Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, investors place their trust as well as their funds in our capital and financial markets. It is clear that one of the reasons for this trust is the knowledge that financial statements are reliable, relevant, consistent, comparable and prepared according to well-understood and carefully considered standards, known as generally accepted accounting standards. These financial reporting standards are an essential component of the attraction of our capital markets--to borrowers who are looking for the most capital at the lowest cost and to suppliers of capital who want to invest with confidence and earn a high return. This openness and transparency is the result of the useful and highly successful mechanism used in the United States for over 60 years to develop financial reporting and accounting standards. Although Congress empowered the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to set accounting standards in 1934, for over sixty years the Commission has delegated this responsibility to the private sector. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has exercised the delegated authority to develop accounting standards, subject to SEC review, since 1972. In that year, a blue ribbon commission, created by the SEC, recommended the creation of the FASB in order to insulate its deliberative process from the influence of special interests and politics. The FASB's task is to establish and improve financial standards in an inclusive, public and deliberative manner. Mr. President, while I have not always agreed with the FASB's pronouncements and activities over the years, I believe strongly in an independent standard setting body and I believe the FASB has worked well. It has earned praise for its evenhanded, principled and well- reasoned decisions from professionals in the accounting profession, from the SEC and the financial media, and investors. Mr. President, at times, the FASB's activities have generated controversy and opposition from those affected by and opposed to its pronouncements. At this particular moment, the FASB is encountering stiff criticism as a result of its attempt to require institutions who hold derivatives to provide some type of fair market value financial reporting. As my colleagues are aware, derivatives are highly complex financial instruments that can and do perform an important role in effective risk management by enabling commercial corporations, governments and financial firms and others, in the U.S. and worldwide, to reduce their exposure to fluctuations in interest rates, currency exchange rates, and the prices of equities and commodities. Derivatives also enable users to reduce funding costs and speculate on changes in market rates and prices. But Congress is also well aware that the use and misuse of derivatives can cause severe financial shocks. Hearings held by the Banking Committee in recent years demonstrated that derivatives improperly used, and inadequately regulated, can expose an institution or company to potential ruin with serious consequences for depositors, investors, taxpayers and, potentially, the stability of the financial system. Mr. President, regulatory agencies and Congress have studied the numerous regulatory, policy and disclosure issues raised by derivatives. Among the more serious findings is that derivatives generally do not need to be accounted for in financial statements. In other words, there are billions of dollars worth of derivatives outstanding that are not reflected adequately in the financial statements of major industrial companies, banks and other large derivative users. In 1994 a GAO study, (Financial Derivatives: Actions Needed to Protect the Financial System), recommended that the FASB: Proceed expeditiously to issue its existing exposure draft on disclosures of derivatives and fair value of financial instruments. Proceed expeditiously to develop and issue an exposure draft that provides comprehensive, consistent accounting rules for derivative products, including expanded disclosure requirements that provide additional needed information about derivatives activities. Consider adopting a market value accounting model for all financial instruments, including derivative products. Mr. President, the FASB is earnestly pursuing this complicated objective with the support of the SEC, the accounting profession and most investment professionals. The critics and opponents of the proposed derivative accounting standards are now taking the extraordinary step of asking Congress to intervene in the FASB's standard setting procedures. This not only threatens the FASB's ability to determine appropriate standards for disclosure of derivatives- related information, it seriously jeopardizes its independence. This course of action is extremely unwise and provides continuing justification for having an independent, professional entity to set accounting and financial reporting requirements, like the FASB, rather than the Congress or a government agency. Mr. President, it is obvious that Congress lacks the technical expertise and resources to develop accounting standards, as does the SEC. In addition, federal bank regulators lack the impartiality to administer disclosure standards dedicated to investor protection and public disclosure since the banking laws are geared to maintaining public confidence in financial institutions rather than requiring the full and complete disclosure of a financial institution's real financial condition. Mr. President, Congress should resist the suggestion of removing standard setting from the public sector and transferring it to a government agency. If history is any guide, this step would create more problems than it would solve. Every recent effort by a government agency, including the Congress, to set accounting standards has been a total failure. For example, during the early days of the savings and loan crisis, the FSLIC (Federal Savings and Loan Corporation--the former S&L regulator) created ``supervisory goodwill'' as a mechanism by which healthy thrifts could acquire or invest in fledgling ones. Regulators permitted supervisory goodwill to qualify as regulatory capital. Then, in 1989, Congress enacted stricter capital standards under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) and mandated that all supervisory goodwill was to be charged- off over an accelerated period ending in 1994, causing severe capital constraints, even pushing some S&Ls to liquidate assets at a severe discount. Between the actions of the regulators and the Congress, the S&L crisis lasted longer than necessary, the recovery took longer than necessary and eventually ended in a $130 billion dollar taxpayer- financed bailout. In fact, the final costs to the federal government of the S&L bailout may increase as a result of the ongoing ``supervisory goodwill litigation.'' Mr. President, the FASB started working on derivatives and hedging in 1991. It has had an extensive and open process that has involved ample opportunity for public comment, debate and participation by all constituents. This open and deliberative process is still ongoing and will, in the end, produce thoughtful and comprehensive accounting standards that will better inform investors and the financial markets as a whole and contribute to their effective functioning. Mr. President, I do not want to dwell on the S&L crisis or on the benefits and risks of derivatives. Instead, I simply want to underscore that Congress should not disrupt the FASB's independence and professionalism in setting accounting standards, for derivatives or for any other project. The SEC has jurisdiction over the FASB and the Congress already conducts oversight of the SEC and the FASB. In fact, the Subcommittee on Securities has held two hearings on the derivatives issue. I would oppose authorizing the SEC, or any other federal agency, to set accounting standards. We should leave to the private sector the responsibility to develop accounting and financial reporting standards that are at the heart of the success of our process of capital formation.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to briefly comment on the program of German reparations being paid to Holocaust survivors. Over the past two years, we have looked extensively at the role Swiss banks played during the Holocaust. What we found was shocking. Clearly we discovered that in addition to carrying out the mass murder of millions of people, Jews and non-Jews, the Nazis carried off the greatest robbery in history. After the war, the new government of Germany began a program of restitution for the survivors of the Holocaust. Over the past half- century, Germany has paid billions of dollars to survivors, but can we really say that this is enough? Can we say that it is fair that someone who survived, for example, five months in a concentration camp, but not the six required to obtain compensation, is fair? Can we say that it is fair that someone who survived a Gestapo prison should be denied compensation for their suffering? The answer to these questions is an emphatic NO! It is time that Germany drop their reservations to paying compensation to all those who deserve it, regardless of income levels, regardless of the time spent enduring Nazi torture. All limitations should be dropped and each and every survivor, everywhere, regardless of their situation, should be provided with compensation. Mr. President, Ben Meed, the President of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, makes these same points in a speech he gave at the National Leadership Conference in Washington on February 15, 1998. His speech is poignant and succinct. Holocaust survivors have little time left and they need help. I could not agree more with this wise man's conclusions. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the text of his remarks be included in the Record. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to read Ben Meed's words and to help ease the suffering of these survivors of mankind's greatest inhumanity to man. I ask that they be printed in the Record. The remarks follow: Remarks by Benjamin Meed at the National Leadership Conference Distinguished guests, Fellow survivors, my younger colleagues and dear friends Though many issues of importance will be raised during the day, I want to take this opportunity to convey the dismay and anger felt by survivors toward the reparations program established by Germany and to express the survivors' goal to challenge those programs. German compensation has become an extremely important-- perhaps the most important--issue to survivors. Many survivors need the compensation. And most survivors, even those who would not accept German money before today demand rights for the payment. But time is Germany's ally; time is the enemy for survivors. As nature takes its course, we learn daily of the deaths of more survivors. That unfortunate fact only serves to emphasize the urgency of this matter. We attend funerals almost daily. Let me also add that since the reparation program started over forty years ago, more than 50% of survivors receiving German pensions have passed away. Germany is not paying to the deceased or to their heir. After the Holocaust, we survivors were in no position to negotiate directly--also many of us wanted nothing to do-- with Germany. Though German money does go to some survivors, the amounts and the conditions attached to the funds humiliate us personally and collectively. In 1951, Chancellor Adenauer announced that compensation for survivors was Germany's moral responsibility. And, since the 1950's, the Claims Conference has negotiated with Germany on behalf of the survivors. It has served as trustee for their collective interest, and we survivors are grateful for any help extended to us. But whatever was done, was not enough. Much more can be done and must be done quickly. Until recently, survivors played virtually no role in Holocaust-related compensation matters. We did not negotiate with Germany; we did not decide how the German money would be used; and we did not distribute the money. All of these things were done without our participation. Yes, the Claims Conference and their leaders deserve our appreciation for the work they did when we were unable to do it. The negotiations with Germany resulted in various compensation programs for survivors. There is the Federal Indemnification Law, the Hardship Fund and the Article 2 Fund. We all know that no amount of compensation can truly ``pay'' for the damage Germany did to our people. Yet the amount Germany has provided is shameful, and the conditions for eligibility are outrageous and humiliating; they are unacceptable today. First, the amount Germany has paid is barely a start in repairing the destruction and human misery it caused. Our homes . . . our culture . . . our faith in our fellow man were destroyed. Who will give us back our families, our youth, our health. So much of our minds are still--and will always be--there. Any yet whenever some survivors receive payments, we are told, ``look, see how much Germany pays to the survivors!'' How can anyone talk about German ``generosity'' in the context of the Holocaust. It sounds big when you say Germany paid more than fifty billion dollars over forty years to Israel and to other countries in reparations. But think about it, how much did Germany's robbery amount to in four years of the Holocaust? Some historians today are estimating that the robbery was more than three hundred billion dollars worth of land, homes, gold, jewelry and personal belongings--beside murdering our six-million people. Second, the individual payments Germany has made, though needed by many survivors, are typically small; they do not furnish a dignified life with modest security that Germany has a duty to provide. Third, only survivors who were in a camp for a minimum of six months, or a ghetto for eighteen months, are entitled to German compensation; and you must prove it with documentation which is difficult if not impossible to obtain. Can you imagine the fear and anguish which lingers from a single day in the Warsaw or Lodz Ghetto, Auschwitz, Buchenwald, or in hiding? Can the people who imposed these insensitive limitations have any idea of what one day in those places felt like? It didn't take a month or two--or certainly six months--to be abused, or to be plagued by nightmares, forever. Finally, survivors must show virtual poverty-- notbeduerftigt--to qualify for payments. This turns the payments into welfare. Thus, the very people targeted by the Nazis for murder are now treated as beggars or, at best, as charity cases. This is disgraceful and insulting to us. Compensation should be paid for what Germany did during the Holocaust; it should have absolutely nothing to do with the circumstances of our lives after the war struggling to rebuild our lives. As a general matter, the selections the programs make-- based on income, previous payments and other restrictive rules are upsetting reminders to survivors of the infamous selections made during the Holocaust. This, to us, is intolerable and cannot remain the same; it must be eliminated. In sum, too many survivors have been excluded from German payments; too many who have gotten something have been paid too little; too many improper conditions--selections--have been imposed; and too many in immediate need of help will not receive compensation quickly enough to do any good. All this, in the name of humanity and justice, must be changed. Germany has treated Holocaust reparations like any other business--get the best deal possible; pay as little as possible; and be done with it. Holocaust survivors deserve better. It may be that the claims of survivors are unprecedented; but that is because the Holocaust was unprecedented. But as we are in the last stages of our lives, there are many needy and lonely survivors who live in distressing circumstances. With an average age exceeding 75, they feel forsaken, afflicted by illness and, in addition to the usual complications of growing old. They still carry the nightmares of the Holocaust. Now we know that circumstances could have been very different had survivors played a larger role in the compensation negotiations with Germany. Germany would not have dared to take the adamant negotiating positions it regularly took with the Claims Conference had survivors who still bore the numbers of the camps tattooed on their arms been present. And if Germany had played ``hard-ball'', survivors--from the United States and elsewhere around the world--would or should have walked away from the negotiating table, and taken their case public, or to their own governments for support. For the last few years, we proved the importance of the survivors at the negotiating table. Yes, without survivors, we would not achieve these gains. Survivors have dedicated themselves to not permitting the world to forget the Holocaust. They played a leading role in establishing museums, memorials and other Holocaust remembrance-related projects in Israel, the United States and elsewhere. We did this not for ourselves--we know what happened--but for the rest of the world, which had to be educated and reminded. We now are equally determined to do what is necessary to make certain, in the little time we have left, that fellow survivors live out their years in dignity; not full of fear and frustration. Germany's war against the Jews was more brutal and relentless than the war it waged even against the Allied soldiers. To fulfill its moral obligation, Germany should have a compensation program which gives to every victim, even at this late date, the fullest possible coverage; enough compensation to establish a foundation upon which survivors can live out their lives in dignity, and with security. Germany not only can do it; it is the right thing for Germany to do. The gross injustices done to Jewish Holocaust survivors should be the concern of everyone. Now it is clear what needs to be done: We want the removal of all restrictions in the German compensation programs; we want German compensation to be inclusive--to cover every remaining survivor; and survivors should be involved in every facet of German compensation; the negotiations and decisions about how the money is used. My dear fellow survivors, I focus my comments today on Germany but we all know too well that other countries participated in the world's greatest robbery from our Jewish people in Europe. We commend those who are exposing these matters on every level. But we survivors know better that nothing, no nation could be compared to the greatest murder machine of Germany. We should never forget this. Let us also not forget that we spent a lifetime after the Holocaust educating, documenting and commemorating the Holocaust. We must continue to stand on guard of Remembrance. We should never be blinded with the glitter of gold. The memory of our kedoshim should never be tarnished. Let us work together, together let us demand what is right.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my good friends and distinguished colleagues, the senior Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, Senator Graham of Florida and Senator Abraham. Our bill is rightfully entitled the ``Innocent Spouse Tax Relief Act of 1998.'' Mr. President, this bill will bring relief to innocent spouses, predominantly women, women who have been held responsible now for the tax liabilities incurred by their husbands. Merely because they happen to file a joint return, they then become held hostage and are liable in some cases. The Finance Committee, these past several weeks, has been holding hearings. On February 11, we held hearings on how the IRS administers the tax law after a divorce or separation. We had a number of women who came forward, women who related the most shocking tales of how they have been harassed, how they have been pursued for overdue tax debts, not that they incurred but that were incurred by their husbands. Under the current law, when a spouse signs a joint tax return, they become 100 percent responsible and liable for the other spouse's tax errors. This law exposes the innocent spouse to incredible financial obligations and emotional harm that follows thereafter. Let me give you the case in point that one person brought to our attention--Elizabeth Cockrell. Elizabeth came to this country from Canada at the age of 28, married a commodities broker. The marriage lasted 3 years. Now, 9 years after her divorce--9 years after her divorce--the Internal Revenue Service came to her and said her husband owed initially $100,000 because he had taken deductions with tax shelters that they disallowed. They came after her and they said, ``You owe $500,000.'' Now, here is this single person--no fault of her own--she was not involved in the business, had no knowledge that these tax shelters would be declared illegal, and 9 years after her marriage they come to her and say, ``You owe $500,000.'' Today, as a result of the interest and penalties that have accrued, she is now in debt to the tune, according to the IRS, of $650,000. Her only mistake was signing a joint return with her husband. Because she signed that return, she became individually responsible for 100 percent of that tax. Thus far, the IRS has only pursued her and not her husband and refuses to let her lawyer know that, if anything, they are going to pursue her husband. They have not been able to collect from him, so they go after her. She has a child, a job; she has community roots, so she is an easy target and they go after her. She has done nothing wrong. She has attempted to settle with the IRS, but they refuse. This is just one case. But, Mr. President, let me say that the General Accounting Office has estimated that there are 50,000 cases a year--every year 50,000 new cases come up. Every year we have innocent spouses who are being pursued, not because they have incurred a tax liability which they are responsible for but because of the arcane law they are held to, what we call joint and several liability. So they may have had no knowledge of the misdeeds or of the mistake, and they are held responsible. So Elizabeth Cockrell represents what is taking place repeatedly. Now we have literally hundreds of thousands of women who are being pursued by the Internal Revenue Service whose husbands or spouses may have left owing the IRS moneys. And now they have multiplied, in the case of Elizabeth Cockrell where her husband, former husband, initially owed $100,000, and he is now being pursued, and it is up to $650,000. Next year it will rise. So these are not nameless and faceless people; these are people, and 90 percent of them are women. Tremendous hardship. Our bill will say clearly that a person can only be held liable for the income that he or she has earned, and the failure to report properly, yes, they will be held liable, but not an innocent spouse. Mr. President, the American Bar Association has recommended this legislation and, indeed, has worked with myself and Senator Graham--I see my colleague from Florida who has cosponsored this along with Senator Moynihan--and they have recommended this change. They do not recommend changes in the tax laws easily. They recognize that this is absolutely discriminatory. In addition, the National Taxpayers Union--300,000 members--they have recommended this legislation. It is long overdue. Last, but not least, we have hundreds of thousands of people today, mostly women--90 percent of them are women--who are being pursued improperly. The Internal Revenue Service has no choice, given the way the legislation now exists. Our bill would free these people from this unfair obligation which is now being thrust upon them. The hundreds of thousands of working women who are now being pursued unfairly, not because they have incurred any tax liability on their own, but simply because they were married and they were the innocent spouse of someone who filed incorrectly, improperly, or withheld information that they were not aware of.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important, bipartisan proposal to improve fairness. We talk about fairness. I do not know when we are going to change the overall IRS Code, et cetera, but this certainly will restore confidence among taxpayers and give desperately needed relief to hundreds and hundreds of thousands of working moms out there who are now being pursued improperly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO. I will be glad to add Senator Biden, the senior Senator--he has been here a long time, but he is not the senior Senator--as an original cosponsor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Biden as a cosponsor of my legislation.

Mr. D'AMATO. Yes.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague, Senator Robert Torricelli from New Jersey, to submit a resolution which calls upon the President to support the inclusion of Italy as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council in any future expansion of that body. Anyone who is aware of the indispensable aide Italy has offered in the past and promises to continue providing in the future would share this view. I would like to now note just a few of Italy's numerous accomplishments with the United Nations and the Security Council in order to highlight the reasons why I believe Italy should be invited to join the United Nations Security Council. Italy's peace-keeping efforts in the past have been invaluable in aiding the United Nations on numerous fronts. It organized and led a multi-national peace enforcement operation in Albania last spring under United Nations authority to restore order and organize democratic elections. It provided the second largest United Nations troop contingent in Somalia. In 1983 Italy joined the United States in a multilateral force to bring peace and stability to Lebanon, and is still participating in the ongoing United Nations peacekeeping force there. Italy was also essential in brokering the peace settlement in Mozambique, as well as leading the peacekeeping forces that implemented it. Finally, Italy plays a key role in hosting the sole United Nations logistical base supporting peacekeeping operations worldwide at Brindisi on the Adriatic. Moreover, Italy's strategic location in the Mediterranean has made it an indispensable partner in security operations in a multitude of international regions. As such, Italy's assistance has been crucial in hosting air bases from which the United States and its NATO partners have conducted air operations over the former Yugoslavia. Italy has the world's fifth largest economy, and will this year increase its monetary contributions to 5.4% of that sum, becoming the United Nation's fifth largest assessed contributor. It's contribution has surpassed that of Britain, Russia, and China, three permanent members of the Security Council. In addition, with an estimated contribution of $72 million in peace-keeping operations for the upcoming year, Italy's efforts in financial aid to the United Nations have also been tremendous. As one of our closest allies and strategic partners in the world community, Italy continues to be an asset to the United Nation's peace keeping efforts, and is thus not only worthy, but essential in continued progress toward the Security Council's goals. I thus urge the President to oppose any reorganization plan for the expansion of the Security Council which does not include Italy, and strongly encourage Italy's inclusion as a permanent member if such an expansion is to take place.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I will be glad to add Senator Biden, the senior Senator--he has been here a long time, but he is not the senior Senator--as an original cosponsor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Biden as a cosponsor of my legislation.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important, bipartisan proposal to improve fairness. We talk about fairness. I do not know when we are going to change the overall IRS Code, et cetera, but this certainly will restore confidence among taxpayers and give desperately needed relief to hundreds and hundreds of thousands of working moms out there who are now being pursued improperly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO. Yes.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my good friends and distinguished colleagues, the senior Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, Senator Graham of Florida and Senator Abraham. Our bill is rightfully entitled the ``Innocent Spouse Tax Relief Act of 1998.'' Mr. President, this bill will bring relief to innocent spouses, predominantly women, women who have been held responsible now for the tax liabilities incurred by their husbands. Merely because they happen to file a joint return, they then become held hostage and are liable in some cases. The Finance Committee, these past several weeks, has been holding hearings. On February 11, we held hearings on how the IRS administers the tax law after a divorce or separation. We had a number of women who came forward, women who related the most shocking tales of how they have been harassed, how they have been pursued for overdue tax debts, not that they incurred but that were incurred by their husbands. Under the current law, when a spouse signs a joint tax return, they become 100 percent responsible and liable for the other spouse's tax errors. This law exposes the innocent spouse to incredible financial obligations and emotional harm that follows thereafter. Let me give you the case in point that one person brought to our attention--Elizabeth Cockrell. Elizabeth came to this country from Canada at the age of 28, married a commodities broker. The marriage lasted 3 years. Now, 9 years after her divorce--9 years after her divorce--the Internal Revenue Service came to her and said her husband owed initially $100,000 because he had taken deductions with tax shelters that they disallowed. They came after her and they said, ``You owe $500,000.'' Now, here is this single person--no fault of her own--she was not involved in the business, had no knowledge that these tax shelters would be declared illegal, and 9 years after her marriage they come to her and say, ``You owe $500,000.'' Today, as a result of the interest and penalties that have accrued, she is now in debt to the tune, according to the IRS, of $650,000. Her only mistake was signing a joint return with her husband. Because she signed that return, she became individually responsible for 100 percent of that tax. Thus far, the IRS has only pursued her and not her husband and refuses to let her lawyer know that, if anything, they are going to pursue her husband. They have not been able to collect from him, so they go after her. She has a child, a job; she has community roots, so she is an easy target and they go after her. She has done nothing wrong. She has attempted to settle with the IRS, but they refuse. This is just one case. But, Mr. President, let me say that the General Accounting Office has estimated that there are 50,000 cases a year--every year 50,000 new cases come up. Every year we have innocent spouses who are being pursued, not because they have incurred a tax liability which they are responsible for but because of the arcane law they are held to, what we call joint and several liability. So they may have had no knowledge of the misdeeds or of the mistake, and they are held responsible. So Elizabeth Cockrell represents what is taking place repeatedly. Now we have literally hundreds of thousands of women who are being pursued by the Internal Revenue Service whose husbands or spouses may have left owing the IRS moneys. And now they have multiplied, in the case of Elizabeth Cockrell where her husband, former husband, initially owed $100,000, and he is now being pursued, and it is up to $650,000. Next year it will rise. So these are not nameless and faceless people; these are people, and 90 percent of them are women. Tremendous hardship. Our bill will say clearly that a person can only be held liable for the income that he or she has earned, and the failure to report properly, yes, they will be held liable, but not an innocent spouse. Mr. President, the American Bar Association has recommended this legislation and, indeed, has worked with myself and Senator Graham--I see my colleague from Florida who has cosponsored this along with Senator Moynihan--and they have recommended this change. They do not recommend changes in the tax laws easily. They recognize that this is absolutely discriminatory. In addition, the National Taxpayers Union--300,000 members--they have recommended this legislation. It is long overdue. Last, but not least, we have hundreds of thousands of people today, mostly women--90 percent of them are women--who are being pursued improperly. The Internal Revenue Service has no choice, given the way the legislation now exists. Our bill would free these people from this unfair obligation which is now being thrust upon them. The hundreds of thousands of working women who are now being pursued unfairly, not because they have incurred any tax liability on their own, but simply because they were married and they were the innocent spouse of someone who filed incorrectly, improperly, or withheld information that they were not aware of.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to leave the door to NATO open. Others, whose wisdom I respect, have come before the Senate to urge that we legislatively adopt a policy that would close the door to NATO membership to candidate countries, regardless of their qualifications. While the reasons advanced in support of that view carry weight, I do not believe that they outweigh the reasons for leaving the door open. Last year, as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I chaired a series of hearings at which ambassadors of candidate countries appeared and testified concerning their respective countries' reasons and qualifications for joining NATO. At the end of that series of hearings, we issued a report urging that Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, and Slovenia be included in the first round of NATO expansion. Since that time, ten months ago, I believe that subsequent developments have supported strongly the conclusion that we drew in favor of NATO expansion. Now, the Senate is close to voting on the admission of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. I intend to vote for expansion. These countries have each proven that they share our democratic and free enterprise values, that they want to be members of NATO, and that they are willing to join us in bearing the burdens that Alliance membership imposes. Mr. President, I want to take particular note that each of these countries, contrary to the positions taken by some of our allies of longer standing, have not hesitated to publicly state their support for our effort to persuade, and if necessary, compel Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted after Iraq's unprovoked military aggression against Kuwait. One of the tests of alliance is the political will to take risks for the common good of the group. Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary have met this test. As I stated earlier, our recommendation ten months ago was that Slovenia and Romania be included in the first group of countries considered for NATO membership. That did not happen. But neither Slovenia nor Romania recoiled from their rejection by NATO. In fact, both have persisted in policies readying their countries and their militaries for NATO membership, and have been vocally enthusiastic about the prospect. On July 8th, 1997, the ``Madrid Declaration on Euro-Atlantic Security and Cooperation'' was issued by the Heads of State and Government of NATO. Paragraph 8 of the Madrid Declaration stated that, and I quote: We reaffirm that NATO remains open to new members under Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The Alliance will continue to welcome new members in a position to further principles of the Treaty and contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area. The Alliance expects to extend further invitations in coming years to nations willing and able to assume the responsibilities and obligations of membership, and as NATO determines that the inclusion of these nations would serve the overall political and strategic interests of the Alliance and that the inclusion would enhance overall European security and stability. To give substance to this commitment, NATO will maintain an active relationship with those nations that have expressed an interest in NATO membership as well as those who may wish to seek membership in the future. Those nations that have previously expressed an interest in becoming NATO members but that were not invited to begin accession talks today will remain under consideration for future membership. The considerations set forth in our 1995 Study on NATO Enlargement will continue to apply with regard to future aspirants, regardless of their geographic location. No European democratic country whose admission would fulfill the objectives of the Treaty will be excluded from consideration. Furthermore, in order to enhance overall security and stability in Europe, further steps in the ongoing enlargement process of the Alliance should balance the security concerns of all Allies. Mr. President, those words sound like a promise to me. Perhaps more importantly, they recognized a central fact. That fact is that by setting an artificial limit to NATO enlargement, we are drawing a new dividing line across Europe. Whether that line is geographic or temporal does not matter. When such a line is drawn, in the present environment it creates a gray area. History teaches us that gray areas are not solutions, they are problems waiting to happen. Other candidate NATO members do not want to be consigned to gray areas. They know that bad things happen to small countries left alone in gray areas. We know that we do not want to create situations that invite anti-democratic forces to grow and plan and act. At the Commission, we pay very close attention to human rights concerns in Europe. Our experience with NATO enlargement has been that the requirements countries must meet for consideration for NATO membership have very strongly influenced their domestic politics. While all human rights problems are not resolved, most of them are. Also, disputes between ethnic majority and minority groups are given prominence and progress is made toward solutions. Some of these problems have existed for centuries and, in my view, would have continued unaddressed but for the necessity each country has seen to ``put its house in order'' before applying for NATO membership. Moreover, international cross-border disputes that in the past have triggered at least hostility if not military conflict have been formally resolved, with the support of democratic majorities in the countries involved. This is not a trivial development in a part of the world where such disputes have given repeated rise to brutal conflicts that are incomprehensible to most Americans. For these reasons, it is vitally important that the door to NATO membership not be closed, especially not by the United States. Proponents argue that a ``delay'' is necessary as a period of consolidation of the Alliance, and for the Russians to accommodate themselves to the changed European landscape. I believe that ``delay'' in this case could become denial, with very grave consequences to those nations shut out by such a decision. Moreover, Russia is one of the nations I have in mind when I make this statement. Regardless of rhetoric by Russian Communists like Zhirinovsky, and others of the so-called ``red-brown'' extreme nationalist fringe, Russia itself has a very real interest in NATO expansion. And that interest is not in blocking, delaying, or limiting it. In fact, to the extent that NATO expansion is delayed or limited, the radical forces in Russia's political equation will be strengthened. For the United States to provide them with a victory they could not have secured by any other means would be a terrible mistake. Radical forces in Russia cannot be appeased by throwing them a bone. All it does is embolden them and add to their power, allowing them to say to Russian voters, ``See what we can do, and we are not yet in charge of the government.'' Our policy should be to do what is best for us, and that means to give hope, support and security to small states trying to become democratic capitalist members of the Western community, and treat anti-democratic forces with implacable opposition. Mr. President, the citizens of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia were given hope when we refused for the duration of the Cold War to recognize their forcible and illegal incorporation into the Soviet Union. Ukraine is now a NATO ``Partner for Peace.'' The President of Bulgaria, Petar Stoyanov, was here recently, seeing President Clinton to make the case that Bulgaria is a credible candidate for NATO membership. The people of these countries do not deserve to have the door to NATO slammed shut on their fingers. While some states with serious human rights and democratization problems do not look like possible NATO members at any time in the near future, as states around them make major efforts to put their domestic and international affairs in order to quality for membership, this has an influence and an impact. If we do as we have pledged, and allow candidate countries to join when they demonstrate that they meet the qualifications, those who choose not to make the effort will be more and more isolated. This process will undermine and weaken anti- democratic forces that have stirred back to life in some former Warsaw Pact states after the fall of Communism. I want to make one other point. When the Commission issued its report, I reminded the Senate that NATO is a military alliance. A look at the map will refresh my colleagues' understanding of the need to include Romania and Slovenia in the next round of expansion. After Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are admitted, we will have an Alliance with a member, Hungary, which lacks a land corridor connecting it with other Alliance members. This is a weakness of major importance, one whose significance can only be magnified if we artificially ``delay'' accession of other qualified candidates. This point also focuses attention on Bulgaria's desire to become, when it is qualified, an Alliance member. The Washington Post's Wednesday, February 11, 1998 edition contains an editorial and a separate article that support my perspective on this issue. The editorial entitled ``Opening NATO's Door,'' states that, and I quote: There is a moral heart to the case for enlargement, and it is to bind the democracies, refreshing the old, strengthening the new. The first three candidates have demonstrated they are committed to assuming alliance responsibilities. Their accession would, as Secretary of State Albright put it Monday, `make us all safer by expanding the area of Europe where wars do not happen.' The resulting increments of stability would benefit not only NATO members but the Russians, who remain opposed to the development but are unable to stop it. The serious American objection to enlargement comes from strategists who fear the political and military dilution of an alliance once focused laser-like on territorial defense against a single dangerous foe. These strategists would have the European Union do the main work of easing the path of the new democracies, leaving NATO to deal with a still- problematic Russia and its huge residual nuclear resource. But the would leave the now-free pieces of the old Soviet empire marooned in strategic ambiguity. The new democracies need better and deserve it. The article, entitled ``NATO Candidates Urge Senators to Back Expansion,'' by Edward Walsh, is also important. It quotes the foreign ministers of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary as supporting the continued expansion of NATO when other candidate states are ready to join. Here is the description of what they said, and I quote: Geremek said other Central and Eastern European countries that hope to join NATO were disappointed to be left out of the first proposed expansion round but ``they are happy that the expansion will take place and feel it will increase their security.'' Enacting legislation requiring a three- to five-year wait before others could join NATO, as some have suggested, would send a discouraging message to these countries, the officials argued. ``The purpose of the enlargement is to diminish the dividing lines [in Europe], not to create new lines of division between the new members of NATO and those who stay outside,'' Kovacs said. Mr. President, I ask that the full text of both the editorial and the article from which I have just quoted be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I urge my colleagues to support NATO expansion. It is the right thing to do for America, the right thing to do for the Alliance, and the right thing to do for the people of Central and Eastern Europe who struggled so long in a seemingly hopeless quest for freedom and independence. We supported them then, and we must continue to support them now. The material follows: [From the Washington Post, Feb. 11, 1998] Opening NATO's Door As the Senate moves to the question of ratifying NATO enlargement, the debate is in a curious place. It is generally accepted that adding Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to the 16-nation Atlantic Alliance will be approved by well over the necessary two-thirds when the vote comes probably next spring. Yet several years of intense discussion have not removed all serious doubts about the step. Even among supporters, misgivings about adding further members later are evident. There is a moral heart to the case for enlargement, and it is to bind the democracies, refreshing the old, strengthening the new. The first three candidates have demonstrated they are committed to assuming alliance responsibilities. Their accession would, as Secretary of State Albright put it Monday, ``make us all safer by expanding the area of Europe where wars do not happen.'' The resulting increments of stability would benefit not only NATO members but the Russians, who remain opposed to the development but are unable to stop it. The serious American objection to enlargement comes from strategists who fear the political and military dilution of an alliance once focused laser-like on territorial defense against a single dangerous foe. These strategists would have the European Union do the main work of easing the path of the new democracies, leaving NATO to deal with a still- problematic Russia and its huge residual nuclear resource. But that would leave the now-free pieces of the old Soviet empire marooned in strategic ambiguity. The new democracies need better and deserve it. The EU should move more quickly but cannot fairly be asked to satisfy the full range of their wish to be of the West. Their insecurity could rub events raw and unsettle the region. The different currents of resistance to enlargement meet in common opposition to taking in any more than Central Europe's favored three. This is the impulse behind suggestions of a legislated ``pause.'' Such a maneuver, tying the hands of executive-branch foreign policymakers, is a truly bad idea. It could generate nervousness verging on desperation among the unfavored of Central Europe, and tempt others to throw their weight around. The better way surely is, with Secretary Albright, to leave the NATO door open. Other democracies, as they meet the rigorous political as well as military standards for alliance membership, will then be able to assert their claim to be brought into the charmed circle. Time will let the allies show that enlargement, far from simply moving a military bloc menacingly closer to Russia's borders, calms the region as a whole.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, in 1996, one violent crime was committed every nineteen seconds in the United States. According to the Uniform Crime Reports, firearms were the weapons used in 29% of all murders, robberies and aggravated assaults, collectively, that year. When a crime occurs, no matter what the crime or the weapons used, the first action taken is to call the police. Law enforcement rushes to the rescue, risking their own lives in the process. It is imperative that we do all we can to assist the police in handling these volatile situations. That is why I join with Senators Campbell and Leahy in introducing the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act--a bill that will provide funding for equipment that is critical to preserve the lives of our law enforcement. The ``equipment'' of which I speak is a bullet proof vest. Under this bill, the federal government will pay half the cost for the purchase of armor vests for a State and local law enforcement. This bill promotes the purchases of these life-saving vests. The need for them is proven over and over again. Nationwide, the FBI estimates that nearly one third of the 1,182 law enforcement officers killed by a firearm in the line of duty since 1980 would be alive if they had worn a bullet proof vest. Just this past December, Rochester, New York was rocked by the shooting of three police officers. Rochester Police Officers Mark G. Dibelka and Thomas DiFante were both shot in the chest and Sgt. Michael Kozak was shot in the arm. All three men lived --thanks to the bulletproof vests. These heroes will live to see the judicial process at work against the criminal charged with three counts of first degree attempted murder. Due to the bullet proof vests, we are able to wish these men a speedy recovery. In New York City, the lives of two officers were saved with a bulletproof vest. A convicted drug dealer is accused of shooting two officers, firing three shots at Detective Wafkey Salem in the chest and shot at Detective Lourdes Gonzalez' shoulder. These officers lived to tell their stories. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Protection Act of 1998 authorizes $25 million of federal funds to be matched with State and localities funds for the purchase of armor vests. Any agent or officer that prevents, detects or investigates crimes, or supervises sentenced offenders, will be able to receive a bulletproof vest with the assistance of this grant--that includes law enforcement and correction officers. Special attention is paid to rural areas, with at least 50% of the funds available to jurisdictions with populations of 100,000 or less. Each state would receive a minimum of .75% of the total federal funds, including Puerto Rico. The bill also includes a maximum of 5% that can be drawn to each state, including the grantees of that state. The only restriction is that the armor vests are not made by prison labor, a very reasonable requirement, especially in light of the nature of the life-saving equipment. This legislation also recognizes that the equipment purchased with federal assistance should be made in the United States. Law enforcement officers risk their lives for people, and we owe it to them to make sure the risks are at a minimum. We owe it to the men and women who go to work everyday and have no idea what dangerous situation awaits them--and we owe it to their families. This bill should be passed, swiftly and, I hope, with the full support of the Senate.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, in 1996, one violent crime was committed every nineteen seconds in the United States. According to the Uniform Crime Reports, firearms were the weapons used in 29% of all murders, robberies and aggravated assaults, collectively, that year. When a crime occurs, no matter what the crime or the weapons used, the first action taken is to call the police. Law enforcement rushes to the rescue, risking their own lives in the process. It is imperative that we do all we can to assist the police in handling these volatile situations. That is why I join with Senators Campbell and Leahy in introducing the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act--a bill that will provide funding for equipment that is critical to preserve the lives of our law enforcement. The ``equipment'' of which I speak is a bullet proof vest. Under this bill, the federal government will pay half the cost for the purchase of armor vests for a State and local law enforcement. This bill promotes the purchases of these life-saving vests. The need for them is proven over and over again. Nationwide, the FBI estimates that nearly one third of the 1,182 law enforcement officers killed by a firearm in the line of duty since 1980 would be alive if they had worn a bullet proof vest. Just this past December, Rochester, New York was rocked by the shooting of three police officers. Rochester Police Officers Mark G. Dibelka and Thomas DiFante were both shot in the chest and Sgt. Michael Kozak was shot in the arm. All three men lived --thanks to the bulletproof vests. These heroes will live to see the judicial process at work against the criminal charged with three counts of first degree attempted murder. Due to the bullet proof vests, we are able to wish these men a speedy recovery. In New York City, the lives of two officers were saved with a bulletproof vest. A convicted drug dealer is accused of shooting two officers, firing three shots at Detective Wafkey Salem in the chest and shot at Detective Lourdes Gonzalez' shoulder. These officers lived to tell their stories. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Protection Act of 1998 authorizes $25 million of federal funds to be matched with State and localities funds for the purchase of armor vests. Any agent or officer that prevents, detects or investigates crimes, or supervises sentenced offenders, will be able to receive a bulletproof vest with the assistance of this grant--that includes law enforcement and correction officers. Special attention is paid to rural areas, with at least 50% of the funds available to jurisdictions with populations of 100,000 or less. Each state would receive a minimum of .75% of the total federal funds, including Puerto Rico. The bill also includes a maximum of 5% that can be drawn to each state, including the grantees of that state. The only restriction is that the armor vests are not made by prison labor, a very reasonable requirement, especially in light of the nature of the life-saving equipment. This legislation also recognizes that the equipment purchased with federal assistance should be made in the United States. Law enforcement officers risk their lives for people, and we owe it to them to make sure the risks are at a minimum. We owe it to the men and women who go to work everyday and have no idea what dangerous situation awaits them--and we owe it to their families. This bill should be passed, swiftly and, I hope, with the full support of the Senate.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to repeal a provision of the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 that is particularly onerous and unfair to New York's and our nation's hospitals. The provision is one that expands the definition of a Medicare transfer and it is inherently counterintuitive to assuring the delivery of appropriate health care services to patients. As many of my colleagues might recall, I was actively involved during the Senate's debate of the BBA in fighting for the elimination of the transfer provision. I thought then, and I still believe now that it is bad health care policy that runs counter to the mission that we should be advocating when we make policy: to encourage the providers of health care in our communities to provide the most appropriate care for the good of their patients. Along with my colleague Senator Dodd, last year, we were able to mitigate the impact of the original transfer provision in the final BBA that was enacted. Unfortunately, we were not able to eliminate it from the BBA and that is why I am here today, offering legislation to finish the job we started last summer. Included in the BBA was a provision that would expand the definition of a Medicare acute care transfer to include discharges to any rehabilitation or psychiatric hospital, nursing home or home health agency. This policy is scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 1998, for 10 Medicare hospital procedures that will be determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. What this means for hospitals that transfer patients is that the hospital would no longer get paid the appropriate payment (a DRG payment)--they would instead get paid a lesser amount--just because the patient was discharged to receive a more appropriate level of care. This policy would only apply for patients that are transferred in under the average length of stay. Let me give you an example: a patient goes into the hospital for one of the 10 designated procedures, for example, a hip operation, which has an average length of stay of 10 days. At 7 days, the patient's doctor wants to transfer him to a rehabilitation hospital to continue his recovery. This is where the transfer policy would have an effect: the hospital that discharged him would no longer receive the payment that is due to them--the DRG payment. Instead, they would receive a lesser per diem payment, merely because the patient was discharged to receive a more appropriate, cost effective level of care. Let me spend a moment here talking about the hospital payment system. The DRG system was put into place by Congress to create the proper incentives for providing an appropriate level of care for patients. It is a system that is built on average: patient cases that have higher lengths of stay are ``underpaid'' and cases that have lower than average lengths of stay are ``overpaid'' because, regardless of the length of stay, hospitals get the same payment. The new transfer policy would begin a serious erosion of the DRG system and, as a result, create the wrong incentives for hospitals. Hospitals that are faced with receiving a lesser payment for providing the appropriate care for a patient, will undoubtedly change their behavior: they will end up keeping a patient in the hospital longer--until the average length of stay is reached, and then transfer the patient to a post-acute care facility. As a result, the transfer policy creates a disincentive for hospitals to efficiently provide the most appropriate level of care for their patients. The transfer policy is not necessary. Patients that use post-acute care services tend to have more complicated health care needs and longer hospital stays than those patients that don't use post-acute care. For this reason, the transfer policy does not address a problem in the Medicare system that needs fixing. Even the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission rejected this policy change because they believed it was bad health care policy and that it provided the wrong incentives for a hospital prospective payment system. It also creates billing documents for our hospitals who would be held responsible for the future actions of former patients. This sets up our hospitals for future allegations of fraud. For example, a hospital discharges a patient, who goes home from the hospital, expecting to be cared for by a family member. Suddenly, the family member becomes ill and unexpectedly cannot care for a patient. The patient's doctor calls the local home health care agency, who now sends a nurse out to the patient's home for 3 weeks of home care. The hospital has no knowledge of this and will bill Medicare for the full DRG because it believed that the patient was discharged and at home recovering. The hospital is unaware of actions of the patient and therefore would have no reason to bill the Medicare program differently. The government later could cite the hospital for fraud because they billed the Medicare program improperly. Hospitals are faced with the impossible and untenable task of tracking the future actions of patients that left their care. Repeal of the transfer policy is the only way to right a very misguided policy that was adopted last year. I urge my colleagues to support legislation that will eliminate a provision of the BBA that is bad health policy and disruptive to a system that aims to assure that patients receive the right care in the most appropriate setting. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, consistent with the greatest traditions of athletic competition, the 1997 Dover High School football team became the first in Dutchess County history to earn the high honor of New York State Champion. Rolling to victory after victory, their perfect season culminated in a spectacular double-overtime triumph over Christian Brothers Academy of Syracuse. While the victories they gained were as a team of 31 dedicated scholar-athletes, they did not travel that road to victory alone. Behind them all the way were their parents, their classmates and the entire community. Guiding them and offering encouragement in difficult times while challenging them to be the best were their coaches: Bill Broggy, Chris Lounsbury, John Thorpe, Bill Peel, Paul Kenny and Israel Lorimer. Their skill on the field, their refusal to give up and their commitment to excellence have brought honor and distinction not only to the Dover Dragons, but to all of Section 1. In addition to their undefeated season and many memories, they have developed skills that will be with them long after their playing days are over. The dedication they displayed through countless hours of practice, their sense of teamwork, and the ability to rise to a challenge will serve them well as they continue to grow not only as athletes, but as human beings. Leading up to the championship game on November 28, 1997, the players, coaches, parents, and so many fans traveled with hope and pride to play and watch the ultimate game. Win or lose, the Dover Dragons had made it all the way to the New York State Championship at the Carrier Dome. Facing a tough hometown team, the Dover Dragons never backed down and never forgot what brought them to the contest. Although facing defeat in the fourth quarter, the Dragons tapped their collective strength and battled back through two overtimes to earn the title of New York State Champion. This championship win represented an entire season of tenacity, commitment, and dedication to excellence. For so many of our young men and women, the athletic fields are a place to be challenged, a place to succeed, a place to learn the value of teamwork and loyalty. The Dover Dragons have learned these lessons well, and as they continue to celebrate their New York State Championship, I salute them: The 1997 Dover High School Football Dragons: Tim Jones, Kurt Abrams, John Greiner, Eric Bosley, George Morfea, Chris Maglin, Willie Peel, Spencer Harby, Jeff Aubry, Christian Harby, Chris Barto, Rob Schaus, Chris Zabowski, Shane Barto, Justin Agrella, Luis Jusino, Frank Cawley, Steve Meilleur, Ed Pisano, Matt Judson, Nick Savarese, John Hammond, Rick Rappazzo, Jeff Acken, Pat Hearn, John Locke, Justin Cole, Justin Brown, Matt Light, Nate Davis, Garett Yeno.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to repeal a provision of the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 that is particularly onerous and unfair to New York's and our nation's hospitals. The provision is one that expands the definition of a Medicare transfer and it is inherently counterintuitive to assuring the delivery of appropriate health care services to patients. As many of my colleagues might recall, I was actively involved during the Senate's debate of the BBA in fighting for the elimination of the transfer provision. I thought then, and I still believe now that it is bad health care policy that runs counter to the mission that we should be advocating when we make policy: to encourage the providers of health care in our communities to provide the most appropriate care for the good of their patients. Along with my colleague Senator Dodd, last year, we were able to mitigate the impact of the original transfer provision in the final BBA that was enacted. Unfortunately, we were not able to eliminate it from the BBA and that is why I am here today, offering legislation to finish the job we started last summer. Included in the BBA was a provision that would expand the definition of a Medicare acute care transfer to include discharges to any rehabilitation or psychiatric hospital, nursing home or home health agency. This policy is scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 1998, for 10 Medicare hospital procedures that will be determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. What this means for hospitals that transfer patients is that the hospital would no longer get paid the appropriate payment (a DRG payment)--they would instead get paid a lesser amount--just because the patient was discharged to receive a more appropriate level of care. This policy would only apply for patients that are transferred in under the average length of stay. Let me give you an example: a patient goes into the hospital for one of the 10 designated procedures, for example, a hip operation, which has an average length of stay of 10 days. At 7 days, the patient's doctor wants to transfer him to a rehabilitation hospital to continue his recovery. This is where the transfer policy would have an effect: the hospital that discharged him would no longer receive the payment that is due to them--the DRG payment. Instead, they would receive a lesser per diem payment, merely because the patient was discharged to receive a more appropriate, cost effective level of care. Let me spend a moment here talking about the hospital payment system. The DRG system was put into place by Congress to create the proper incentives for providing an appropriate level of care for patients. It is a system that is built on average: patient cases that have higher lengths of stay are ``underpaid'' and cases that have lower than average lengths of stay are ``overpaid'' because, regardless of the length of stay, hospitals get the same payment. The new transfer policy would begin a serious erosion of the DRG system and, as a result, create the wrong incentives for hospitals. Hospitals that are faced with receiving a lesser payment for providing the appropriate care for a patient, will undoubtedly change their behavior: they will end up keeping a patient in the hospital longer--until the average length of stay is reached, and then transfer the patient to a post-acute care facility. As a result, the transfer policy creates a disincentive for hospitals to efficiently provide the most appropriate level of care for their patients. The transfer policy is not necessary. Patients that use post-acute care services tend to have more complicated health care needs and longer hospital stays than those patients that don't use post-acute care. For this reason, the transfer policy does not address a problem in the Medicare system that needs fixing. Even the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission rejected this policy change because they believed it was bad health care policy and that it provided the wrong incentives for a hospital prospective payment system. It also creates billing documents for our hospitals who would be held responsible for the future actions of former patients. This sets up our hospitals for future allegations of fraud. For example, a hospital discharges a patient, who goes home from the hospital, expecting to be cared for by a family member. Suddenly, the family member becomes ill and unexpectedly cannot care for a patient. The patient's doctor calls the local home health care agency, who now sends a nurse out to the patient's home for 3 weeks of home care. The hospital has no knowledge of this and will bill Medicare for the full DRG because it believed that the patient was discharged and at home recovering. The hospital is unaware of actions of the patient and therefore would have no reason to bill the Medicare program differently. The government later could cite the hospital for fraud because they billed the Medicare program improperly. Hospitals are faced with the impossible and untenable task of tracking the future actions of patients that left their care. Repeal of the transfer policy is the only way to right a very misguided policy that was adopted last year. I urge my colleagues to support legislation that will eliminate a provision of the BBA that is bad health policy and disruptive to a system that aims to assure that patients receive the right care in the most appropriate setting. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia for his leadership on this most important issue. I believe that education is the most important issue facing our country. We have focused a majority of our attention on the need to give assistance to those of our students who are college bound, and that is important. We have done, I think, a good job in expanding, for example, the Pell grants to take in nearly 300,000 students, and I voted for that. We have increased the amounts of those grants substantially, from about $2,400 to $3,000 and I support that. And we worked to create educational savings accounts, and I think that is important, Madam President. But I think it is time that we look at our elementary schools and our high schools, because one in five third-graders across New York State could not read with comprehension even the easiest connected sentences and paragraphs, according to the New York State Department of Education. We have heard that 40 percent of the children in some of our school districts are reading below grade level and are below grade level in math. 50 percent-plus of the students in some of our school districts are dropping out of school, including here in the Nation's Capital. What is going to happen to those children who are dropping out? How can they compete? What jobs are they going to hold? What will happen to society if this continues? Let me say that last night the President talked about a number of issues. One of those issues he talked about was the need to hire more teachers. Let me tell you that I believe we need more teachers in the classrooms. We should empower, by way of making moneys available, the local districts to do exactly that. I am going to work with whoever it is--the President, this administration, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--to do exactly that. The President also called for greater accountability in education, and I believe that's important. He said students must be more accountable for their performance, that we should not have social promotion. That is true. Unfortunately, we didn't hear one word about making teachers accountable also. One of the things that this bill, the B.O.O.K.S. Act, does is make available funds for accountability. You can't have our kids learning if the people teaching them do not meet performance standards. We must have competency testing so that we know math teachers do understand basic math and that they can teach it. We have to have some system of evaluating, and we should give the school districts that ability. It is not that we should say what test they should give, but we should empower the local districts and the parents to have a choice. (Mr. COATS assumed the Chair.)

Mr. D'AMATO. Most of our teachers, I believe, Mr. President, do a great job and are dedicated and hard-working. Unfortunately, there is no financial reward for those great teachers. I think we need merit pay. That is one of the things that we encourage in this legislation, which offers better opportunities for our kids. We need major reform, not just tinkering at the edges of the problem. Let me touch on that which, in many cases, brings about a hue and cry not from the parents, but from those who want to protect the status quo, the teachers' union. By perpetuating the status quo, too many of our children are falling by the wayside--they are not making it. I am talking about a system that many of my colleagues quake when we bring the issue up, and that is called accountability and seeing to it that teachers don't have lifetime tenure. I think our kids are entitled to have teachers who make a difference just like the teachers I had in grade school who created magic in the classroom. Those teachers exist today. Let's understand that. I think the vast majority of our public school teachers are dedicated, work hard, do a good job, and they should be rewarded with merit pay. But, by gosh, let's not be afraid to say there should be accountability as well with teacher competency tests and ending a system where teachers, in essence, in too many of our schools and too many of our States, have what is likened to lifetime tenure. After 3 years, it becomes virtually impossible to remove those who are not doing the job. I will give you an example from New York State. Last year, only seven out of 200,000 teachers were removed. Seven. It has become virtually impossible. And it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring this type of action. Now, Mr. President, I am not suggesting that we jeopardize those good teachers who are doing the job or that we create some arbitrary standards. I am suggesting that we have some review, some system to evaluate performance so that nobody has what is, in essence, lifetime tenure regardless of the job the person is doing. The education of our children is too important. Those who teach our children must be competent in these subjects, that is why we need competency testing for all teachers. Our children deserve nothing less. Let me point to just one other area before I conclude my remarks, and that is school safety. My gosh, if we have children in our public schools that say it is dangerous and they feel safer in their neighborhoods than going from one class to another, what more do we need? If we don't have schools as a safe haven, creating the environment where our children can learn in that safe haven, that oasis of learning, then how can the best teacher do the job? So we have to be able to fast-track violent, disruptive students out of the school. You cannot suggest that public education has ever said that even violent, disruptive juveniles have a right to stay in school no matter what their conduct. That is unfortunately the case in too many areas. I will tell you that the 1,116 schools in New York City reported 22,000 incidents in 1996-97, including nearly 5,000 person-related incidents. It becomes impossible to have serious learning in the classroom. Last but not least, let me just touch on one aspect that I think is so important. Why should we have a plethora of Federal programs that serve cross-purposes, when we can take that money and establish education block grants. Somehow bureaucrats have planted in the minds of many of our parents and local officials that they are going to lose money. What we call for in this bill is saying that we are going to give you the same amount of money, and, in fact, we will actually give you more money. In title II of the BOOKS Act, States would receive funds through block grants, which can be used for educational needs that the local communities and school boards think are important--not that Washington mandates. So they are going to get more money. In addition, they are going to get a lot more money because 95 percent of those funds must reach the local schools in the classrooms and cannot be used for administrative expenses. We cannot have 15 to as high as 25 and 30 percent of the money being used for administrative overhead. The money is not reaching the kids. I might give one example. Senator Gorton's amendment along these lines last year would have sent an additional $670 million to local school districts. But we have the bureaucrats in Washington who are opposed to that. They want to keep these ties. That is an employment center as opposed to becoming an educational opportunity. So $670 million more could go to the school districts. And by the way, that hires 26,000 teachers. So when our President says, ``we want to hire 100,000,'' here is a way. If we were to adopt the block grant proposal, and some amendments to it, we could hire as many as 26,000 teachers at the local districts without raising one additional penny. My gosh, that's over a quarter of the number that the President talked about, with no increase in taxes. It just means using the resources we have and empowering our parents and the local school districts to make these choices. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Coverdell, Senator Lott, and the occupant of the Chair, Senator Coats, for being leaders in this area. We have to do better for our children, not just tinkering at the edges. By the way, why should we be afraid of the teachers' unions? We should encourage them to work with us. It should not be a battle against them. Notwithstanding that I have been critical of their status quo position and their opposition to basic, good, fundamental reform, this should be a fight for our children, to give our kids a better education. I would hope that the Members and all of the teachers would join and be in favor of this and work together. We can do better and we must do better because our children are entitled to that. So, Mr. President, I thank you for your leadership. I thank Senator Coverdell and my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the House of Representatives on passage of S.1564, ``The Holocaust Victims Redress Act.'' The bill was passed by the Senate on November 13, 1997 and was referred back to the House where it was originally introduced by my colleagues, the Chairman of the House Banking Committee, Rep. Jim Leach, and Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Rep. Ben Gilman. I am very pleased that we have been able to work together to pass this important legislation enabling the correction of a horrible injustice after the war. Now, needy survivors can obtain some measure of justice and dignity. Mr. President, this important bill contains two main provisions. First, the bill authorizes $25 million for a U.S. donation to the fund established by the United States and the United Kingdom at the London Conference on Nazi Gold in December. Second, the bill authorizes $5 million for research into the issue and translation of foreign language documents coming from this effort. The Administration has been fully supportive of this effort. Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstat, particularly, has played a vital role in this effort and without him we would not be where we are today on the issue. Regarding the $5 million authorized in the bill for research, it is my strong belief that the management of these funds should be granted to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. This museum is the one organization uniquely capable of conducting research like this, research that is a core function of its mission. The Museum, I might add, has been an invaluable aid to the Banking Committee during our on- going inquiry into the disposition of Holocaust-era assets by Swiss banks from before, during and after the Holocaust. Accordingly, I can think of no better group to manage the research funding from this bill than the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Mr. President, I again want to thank my colleagues for their help in obtaining passage for this important bill. If we are going to try to obtain justice for victims of the Holocaust. While much more needs to be done on this issue, this is an important measure in this long overdue effort.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States with respect to shadow mask steel. Shadow mask steel, a vital component of color television picture tubes and computer video monitors, is used to produce ``shadow masks'' which prevent image distortion on the viewing screens of televisions and computer video monitors. Unfortunately, neither shadow mask steel, nor any viable substitute, is produced within the United States. Therefore, United States shadow mask producers must import this product from steel producers in Japan and Germany. Domestic shadow mask production faces a difficult challenge to stay competitive in today's shadow mask market. Competition from foreign shadow masks is increasing as foreign manufacturers aggressively pursue the U.S. market. In addition, color picture tube and computer video monitor manufacturers are increasing their efforts to reduce production costs due to increased competition in the television and computer markets. These factors reinforce the vital need for competitively-priced component materials, such as shadow masks. Eliminating the duty on shadow mask steel, a product that is already subject to a gradual tariff elimination schedule, would be an important step toward enabling domestic manufacturers to remain competitive in the global market. Major U.S. television picture tube and computer video monitor manufacturers that employ thousands of workers throughout the United States rely on a consistent supply of domestically-produced shadow masks. If such companies were unable to count on such a supply, we run the risk of supplanting domestic production of this product with imported shadow masks from foreign competitors, resulting in higher costs and delivery uncertainties associated with purchasing shadow mask imports. Such increased costs and uncertainty would certainly result in reduced competitiveness of U.S. television picture tube and computer video monitor manufacturers vis--vis foreign manufacturers. Reduced competitiveness could lead to the transfer of existing U.S. manufacturing operations abroad, and/or the closing of U.S. facilities, resulting in the loss of thousands of actual and potential U.S. jobs in the television and computer manufacturing industries.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation along with my friend and colleague, Senator Moynihan, that will help guarantee that one of our Nation's most important estuaries is no longer used as a dumping ground for polluted dredged material. Long Island Sound is a spectacular body of water located between Long Island, New York and the State of Connecticut. Unfortunately, past dumping of dredged material of questionable environmental impact has occurred in the sound. It is high time that Congress put an end to any future, willful pollution of the sound. The legislation that we are introducing today will prevent any individual of any government agency from randomly dumping sediments into the ecologically sensitive sound. Specifically, the legislation prevents all sediments that contain any constituents prohibited as other than trace contaminants, as defined by federal regulations, from being dumped into either Long Island Sound or Block Island Sound. Exceptions to the act can be made only in circumstances where the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shows that the material will not cause undesirable effects to the environment of marine life. In the fall of 1995, the U.S. Navy dumped over 1 million cubic yards of dredged material from the Thames River into the New London dump site located in the sound. Independent tests of that sediment indicated that contaminants were present in that dredged material that now lies at the bottom of the sound's New London dump site--contaminants such as dioxin, cadmium, pesticides, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, PCB's, and mercury. Right now, there is a question as to the long-term impact this material will have on the aquatic life and the environment in that area of the ocean. Such concerns should not have to occur. It has taken years to come as far as we have in cleaning up Long Island Sound--we should not jeopardize those gains by routinely allowing the dumping of polluted sediments in these waters. Vast amounts of federal, state, and local funds have been spent in the State of New York in the last quarter century combating pollution in the sound. However, at times over the last 25 years, we have looked the other way when it comes to dumping in the sound. Such actions are counter-productive in our efforts to restore the sound for recreational activities such as swimming and boating as well as the economic benefits of sportfishing and the shellfish industry--all of which bring more than $5.5 billion to the region each year. New Yorkers realize the importance of the sound and are stepping up their efforts to make sure it is cleaned up. New York voters approved an environmental bond initiative that, among other things, commits $200 million for sewage treatment plant upgrades, habitat restoration, and nonpoint source pollution controls on Long Island Sound. New York is doing its part; it is time now to get the support of the federal government. With the actions taken by New York, and with the passage of the legislation Senator Moynihan and I are introducing, I am confident that Long Island Sound will move steadily forward on the road to recovery. I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this bill, and I encourage its swift passage in the Senate. 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 to discuss one important health care initiative in New York State. This worthy project is the Montefiore Medical Center and it is located in the Bronx section of New York City. The Montefiore Medical Center system, established over 100 years ago, is an integrated health delivery system with two acute care hospitals providing access to over 1,000 beds, 30 community-based primary care centers, and a range of other outreach services operating in the Bronx and the surrounding communities. Through its extensive network, including comprehensive-care sites in some of the Nation's most economically deprived areas, Montefiore provides care to medically underserved residents. The Montefiore system provides nearly 20 percent of all inpatient acute care, and nearly 40 percent of all tertiary care required by Bronx residents, including over $50 million in uncompensated charity care annually. In addition, in partnership with the Children's Health Fund, Montefiore administers the Nation's largest medical program for homeless children. The Bronx is home to 400,000 children under age 21. In 1995, Montefiore conducted an extensive review of the health status of Bronx children and concluded that the overwhelming majority are at serious health risk, for reasons such as abuse, pediatric AIDS, lead poisoning, and asthma. In particular, asthma is the most serious health risk to Bronx children. Nearly one-third of births in the borough are to teenage mothers who receive no pre-natal care. As a result, the child hospitalization rate is 50 percent above the national average. Montefiore's study also demonstrated that a fundamental restructuring of its pediatric health care delivery system should be necessary to meet the growing challenge of providing services to these extremely at- risk children. Managed care is rapidly transforming how health care services are delivered in underserved communities. To remain viable in the evolving health care marketplace, Montefiore's child health treatment, prevention, and education services must be organized and efficiently coordinated. Montefiore has long been recognized as one of the Nation's premier pediatric research and training institutions, having trained a significant percentage of the country's pediatricians. In recent years, Montefiore has lost substantial numbers of pediatric specialists to more traditional children's hospitals which could have a dramatic impact on the numbers of physicians who practice in inner-city communities. To ease the competitive disadvantage and ensure its capacity to retain critically needed pediatric resources for the Bronx, Montefiore must consolidate pediatric specialists and specialty care in one location, a children's hospital. To meet the enormous challenge of providing high-quality, comprehensive services for Bronx children, Montefiore will develop the Montefiore Medical Center Child Health Network [CHN], an integrated system of family-centered care for families of all socio-economic levels. The CHN, organized around the core principal of providing enhanced access to high quality primary care, will offer a full complement of child health services. As the central institution of the CHN, the Montefiore Children's Hospital will feature 106 beds in age-appropriate units, state-of-the- art pediatric emergency and intensive care units, a full spectrum of tertiary subspecialties, including environmental sciences and behavioral pediatrics, a short-stay day hospital, support facilities and services for children and their families, including playrooms, school facilities, and a family resource center, and lastly, innovative communications technologies including a telemedicine consultation service and on-line teaching and tele-conferencing capabilities. Montefiore Medical Center has provided community services and community-based health care programs for over a century. It is uniquely qualified to implement an initiative as innovative and far reaching as the child health network. This initiative will strengthen and extend Montefiore's commitment to the Bronx community as a whole, and the children of the Bronx in particular. Through the centralization of its diverse services in this borough of New York City, the new Children's Hospital and its satellites will elevate the quality, scope, and accessibility of primary and specialty health care services available to children and their families. Mr. President, the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee on Appropriations includes a reference to this initiative in its report. The language is as follows: The health status of children living in the Bronx section of New York City is particularly worrisome with sociodemographic and health status indicators which underscore a need for improved health care services. The Committee is aware of plans to establish a state-of-the-art children's hospital in the Bronx to address the critical needs of its pediatric population. To enhance current Federal child health care programs in the area, the Committee encourages the Department to assist in the planning of this new facility and its potential programs. Mr. President, I look forward to working with the administration, the Congress, and the medical center on developing a Federal partnership for this initiative. This initiative could serve as a national model of how complete health systems can adapt and respond to the very unique and challenging health needs of children in medically underserved urban communities.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation along with my friend and colleague, Senator Moynihan, that will help guarantee that one of our Nation's most important estuaries is no longer used as a dumping ground for polluted dredged material. Long Island Sound is a spectacular body of water located between Long Island, New York and the State of Connecticut. Unfortunately, past dumping of dredged material of questionable environmental impact has occurred in the sound. It is high time that Congress put an end to any future, willful pollution of the sound. The legislation that we are introducing today will prevent any individual of any government agency from randomly dumping sediments into the ecologically sensitive sound. Specifically, the legislation prevents all sediments that contain any constituents prohibited as other than trace contaminants, as defined by federal regulations, from being dumped into either Long Island Sound or Block Island Sound. Exceptions to the act can be made only in circumstances where the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shows that the material will not cause undesirable effects to the environment of marine life. In the fall of 1995, the U.S. Navy dumped over 1 million cubic yards of dredged material from the Thames River into the New London dump site located in the sound. Independent tests of that sediment indicated that contaminants were present in that dredged material that now lies at the bottom of the sound's New London dump site--contaminants such as dioxin, cadmium, pesticides, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, PCB's, and mercury. Right now, there is a question as to the long-term impact this material will have on the aquatic life and the environment in that area of the ocean. Such concerns should not have to occur. It has taken years to come as far as we have in cleaning up Long Island Sound--we should not jeopardize those gains by routinely allowing the dumping of polluted sediments in these waters. Vast amounts of federal, state, and local funds have been spent in the State of New York in the last quarter century combating pollution in the sound. However, at times over the last 25 years, we have looked the other way when it comes to dumping in the sound. Such actions are counter-productive in our efforts to restore the sound for recreational activities such as swimming and boating as well as the economic benefits of sportfishing and the shellfish industry--all of which bring more than $5.5 billion to the region each year. New Yorkers realize the importance of the sound and are stepping up their efforts to make sure it is cleaned up. New York voters approved an environmental bond initiative that, among other things, commits $200 million for sewage treatment plant upgrades, habitat restoration, and nonpoint source pollution controls on Long Island Sound. New York is doing its part; it is time now to get the support of the federal government. With the actions taken by New York, and with the passage of the legislation Senator Moynihan and I are introducing, I am confident that Long Island Sound will move steadily forward on the road to recovery. I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this bill, and I encourage its swift passage in the Senate. 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, it is with great pleasure that I note that the Italian Hospital Society is celebrating its 60th anniversary with a dinner and awards presentation on Sunday, November 16th. It is a most notable organization guided by compassion and philanthropy to assist the hospital and health services of Italian communities in New York. This year's ceremonies will salute four eminent Italian-Americans who have brought the hopes of the Italian Hospital Society closer to reality. I am especially gratified that the committee honors a doctor, a businessman, a union leader, and the principle inspiration of my life, my mamma. I can speak with particular knowledge and delight about Mamma, known to the public as Antoinette Cioffari D'Amato. She was born and grew up in Brooklyn, the daughter of Italian-American parents. In growing up as her child, I was able to see the qualities, character and enthusiasm for life and for family which the society salutes in her public life. It was she who inspired confidence, exercised discipline and demanded the pursuit of education. It was she who was the foundation for responsibility to the community and for civic involvement. In her marriage of 61 years to my father, Armand, a teacher and son of Italian-American parents, she was a prototypical ``mamma''--cooking, cleaning, exhorting, reprimanding and loving her three children, Alfonse, Armand, and Joanne. During World War II, while my father was in the Army, she worked in a defense plant. As part of the emigration from Brooklyn to Long Island, the D'Amato family moved to Island Park where she and Dad continue to reside. Both still work in the insurance brokerage which has been the family business for over 60 years. It was my political campaign for the U.S. Senate in 1980 that brought Mamma and her many talents to a wider audience. The advertisements she made for my campaign made me a winner. Ever since she has been unstinting as an active and enthusiastic citizen of New York. She has had a special interest in affordable housing services for older citizens through her membership on the board of the New York Foundation for Senior Citizens Inc. She is a television celebrity and the author of her own cookbook--``Cooking and Canning with Mamma D'Amato.'' I commend the Italian Hospital Society for the honor they give my mother for her public participation; but, for all the lessons and love of the private Antoinette Cioffari D'Amato, only a hug and a kiss are the proper awards. Ernesto Jofre Ernesto Jofre, a native of Chile, came to the United States as a political refugee in 1976. He had spent the 3 previous years as a political prisoner of the Pinochet dictatorship. He joined Local 169 of the Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers' Union [ACTWU] as an auditor. Subsequently, he served Local 169 as an organizer, business agent, assistant manager, and then became manager and secretary- treasurer in 1993. He then became manager and secretary-treasurer of the Amalgamated Northeast Regional Joint Board of the Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees [UNITE!] in 1994. He is a vice president of the New Jersey Industrial Union Council, Member of the boards of directors of the Amalgamated Bank, the Jewish Labor Committee, and Americans for Democratic Action. He is plan administrator of the health and welfare funds and pension funds of Local 169, UNITE. Mario Spagnuolo, M.D. Dr. Mario Spagnuolo was born in Naples in 1930; he graduated cum laude from the School of Medicine of the University of Naples. He trained in New York City at St. Claire's Hospital, the Irvington House Institute for Rheumatic Diseases and Bellevue Hospital. He was the director of the Irvington House Institute and associate professor of medicine at New York University Medical School. He has written about 60 research papers in rheumatic diseases and several articles for textbooks. An editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine accompanying one of his papers, in January 1968, defined the paper as an extraordinary clinical investigation. The Journal reprinted one of his articles in 1996, 25 years after its publication in 1966, as a ``Classic in Medicine.'' He has practiced internal medicine in Yonkers for the last 25 years. He has been president of the Westchester Health Services Network. He practices at St. John's Riverside Hospital in Yonkers, where he was director of medicine and is now chief of the medical staff and a member of the board of trustees. He is married to Kathryn Birchall Spagnuolo. They have four children--Mario, Sandra, Peter, and Eugene, a daughter-in-law--Linda, and three grandchildren--JoAnne, Matthew, and Stephanie. Vincent Zuccarelli Vincent Zuccarelli was born in Mongrassano, a small town in Calabria, Italy. He started his education in the seminary and continued through the ``Liceo Classico.'' He was a private tutor of classical languages, Latin and Greek, for the students of the Middle and High Gymnasium School and was head of electoral office in his jurisdiction for 5 years. Vincent came to the United States in 1958. In 1959, with his brothers, he engaged in and formed the food business in Mount Vernon, NY and Florida known as the Zuccarelli Brothers. He has been married for 43 years to his wife Nella and has three sons: Mario, Fiore, and Joseph. Vincent and Nella also have six grandchildren: Vincent, Nelli, Marie, Juliana, Joey, and Danielle. He and his wife reside in Bronxville, NY. He joined the Calabria Society in 1985, and has become an active and proud member. He is the first dinner-dance chairman of the Casa Dei Bambini Italiani Di New York. Mr. Zuccarelli is a member of the Council of the National Italian-American Foundation of Washington, DC, promoting education for the Italian-American values and traditions, and presently he is the NIAF Westchester County Coordinator. The society continues the work of so many who came to this country as immigrants seeking freedom and a new life in America. But the bonds of kinship and of nationality were often the only protections in a society where intolerance and discrimination was the more likely welcome. Having done so much over the past 60 years, the Italian Hospital Society has embarked on a new mission to create an Italian Home for the Aged as an independent assisted living facility where Italian-Americans and all elderly and infirm can receive the finest assistance. As they note in their mission statement: ``Unfortunately many of our own parents and grandparents have suffered isolation, depression and feelings of frustration due to cultural and language barriers. It is the mission of the Italian Hospital Society to ameliorate this difficult situation by providing a supervised facility that would be comforting and familiar to our aged community while providing for the physical as well as psychological welfare of these individuals.'' Mr. President, I ask to share with our colleagues the joy I have as son of one of the society's honorees and thank them for all the work that they do as a society and for the honors and respect they show toward their four honorees. They and the society inspire us all.