Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor S.Con.Res. 122, introduced by my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, commemorating the 65th anniversary of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-33. It is timely once again for us to join together to call the world's attention to this cold act of mass murder, to remember its victims, and to pledge ourselves to prevent hunger from being used as a weapon of genocide. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution. The Ukrainian Famine ranks among the most devastating human tragedies of all time, with an estimated loss of life exceeding 7 million men, women and children. Millions of Ukrainians died not from natural causes, but from policies designed to eradicate Ukraine's cultural and political identity and to punish the Ukrainian people for resisting the forced collectivization of agriculture. As such, the Famine is a dramatic testament to the brutality of the imperial Soviet system, responsible for the destruction of tens of millions of lives over the course of its 70-year existence. The Ukrainian Famine was a crime of epic proportions. In the 1980's the U.S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine painstakingly documented every aspect of this genocide, collecting an impressive body of material documenting the tragedy inflicted upon Ukrainians by their Soviet masters. Members of the Famine Commission from this body and from the House of Representatives held hearings around the country in which elderly eyewitnesses recounted the consequences of Stalin's genocidal policies in starkly human terms, giving poignant and often gruesome accounts of the horrors they, their families, friends and fellow countrymen faced. The Famine Commission's final report to Congress confirmed the man-made nature of the Famine, specifically, the complicity of Joseph Stalin and those around him in its conception and execution. Clearly, the Ukrainian Famine occurred within the context of a Soviet system which denied and vigorously opposed democratic values, the rule of law, and any respect for elementary human rights. Now that Ukraine is free from foreign domination and is moving towards full respect for human rights, democratic values and the rule of law, the likelihood of a similar catastrophe, at the present time, appears remote. Nevertheless, I strongly agree with the resolution's assertion that it is essential that the United States continue to assist Ukraine as it proceeds towards democracy, a free-market economy, and full respect for human rights. It is imperative for America and for the West to support independence and democracy in Ukraine to ensure that Ukraine never again experiences domination by a foreign power hostile to Ukraine's very identity as a people and as a nation. Mr. President, in closing, I once again urge my colleagues to join together in support of this important resolution.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the young men and women that served bravely in the United States military during WWI, and to one veteran in particular, Alexander C. Schlehr. Mr. Schlehr, of Buffalo, NY, is one of only 1,800 living veterans of this war. He courageously lived through the perils of European trench warfare and served his country honorably. Due to his strong desire to assist his country in the war effort, Alexander enlisted in the army at the young age of 19. Immediately, he was incorporated into 59th Pioneer Infantry, later to be known as the Corps of Engineers. Even before Alex's infantry landed in France, the boat on which he was traveling was attacked by enemy torpedoes. Thus, he has experienced all aspects of warfare, both on the sea and in the trenches of France and in the Argonne forest. For his patriotic and heroic service, Schlehr has been awarded a WWI medal with three Battle Stars and is currently being reviewed for the French ``Legion of Honor'' medal. He is also considered a local hero. His service has been exalted in his local newspaper, the Amherst Bee, and has been recognized by local and top government officials, all of whom contacted him on his 100th birthday. Yet, Alexander Schlehr's desire to serve his country did not end at the close of the war. When the war ended, Schlehr graciously helped in handling the personal belongings of discharged officers. He has raised four children, one of which has served the United States in wartime as well, and prospered as a successful business man. Furthermore, he has received numerous awards and recognitions denoting his sixty years of service in the American Legion and the Commandeers. I feel it is my duty to recognize the outstanding service Alexander Schlehr has given to this country during his 101 years of life. He is an example for all Americans through his selfless and courageous actions. I thank him for his dedication to our country and wish him a Happy 102nd Birthday this coming spring.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, as a co-sponsor of the International Religious Freedom Act, I rise today to commend my colleagues for their efforts to bring this bill to the Senate. This legislation takes concrete steps to insure continued U.S. leadership and diplomatic focus on issues of religious liberty around the world. Few things are more precious to the American people than freedom of religion, and I strongly support our efforts to bring this freedom to those who are persecuted for their faiths around the world. The vast majority of those who suffer abridgement of their right to religious liberty do not suffer torture, rape, or murder. Instead, they face harassment, discrimination, and onerous bureaucratic obstacles to registering their religious organizations. The Act covers all violations of religious liberty, not just the most egregious acts of persecution and I commend the drafters of this legislation for its broad coverage. As Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I am very concerned over rising religious intolerance and even oppression in the OSCE region. As Eastern European countries begin to loosen their grip on their economies, they must also learn to relinquish government control over legitimate private action by their citizenry that is protected by international commitments. I have written repeatedly strong letters to heads of state or government in support of religious liberty and to hold them to their international human rights commitments. The Commission has had two hearings and several public briefings on this issue in the OSCE region. We have heard testimony that, contrary to our expectations when the Communist governments of the former Warsaw Pact states fell, a variety of official measures have been taken restricting, or in some cases denying, freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief. One of the core values of the United States is freedom of religion. The various documents of the Helsinki Process and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights have adopted this fundamental freedom and established it as an international norm all nations are expected to meet. I strongly believe that adoption of this legislation will help the United States advocate religious liberty around the world, and address some of the specific problems our hearings and briefings have documented. This year in Uzbekistan, for instance, a new law was passed which, among other restrictions, requires 100 Uzbek citizens to sign a religious community's application for registration, criminalizes any unregistered religious activity, and penalizes religious free speech. In 1997, similarly restrictive laws were passed in Russia and Macedonia and a number of OSCE participating states are reportedly considering legislation imposing significant restrictions on religious liberty, particularly for minority religious groups. In Western Europe, the trends toward increased religious intolerance has been more insidious. In the last few years, governments in Western Europe, particularly France, Germany, Belgium, and Austria, have targeted numerous groups that they label ``dangerous'' and have published official government propaganda against them, placed them under surveillance by security agencies, and revoked tax exempt status based on the determination that groups are not a positive influence on society. Furthermore, these Western European actions embolden the more intolerant sectors of Eastern European society to further restrict religious liberty for minority or ill-favored groups. By requiring the President to take action against all countries engaged in violations of religious liberty, the Act insures that less egregious cases of religious liberty violations will not be ignored. By enumerating the specific policy responses required ranging from a private demarche to sanctions, the Act reflects the need for flexibility in diplomacy. Finally, by instituting a separate commission, the Act facilitates accurate and independent reporting on religious liberty violations around the world. Mr. President, I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this important legislation and I urge my colleagues to support the International Religious Freedom Act. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, on May 22, 1998, the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland courageously voted to make a break with the tragic violence of their past by expressing their support for the April 10 Peace Accords. The time is right for the U.S. to step in and show support for the changes in Ireland. We have a unique opportunity to participate in the building of an everlasting peace with the Northern Ireland Visa for Peace and Reconciliation Act. Northern Ireland will undergo massive changes as it progresses beyond its violent past to a calm, more peaceful future. These changes require economic opportunities and a workforce that can rebuild a beautiful country. The U.S. can offer training and job skills. More importantly, when they return home, they will be prepared to provide the crucial skill- base needed to attract private investment to their local economies. This past July, Senator Torricelli and I introduced S. 2269 set up for the same purpose. After much negotiation, we now have before us a bipartisan effort to show support for peace--the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program Act of 1998. This bill will provide 4,000 visas a year for three years allowing young people from Ireland to live in the United States for up to 36 months--gaining experience working and living in a peaceful, multicultural society. The bill establishes a program that will expose individuals from disadvantaged areas of Ireland to business and social life of other communities and train individuals for job skills for which there are opportunities in Ireland. That translates into a low-cost, low-risk, high return investment in peace in Northern Ireland. This bill will provide opportunities for residents of Ireland to have an experience that they can bring home with them to cultivate their economy and culture as the region enters into a new and promising era. That is why it is called the Northern Ireland Visa for Peace and Reconciliation Act. And I hope we call it law very soon. I believe some call it INNISFAILE, Island of Destiny. I want to congratulate Congressman Walsh and so many others for their vision and persistence in getting this bill passed and I urge its adoption.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden, I submit a Concurrent Resolution opposing the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian State. The House version of this resolution is being introduced by Rep. Jim Saxton, my colleague from New Jersey. Mr. President, Yasir Arafat seeks to abandon the Oslo process and unilaterally declare a Palestinian state at the conclusion of the transition period of five years, in May 1999. He has even gone as far as calling upon world leaders to support an independent Palestinian state. This is wholly unacceptable. I have in the past questioned Arafat's motives and his sincerity and I do so again. This act on his part will be a clear abrogation of the Peace Process and a slap in the face to Israel which has adhered to the process, despite continual non-compliance by the Palestinians. But then, we should not be surprised. This is the same group that harbors and praises those who kill innocent men, women and children in bus bombings that kill Israelis and Americans alike. Five years ago, the world was provided with a glimmer of hope that the leopard had changed its spots, but that hope was never realized. Not only did the leopard not change his spots, he has grown bigger and bolder. The Palestinian Authority, which Arafat now heads, has been legitimized and now carries out its aggressive policies, not under the cover of darkness like the PLO used to do, but in broad daylight for all to see. In no way can the United States lend further credence to this terrorist force. The purpose of this resolution is to send the message that the United States cannot and should not extend recognition to a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. Moreover, the President should publicly and unequivocally state that the United States will actively oppose such a declaration. If Israel were to take a unilateral action in defiance of Oslo, the Palestinians would express outrage over the violations. The Palestinians view themselves as different however. Such a move by the Palestinians cannot be allowed. The final political status of the Palestinians can only be determined through bilateral negotiation and agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, not by a unilateral act in defiance of the very agreement the Palestinians signed with Israel. Mr. President, my colleagues and I are serious. The Administration must understand that such a move by the Palestinians is an insult to all those who were patient in light of all of the Palestinian violations of the peace. Moreover, the Administration in legitimizing these acts, would be humiliating Israel which is the only true democracy in the Middle East and our close ally. The Administration's confusion on the issue in recent months has not helped matters and the extension of diplomatic recognition would severely harm the U.S. ability to act as an impartial mediator between the two parties. Simply put, U.S. recognition of a Palestinian declaration of statehood would be the acceptance and acquiescence of the Palestinians' violation of its commitments under Oslo. We would be rewarding them for their flagrant violations of the Peace Process. This would be an error of historical proportion. I can only hope we do not make this mistake. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and urge its speedy passage.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I thank both of my colleagues for their clarifying remarks.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the respected Chairman of the Banking Committee's Subcommittee on Housing Opportunity and Community Development, Senator Connie Mack and the full Committee Ranking Member, Senator Paul Sarbanes. One of the most significant provisions addressed by the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 is the amendment of the Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Act of 1990. Mr. President, the Drug Elimination Program is critical to the fight against drugs and serious, violent crime in our Federal housing developments. The residents of this housing have a right to a safe and peaceful environment. The Federal Government bears a unique and overriding responsibility to ensure that residents feel secure in their homes, can walk to the store or send their children to school without fear for their physical well-being. I am especially appreciative of the inclusion of a funding mechanism which will ensure the continued direction of assistance to housing authorities with significant needs. In my home State, the Drug Elimination Program plays a critical role in communities from Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester and Albany to Brooklyn, the Bronx and Long Island. The provisions of the Act will ensure that existing programs are placed on a solid financial foundation--without precluding assistance to new programs which meet urgent or serious crime problems. I would ask the distinguished Chairman of the Housing Subcommittee for his views on the legislation?

Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Senator for his clarifying remarks and commend him for the excellent work that went into the legislation. drug elimination program amendments

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to ask Senator Mack his view of the provisions of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 that relate to the renewal of expiring tenant-based Section 8 contracts. I am greatly heartened by the inclusion of specific terms for the renewal of expiring Section 8 tenant-based contracts. The renewal terms included in the Act will ensure that housing authorities continue to receive full funding to maintain effective Section 8 assisted housing programs. The Act's renewal provision will address a number of problems which have arisen--including a very serious potential threat to affordable housing in my home State of New York--as a result of HUD's attempt to revise its method of funding renewals. Under the renewal terms of Section 556 of the Act, housing authorities will be ensured that they receive full funding to maintain their current obligations and continue to re-issue turnover vouchers, without any attrition or loss of assistance. Housing authorities in New York will be able to continue to assist thousands of new families each year--particularly the homeless and victims of domestic violence. Without the changes included in this legislation, the New York City Housing Authority alone could have suffered a loss of over 7,000 vouchers over the next few years. This potential catastrophe has been averted. To be more specific, Section 556 establishes a baseline for maintaining current Section 8 obligations. This baseline is to be calculated by taking into account the number of families which were actually under lease as of October 1, 1997 plus any incremental units or additional units authorized by HUD after that date. It is the explicit intent of the authors of this legislation that the units approved by HUD pursuant to its April 1, 1998 Notice shall be included in the definition of ``additional families authorized.'' Finally, HUD shall apply an inflation factor to the baseline which takes into account local factors such as actual increases in local market rents. I would ask Senator Mack, if these statements are consistent with his views of the legislation?

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would ask my friend Senator Mack for a clarification of the provision included in the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 which will grant residents a voluntary option to choose a flat rent. Several clarifying provisions have been added to the legislation to protect residents and reduce the administrative burden of such a choice on housing authorities. First, residents will be protected from being coerced into making a choice of rents which is adverse to their interest. Second, in the case of a financial hardship, residents are granted the right to an immediate change to the Brooke Amendment rent, which caps rent at no greater than thirty percent of income. Mr. President, the Act also specifically provides that no additional administrative burden be placed on housing authorities that already administer flat rent or ceiling rent systems. If an agency's present system allows the family the opportunity to annually request a change from an income-based system to a flat or ceiling rent system, or vice- versa, the fact that rent is initially determined by an existing computer system which automatically selects the lower rent should not be considered contrary to the requirements of the Act. I would ask Senator Mack if these statements accurately describe the provisions of the Act?

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to support the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998. This public and assisted housing reform legislation is the result of four years of delicate crafting and compromise and has bipartisan Congressional support and the endorsement of Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Cuomo. I support its final passage today as part of the Fiscal Year 1999 Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Independent Agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 4194). Mr. President, it is with great respect that I salute the distinguished Chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on Housing Opportunity and Community Development, Senator Connie Mack. Senator Mack is owed a debt of gratitude for his great determination and commitment to an informed and reasoned approach to public housing reform. He consistently pursued a steadfast course toward a compromise which represents a positive change to the existing public housing system while protecting our residents whom the program serves. I commend him for his strong leadership and effective stewardship of this landmark legislation. I also commend Banking Committee Ranking Minority Member Paul Sarbanes, Housing Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member John Kerry, all Members of the Banking Committee and many interested Members of the Senate for their essential guidance and leadership on this issue. Chairman Kit Bond and Ranking Member Barbara Mikulski of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee deserve our appreciation for their willingness to allow this bipartisan legislation to be included in the Fiscal Year 1999 VA-HUD Appropriations Act. Our House colleagues, in particular Banking Subcommittee on Housing Chairman Rick Lazio, Banking Committee Chairman Jim Leach, Banking Committee Ranking Minority Member John LaFalce and Housing Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Joe Kennedy, all deserve thanks and appreciation. In addition, I commend and thank HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo and his Administration for his able assistance and support of this bill. All deserve credit for their dedication to this consensus-building effort. Resident associations, public housing authorities, low-income housing advocates, non-profit organizations, state and local officials and other affected parties have shared their views and participated in this important political and policy process. I express my thanks to all for their significant involvement which has successfully yielded a balanced, fair, and comprehensive reform bill which will enhance and revitalize affordable housing throughout our nation. The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act recognizes that the vast majority of public housing is well-managed and provides over 1 million American families, elderly and disabled with decent, safe and affordable housing. It also responds to the need for improvements to the public and assisted housing system. It will protect our residents by maintaining the Brooke amendment, which caps rents at 30% of a tenant's income, and establishing a ceiling rent voluntary option as an incentive for working families. In addition, the bill will ensure that housing assistance continues to be targeted to those most in need. Forty percent of all public housing units which become vacant in any year and seventy-five percent of re-issued Section 8 vouchers will be targeted to families with incomes below thirty percent of the local area median income. It will expand homeownership opportunities for low and moderate income families. The bill also will speed the demolition of distressed housing projects through the repeal of the one-for-one replacement requirement. The reforms contained in this Act will reduce the costs of public and assisted housing to the Federal Government by streamlining regulations, facilitating the formation of local partnerships, and leveraging additional state, local and private resources to improve the quality of the existing stock. These changes will help ensure that federal funds can be used more efficiently in order to serve additional families through the creation of mixed income communities. Mr. President, I would like to comment in more detail on a few of the many significant provisions in the bill. The legislation recognizes that every American deserves to live in a safe and secure community. To achieve that goal, a number of safety and security provisions have been included in the bill. Specifically, the Act will allow police officers to reside in public and assisted housing, regardless of their income. Also, the Act improves tenant screening and eviction procedures against persons engaged in violent or drug-related crimes or behavior which disrupts the health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises of other tenants or public housing employees. In addition, the Act will serve to improve coordination between housing authorities, local law enforcement agencies and resident councils, particularly in developing and implementing anti-crime strategies. Further, at my request, the Act includes provision to ban child molesters and sexually violent predators from receiving federal housing assistance. To achieve this, local public housing agencies would be granted access to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's national database on sexually violent offenders, as well as State databases. This improved records access provision is critical to ensuring that these offenders are properly screened out and prevented from endangering our children. Another critical safety and security measure will ensure that housing authorities have the well-defined power to ban absentee and negligent landlords from participation in the Section 8 voucher program. Currently, HUD's regulations only allow housing authorities to refuse to do business with absentee landlords on very narrow grounds. The legislation being passed today will clarify that housing authorities may cease to do business with landlords who refuse to take action against tenants who are engaged in criminal activity or who threaten the health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises of their neighbors. In addition, my proposals to protect the essential rights of current residents have been adopted in the Act and I commend the residents of my home State for bringing injustices to my attention so that I might act. First, the protection against eviction without good cause has been fully maintained in the Act. This is critical for the hundreds of thousands of senior, disabled and hardworking low-income New Yorkers who depend on public and assisted housing for shelter. Second, the residents' right to organize and assemble has been fully protected and extended to the project-based and Section 8 opt-out properties. It is imperative that residents have their First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly protected. Finally, the Act makes absolutely clear that no provision of the existing HUD regulation (24 CFR 964) governing resident councils is in any way abrogated by this Act. I am gratified that the Act protects the residents' right to organize and empower themselves to improve further their own communities. Without the tireless and steadfast efforts of our staff, this bill would not have become a reality. I would like to express my appreciation and thanks to the following Senate majority and minority Banking Committee and Housing Subcommittee staff: Chris Lord, Kari Davidson, Cheh Kim, Jonathan Miller, Matthew Josephs, and Army Randel. I would also like to commend the House Banking Committee and Housing Subcommittee staff for their fine work and spirit of cooperation. Mr. President, this landmark legislation will greatly improve the quality of life for our nation's families residing in public and assisted housing and will help to ensure the long-term viability of our nation's existing stock of affordable housing. I respectfully urge its immediate passage. rent choice provision

Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Chairman for his clarifying remarks and wish to express my thanks to the conferees for their consideration of the unique circumstances which exist in New York City. the quality housing and work responsibility act of 1998

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with my good friend Senator Bond in order to fully clarify a provision of the VA-HUD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999. I am pleased that the conferees have included language in Section 226 of the VA-HUD Appropriations Conference Report (H. Rpt. 105-769) which would clarify that existing contractual arrangements between the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) and HUD are maintained. Under current practice, NYCHA is expressly allowed, under prior formula agreement with HUD, to utilize its existing allocations of operating and modernization subsidies for the benefit of certain state and city developed public housing units. While the FY 1999 VA-HUD Appropriations Act will not allocate any additional funds for these local units, the Act does include a specific statutory protection for units which were assisted prior to October 1, 1998. Thus, the current contractual relationship between NYCHA and HUD would be fully protected and maintained. I would ask the distinguished Chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee if my explanation is consistent with the intent of the conferees?

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to Commander Lilia L. Ramirez, U.S. Navy, who is retiring after eighteen years of distinguished service to this nation. She stands out as a pioneer, a leader and an outstanding role model for young people in uniform. Lilia's United States Navy career is testament to a true American success story. She was born in Bogota, Colombia, and emigrated to the U.S. when she was just five years old. Her parents, Alvaro and Ana Ramirez, were fleeing violence in the Colombian countryside in the early 1960's and sought a new life of security and promise for their children in America. Al and Ana settled in Bayshore, New York, and starting with little more than a confident spirit, went on to raise five extraordinary citizens through hard work, a determination to succeed, and a deep commitment to family. Lilia is the eldest of the five children. She spoke only Spanish when she arrived in New York as a five-year-old. But Lilia excelled throughout her public education career, graduating with distinction from Brentwood High School and accepting an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy as a member of the class of 1981, only the second class to have admitted women at Annapolis. As a brand new Ensign, Lilia set sail for the Naval Communications Area Master Station Western Pacific in Guam, the first of three overseas assignments. While in Guam, Lilia deployed to the Indian Ocean aboard the submarine tender USS PROTEUS. One of just a handful of women aboard PROTEUS, she crossed the Equator with the ship and was proudly and courageously initiated as a Trusty Shellback in that time-honored sea faring ceremony. Assignments in Europe followed, first in England as a Navy-Air Force Liaison Officer at RAF Mildenhall, where one evening on liberty she and two other Annapolis classmates saved the life of an elderly Briton they had come upon who had collapsed from a heart attack. Next she served at the U.S. European Command in Stuttgart, Germany, as the Officer-in- Charge of the Navy-Marine Corps Element in the headquarters' manpower and personnel directorate. While in Stuttgart, Lilia provided crucial after-action reporting and personnel support in the wake of a terrorist murder of our Naval Attache in Greece and the U.S. Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut. After five years overseas, Lilia returned to the Washington, DC area to serve in several assignments, including the Navy Telecommunications Center at Crystal City, at the time the Navy's largest message center; the Navy's Bureau of Personnel, where she was personally involved in assigning a record number of women officers to pursue advanced technical degrees at the Naval Postgraduate School; and the Joint Staff's Command, Control and Communications Systems Directorate. On the Joint Staff, she coordinated the installation of command and control systems in the field offices of Customs, DEA and the North American Air Defense Command as part of our national anti-drug policy. In 1990 Lilia was assigned as Officer-in-Charge of the Personnel Support Detachment at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, in the state of Washington. In this tour she was responsible for the pay, travel and career advancement matters of 8,000 service members and their families. Lilia returned to the Washington, DC area again in 1992 where she served as base commander of Naval Communications Unit Cheltenham, a 230-acre facility in rural Maryland. At Cheltenham she was responsible for 300 personnel, 19 tenant commands, and environmentally protected wetlands at her base, where she also played host to the local Boys Scouts Troop. In 1994 Lilia began a tour in the Secretary of the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs. Lilia was responsible for representing command, control, communications and tactical intelligence programs to the defense and intelligence committees of both the House and Senate. In addition to numerous informative visits to Naval communications and intelligence facilities throughout the U.S., Europe and Japan, Lilia also escorted congressional delegations to the refugee camps at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and to witness national elections in Nicaragua. In 1997 she was part of a team from the U.S. Naval Academy sent to Peru to advise the Peruvian Navy on integrating women into their naval academy. Lilia was also a student at the Inter-American Defense College, where she again blazed a trail as the first U.S. Navy woman to attend that institution. She was an impressive ambassador of the U.S. Navy to her Latin American counterparts, where she was able to combine her native Spanish fluency and breadth of experience in national security affairs to forge lasting relationships with key civilian and military leaders of Latin America. She left them with enduring, positive impressions of women as military professionals. Lilia's personal decorations include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, and the Navy Commendation Medal (three awards). The Nation owes a debt of gratitude to Lilia Ramirez, whose example will inspire women and Hispanics to seek public service and whose work will continue to have a lasting impact on our armed forces for years to come. While we will miss her distinguished career in uniform, we will no doubt continue to enjoy her commitment to community and nation. I wish to recognize her entire family, including father Alvaro, mother Ana (whom we lost just this year to cancer), brothers Michael and Henry, and sisters Angela and Ana Tulita, all great American success stories in their own right. Best wishes to Lilia, husband Randall Lovdahl (Commander, U.S. Navy), and children Bianca and Beau as they mark this special milestone.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 2551, the Medicare anti-duplication bill. This important reform legislation is a necessary step in improving the rights and choices that face New Yorkers. This amendment will in fact correct the language of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to correct an unintended consequence of the Federal Medicare anti-duplication law and permits disabled persons to take full advantage of the full range of choices in the health insurance market that are currently available for other New York State citizens. The very narrow legislative change I am proposing will allow several hundred chronically ill New York residents to choose from a variety of health care plans which offer identical health care coverage at lower prices. In 1995, New York enacted a ``Point of Service'' law requiring all HMO's in the state to offer standardized health care benefits to any individual who purchases coverage directly from the plan. However, some individuals that the New York law was intended to help were unable to purchases this coverage. The Federal Medicare anti-duplication statue prohibits insurers from selling coverage, other than Medicare supplement coverage, which duplicate benefits available under Medicare. In New York, individuals who were receiving Medicare benefits due to disabilities, were permitted to elect continued coverage of private insurance which were purchased prior to enrolling in Medicare. Prior to 1996 these individuals' choices were limited, and were essentially forced to continue their very expensive Commercial policies. After the ``Point of Service'' law was enacted, there were numerous policies available which provided identical benefits to the Empire policy, at more affordable prices. Those disabled Medicare subscribers enrolled in the Empire policy, however, were prohibited from purchasing these other less expensive policies as a result of the Federal anti-duplication law because the time to elect to continue private coverage had expired. These Disabled individuals numbering between 400-500, were left with essentially one choice, continuing a very expensive commercial policy. My anti-duplication amendment will ensure that the disabled New Yorker enrolled in medicare is available to afford a managed care product, and that these purchases will not be considered a ``duplicate'' of Medicare health benefits. My bill has been drafted specifically to help those several hundred chronically sick individuals in New York, who, prior to 1996, did not have the choice to select one of the many policies which were subsequently required by State Law.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Holocaust Assets Tax Exclusion Act of 1998.'' This act will make all income received by Holocaust survivors or their heirs from any settlement or adjudication in their favor, non-taxable. This legislation is now very much needed because survivors of the Holocaust who had assets withheld from them by Swiss banks or others have finally received justice in the form of a settlement between the banks and the survivors' attorneys in August 1998. The settlement was for $1.25 billion for survivors worldwide. We must remember, one-third of all Holocaust survivors live in the United States. This is why this legislation is so needed. In addition to these recipients, survivors who are needy, will be receiving one-time payments from the Swiss Humanitarian Fund established by the Swiss government in 1997. In both cases, payments from the Swiss banks and other sources like this should be excluded from taxation because they are receiving back what was rightfully theirs to begin with. The sum total of payments coming to the needy Holocaust survivors in the United States from this fund will be $31.4 million. It would be a travesty if the IRS were to decide that these funds would be taxable. Mr. President, it is necessary to understand that the survivors who sued the banks and settled in August 1998 did so because this was the only avenue left open to them to seek justice. Deprived of their assets, or those of their families for over 50 years, survivors fought unsuccessfully until now to receive what rightfully belonged to them. With the average age of Holocaust survivors at 80, there is little time for debate over these payments which will ease life for the survivors in their final years. To tax them for the long overdue receipt of assets would be wrong. This is why I am offering this legislation. The survivors of man's greatest inhumanity to man deserve justice. After escaping death at the hands of the Nazis, they were again victimized by the Swiss bankers. Now that they have received some measure of justice, let us not take their assets from them again. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support me in this legislation and urge its speedy passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 2551, the Medicare anti-duplication bill. This important reform legislation is a necessary step in improving the rights and choices that face New Yorkers. This amendment will in fact correct the language of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to correct an unintended consequence of the Federal Medicare anti-duplication law and permits disabled persons to take full advantage of the full range of choices in the health insurance market that are currently available for other New York State citizens. The very narrow legislative change I am proposing will allow several hundred chronically ill New York residents to choose from a variety of health care plans which offer identical health care coverage at lower prices. In 1995, New York enacted a ``Point of Service'' law requiring all HMO's in the state to offer standardized health care benefits to any individual who purchases coverage directly from the plan. However, some individuals that the New York law was intended to help were unable to purchases this coverage. The Federal Medicare anti-duplication statue prohibits insurers from selling coverage, other than Medicare supplement coverage, which duplicate benefits available under Medicare. In New York, individuals who were receiving Medicare benefits due to disabilities, were permitted to elect continued coverage of private insurance which were purchased prior to enrolling in Medicare. Prior to 1996 these individuals' choices were limited, and were essentially forced to continue their very expensive Commercial policies. After the ``Point of Service'' law was enacted, there were numerous policies available which provided identical benefits to the Empire policy, at more affordable prices. Those disabled Medicare subscribers enrolled in the Empire policy, however, were prohibited from purchasing these other less expensive policies as a result of the Federal anti-duplication law because the time to elect to continue private coverage had expired. These Disabled individuals numbering between 400-500, were left with essentially one choice, continuing a very expensive commercial policy. My anti-duplication amendment will ensure that the disabled New Yorker enrolled in medicare is available to afford a managed care product, and that these purchases will not be considered a ``duplicate'' of Medicare health benefits. My bill has been drafted specifically to help those several hundred chronically sick individuals in New York, who, prior to 1996, did not have the choice to select one of the many policies which were subsequently required by State Law.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Holocaust Assets Tax Exclusion Act of 1998.'' This act will make all income received by Holocaust survivors or their heirs from any settlement or adjudication in their favor, non-taxable. This legislation is now very much needed because survivors of the Holocaust who had assets withheld from them by Swiss banks or others have finally received justice in the form of a settlement between the banks and the survivors' attorneys in August 1998. The settlement was for $1.25 billion for survivors worldwide. We must remember, one-third of all Holocaust survivors live in the United States. This is why this legislation is so needed. In addition to these recipients, survivors who are needy, will be receiving one-time payments from the Swiss Humanitarian Fund established by the Swiss government in 1997. In both cases, payments from the Swiss banks and other sources like this should be excluded from taxation because they are receiving back what was rightfully theirs to begin with. The sum total of payments coming to the needy Holocaust survivors in the United States from this fund will be $31.4 million. It would be a travesty if the IRS were to decide that these funds would be taxable. Mr. President, it is necessary to understand that the survivors who sued the banks and settled in August 1998 did so because this was the only avenue left open to them to seek justice. Deprived of their assets, or those of their families for over 50 years, survivors fought unsuccessfully until now to receive what rightfully belonged to them. With the average age of Holocaust survivors at 80, there is little time for debate over these payments which will ease life for the survivors in their final years. To tax them for the long overdue receipt of assets would be wrong. This is why I am offering this legislation. The survivors of man's greatest inhumanity to man deserve justice. After escaping death at the hands of the Nazis, they were again victimized by the Swiss bankers. Now that they have received some measure of justice, let us not take their assets from them again. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support me in this legislation and urge its speedy passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I know that a number of my colleagues are on the floor who want to make statements. I see Senator Domenici is here, and he indicated to me that he wanted to speak for several minutes. I am wondering if my colleagues would agree to let Senator Domenici make his statement, and then I would like to address the vote that has just taken place. I am not going to spend too much time. If there is no objection, I will yield to Senator Domenici without losing my right to simply speak to this vote.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, first of all, let me commend my colleagues for the overwhelming vote on H.R. 10, the financial services modernization bill, which passed 93 to 0, in terms of moving forward. It was a motion to proceed to consider. I know it wasn't on the bill itself, and I know that there are some Members who do not agree and some who oppose very strongly various provisions of the bill. That is understandable, because it is a major piece of legislation. I thank the majority and the minority leaders for their support and for their help in getting this bill to this point, facilitating it, and the members of the Banking Committee and the ranking member, Senator Sarbanes of Maryland, who have worked in the most constructive of manners, putting the interests and needs of the financial services community of this great Nation of ours--the capital formation system that is so important--putting those interests and needs first. I have to tell you that this is not a partisan matter, that the Senate has addressed this in the uniquely bipartisan way that reflects very, very credibly upon this institution, again, recognizing the fact that Members certainly cannot agree with all of the provisions that may be contained in this very comprehensive bill. Mr. President, the need for legislation to modernize the financial services industry is obvious. The existing legal framework has been for some time fundamentally outdated, and this body itself has recognized the existing laws are part of the statutory framework built largely in the 1930s and they just do not fit the realities of today's financial marketplace. Congress has been attempting to pass legislation to modernize this system for almost 25 years. The only barrier to success now is the Senate of the United States. We really are at a historic moment. Let me cite the views of Paul Volcker, a former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to place our deliberations in some kind of historical perspective. No one can say it is turf as it relates to Mr. Volcker and what his position may or a may not be. He says: Over the long years of debate, it typically has been the U.S. Senate that has been in the vanguard in seeking reform, and it was the House that could not reach satisfactory consensus. Now, after extended hearings and debate, with strong leadership support, a coherent and responsible bill has emerged from that body. This month the Senate has a unique opportunity to complete the process, ending years of frustration for the markets and for Congress alike. At issue is not just the matter of American banking legislation and certainly not a narrow political calculation of what parochial industry position is most completely satisfied. This is a time for the United States in much easier circumstances to demonstrate that we are capable of enacting ourselves the kind of reforms we press on others. Mr. President, how cogent these words and these observations are. Indeed, Mr. Volcker wrote this article and submitted it, and it has been carried in a number of news media across the country some weeks before the full extent of what is taking place in the world banking community and the financial services industry has been understood, before it has become even more important and paramount that the kinds of reforms that are so necessary and that many other countries have been avoiding are reforms that we ourselves must and should undertake, instead of having a piecemeal approach in a haphazard way, of whether the regulator at the Fed or the Treasury in terms of the Comptroller undertaking changes leaves us in a situation where I can truthfully say we have abdicated our responsibility. I hope that we will not lose this opportunity to discharge our responsibilities in a manner that will reflect credibly on this body and the Congress of the United States and on each and every Member. Mr. President, the fact is that this bill is a good bill. The fact is that we have been able to get together, for the first time, in an unprecedented fashion, a broad consensus for the need for financial modernization by the players themselves, by the people who are actually in this area. Virtually all of the financial services community has endorsed this legislation. Indeed, let me just list a number of those groups. The American Community Bankers. How often have we heard it said, ``Oh, the little bankers are opposed to this.'' Indeed, the American Community Bankers are in favor of this legislation. The American Bankers Association. Now we are talking about the larger banks. They have signed on. So from community bankers to large money center banks. The American Council of Life Insurance Companies. Imagine, when did we ever have the life insurance industry and the Congress working together with their banking contemporaries? There has been such fierce estrangement of the issues. The Financial Services Council, the Independent Bankers Association of America, the Independent Insurance Association. Now we are talking about those people who are out there selling and who heretofore have been adamantly opposed; we have them supporting this. The Investment Companies Institute, the securities industry, the Bond Market Association, the National Association of Multiple Insurance Companies, and most executives of major financial companies have been strongly supportive. Mr. President, no less than former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board Volcker--and I read his remarks--is totally supportive because it is long overdue. Our present Chairman, Alan Greenspan, one of the world's most respected bankers, says this is a good bill and is supportive. The Securities and Exchange Commission and their Chairman, Arthur Levitt, are supportive of this bill. Yes, there is room for reasonable people to have differences over various aspects of this bill. I suggest to you that some of those differences can and should be debated, the time can be provided, and that we can vote on them, and let the will of the Congress decide and not let the clock of a late session be the enemy of progress. Let's not let the quest for perfection stop that which is an excellent bill. Let's not look for 100 percent when we can get 99 and be doing the business of the people. I am not going to argue the merits of some of those positions that my friends have--friends on my side of the aisle. Indeed, when it comes to various issues, reasonable people can disagree, but the question is, are we going to undertake our responsibilities in a manner which befits the great office and the prestige of U.S. Senators or are we going to say, no, unless I get it my way 100 percent, dot the i, cross the t, we are going to kill that which would otherwise advance the interests of all of our people, all of our citizens? I hope that we can move to a higher level. I am not prepared to, nor will I, debate the relative merits of the changes that some of my colleagues are suggesting are necessary to earn their support. Indeed, I am not going to defend those who may have used the present law in a manner never intended to gain their way, to gain financial advantage for themselves as opposed to their community. If and when that takes place, it is wrong. It should be stopped. But I suggest that if we look at the totality of this bill, to say that, unless we can deal with this particular abuse, we are not going to have financial reform, would be a mistake. I am not going to defend those who have used the law inappropriately, those who in essence violate the spirit, yes, and I think the actual law that exists today. Do I think that we could do better? Yes, if we had sufficient time. Do I think we could bring together and put together a coalition that could pass this bill if, indeed, we adopted some of the changes that my colleagues and friends might want to see? And I am talking specifically about the area of CRA, the Community Reinvestment Act. The answer is no; it would be the death of the bill. Now, Mr. President, I could understand my colleagues'--and I do understand--strong revulsion for the manner in which CRA may have been used in particular cases that they are conversant with, familiar with, and that they have put forth to this body. I understand that. But I do have difficulty understanding how and why at this time, when we can achieve such great progress in dealing with 90-plus percent of the problems that exist today, where we can make the kinds of fundamental changes that almost everyone agrees are necessary so that we can meet our obligations here at home and in the world of finances, we would sacrifice that gain because we can't get perfection at this point in time. Wouldn't it be better to improve the situation dramatically by passage of this bill notwithstanding that it may not deal with an area that is as contentious as CRA? I suggest to you that if we had a great and strong bill, a platform by which we could see that our financial services could operate without having to go to the regulator, to the nameless, faceless regulator day in and day out to get various exemptions that may favor one over another, that is not in the interest of this country. The piecemeal legislation, day in and day out, how do we better ourselves by that? What kind of an example do we set for the rest of the world when we say we can't even agree on a fundamental operation? Because we want perfection? Because we want to cure that deficiency that is there, that some have been evil in using and may be, in quoting the words of some of my friends, using to extort? I do not condone that, but you are not going to cure it here. And what we will be doing is killing an opportunity to make substantial progress. That is what we are doing. And you have to weight that up. Are you going to achieve substantial progress? And if you can make that cure, I will be with you. But you can't. Understand it. Now, if the managers of the bill said under no circumstances are we going to permit you to offer amendments, we want to go right to cloture to cut off your amendments and your right to offer amendments and your right to debate them and to let people hear what is taking place, then I could understand using every parliamentary procedure to stop this bill. That is not the case. This Senator would be willing to say, and I know because I have discussed it with the ranking member, Senator Sarbanes, we would offer any reasonable time for Members of this body to offer amendments dealing with the problems that may exist in CRA, dealing with possible solutions, and having votes, whether they are up or down, without amendments, to see if we can't get a consensus. I don't believe you can. And if you can't get your position today, at least to give the people of the United States an opportunity to have a banking bill which people understand clearly and not one that is manipulated day in and day out by the various needs and exigencies of the financial services community so that they have to come pleading: ``Oh, well, will you let me sell insurance? Oh, well, will you let me do securities? Oh, well, can I do it in the bank or outside the bank? Oh, well, is this legal or is that legal?'' While one group is receiving permission to do something, others are left behind. That is not the way for this country to be operating. It is wrong, and it is, indeed, an abrogation of our responsibility--an abrogation. I hope, even at this late hour, notwithstanding the deep feelings that my colleagues have, related to the abuses that have taken place, that they would say the greater picture is one of doing the most good for the most people. That is what we are talking about. This is an opportunity to do the most good--not for one industry over another but for our great country, and to see to it that there is a law that everyone sees clearly, where we reduce the necessity of having major financial institutions and parts of our industry being placed at competitive disadvantages because one gets a certain permission and another is left behind and then quickly must move to deal with that. That is not what competition in America can and should be about. I have heard my colleagues raise this argument. I have been critical, yes, of the regulators for what I thought was absolutely going beyond what Congress had ever given to them. But the courts have said, and I think they have done it on a practical basis, that if you, the Congress, do not stop them with legislation, or you do not pass legislation that sets the ground rules, why, it is obvious that is the manner in which the law should be administered. I do not think that is responsible. I really do not believe our forefathers ever thought or intended for us to operate in this manner, under these conditions. I certainly think that, looking at the world economic situation today, this does not create stability, if we fail to complete this. I say ``fail to complete'' because there are those who can run the clock out, run it out on our American citizens, because that is who is going to be deprived. Yes, all of our citizens. I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to Commander Lilia L. Ramirez, U.S. Navy, who is retiring after eighteen years of distinguished service to this nation. She stands out as a pioneer, a leader and an outstanding role model for young people in uniform. Lilia's United States Navy career is testament to a true American success story. She was born in Bogota, Columbia and emigrated to the U.S. when she was just five years old. Her parents, Alvaro and Ana Ramirez fled the violence in the Columbian countryside in the early 1960's in search if a new life of security and promise for their children in America. With little more than an optimistic spirit. Al and Ana settled in Bayshore, New York where they went on to raise five extraordinary citizens. Through hard work, determination and a deep commitment to each other the Ramirez family actualized their dreams of America. The eldest of five children, Lilia spoke only Spanish when he arrived in New York as a five year old. Yet Lilia excelled throughout her public education career, graduating with distinction from Brentwood high School and accepting an appointment to the U.S. Navel Academy as a member of the class of 1981. She was a member of Annapolis' second coeduation class. As a new Ensign, Lilia sailed for the Navel Communications Area Master Station Western Pacific in Guam, the first of three overseas assignments. While in Guam, Lilia was deployed to the Indian Ocean abroad the submarine U.S.S. Proteus, with only a handful of women. After crossing the Equator, she was proudly initiated as a Trusty Shell back in a time-honored sea faring ceremony. European assignments followed and, while stationed in England as a Navy-Air Force Liasion Officer at RAF Mildenhall, Lilia and two other Annapolis classmates saved the life of an elderly Briton. During their evening of liberty, they discovered the Briton who had collapsed from a heart attack. Next, Lilia served at the U.S. European Command in Stuttgart, Germany as the Officer-in Charge of the Navy-Marine Corps Elements at the headquarters' manpower and personnel directorate. While in Stuttgart, she provided crucial after-action reporting and personnel support in the wake of a terrorist murder of our Navel Attache in Greece and the U.S. Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut. After five years, Lilia returned to the Washington D.C. area to serve in several assignments, including: the Navy Telecommunications Center at Crystal City, which was the Navy's largest message center; the Navy's Bureau of Personnel, where she was personally involved in assigning a record number of women officers to pursue advanced technical degrees at the Naval Postgraduate School; the Joint Chief of Staff's Command, Control and Communications Systems Directorate. While on the Joint Staff, Lilia coordinated the installation of command and control systems in the field offices of Customs, DEA and the North American Air Defense Command as part of our national anti-drug policy. In 1990, Lilia was assigned as Officer-in-Charge of the Personnel Support Detachment at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, in the State of Washington. In this tour, she was responsible for the pay, travel and career advancements matters of 8,000 service members and their families. Lilia returned to the Washington, D.C. area again in 1992, where she served as the base-commander of the Navel Communications Unit Chetenham, a 230-acre facility in rural Maryland. At Cheltenham, 300 personnel and 19 tenant commands where under her jurisdiction. She also environmentally protected the wetlands at her base and hosted the local Boy Scout Troop. In 1994, Lilia began a tour in the Secretary of the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs. Lilia was responsible for representing the command, control, communications and tactical intelligence programs to the defense and intelligence committees of both the House and Senate. In addition to numerous informational visits to the Naval communications and intelligence facilities throughout the United States, Europe and Japan, Lilia escorted Congressional delegations to the refugee camps in Guantanomo Bay, Cuba and later to the national elections in Nicaragua. In 1997, as a member of the team from the U.S. Naval Academy, she visited Peru to advise the Peruvian Navy on integrating women into their naval academy. As the first U.S. Naval woman to attend the Inter-American Defense College, Lilia again helped blaze a trail for all women. Named as the ambassador of the U.S. Navy, she combined her native Spanish fluency and experience in nation security affairs to impress her Latin American counterparts. She forged lasting relationships with key civilian and military leaders of Latin America and left them with enduring, positive memories of women as military professionals. Lilia's personal decorations include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Joint Service Commendation Medal and the Navy Commendation Medal (three awards). The United States, as a nation, owes a great debt of gratitude to Lilia Ramirez whose example will inspire women, Hispanics and all Americans seeking public service and whose work will have a lasting impact on our armed forces for years to come. While we will miss her distinguished career in uniform, we will no doubt continue to enjoy her commitment to her community and Nation. I wish to recognize her entire family, including her father Alvaro, her mother Ana (whom we lost this year to cancer), her brothers Michael and Henry and her sisters Angela and Ana Tulita who are all great American success stories of their own right. Best wishes to Lilia, her husband Randall Lovdahl (Commander, U.S. Navy) and her children Bianca and Beau as they mark this special milestone.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues as original co-sponsor of the revised Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act of 1998. This bill reflects a balanced approach in curbing the flow of narcotics over our borders; to stop the drugs before they arrive in the United States. Illegal drug use by our children and youth is taking an enormous toll on families and communities all over the country. A study released by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that cocaine and marijuana use among high school seniors has increased 80% since 1992. Even more alarming is that heroin use among twelfth graders doubled. The effects of drugs are astounding. It is estimated that drug- related illness, death and crime cost the United States approximately $67 billion a year. That is $1,000 for every man, woman and child in America. The resources we spend to combat drugs could have been used for so many other valuable social and economic development programs. That is why, after decades of trying to combat the scourge of drugs, we must finally put a stop to it. New York State is no stranger to the plight created by illegal drugs. Last year, almost 40% of the heroin seized at our international borders was seized in the New York metropolitan area. This disproportionate amount of drugs destined for New York communities underscores my intention to do what is necessary to end the flow of drugs into our country. An effective counter-narcotics control strategy should be balanced and coordinated--including interdiction, prevention and law enforcement. But a disturbing trend has emerged. Since 1987, the percentage of the national drug control budget earmarked for interdiction and international efforts has decreased from 33% to just 12%. That is a trend we intend to reverse with this bill. This is an opportunity to make a commitment to substantially reducing drug availability in the United States. In this spirit, the sponsors of this bill have consulted with the Office of National Drug Control Policy to improve on certain aspects of this legislation. But one thing won't change. This bill will provide the necessary resources, $2.6 billion over three years, to increase our interdiction efforts. We can all agree on one thing--we have to stop the drugs before they reach our communities. And it's important to mention that the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a similar bill. The Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act of 1998 reaches that goal by providing a comprehensive eradication, interdiction and crop substitution strategy. This initiative will make supply reduction a priority again--guaranteeing valuable equipment for our law enforcement including speed boats at least as fast as those belonging to the drug lords. Our radars and early warning aircraft will be improved so that they will detect the small and elusive drug planes that smuggle tons of narcotics destined for out streets. This initiative will restore balance to the drug control strategy and make significant inroads towards keeping drugs from reaching our neighborhoods, and more importantly, our children. This initiative recognizes that drug availability can be decreased by operating against every level of the drug process--from the growing fields to the clandestine laboratories to the trafficking. By continuing to work with reputable law enforcement in narcotic source and transit countries, we may be able to eradicate drugs at their origin. The importance of this legislation cannot be underestimated. Everyday, our men and women of law enforcement, at the federal, state and local levels, make great sacrifices as they face the heavy burden of fighting the drug war. They protect the citizens of this country and we should respond by providing them with all the tools they need to get the job done. These people have committed themselves to eliminating illegal drugs from our streets. Now we must demonstrate to them that we will support them in their struggle--a struggle they carry on to protect us. I commend the sponsors of this bill for working toward an agreement on this bill and I urge my colleagues to support its enactment.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues as original co-sponsor of the revised Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act of 1998. This bill reflects a balanced approach in curbing the flow of narcotics over our borders; to stop the drugs before they arrive in the United States. Illegal drug use by our children and youth is taking an enormous toll on families and communities all over the country. A study released by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that cocaine and marijuana use among high school seniors has increased 80% since 1992. Even more alarming is that heroin use among twelfth graders doubled. The effects of drugs are astounding. It is estimated that drug- related illness, death and crime cost the United States approximately $67 billion a year. That is $1,000 for every man, woman and child in America. The resources we spend to combat drugs could have been used for so many other valuable social and economic development programs. That is why, after decades of trying to combat the scourge of drugs, we must finally put a stop to it. New York State is no stranger to the plight created by illegal drugs. Last year, almost 40% of the heroin seized at our international borders was seized in the New York metropolitan area. This disproportionate amount of drugs destined for New York communities underscores my intention to do what is necessary to end the flow of drugs into our country. An effective counter-narcotics control strategy should be balanced and coordinated--including interdiction, prevention and law enforcement. But a disturbing trend has emerged. Since 1987, the percentage of the national drug control budget earmarked for interdiction and international efforts has decreased from 33% to just 12%. That is a trend we intend to reverse with this bill. This is an opportunity to make a commitment to substantially reducing drug availability in the United States. In this spirit, the sponsors of this bill have consulted with the Office of National Drug Control Policy to improve on certain aspects of this legislation. But one thing won't change. This bill will provide the necessary resources, $2.6 billion over three years, to increase our interdiction efforts. We can all agree on one thing--we have to stop the drugs before they reach our communities. And it's important to mention that the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a similar bill. The Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act of 1998 reaches that goal by providing a comprehensive eradication, interdiction and crop substitution strategy. This initiative will make supply reduction a priority again--guaranteeing valuable equipment for our law enforcement including speed boats at least as fast as those belonging to the drug lords. Our radars and early warning aircraft will be improved so that they will detect the small and elusive drug planes that smuggle tons of narcotics destined for out streets. This initiative will restore balance to the drug control strategy and make significant inroads towards keeping drugs from reaching our neighborhoods, and more importantly, our children. This initiative recognizes that drug availability can be decreased by operating against every level of the drug process--from the growing fields to the clandestine laboratories to the trafficking. By continuing to work with reputable law enforcement in narcotic source and transit countries, we may be able to eradicate drugs at their origin. The importance of this legislation cannot be underestimated. Everyday, our men and women of law enforcement, at the federal, state and local levels, make great sacrifices as they face the heavy burden of fighting the drug war. They protect the citizens of this country and we should respond by providing them with all the tools they need to get the job done. These people have committed themselves to eliminating illegal drugs from our streets. Now we must demonstrate to them that we will support them in their struggle--a struggle they carry on to protect us. I commend the sponsors of this bill for working toward an agreement on this bill and I urge my colleagues to support its enactment.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Senator, and I look forward to working with him further on this important issue. I thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I naturally would prefer to pass this legislation now and have the Department begin looking into possible anti-competitive activities, but I understand the distinguished Chairman's position. In addition, I realize this FAA Reauthorization legislation must be signed into law by the end of this month, and I do not want to delay it further. I ask the Senior Senator from Arizona if the Commerce Committee could have a hearing on this matter in the near future to thoroughly examine the airline ticket distribution system and the critical role of travel agents for consumers?