Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague, Senator Graham of Florida, to introduce long overdue legislation to increase the cap on State authority to allocate low- income housing tax credits--housing credits--to $1.75 per capita, and to index the cap to inflation. The current cap of $1.25 per capita has not been adjusted--not even to account for inflation--since the program was created over a decade ago. This cap is strangling a State's capacity to meet pressing low-income housing needs. Annual cap growth is limited to the increase in State population, which has only been 5 percent nationwide over the past decade. During the same time period, inflation has eroded the housing credit's purchasing power by approximately 45 percent, as measured by the Consumer Price Index. Mr. President, as you may know, housing credits are the primary Federal-State tool for producing affordable rental housing across the country. Since 1987, State agencies have allocated more than $3 billion in housing credits to help finance nearly 900,000 apartments for low- income families, including 75,000 apartments in 1996. In my own State of New York, the credit is responsible for helping finance 44,000 apartments for low-income New Yorkers, including 4,450 apartments in 1996. Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office issued a comprehensive report giving the housing credit a clean bill of health. That report documents that the program in fact exceeds a number of important congressional objectives. For example, though the law allows housing credit apartment renters to earn up to 60 percent of the area median income, GAO documented the average tenant's income at just 37 percent, and found that more than three out of four renters have incomes under 50 percent of the area median income. GAO also found that rents in housing credit apartments are well below market rents, up to 23 percent less than the maximum permitted, and 25 percent below HUD's national fair market rent. The GAO report also documents that States are giving preference to apartments serving low-income tenants longer than the 15 years the law requires. In fact, two-thirds of the apartments GAO studied were set aside for low-income use for 30 years or more. A second major assessment of the credit has been objectively completed by Ernst & Young, reiterating many of the positive findings of the GAO report, demonstrating a tremendous need for additional affordable housing, and documenting the devastating effect of the current cap on States' ability to finance this critically needed housing. Despite the success of the housing credit in meeting affordable rental housing needs, the apartments it helps finance can barely keep pace with the nearly 100,000 low cost apartments which are demolished, abandoned, or converted to market rate use each year. Increasing the housing credit cap, as Senator Graham and I propose, would allow States to finance approximately 25,000 more critically needed low-income apartments each year. Nationwide, demand for housing credits outstrips supply by more than 3 to 1. In 1996, States received applications requesting more than $1.2 billion in housing credits--far surpassing the $365 million in credit authority available to allocate that year. In New York, the New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal received applications requesting more than $104 million in housing credits in 1996--nearly four times the $29 million in credit authority it already had available. When I think of the immense need for affordable housing within my State, I can only characterize this decade-old limit on State credit authority as an overwhelmingly lost opportunity. Mr. President, in 1993, Congress made the housing credit permanent with unprecedented, overwhelmingly bipartisan cosponsorship. In addition, the Nation's Governors have adopted a policy calling for an increase in the housing credit cap.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to support the passage of the National Flood Insurance Reauthorization Act of 1997 (S. 1179). This legislation, which I introduced on September 16, 1997, provides for a simple and straightforward 5-year extension of the National Flood Insurance Program [NFIP] until September 30, 2002. This legislation will place this important program on a steady and secure foundation so that it continues to provide protection to flood insurance policyholders and the Federal taxpayers. I thank my friend and colleague Senator Paul Sarbanes for cosponsoring this measure. The National Flood Insurance Program, which is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], enables over 3.7 million American families to insure their homes and possessions. In my home State of New York, 85,000 families participate in the NFIP. The NFIP allows these families, on Long Island and along the Great Lakes and the State's many rivers, to purchase insurance coverage to protect their homes in the event of a catastrophic flood. The NFIP employs a comprehensive approach to alleviating the risks posed by catastrophic floods. Floodplain communities participate in FEMA's community rating system and are offered incentives to adopt and enforce measures to reduce the risk of flood damage and improve flood prevention building criteria. To avoid the danger of repetitive losses, the program provides stringent building standards designed to reduce the risk of future damage. These flood protection standards must be met before any structure which suffers substantial damage may be rebuilt. In addition, persons who receive disaster assistance and fail to subsequently purchase flood insurance are barred from receiving future assistance. Mr. President, the NFIP plays a critical role in reducing the costs of Federal disaster relief. Current NFIP policyholders pay approximately $1.3 billion annually into the NFIP fund. Without this premium income, the Federal Government would likely pay spiraling costs in disaster relief. The NFIP has the added benefits of improving State and community planning and Federal support for locally driven disaster prevention and mitigation activities. Reauthorizing the NFIP is an important step forward in reaffirming the commitment of the Federal Government to help American families protect their homes and to protect the Federal taxpayer from the risks of catastrophic floods. Clearly, we must do more. Lenders and private insurers who participate in the NFIP must do more to ensure compliance. States and local communities must improve their disaster planning, prevention, and response activities. FEMA must redouble its efforts to increase participation in the program to improve the safety and soundness of the NFIP fund. Also, the Federal Government must do more to prevent and mitigate against the losses which will inevitably occur from future floods. Mr. President, I note that this bill has the full support of the administration. I wish to thank the members of the Banking Committee for their bipartisan support of this important measure and I urge our colleagues in the House to support its swift enactment.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I would like to associate myself with the comments of the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, and underscore my similar expectation that the Secretary of Defense will not exercise the authority in section 8123 with regard to the products enumerated by Senator Specter.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, 5 years ago, the speaker of the Slovak Parliament, Ivan Gasparovic, described his country's new constitution as ``an expression of centuries-old emancipation efforts of the Slovak people to have a sovereign state of their own.'' He also spoke of its ``supreme binding force.'' Since then, the people who present themselves as the guardians of Slovakia's statehood have undermined Slovakia's constitution. This is what they have done. This May, the Ministry of Interior ignored the Constitutional Court's ruling and altered an important referendum on NATO and on the direct election of the President, effectively denying the people of Slovakia their constitutionally guaranteed right to register their views through a referendum. Defending its actions, members of the Prime Minister's party insisted that they acted in conformity with the constitution--as they interpreted it--and that they were justified in placing their views ahead of the ruling of the highest court in the land. The actions of the ruling coalition in the case of Frantisek Gaulieder makes clear that the Meciar government has a profound and fundamental disregard for the constitution of Slovakia. Then there is the case of Frantisek Gaulieder. Frantisek Gaulieder is a member of the Slovak Parliament who was removed from office because he renounced his membership in Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar's party, the Movement for a Democratic Slovakia. On July 25, the Constitutional Court confirmed that the ruling coalition's action which deprived Gaulieder of his seat was unconstitutional and violated Gaulieder's rights. But members of the Prime Minister's coalition again claimed that they, and not the Constitutional Court, have the right to determine what the constitution means, and have declined to act to restore Gaulieder to his seat in Parliament. In short, the ``supreme binding force'' that Ivan Gasparovic spoke of 5 years ago no longer flows from the constitution, but from the will of Vladimir Meciar. When there are differences of opinion as to what a constitution means, whether those differences arise between branches of government or between the government and its citizens, in a state operating under the rule of law, it is the job of a constitutional court to interpret what the constitution means--not the Prime Minister or Parliament. Although this principle is taken for granted in many parts of Europe, and was established early in American history by the famous Supreme Court case of Marbury versus Madison, it has apparently not yet been accepted in Slovakia. Mr. President, the Slovak Democratic Coalition has moved, four times, to convene a special session of the Parliament in order to implement the decision of the Constitutional Court and restore Frantisek Gaulieder to his seat. Four times, however, Prime Minister Meciar's coalition has boycotted their own Parliament rather than face the following dilemma: restore Gaulieder to his seat--consistent with the Constitutional Court's decision--and risk the chance that others will follow Gaulieder's example and defect from the Prime Minister's party, or vote down the Slovak Democratic Coalition's proposal to restore Gaulieder to his seat and confirm that whatever form of government exists in Slovakia, it is not constitutional democracy, at least not as we understand it. Sooner or later, the Slovak Parliament will reconvene. When it acts, or fails to act, on the Gaulieder question, we will know whether Slovakia is committed to becoming a functioning constitutional democracy. If it is not, what it will become is an isolated State under constant international pressure and scrutiny, cut off from a promising and prosperous future by the arrogance and greed of its own leaders. As Vladimir Meciar is asked in his weekly news show, what next, Mr. Prime Minister?

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I join my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, to introduce a bill which will authorize the 50 States Circulating Commemorative Coin Program. This program, which allows for a temporary change to the reverse side of our quarters starting in the year 1999, has my complete and enthusiastic support. Mr. President, I feel it is appropriate as we enter the new millennium to embark on a decade-long celebration honoring each of our 50 States in the order in which they ratified the Constitution and joined the Union. All States shall submit, for final selection by the Secretary of the Treasury, a design befitting the motto or symbol of each State. The benefits of this program in promoting State pride on a national level and educating our citizens about our States' unique character and history are substantial. In the year 1999, our Nation will be 223 years old. Before our next big celebration marking the tricentennial in the year 2076, we should take time to commemorate the attributes of every State in this Union. Through this circulating coin program, we will be giving American youth an opportunity to cultivate an interest in the rich history that formed these United States. These coins will provide our teachers with a tangible tool to instill this interest. The educational advantage for our children will not only be achieved in classrooms, but on playgrounds and in homes around the Nation. In addition, Mr. President, I feel that the excitement and anticipation of the different coins in this program will also capture the interest of adults. Just imagine, receiving a collectible memento when you are handed your change. And may I point out, Mr. President, while the entire set of 50 circulating quarters will cost only $12.50, this very affordable collection will generate a minimum of $2.6 billion and conceivably as much as $5 billion in additional earnings for the Treasury. These off- budget earnings will be applied directly to reduce borrowing to fund the national debt. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, Congressman Michael Castle, who has worked tirelessly to promote this great program. Identical legislation Mike Castle sponsored passed the House on a record vote of 413 to 6. I am pleased that his efforts to create this commemorative coin are about to be realized. His outstanding leadership and dedication on this matter has been an inspiration to all who have committed their support. As chairman of the Banking Committee, I intend to press for prompt passage of this broadly supported bill and I am pleased to be a cosponsor.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Public Housing Reform and Responsibility Act of 1997 (S. 462). With the passage of this important legislation, the Senate today renews its commitment to ensuring that every American family has a decent, safe and affordable home. The bill builds upon and improves those aspects of the Nation's public and assisted housing programs which are working well and takes dramatic and vital steps to eliminate areas of failure in the system. This legislation 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. However, housing and social policy concerns, as well as Federal budget constraints, dictate the need for reform. The reform measures contained in S. 462 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. This legislation represents the culmination of over 2 years of a bipartisan, consensus-building effort to enhance and revitalize affordable housing throughout the Nation. This fruitful effort has been led by Senator Connie Mack, chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, whom I salute for his determination and commitment to an informed and reasoned approach in confronting issues of enormous complexity. Senator Mack has sought input from the administration, resident groups, public housing authorities, low-income housing advocates, nonprofit organizations and state and local officials who are responsible for implementing the Federal requirements established by Congress. Mr. President, this legislation makes several critical improvements to the Nation's public and assisted housing system. It will protect our residents by maintaining the Brooke amendment, which caps rents at 30- percent of a tenant's income, and mandating tenant participation. It will institute reasonable rent requirements to encourage welfare recipients who currently receive housing subsidies to move to work. It will expand homeownership opportunities for low and moderate income families. The bill will speed the demolition of distressed housing projects through the repeal of the one-for-one replacement requirement. Also, the section 8 tenant-based voucher and certificate programs will be combined into a single, streamlined voucher system. The needless confusion which results from the differing rules and regulations of these two separate programs will be eliminated in order to increase the participation of private landlords in a unified, simplified system This legislation recognizes that every American deserves to live in a safe and secure community. To achieve that goal, a number of important provisions have been added to the legislation at my request. The legislation will allow HUD to waive rent and income requirements to permit police officers a lower rent as an inducement to living in public and assisted housing. Loopholes in the current law which allow drug dealers and violent criminals to escape eviction if they commit their crimes off the premises of the public housing authority will be eliminated. In addition, public housing authorities will be judged and rated based on the effectiveness of their anticrime policies, and their coordination with local law enforcement and tenant organizations in developing and implementing anticrime strategies. I would like to highlight one important anticrime provision which has recently been added to the legislation. This provision would mandate the exclusion of child molesters and sexually violent predators from receiving Federal housing assistance. In addition, local public housing agencies would be granted access to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's [FBI] national database on sexually violent offenders. This improved records access provision is critical to ensuring that these offenders are properly screened out. I would like to thank my colleague Senator Gramm for joining with me in ensuring that the families and children who live in public housing are protected from convicted sex offenders. Senator Gramm's leadership as the sponsor of the Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-236), which established the FBI database, and his diligence in bringing this issue to the attention of the committee are to be commended Mr. President, the reform provisions contained in this bill will greatly improve the quality of life of the 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 thank my colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee for their hard work and spirit of bipartisan compromise which they have shown throughout the process. I respectfully urge this legislation's speedy passage.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I join my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, to introduce a bill which will authorize the 50 States Circulating Commemorative Coin Program. This program, which allows for a temporary change to the reverse side of our quarters starting in the year 1999, has my complete and enthusiastic support. Mr. President, I feel it is appropriate as we enter the new millennium to embark on a decade-long celebration honoring each of our 50 States in the order in which they ratified the Constitution and joined the Union. All States shall submit, for final selection by the Secretary of the Treasury, a design befitting the motto or symbol of each State. The benefits of this program in promoting State pride on a national level and educating our citizens about our States' unique character and history are substantial. In the year 1999, our Nation will be 223 years old. Before our next big celebration marking the tricentennial in the year 2076, we should take time to commemorate the attributes of every State in this Union. Through this circulating coin program, we will be giving American youth an opportunity to cultivate an interest in the rich history that formed these United States. These coins will provide our teachers with a tangible tool to instill this interest. The educational advantage for our children will not only be achieved in classrooms, but on playgrounds and in homes around the Nation. In addition, Mr. President, I feel that the excitement and anticipation of the different coins in this program will also capture the interest of adults. Just imagine, receiving a collectible memento when you are handed your change. And may I point out, Mr. President, while the entire set of 50 circulating quarters will cost only $12.50, this very affordable collection will generate a minimum of $2.6 billion and conceivably as much as $5 billion in additional earnings for the Treasury. These off- budget earnings will be applied directly to reduce borrowing to fund the national debt. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, Congressman Michael Castle, who has worked tirelessly to promote this great program. Identical legislation Mike Castle sponsored passed the House on a record vote of 413 to 6. I am pleased that his efforts to create this commemorative coin are about to be realized. His outstanding leadership and dedication on this matter has been an inspiration to all who have committed their support. As chairman of the Banking Committee, I intend to press for prompt passage of this broadly supported bill and I am pleased to be a cosponsor.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for the Senate to consider the defense appropriations bill be extended for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the managers of the bill. Mr. President, let me say this. I strongly, strongly support this amendment. I want to commend Senator Lieberman and Senator Coats for fighting to give the families, the parents, the youngsters in the Washington, DC, public school system a chance. Too many are trapped. We are talking about working families who don't have the ability to move to areas with better schools. They don't have the financial wherewithal to send their children to better schools, including private schools, that are safer and may give a stronger educational opportunity. Al Smith, a great Governor from our State, used to say, ``Let's look at the record.'' Well, look at the record. How can we be defending the status quo of an education system in the District of Columbia that has been a failure--a failure. Forty percent of these youngsters never graduate from high school; 40% of D.C. public school students leave the school system between ninth grade and graduation. In terms of scores, it's incredible: during the 1996-97 school year, 72 percent of the eighth graders score below basic in math--72 percent; 78 percent of the D.C. public school fourth graders rank below basic reading achievement levels in 1994; 80 percent of the D.C. fourth graders in 1996 achieved below the basic math achievement levels. Do we want to save these youngsters? Or are we so interested in protecting the status of the unions, because that is what this is about. We are talking about the status quo, where you have a system that cares more about tenure for teachers that can't teach, more about seeing that the perks and privileges of the unions are protected--as opposed to providing students and their parents an opportunity to have a choice for real opportunity and to break out of this mediocrity. The fact is, we once had great and vibrant public educational institutions. That was before the days when the union perks and prerequisites came first. I support merit pay for good teachers. Let's reward them and get rid of the tenure system that is guaranteed to provide mediocrity and less for students. Let's have renewable tenure. Parents should be empowered to make choices, letting them have the opportunity to send their kids to the best schools. Who is trapped in the sea of mediocrity? I will tell you. The poorest of the poor; the working families; the families that can't move to another area to give their kids a good educational opportunity. I have to tell you something. I look to Congressman Floyd Flake. The Reverend Flake is resigning his position. He is elected with 90-some- odd-plus percent when he runs. He truly is the servant of the people. This is not intended to be a testimonial to him. I will give that before October 15 when he retires. But let me tell you about one of the things that the Congressman is going to do. He is going to go back and fight in New York to empower parents and to give children and their parents choice and an educational opportunity that now is all but put aside. We can make a difference. I don't care if it is 1,000 students that it helps, or 1,500 students. That is 1,500 more youngsters who will get a chance to flourish in an oasis of educational opportunity as opposed to a swamp and a sea of mediocrity that are tearing down educational opportunities for kids. We have got to try to do something better. And it isn't putting more of this money into a system that is broken down. Mr. President, I say this is the least we can do. This is an innovative opportunity to take one of the worst school systems in America and to begin to empower parents on behalf of their children to give them real educational opportunity. I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support swift passage of H.R. 2248. This bill is identical to the bill that I introduced along with Senator Sarbanes as original cosponsor. Both bills authorize the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to His All Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, leader of the Orthodox Christian Church. It is fitting that we recognize the tremendous leadership this religious figure provides to nearly 300 million people worldwide during his upcoming visit to our country. While many consider countries such as Russia and Greece to be Orthodox Christian strongholds, the fact is that nearly 5 million United States citizens of Greek, Russian, Ukrainian, and Serbian descent are Orthodox Christians. The contributions of these Americans to our rich history and culture exemplify the values, ideals, and dreams of this great Nation. The Patriarch Bartholomew has followed a calling in his life--to selflessly serve not only people of Greek origin, but millions of believers from all over the world, through his strong faith. Patriarch Bartholomew was enthroned as the 270th spiritual leader of the Orthodox Christians in 1991. This new title came with enormous responsibilities and burdens. But, the Patriarch Bartholomew was prepared to meet the task. Not only has he fulfilled the demanding role as preeminent leader of Orthodox Christians, he has dedicated himself and used his station to promote worthy, noble causes. Mr. President, in the name of religious unity and cooperation, Patriarch Bartholomew is working to promote interfaith dialog between the Orthodox Church, and the Roman Catholic Church, leading Protestant denominations, Muslim leaders, and various other faiths. He has also sought to strengthen the bonds between Judaism and Orthodox Christianity. In 1994, the Patriarch worked side by side with Rabbi David Schneier and the Appeal of Conscience Foundation to cosponsor the Peace and Tolerance Conference, bringing together Christians, Jews, and Muslims for human and religious freedom. And Patriarch Bartholomew's compassion is far-reaching. In the war- torn countries of the Balkans, he has helped to advance reconciliation among Catholic, Muslim, and Orthodox communities. As a citizen of Turkey, Patriarch Bartholomew is deeply concerned about the need to sustain the cause of peace. He has been a dynamic leader in efforts to ease Greek-Turkish tensions and to promote international cooperation, adherence to international law, and respect for human rights of victims of aggression. Mr. President, Patriarch Bartholomew, also referred to as the ``Green Patriarch'' has a sincere commitment to the environmental legacy we will one day leave to our children. Together with global leaders, he convened an international environmental symposium emphasizing the health and well-being of the world's oceans. The Patriarch is also a cosponsor of an annual conference addressing the protection of our global environment. Mr. President, in October of this year, Patriarch Bartholomew will visit the United States to offer his spiritual message of unity, compassion, and brotherhood. It is my belief that Congress should honor the work of this great leader in recognition of his outstanding and enduring contributions to religious freedom, tolerance, world peace, environmental protection, and human rights. In closing, Mr. President, I call upon my colleagues to support bestowing the Congressional Gold Medal upon a visionary for our times, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. I would also like to take the opportunity to extend thanks to my 48 colleagues in the Senate who have lent their bipartisan support to this effort.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring legislation that will commemorate the physical as well as spiritual triumph over one of our Nation's most tragic legacies. This legislation is designed to help the National Park Service present a dramatic chapter in American history; the perseverance of the quest for liberty that saw hundreds of thousands risk their lives so that they might live free. The National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act, S. 887, will give, for the first time, Federal recognition and acknowledgment to this avenue of hope for those who sought freedom from tyranny and oppression. The Underground Railroad was a loosely organized system of escape routes for hundreds of thousands of enslaved African-Americans. Average men and women, who shared a love of freedom and a hatred of the institution of slavery, committed themselves to help free a people by offering food, shelter, clothing, money, or whatever would assist passengers along the Underground Railroad. Typically, a stop along the Underground Railroad would be a farmhouse or a church where passengers would be hidden in the attic or the basement, or behind false walls or even under floorboards. A person on the railroad would be concealed until it was determined that it was safe to travel to the next site. This scenario was repeated over and over again until the passenger reached safety in the North or in Canada, Mexico, or the Caribbean. Although largely clandestine, the Underground Railroad is a tangible example of the extent that resistance to slavery existed during the 18th and 19th centuries. Indeed, some 380 sites--28 of which are in New York--have been documented in a National Park Service study as sites potentially significant to the Underground Railroad movement. It is likely that there are more sites about which we will never know. Of the sites that do exist, it is important to highlight their role in abetting the elimination of the shameful practice of slavery. It is important to our national heritage that we recognize and remember the bravery of those who risked their lives to make the journey along the Underground Railroad and those who provided sanctuary to them. This legislation will help raise awareness about these locations along the Underground Railroad, enhancing the chances that the sites will be maintained or restored. We must recognize and preserve these historic sites, which represent the extraordinary efforts, perils, sacrifices, and triumphs of those who risked their lives so that they might taste freedom. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important measure.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the chairman and ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as in morning business.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will protect tens of millions of consumers who carry bank debit cards, as well as millions more who are being targeted by banks to use this relatively new and unfamiliar payment card. This bill extends to the users of debit cards the protections that now already apply to users of credit cards. And I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Bennett, Dodd, and Bryan, for cosponsoring this important legislation. In the past few years, millions of Americans have opened envelopes from their banks to find these new payment cards. These cards look like credit cards. They have ``VISA'' or ``MasterCard'' logos on the front of them--I am holding one up now--but they are actually debit cards, or, in the language of the industry, they are ``off-line'' debit cards. They are called ``off-line'' cards because they can be used with just a signature, and no PIN No., in order to access the consumer's bank account directly. These off-line cards combine the convenience of a credit card with the simplicity of an ATM card. In order to make a purchase, the consumer simply presents the debit card to a merchant and signs a sales slip. The money for the payment is then automatically withdrawn from the consumer's bank account and transferred to the merchant. But if an off-line card is lost or stolen, it poses a little known and potentially unlimited danger to the consumer. Because it needs only a signature to authorize a purchase, a criminal who finds the card or who steals the card can easily use it to make purchases. He can go on a wild shopping spree and buy thousands of dollars worth of goods on that stolen card. But unlike a stolen credit card, these fraudulent charges are immediately deducted from the victim's bank account. And unlike a stolen credit card, the law provides virtually no limit to the victim's liability. And what happens to the consumer whose bank account is cleaned out by fraud? Soon her checks begin bouncing, bills go unpaid, late charges and overdraft fees pile up, suddenly the victim is facing financial disaster. Unraveling this mess can mean weeks of letters and phone calls, and nobody will compensate the victim for the lasting damage to his or her name or reputation. Furthermore, the victim will be literally penniless until the bank investigates the theft and, hopefully, restores the account. Under current law, the bank could take up to 20 days to complete this investigation. Imagine losing one's entire bank balance and then being unable to write a check for rent, car payment or groceries for 20 days. Mr. President, I am concerned that consumers do not understand the off-line debit card. They may think it is just like an ordinary ATM card. But without the protection of a secret PIN number, the card is not secure. In reality, it is a direct line of access to the consumer's bank account. That line of access is open to anyone who possesses the card, including a thief. Just the number on the face of the card is all the thief needs to totally drain the consumer's bank account. Financial institutions have sent out tens of millions of these cards unsolicited in the last few years. By 1994, there were 25 million off- line cards in circulation. By 1996, the number had jumped to more than 60 million. Millions more will be mailed out this year, because although banks cannot legally mail out an unsolicited credit card, a loophole in the law allows them to mail out these unsolicited off-line debit cards as replacements for consumer's ATM cards. Mr. President, this is a ticking time bomb for millions of unwary consumers. Does the consumer understand how this new card differs from an ordinary ATM card? Does the consumer understand the risk that comes from carrying the new off-line card? Too often the answer is no. A recent survey by Mastercard found that 59 percent of the consumers who carry debit cards do not realize just how important it is to report a lost or stolen card immediately. At a minimum, consumers need to be warned before they start carrying these off-line cards, and they need protection in the event that anything goes wrong. Mr. President, we need reform and we need it soon. The bill we have introduced today, the Debit Card Consumer Protection Act of 1997, provides a level of protection that is clearly needed. First, it prohibits the banks from mailing out unsolicited debit cards. Only people who want these cards should be getting them in the mail. Second, it requires a clear disclosure to the consumer that the card provides a direct line of access to the consumer's bank account. Third, it prohibits the bank from sending out live debit cards. Cards must not be valid for use until the recipient identifies himself or herself as the rightful owner. Fourth, it limits the consumer's liability to $50 in the event the card is lost or stolen. Fifth, it expedites the restoration of funds to the consumer's account within 5 business days. Current law can make the consumer wait 20 business days. Mr. President, this bill would bring the consumer protection laws up to date and into line with what the consumer is entitled to and expects. That is why consumer groups strongly support this bill, including the Consumer Federation of America, the Consumers Union, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. These organizations have all gone on record to say that this legislation provides essential protection for users of debit cards. Now, Mr. President, some of the provisions of this bill were recently put forth in another bill, S. 1154, by my colleague, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, who I see is on the floor. And some of these measures are now being implemented voluntarily by the industry. I want to commend Senator Reed for his work in this area. I think that a consensus exists that consumer protections are needed to improve a situation that presents a very real risk for millions of consumers. In fact, MasterCard and VISA recently announced that they will voluntarily cap the consumer's liability at $50 in the event of an unauthorized use. One bank, Bank of America, has announced it will not hold consumers liable for any unauthorized charges. I commend the industry for responding to these concerns. Because of this responsiveness, I am hopeful the industry will vigorously support legislation to make these essential consumer protection laws permanent and universal. Finally, I thank Senators Bennett, Dodd, and Bryan for cosponsoring this bill. Senator Bennett, as chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on Financial Services and Technology, is very aware of the enormous impact financial fraud is having on the industry and consumers. This legislation will help to protect both the industry and consumers from having to pay these high costs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will protect tens of millions of consumers who carry bank debit cards, as well as millions more who are being targeted by banks to use this relatively new and unfamiliar payment card. This bill extends to the users of debit cards the protections that now already apply to users of credit cards. And I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Bennett, Dodd, and Bryan, for cosponsoring this important legislation. In the past few years, millions of Americans have opened envelopes from their banks to find these new payment cards. These cards look like credit cards. They have ``VISA'' or ``MasterCard'' logos on the front of them--I am holding one up now--but they are actually debit cards, or, in the language of the industry, they are ``off-line'' debit cards. They are called ``off-line'' cards because they can be used with just a signature, and no PIN No., in order to access the consumer's bank account directly. These off-line cards combine the convenience of a credit card with the simplicity of an ATM card. In order to make a purchase, the consumer simply presents the debit card to a merchant and signs a sales slip. The money for the payment is then automatically withdrawn from the consumer's bank account and transferred to the merchant. But if an off-line card is lost or stolen, it poses a little known and potentially unlimited danger to the consumer. Because it needs only a signature to authorize a purchase, a criminal who finds the card or who steals the card can easily use it to make purchases. He can go on a wild shopping spree and buy thousands of dollars worth of goods on that stolen card. But unlike a stolen credit card, these fraudulent charges are immediately deducted from the victim's bank account. And unlike a stolen credit card, the law provides virtually no limit to the victim's liability. And what happens to the consumer whose bank account is cleaned out by fraud? Soon her checks begin bouncing, bills go unpaid, late charges and overdraft fees pile up, suddenly the victim is facing financial disaster. Unraveling this mess can mean weeks of letters and phone calls, and nobody will compensate the victim for the lasting damage to his or her name or reputation. Furthermore, the victim will be literally penniless until the bank investigates the theft and, hopefully, restores the account. Under current law, the bank could take up to 20 days to complete this investigation. Imagine losing one's entire bank balance and then being unable to write a check for rent, car payment or groceries for 20 days. Mr. President, I am concerned that consumers do not understand the off-line debit card. They may think it is just like an ordinary ATM card. But without the protection of a secret PIN number, the card is not secure. In reality, it is a direct line of access to the consumer's bank account. That line of access is open to anyone who possesses the card, including a thief. Just the number on the face of the card is all the thief needs to totally drain the consumer's bank account. Financial institutions have sent out tens of millions of these cards unsolicited in the last few years. By 1994, there were 25 million off- line cards in circulation. By 1996, the number had jumped to more than 60 million. Millions more will be mailed out this year, because although banks cannot legally mail out an unsolicited credit card, a loophole in the law allows them to mail out these unsolicited off-line debit cards as replacements for consumer's ATM cards. Mr. President, this is a ticking time bomb for millions of unwary consumers. Does the consumer understand how this new card differs from an ordinary ATM card? Does the consumer understand the risk that comes from carrying the new off-line card? Too often the answer is no. A recent survey by Mastercard found that 59 percent of the consumers who carry debit cards do not realize just how important it is to report a lost or stolen card immediately. At a minimum, consumers need to be warned before they start carrying these off-line cards, and they need protection in the event that anything goes wrong. Mr. President, we need reform and we need it soon. The bill we have introduced today, the Debit Card Consumer Protection Act of 1997, provides a level of protection that is clearly needed. First, it prohibits the banks from mailing out unsolicited debit cards. Only people who want these cards should be getting them in the mail. Second, it requires a clear disclosure to the consumer that the card provides a direct line of access to the consumer's bank account. Third, it prohibits the bank from sending out live debit cards. Cards must not be valid for use until the recipient identifies himself or herself as the rightful owner. Fourth, it limits the consumer's liability to $50 in the event the card is lost or stolen. Fifth, it expedites the restoration of funds to the consumer's account within 5 business days. Current law can make the consumer wait 20 business days. Mr. President, this bill would bring the consumer protection laws up to date and into line with what the consumer is entitled to and expects. That is why consumer groups strongly support this bill, including the Consumer Federation of America, the Consumers Union, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. These organizations have all gone on record to say that this legislation provides essential protection for users of debit cards. Now, Mr. President, some of the provisions of this bill were recently put forth in another bill, S. 1154, by my colleague, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, who I see is on the floor. And some of these measures are now being implemented voluntarily by the industry. I want to commend Senator Reed for his work in this area. I think that a consensus exists that consumer protections are needed to improve a situation that presents a very real risk for millions of consumers. In fact, MasterCard and VISA recently announced that they will voluntarily cap the consumer's liability at $50 in the event of an unauthorized use. One bank, Bank of America, has announced it will not hold consumers liable for any unauthorized charges. I commend the industry for responding to these concerns. Because of this responsiveness, I am hopeful the industry will vigorously support legislation to make these essential consumer protection laws permanent and universal. Finally, I thank Senators Bennett, Dodd, and Bryan for cosponsoring this bill. Senator Bennett, as chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on Financial Services and Technology, is very aware of the enormous impact financial fraud is having on the industry and consumers. This legislation will help to protect both the industry and consumers from having to pay these high costs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I rise to honor a truly outstanding, dedicated public servant--David Schmeltzer. Dave is retiring from the Federal Government after 35 years of service, including 25 years at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, where he is the Director of the Office of Compliance. Over the years I have been fortunate to have gotten to know Dave personally. A native New Yorker, he received a bachelor of arts degree from Long Island University in 1957. He attended Brooklyn Law School with my dear friend Larry Elovich, and became a member of the New York Bar after graduating in 1960. I want to wish Dave, his wife Louise, and their son Daniel and his family the best of luck on this happy occasion. David Schmeltzer has had a truly remarkable career in Federal service. I am unaware of anyone with Dave's experience and knowledge when it comes to product safety regulation and enforcement. At the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in addition to his current position as Director of the Office of Compliance, Dave has served as both Deputy General Counsel and Acting General Counsel. Before joining the Commission in 1973--at its inception, I should note--Dave served as the Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement and Administrative Law with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. He has also served as the Vice Chairman for the International Consumer Health and Safety Organization Symposium [ICPHSO] and is presently on ICPHSO's executive committee. While the list of Government positions Dave has held is quite impressive, it does not begin to measure his contributions in improving product safety for all Americans of all ages, from infants to our seniors. Dave has never been someone who has ducked the tough calls, and he has been willing to take the heat for doing so when many others would have run away. He has always been fair and balanced in exercising his judgment, a real straight shooter. The results speak for themselves. On behalf of those consumers who have been spared the pain of a loss or devastating injury to a child or other loved one, I want to thank Dave Schmeltzer for his years of service and wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I make a motion to table on behalf of myself and Senator Dodd, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, first of all, let me say, as well- intentioned as the legislation of the Senator from Arkansas is, I believe it presents a number of obstacles. I think while there are those of us who are concerned with respect to undue Federal intrusion, that is not so in the American Heritage Rivers Program because it is a program that by its very implementation must take place through the initiatives of the local communities. This is not a question where the President or Washington or Big Brother designates a river and says, ``I want this river to be in the program.'' This program comes about as a result of the initiatives of the State and local governments. For example, in New York, Governor Pataki has recommended that the Hudson River be one of those rivers that applies for designation. Indeed, they have. Not only has the request come from the State, but it really has come as a result of dozens and dozens of communities and community groups along the Hudson River petitioning to be part of this process, that will help ongoing initiatives including the Hudson River Estuary Management Program, the Hudson River Greenway Program, local waterfront revitalization programs. Again, dozens of communities and cities want to be part of this process. The fact is that the State is ready to spend, along with this and local initiatives, some $75 million on the Hudson River. What we are talking about is enhanced services to deliver the kind of upgrading that will bring an improvement of services to the people on the river. If this amendment were enacted, we might well see an entire program that is ready for implementation and that involves local initiatives thwarted, only because the initiative is a voluntary program that is locally driven and community based. Now, some of the requirements that this legislation would bring about would have the effect of denying access to and tying up the process. To notify property owners in a 10-mile area and take comment--and I see my colleague says that is not necessary; maybe he would like to address that--but the burdens placed upon implementation, and the fact we get into this process of having to designate raises concerns. Would Congress have to designate 10 rivers annually? And should that really be the province of Congress, to say which of these rivers should be part of this program? Now, I believe in the separation of powers. I think it is absolutely essential. But I am wondering how we would go about that. Really, shouldn't it be the State and local governments petitioning the executive branch and having various requirements that they must meet? And, of course, we may or may not agree with the selection modality. I am not suggesting that we just sign off. Obviously, we as representatives of our States and communities want to be in a position to see that there is fairness. That is why we are here, to keep some balance in the allocation of resources. I don't know whether or not we should be the people who, on an annual basis, authorize the selection process of 10 rivers. I think that really should lie within the province of the executive branch having to meet some kind of competitive standard. We are very excited by this Presidential initiative. Let's be very candid here. The Governor of New York and the President of the United States, in terms of political philosophy, have not always lined up on the same side. Indeed, I say, on many occasions, they take opposite points of view. So I think it is important when the Governor points out that this is an opportunity for a State-Federal partnership on a basis that makes sense without there being undue intrusion--because we reject undue intrusion. There is a process that is underway. Now, I can just imagine, if the Hudson River isn't designated, we will probably launch a hue and cry as to why not. Of course, that is part of the process. If it is not designated and we think it should be, we would be prepared to ask those questions. That is part of democracy; that is part of the process. No one has the absolute, and no one's decisions and actions can go without the risk of being challenged in the court of public opinion, and that is what we would be doing. But I have every reason to believe, notwithstanding the political differences and philosophical differences, for the most part, we will get reasonable decisions. I think some of these issues are going to be very easy. There are some bodies of water where the local governments and State officials are anxious and can put forth a good case to be designated. Then they will get down to areas where it gets competitive and where reasonable people might disagree. Are we going to say there won't be some politics entering into it? Of course, there will be. But it will be right here on this floor within this body, I note, to the chagrin of many. The Presiding Officer would not believe that. But I can attest to the fact that I believe that would be the case, in my limited experience in observing these matters in the course of the past 17 years. And so it would be in the House of Representatives. Taking the political jockeying that would take place in terms of designating these rivers between the House and the Senate, that would really be a lulu. You know, there is something called the rights of the minority, which this body in particular ensures, and I like that. I think it is important. Even though we may have legislation and the majority supports it, oftentimes, I think it is a necessary and important right. I think if we were to reflect on the history of this body, we would find that sometimes those who are not in the majority have held up legislative initiatives and, in the fullness of time, it has come out that they were correct. So it is not bad. But I want to say that it could be used in the manner which would make it difficult to get designations of the kinds of rivers that should be qualified. So I will be, of course, forced to move to table this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Dodd at the appropriate time. I don't intend to do that until my colleagues have an opportunity to express themselves.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague from Washington in a colloquy on the importance of the Low-Income Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Conservation Program to the people of New York, as well as the entire country. Mr. President, I would first like to acknowledge the fact that Chairman Gorton has crafted a good bill under difficult circumstances. This bill combines a number of different agencies and functions within a tight budget cap, and I appreciate his effort to balance these different needs. Mr. President, the Weatherization Program upgrades the energy efficiency of the homes of the poor, elderly, and disabled in this Nation. This is important in warm and cold climates alike, providing people with long-term solutions to housing affordability. This program is highly effective with low administrative costs. The State Energy Conservation Program permits States to target energy programs in all sectors of the economy, from making schools and hospitals more energy efficient to promoting alternative motor fuels and renewable energy. This program is highly leveraged with large amounts of State, local, and private funding. As the country moves forward to restructure the electric industry, these two programs will be all the more important to meet the needs of low-income families. Mr. President, the committee's bill provides $5 million more than the House-passed bill for weatherization and $1.1 million more than the House for the State Energy Conservation Program. I would like to urge Senator Gorton to stand firm in support of the Senate numbers in conference with the House.

Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the chairman.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Flood Insurance Reauthorization Act of 1997 (NFIRA). This legislation provides for a simple and straightforward 5-year extension of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) which is scheduled to expire on September 30, 1997. This legislation will ensure that this important program is placed on a steady and secure foundation to continue the invaluable protection it provides to flood insurance policyholders and the Federal taxpayers. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Sarbanes, the distinguished ranking member of the Banking Committee, has cosponsored this measure. The National Flood Insurance Program, which is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], enables over 3.5 million American families to insure their homes and possessions. In my home State of New York, 85,000 families participate in the NFIP. The NFIP allows these families, on Long Island and along the Great Lakes and the State's many rivers, to purchase adequate insurance coverage to protect their homes in the event of a catastrophic flood. The NFIP employs a comprehensive approach to alleviating the risks posed by catastrophic floods. Floodplain communities participate in FEMA's Community Rating System and are offered incentives to adopt and enforce measures to reduce the risk of flood damage and improve flood prevention building criteria. To avoid the danger of repetitive losses, the program provides stringent building standards, including increased elevation, designed to reduce the risk of future damage. These flood protection standards must be met before any structure which suffers substantial damage may be rebuilt. In addition, persons who receive disaster assistance and fail to subsequently purchase flood insurance are barred from receiving future assistance. Mr. President, the NFIP plays a critical role in reducing the costs of Federal disaster relief. Current NFIP policyholders pay approximately $1.3 billion annually into the NFIP fund. Without this premium income, the Federal Government would likely pay spiraling costs in disaster relief. The NFIP has the added benefits of improving State and community planning and Federal support for locally driven disaster prevention and mitigation activities. Reauthorizing the NFIP is an important step forward in reaffirming the commitment of the Federal Government to help American families protect their homes and to protect the Federal taxpayer from the risks of catastrophic floods. Clearly, we must do more. Lenders and private insurers who participate in the NFIP must do more to ensure compliance. States and local communities must improve their disaster planning, prevention, and response activities. FEMA must redouble its efforts to increase participation in the program to improve the safety and soundness of the NFIP fund. Also, the Federal Government must do more to prevent and mitigate against the losses which will inevitably occur from future floods. Mr. President, I note that this bill is supported by the administration. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this legislation and I look forward to working with the members of the Banking Committee to ensure a swift and speedy passage.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Senator from California for providing further perspective on this issue. Mr. President, we again thank the chairman for his leadership and support of the Ryan White CARE Act in the past. We hope to secure your continued support for Senate appropriations for titles III, IV, and V of the Ryan White CARE Act, and at least the House funding levels for titles I and II in conference committee. In particular, the ADAP funding level affects every State in our great Nation and, therefore, I look forward to working with him and our colleagues to ensure that every American will have access to any HIV/AIDS treatment he or she may require. community employment alliance

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman for his continued leadership in providing substantial support for the Ryan White CARE Act, research through the National Institutes of Health, and various prevention and education programs seeking to discover new treatments and a cure for the HIV/AIDS virus. Each of these areas deserves the full attention from congressional leaders if we are to finally win our struggle with this dreaded virus. However, I am particularly concerned that the level of funding for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program [ADAP] under title II of the Ryan White CARE Act will fail to meet the needs of those suffering from this terrible disease. With some of the recent advances in HIV/AIDS drug treatments, many seem to believe that the pressure imposed by this disease upon our society has been relieved. However, I believe the Senate must increase the ADAP funding level for fiscal year 1998 to the House level of $132 million in order to protect our citizens from this continued deadly disease. As with every State, in my State of New York many working people living with HIV/AIDS must rely on the ADAP Program for their only access to the new effective combination therapy AIDS medications which were discovered and produced through our public and private investment in research at the National Institutes of Health and in private industry. These newly approved drugs offer real hope for continued life to hundreds of thousands of Americans living with HIV/AIDS. With millions of Americans lacking health insurance with adequate prescription benefits, the ability to access these treatments has literally become a matter of life and death for thousands of these Americans. Currently, the ADAP Program in New York State provides treatment opportunities to nearly 17,000 people with many, many more projected to seek treatment in the future. Congress has the ability to lead the way to assure access to these therapies and the hope they provide against the inescapable progression to an untimely death. We must seize this opportunity. No one wants to be in the position of telling a constituent that they are out of luck this year and that maybe next year we can do something. Every State will face intolerable choices in deciding who shall have the opportunity to receive these life-saving treatments without an adequate ADAP funding level. I ask the chairman to leave no stone unturned in obtaining the funds so desperately needed for us to offer a chance for life to every American living with HIV/ AIDS in the United States. I know my colleague from California would like to provide further emphasis to this statement.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Might I ask I be also included as an original cosponsor.

Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Senator.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise in order to offer support for the principles outlined in the legislation submitted by my friend from the State of Washington, Senator Gorton. This amendment begins to bring about some very needed reform to give youngsters in our public education institutions, particularly so many in our large metropolitan areas and our inner core cities, the needed reforms that are long overdue. What we are saying is that we want to see to it that the money gets into the classroom, that we empower good teachers to teach, that we give to the local districts the opportunity to direct the resources they need. The amendment combines all of the Federal funds devoted to education, with several large exceptions, into block grants. The Secretary of Education is then required to distribute the consolidated funds directly to each school district through a formula outlined in the bill. Now, under this innovative approach, the Federal funds will be distributed directly to school districts, and it will be used in classrooms and no longer will Washington bureaucrats be dictating how schools use scarce resources. We need to empower local educators, and more importantly, parents and teachers, with the ability to bring the kind of education to youngsters that has been lost to many for so long. I feel very strongly that we have to maximize resources and to return to citizens the ability to give educational opportunity to their children. It is clear that this country has now begun a long overdue debate on the future of public education, and I strongly believe that we need fundamental reforms that will give to our children what they need and deserve. I have proposed five fundamental reforms which I hope we can make part of our educational mission, not necessarily by legislation, but as guiding principles. First, you cannot give youngsters an educational opportunity unless we get violent and disruptive juveniles out of the classrooms so that teachers can teach and good students can learn. A little over a week ago there was an article in the New York Times about crime in the schools, and according to New York City Chancellor Rudy Crew, last year there was a total of 22,615 reported--I say ``reported'' because we don't know how many were unreported--incidents including one murder, 221 sexual assaults including rape, and nearly 1,000 other physical assaults. That is outrageous. We are talking about schools that are supposed to be sanctuaries and havens for our children. How can teachers teach good youngsters with that taking place? Yet in district after district, State after State, we find parents unable to secure for their children a safe environment. Disruptive juveniles are permitted to stay in the classroom and create chaos to keep others from getting the education that they deserve. How can good teachers teach in those kinds of circumstances? Second, talking about good teachers--and there are many, many--how do we reward good teachers when they are all treated the same? It is about time we rewarded outstanding teachers for their good performance with merit pay. What do we hear in response to that? I hear the president of the teachers' union say, ``We are opposed to merit pay.'' Imagine, opposed to giving merit pay to good teachers. Instead, what the union does is protect its own perks without making determinations about rewarding good teachers. We have outmoded tenure systems in State after State. In my State, the teachers' union protects incompetence, notwithstanding that the school board associations have begged, have pleaded, have said give us renewable tenure, tenure for 5 years so that we can review someone's performance. Now we lock in incompetence. We reward it. You have unions that are more interested in protecting the perks and the privileges of their members, not rewarding outstanding teachers, those teachers who come in early, those teachers who work with our youngsters, those teachers who stay after school, who give additional thought, who are inspirations--and there are so many. No, they are not rewarded with merit pay, but incompetents are protected. We need to give parents more control over their children's education, and that means letting parents choose which public school in their own school districts their children can attend. Bring about competition. Do not assign, particularly working poor families, to the worst of public education systems without the choice or without the ability or without the financial means to give their children an educational opportunity, but give them choice. By the way, in areas where this has been effected, it has worked. It has worked in East Harlem, and it can work elsewhere. In fact, there are at least four other examples of New York districts that are experimenting with similar interdistrict programs, and they work. It will let us empower parents to make educational choices for their children, and particularly those who are not of great affluence. Finally, we need to put our children first and stand up to those special interests, which are teachers unions that are more interested in pay and perks than they are in good education for our children, and reward those teachers who are excellent and should deserve that recognition. I am strongly supportive of the principles of this amendment. I have to ask my good friend and colleague, though, Senator Gorton, what, if anything, in the bill will see to it that the districts that will be receiving these moneys will not be impaired and that they will get at least as much in terms of funding under this proposal as they received in the past? I think that is a very important element. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.