional Charter as a charity similar to the Boys and Girls Scouts. This organization formed an army division that could fight in winter weather conditions during World War II. Additionally, Senator Bob Dole was affiliated with this division which is known as the Tenth Mountain Division. This division was the only civilian run division in the Army's history. Today, the Tenth Mountain division is stationed at Fort Drum, New York. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend Ms. Kirkner's participation in many other community activities such as the American Red Cross, the Girl Scouts and the YMCA. After reviewing Ms. Kirkner's outstanding achievements, I decided an acknowledgment of her awards should be presented. Ms. Kirkner received a Citizen of the Week Award in 1996 and in 1997 she received the Citizen of the Year Award. Previously, because of Ms. Kirkner's excellent community service, she received the Merit Award in 1985 and the Volunteer of the year award in 1986. Ms. Kirkner was twice nominated for the Clara Barton Award in 1988 and again in 1990. Additionally in 1988, the Volunteer of the Year Award was acclaimed to Ms. Kirkner. Furthermore, after serving over 15,000 hours of community service, Ms. Kirkner was presented with the Service Award in addition to the 50 Year Service Award. Ms. Kirkner has also received awards for the National Appointment #84, the Outstanding Service Award for the North Bay Region, the Patroller of the Year Award for the Western New York Region, 2 Yellow Merit Stars, the Purple Merit Star, the Avalanche Patch #82, the Eastern Division Certificate of Appreciation, the Red Cross Certificate of Merit, the Certificate of Appreciation for the Western New York Region, the Ambassador of the Slopes Award for the Western New York Region, the Mike Reid Outstanding Instructor Award for the Western New York Region, the Canadian Ski Patrol Special Award and the Green Angel Award from the Girl Scouts. I would also like to acknowledge Ms. Kirkner for holding numerous offices in her lifetime. She has held offices such as Co-Patrol Leader for Donner Ski Ranch; Regional Training Officer for Western New York; Regional First Aid Chairman in North Bay, California; Avalanche Instructor for National #224; ARC First Aid Instructor and Trainer; ARC CPR Instructor and Trainer; ARC Water Safety Instructor and Trainer; ARC Small Craft Safety Instructor and Shift Leader at Kissing Bridge Ski Patrol. In addition Ms. Kirkner has managed to conduct training courses and workshops such as the Avalanche Patch Course in Slide Mt., Nevada; Sled Handling Seminars in Squaw Valley, California; the Mountain Rescue Course at the Sugar Bowl; Mountaineering at Circle M; Divisional Jr. Training Seminars for 11 years and National Jr. Training Seminars for 4 years. Moreover, Ms. Kirkner led Fall Forums workshops too numerous to count from New York City to Sacramento, from Portland, to Maine and has been an instructor every year of Patrol CPR since the beginning of Ski Patrol, CPR. Ms. Kirkner is truly one of those unique individuals who has given a lifetime of community service. Her contributions to society will always be recognized as encouragement and hope to American citizens everywhere, and reminds us that the phrase ``it is better to give than to receive'' still rings to be true.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, on April 11, 1923, nearly seventy- five years ago, Adolph Koeppel was born in Brooklyn, New York. He attended PS92 and New Utrecht High School. He went on to attend Brooklyn College for two years; but his studies were interrupted by the advent of World War II. Mr. Koeppel served America with great distinction in the Navy from 1942 to 1945, where the ship on which he served, the USS Barton, came under attack at Okinawa and the Philippines. Following his wartime military service, Mr. Koeppel attended New York University Law School, where he completed his LLB in 1948 and received an LLM in 1953. He has achieved great heights in the legal community, and to this day remains a true pioneer in the fields of condemnation and real estate tax appeals. In addition, Mr. Koeppel is known for his achievements as a philatelist, having been awarded the Earl of Crawford Medal by the Royal Philatelic Society. On April 11, he will celebrate his 75th birthday along with his wife of 54 years, Rhoda, his daughters Pamela and Leslie, and his granddaughters Melissa, Jennifer, and Tara. Beyond all of his personal and professional achievements, Adolph Koeppel is a great humanitarian and community servant. I am proud to call him my friend, mentor, and counselor; and I am pleased to wish him a very happy 75th birthday. The people of New York are blessed to have him in our community.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2282

Mr. D'AMATO. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, last year, the Congress delivered some long-overdue and much-deserved tax relief to the American people. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 provided the first middle-class tax cut in 16 years. The tax cuts we passed last year are making a difference in the monthly budgets of working middle-class families. But we can and we must do more. These families still send too much of their hard-earned money to Washington. And between federal, state, and local taxes, the average American's tax bill is nearly 35 percent of their total income. In fact, most Americans spend more time working to pay their tax bills than they spend working to provide food, clothing, and shelter combined. We absolutely must continue our efforts to reduce the tax burden. One area that escaped our tax-cutting efforts last year was the enormous property tax bills paid by homeowners. Last year, hardworking Americans paid about $209 billion in real-estate property taxes. This was more than one-and-one-half times what individuals paid in state income taxes. In addition, property tax rates have increased almost twice as fast as inflation. Property taxes are spiraling out of control, and the time has come to give homeowners some real relief. Homeownership is the American dream, but that dream now comes with a tax bill that puts a heavy burden on working families. This property tax bill also provides a disincentive to any young couple considering purchasing a home. We in Washington should change that equation--we should be doing everything we can to encourage and assist homeownership. Today, I am introducing the ``Working Middle-Class Tax Relief Act of 1998.'' This bill will allow homeowners to take a federal tax credit for the first $500 of property taxes paid on their personal residence. The Working Middle Class Tax Relief Act will provide real help to working families who are struggling to make ends meet, and it will send a strong message that homeownership can become a reality for all Americans. Here are a few examples of how my bill works. Under current law, there are nearly 36 million taxpayers who do not get any savings on property taxes because they don't file an itemized federal tax return. Under my bill, every dollar of property tax that they pay, up to $500, will come back to them in the form of federal tax savings. Of course, millions of other Americans do itemize. Take, for example, a typical family of four with a taxable income of $42,000, and a property tax bill of $3,000. Under current law they receive a $450 federal tax benefit. By turning the first $500 of property taxes into a tax credit, my legislation would give this typical family an additional $425 savings, for a total tax benefit of $875. This savings to homeowners could cut their property tax bill by one- third or more, and in some cases wipe it out all together. This legislation will let working families keep more of their money. That's the way it should be. After all, the American people know how to manage their own money much better than Washington does. The Working Middle-Class Tax Relief Act is real savings for the 66 million Americans who have realized the dream of owning a home, and it will help millions more achieve that dream. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, last year, the Congress delivered some long-overdue and much-deserved tax relief to the American people. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 provided the first middle-class tax cut in 16 years. The tax cuts we passed last year are making a difference in the monthly budgets of working middle-class families. But we can and we must do more. These families still send too much of their hard-earned money to Washington. And between federal, state, and local taxes, the average American's tax bill is nearly 35 percent of their total income. In fact, most Americans spend more time working to pay their tax bills than they spend working to provide food, clothing, and shelter combined. We absolutely must continue our efforts to reduce the tax burden. One area that escaped our tax-cutting efforts last year was the enormous property tax bills paid by homeowners. Last year, hardworking Americans paid about $209 billion in real-estate property taxes. This was more than one-and-one-half times what individuals paid in state income taxes. In addition, property tax rates have increased almost twice as fast as inflation. Property taxes are spiraling out of control, and the time has come to give homeowners some real relief. Homeownership is the American dream, but that dream now comes with a tax bill that puts a heavy burden on working families. This property tax bill also provides a disincentive to any young couple considering purchasing a home. We in Washington should change that equation--we should be doing everything we can to encourage and assist homeownership. Today, I am introducing the ``Working Middle-Class Tax Relief Act of 1998.'' This bill will allow homeowners to take a federal tax credit for the first $500 of property taxes paid on their personal residence. The Working Middle Class Tax Relief Act will provide real help to working families who are struggling to make ends meet, and it will send a strong message that homeownership can become a reality for all Americans. Here are a few examples of how my bill works. Under current law, there are nearly 36 million taxpayers who do not get any savings on property taxes because they don't file an itemized federal tax return. Under my bill, every dollar of property tax that they pay, up to $500, will come back to them in the form of federal tax savings. Of course, millions of other Americans do itemize. Take, for example, a typical family of four with a taxable income of $42,000, and a property tax bill of $3,000. Under current law they receive a $450 federal tax benefit. By turning the first $500 of property taxes into a tax credit, my legislation would give this typical family an additional $425 savings, for a total tax benefit of $875. This savings to homeowners could cut their property tax bill by one- third or more, and in some cases wipe it out all together. This legislation will let working families keep more of their money. That's the way it should be. After all, the American people know how to manage their own money much better than Washington does. The Working Middle-Class Tax Relief Act is real savings for the 66 million Americans who have realized the dream of owning a home, and it will help millions more achieve that dream. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, the current financial crisis in Asia underscores the need for open, competitive markets, free from manipulation. Clearly, industrial policy does not work. Managed trade and managed commerce is a failure. It simply does not work. Mr. President, we have said it all along--when you manipulate trade and erect barriers to open and free trade, the consumer gets hurt. Mr. President, today we are submitting a resolution which is aimed at forcing Japan to put their money where their mouth is. This Resolution makes it clear that Japan must fulfill its publicly stated commitments to open its markets for photographic film and paper, and other sectors facing market access barriers. The bureaucrats in Japan should be on notice that the U.S. Congress will not tolerate their intervention into the free market. The United States maintains free and open markets in every sector of the economy. Americans should expect nothing less of any of our trading partners. Plain and simple, Mr. President, the Japanese Government has allowed Fuji to use Japan's lax anti-trust laws and closed-market system to erect barriers to free and open competition. The Japanese government, however, maintains that this is not true and that their markets are open and free. This Resolution will simply encourage the Japanese government to demonstrate their openness. The Government of Japan has said publicly that they did not build, support, and tolerate a market structure that thwarts foreign competition, and in which exclusionary business practices are commonplace. This Resolution simply allows the Japanese government to demonstrate their resolve to open, free and fair trade.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Two years ago today, the Nation's two largest electronic banking networks, Plus and Cirrus, better known as MasterCard and VISA, lifted their longstanding ban on the practice of double charging ATM users. They had a ban; it was not permitted. Now, since that fateful April Fool's Day in 1996, the joke has been on the consumers, and it has been a costly joke. They have had to shell out billions of dollars just to take their own money out of the bank. Today, I hold up a report ``Big Banks, Bigger ATM Fees'' from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. In that report they indicate that double chargers in 28 States and the District of Columbia have shown that 71 percent of all banks today are double charging consumers for the privilege of getting their own money out. That percentage is more than twice the number reported by the General Accounting Office in May of 1997. So, more and more people have less and less opportunity to be able to withdraw their money without that double charge. Going further, it says the price of the average double charging has also risen to $1.23. Keep in mind this charge is on top of a fee that the consumer already pays to his or her own bank. The survey found that 83 percent of the banks charged their own customer an average of $1.18 per transaction whenever they use another ATM. So that means a consumer pays $2.41, on average, every time they use an ATM that does not belong to their own bank. So what we have, if a person uses an ATM six times a month --a relatively small utilization--they can be paying an average of $173 a year more. What an April Fool's joke on the people of America. This situation is not going to get better; it is going to get worse. What a windfall for the large banks who are now making profits of over $3 billion a year by charging people twice to get their own money. I am not going to say more about this except to say we will be voting on this issue. Make no mistake about it, we will be voting. When that amendment comes to the floor--and I will pick what I consider to be legislation that must be acted on--there will be hoots and hollers, why on this bill? But make no mistake about it, the people are entitled to know where their representatives stand with respect to this issue. To date we have 10 cosponsors, evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. I know the power and the pressure of those who oppose this, but I think it is about time we began to look at the little guy, and I'm talking about the American taxpayer.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Moseley- Braun, Shelby, Faircloth, Bennett, Hagel, Sarbanes, Dodd, Kerry, Bryan, Boxer, Reed and DeWine to introduce the U.S. Holocaust Assets Commission Act of 1998. This legislation will create the ``Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States,'' that will examine the disposition of assets of Holocaust victims, survivors, and heirs here in the United States. For two years now, I have worked closely with Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat who has labored tirelessly to close this difficult chapter of history in an honorable, speedy, and satisfactory manner. He cares passionately that the survivors receive justice and I could not agree more. I am pleased to say that the Administration fully supports this legislation and we have worked with them closely over the past four months to craft the language to bring this commission to reality. While we have sought answers from Switzerland and other nations on the disposition of dormant bank accounts and Nazi gold, we have not pursued the issue here in the United States. Today, we begin this search. Now we are obliged to set history straight and correct any injustices in our own country. The United States has a moral responsibility to address the same issues to which we have sought answers from Switzerland and other nations in Europe. The spirit of American decency demands no less. If we are to provide long overdue justice to Holocaust survivors and the heirs of the victims, we must do so as expeditiously as possible. Time is of the essence if we are going to provide the necessary restitution to this already aged and rapidly dwindling survivor community. Moreover, by creating this commission we establish even greater moral authority and diplomatic credibility with other nations from which we seek answers on these important questions. Thus far, twelve nations have already set up national commissions to look into these issues. With this legislation we will create a commisison that will seek to find the disposition of the following assets in this country: dormant bank accounts of Holocaust victims in U.S. banks; brokerage accounts, securities, & bonds; artwork & religious/cultural artifacts; German- looted gold shipped to the U.S. through the Tripartite Gold Commission; and insurance policies. As far as funding is concerned, the Commission will be funded for $3.5 million, with the costs split by the interested agencies of the U.S. Government. The Commission will operate through December 31, 1999, the date its final report is due to the President. The Commission will comprise members appointed by both the Congress and the President, as well as private citizens who have demonstrated their leadership on issues relating to the financial community, public service, and the history of the Holocaust. Mr. President, we need this Commission. We must leave no stone unturned. If we are to fully examine the disposition of the assets of the victims of the Holocaust, we cannot ignore what happened in this country. While it is not within our power to change what happened during WWII, it is within our power to correct a historic wrong by providing answers to questions that have remained unanswered for over fifty years. If we do at least this much now, then we will provide a measure of comfort and justice for the survivors of the greatest evil mankind has ever known. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this legislation and I urge its speedy passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Moseley- Braun, Shelby, Faircloth, Bennett, Hagel, Sarbanes, Dodd, Kerry, Bryan, Boxer, Reed and DeWine to introduce the U.S. Holocaust Assets Commission Act of 1998. This legislation will create the ``Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States,'' that will examine the disposition of assets of Holocaust victims, survivors, and heirs here in the United States. For two years now, I have worked closely with Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat who has labored tirelessly to close this difficult chapter of history in an honorable, speedy, and satisfactory manner. He cares passionately that the survivors receive justice and I could not agree more. I am pleased to say that the Administration fully supports this legislation and we have worked with them closely over the past four months to craft the language to bring this commission to reality. While we have sought answers from Switzerland and other nations on the disposition of dormant bank accounts and Nazi gold, we have not pursued the issue here in the United States. Today, we begin this search. Now we are obliged to set history straight and correct any injustices in our own country. The United States has a moral responsibility to address the same issues to which we have sought answers from Switzerland and other nations in Europe. The spirit of American decency demands no less. If we are to provide long overdue justice to Holocaust survivors and the heirs of the victims, we must do so as expeditiously as possible. Time is of the essence if we are going to provide the necessary restitution to this already aged and rapidly dwindling survivor community. Moreover, by creating this commission we establish even greater moral authority and diplomatic credibility with other nations from which we seek answers on these important questions. Thus far, twelve nations have already set up national commissions to look into these issues. With this legislation we will create a commisison that will seek to find the disposition of the following assets in this country: dormant bank accounts of Holocaust victims in U.S. banks; brokerage accounts, securities, & bonds; artwork & religious/cultural artifacts; German- looted gold shipped to the U.S. through the Tripartite Gold Commission; and insurance policies. As far as funding is concerned, the Commission will be funded for $3.5 million, with the costs split by the interested agencies of the U.S. Government. The Commission will operate through December 31, 1999, the date its final report is due to the President. The Commission will comprise members appointed by both the Congress and the President, as well as private citizens who have demonstrated their leadership on issues relating to the financial community, public service, and the history of the Holocaust. Mr. President, we need this Commission. We must leave no stone unturned. If we are to fully examine the disposition of the assets of the victims of the Holocaust, we cannot ignore what happened in this country. While it is not within our power to change what happened during WWII, it is within our power to correct a historic wrong by providing answers to questions that have remained unanswered for over fifty years. If we do at least this much now, then we will provide a measure of comfort and justice for the survivors of the greatest evil mankind has ever known. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this legislation and I urge its speedy passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleagues, Senators Rockefeller, Hutchison, Feinstein and Boxer, to create a new tax credit that will make it easier for medical schools, teaching hospitals, and non-for-profit research hospitals to invest in potentially life saving medical research. Our bill will add Section 41A to the Internal Revenue Code to establish a Medical Innovation Tax Credit. This new credit would apply to qualified medical innovation expenses for biopharmaceutical research activities, including clinical trials, at qualified academic institutions. The credit rate would be 20% of qualified expenses on research conducted in the United States. This tax incentive is necessary in order to assure that the United States maintains its position as the leading country for biomedical research. The Medical Innovation Tax Credit will supplement the current law Research and Experimental Tax Credit (R&E) which has allowed biopharmaceutical companies to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in research for new drug therapies. Clinical trials are conducted by these drug companies in order to obtain FDA approval. However, these initial studies are only a fraction of the applied research needed to follow patients and to discover possible combinations of drugs which provide the most effective therapy. These post-approval studies are performed by clinical investigators and major academic medical centers. Until recently, medical schools, teaching hospitals, and not-for- profit hospitals were able to fund research from their operating profits. Many physicians chose to practice at these hospitals at a reduced salary based on the opportunity to engage in teaching and clinical research. With the profound changes in the health care industry over the last few years, this profit no longer exists. In the era of managed care, many insurance companies are reimbursing physicians and hospitals at the cost of services. Combined with cuts in Medicare payments and reduced subsidies for graduate medical education, teaching hospitals can barely afford to pay their medical staff's salary, let alone fund its research. These financing changes have had the largest impact on hospitals affiliated with academic medical centers. A recent study found a 22% decline in clinical research conducted at member hospitals of the Association of American Medical College's Council of Teaching Hospitals. This drop is alarming because it demonstrates that these hospitals no longer have the financial resources to contribute to the public's health. Traditionally, academic medical centers trained new doctors, supported applied biomedical research, and provided the bulk of uncompensated care for uninsured patients. Under this system medical residents had the opportunity to treat a wide spectrum of patients, regardless of their health insurance status. In addition, uninsured patients were able to receive the latest care within the scope of clinical trials performed at academic hospitals. With reductions in private and public funding these medical centers have been forced to reduce these social services to compete with for-profit-hospitals with no research agenda. This development promises only to stagnate the level of care and number of treatment options that the next generation of doctors can offer their patients. Mr. President, my state of New York has 12 medical schools and 40 teaching hospitals, in addition to 8 designated cancer centers. Each of these institutions will be eligible for the Medical Innovation Tax Credit. Without continued funding of research at these institutions, many New Yorkers will recognize a profound effect upon the quality of their health care. Without the opportunity to conduct research many of the country's top doctors may leave to practice in locations where they can earn more money. Such a move will also reduce the need for research specialists and their staffs. Patients will have to choose between hospitals that only recognize the bottom line while their children will not enjoy the same medical advances as they did. Many uninsured patients will not be able to receive uncompensated care and will not be able to receive the most advanced medicine possible. And these changes aren't just particular to my state. Almost every state has a medical school which serves as the epicenter for a network of teaching hospitals which employ thousands of physicians, nurses, research specialists, and support staff. A large percentage of each state's economy is based on these medical centers. Thus, we all stand to recognize two main benefits from the Medical Innovation Tax Credit, more jobs and better health. Only by encouraging private investment in medical research can our health care infrastructure develop new and innovative ways to deliver the most advanced care to all citizens of our country. We urge all of our colleagues to support this legislation that will restore to medical schools and teaching hospitals the ability to perform applied biomedical research to help treat and cure many of our pressing health needs such as cancer and heart disease. This is a targeted measure which has widespread benefits for all citizens.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleagues, Senators Rockefeller, Hutchison, Feinstein and Boxer, to create a new tax credit that will make it easier for medical schools, teaching hospitals, and non-for-profit research hospitals to invest in potentially life saving medical research. Our bill will add Section 41A to the Internal Revenue Code to establish a Medical Innovation Tax Credit. This new credit would apply to qualified medical innovation expenses for biopharmaceutical research activities, including clinical trials, at qualified academic institutions. The credit rate would be 20% of qualified expenses on research conducted in the United States. This tax incentive is necessary in order to assure that the United States maintains its position as the leading country for biomedical research. The Medical Innovation Tax Credit will supplement the current law Research and Experimental Tax Credit (R&E) which has allowed biopharmaceutical companies to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in research for new drug therapies. Clinical trials are conducted by these drug companies in order to obtain FDA approval. However, these initial studies are only a fraction of the applied research needed to follow patients and to discover possible combinations of drugs which provide the most effective therapy. These post-approval studies are performed by clinical investigators and major academic medical centers. Until recently, medical schools, teaching hospitals, and not-for- profit hospitals were able to fund research from their operating profits. Many physicians chose to practice at these hospitals at a reduced salary based on the opportunity to engage in teaching and clinical research. With the profound changes in the health care industry over the last few years, this profit no longer exists. In the era of managed care, many insurance companies are reimbursing physicians and hospitals at the cost of services. Combined with cuts in Medicare payments and reduced subsidies for graduate medical education, teaching hospitals can barely afford to pay their medical staff's salary, let alone fund its research. These financing changes have had the largest impact on hospitals affiliated with academic medical centers. A recent study found a 22% decline in clinical research conducted at member hospitals of the Association of American Medical College's Council of Teaching Hospitals. This drop is alarming because it demonstrates that these hospitals no longer have the financial resources to contribute to the public's health. Traditionally, academic medical centers trained new doctors, supported applied biomedical research, and provided the bulk of uncompensated care for uninsured patients. Under this system medical residents had the opportunity to treat a wide spectrum of patients, regardless of their health insurance status. In addition, uninsured patients were able to receive the latest care within the scope of clinical trials performed at academic hospitals. With reductions in private and public funding these medical centers have been forced to reduce these social services to compete with for-profit-hospitals with no research agenda. This development promises only to stagnate the level of care and number of treatment options that the next generation of doctors can offer their patients. Mr. President, my state of New York has 12 medical schools and 40 teaching hospitals, in addition to 8 designated cancer centers. Each of these institutions will be eligible for the Medical Innovation Tax Credit. Without continued funding of research at these institutions, many New Yorkers will recognize a profound effect upon the quality of their health care. Without the opportunity to conduct research many of the country's top doctors may leave to practice in locations where they can earn more money. Such a move will also reduce the need for research specialists and their staffs. Patients will have to choose between hospitals that only recognize the bottom line while their children will not enjoy the same medical advances as they did. Many uninsured patients will not be able to receive uncompensated care and will not be able to receive the most advanced medicine possible. And these changes aren't just particular to my state. Almost every state has a medical school which serves as the epicenter for a network of teaching hospitals which employ thousands of physicians, nurses, research specialists, and support staff. A large percentage of each state's economy is based on these medical centers. Thus, we all stand to recognize two main benefits from the Medical Innovation Tax Credit, more jobs and better health. Only by encouraging private investment in medical research can our health care infrastructure develop new and innovative ways to deliver the most advanced care to all citizens of our country. We urge all of our colleagues to support this legislation that will restore to medical schools and teaching hospitals the ability to perform applied biomedical research to help treat and cure many of our pressing health needs such as cancer and heart disease. This is a targeted measure which has widespread benefits for all citizens.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, for offering this amendment on my behalf. My amendment is simple. It asks the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Interior to report to the House and Senate on the proposed use by the New York City Police Department of the U.S. Coast Guard's facility at Floyd Bennett Field. Between early May and early June, the Coast Guard will be moving its air-sea rescue helicopter operation from Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn to Atlantic City. An auxiliary helicopter contingent will be established at Gabreski Airport in Westhampton, New York for the peak summer months to guarantee a maximum Coast Guard coverage for the shores of Long Island and New York City. The New York City Police Department wants to move their own search and rescue helicopters into the facility that the Coast Guard is leaving. The Police Department currently uses another hangar for its search and rescue operations at Floyd Bennett Field, but that hangar is old and run-down. For the Police Department to stay in that facility would require some $5.7 million worth of upgrades at their own cost. When the Coast Guard leaves, there is a genuine concern that their hangar will go unused for search and rescue operations. It is a larger, more modern facility, well-suited for the purposes of air-sea rescue and emergency response activities. The Police Department merely wants to adequately fill the gap in coverage when the Coast Guard moves on. When the Coast Guard leaves, it is likely that the brunt of emergency response calls will fall upon the Police Department. I believe it is a natural fit for the New York City Police Department to take over the Coast Guard's facility so that they may be able to continue and even expand their crucial life-saving and protection role. Before the City can even utilize this facility, though, plans to allow this to happen will need to be worked out between the parent agency of the Coast Guard--the Department of Transportation--and the Department of Interior, which will likely take over the land once the Coast Guard leaves. However, action must occur quickly; the Coast Guard will be leaving in less than two months. Protecting people's lives must be paramount. My amendment is a public safety issue that will help address that purpose. I thank my colleagues on both sides for recognizing the timeliness and importance of this matter and for accepting this amendment.