Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will strike a blow against counterfeiters and other criminals who commit cellular telephone fraud and credit card fraud. These criminal activities cost their respective industries hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and these costs are passed down to consumers who use credit cards and cellular telephones. The cellular telephone industry alone loses $650 million each year due to counterfeit or cloned telephone. The credit card industry faces a similar problem. The criminals who perpetrate these frauds use specialized equipment to clone cell phones and credit cards to create phony copies which can be sold on the street or used to rack up thousands of dollars in unauthorized credit card purchases and telephone calls. There is no legitimate reason for an individual to possess this special equipment used to create these phony copies. This equipment is only useful to create counterfeit credit cards and cell phones. Under current law, this equipment is actually returned to the criminal after he serves his sentence. The equipment is frequently used again to commit the same crimes over and over. The Government cannot confiscate the equipment without a separate expensive and time- consuming forfeiture proceeding. Mr. President, it is preposterous that the Government must return the tools used to commit these crimes to criminals, even if they are convicted. These criminals are exploiting a loophole in the Federal forfeiture laws. My bill will close this loophole. My bill would amend title 49 of the United States Code to make this equipment, as well as the counterfeit credit cards and telephones themselves, contraband. This designation would make it a Federal crime to possess these items. My bill would also require that these items must not be returned to the criminals. Mr. President, these crimes take a tremendous toll on consumers whose telephones and credit cards are cloned by this equipment. By the time the consumer discovers that his or her telephone or credit card has been copied, the criminals usually have racked up thousands of dollars in unauthorized charges. This can have a devastating effect on consumers' credit ratings, rendering them unable to purchase a car or home or start a business. These problems can take years to correct. Last Congress, I introduced a similar bill, S. 1380. Unfortunately, the session ended before Congress was able to act. However, this bill is not without precedent. A similar measure was passed last year regarding counterfeit videos and music. These items are now considered contraband under the new law. Industry leaders and law enforcement authorities enthusiastically support this legislation. Mr. President, the Government must stop unwittingly aiding criminals to swindle hundreds of millions of dollars at the expense of consumers and the cellular telephone and credit card industries. My bill would close this outrageous loophole and help law enforcement crack down on these brazen criminals. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. No. I have asked that we be permitted to speak on this issue for up to 15 minutes. My colleagues have yet to speak. So use whatever time is necessary.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise this morning, along with Senator Moynihan, to introduce legislation to ``disapprove'' President Clinton's line-item veto that cancels a Medicaid provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which provides health care to the poorest of the poor in New York. Let me say that that is the legislation which has just been sent to the desk. That is legislation to disapprove this veto. Let me also say that I must speak out not about the authority of the line-item veto, which I support, but about its use in this particular case. Mr. President, I have to tell you--and I listened intently to Senator Moynihan making his presentation with respect to the manner in which the entire budget negotiations and the process was conducted. The fact of the matter is that the administration and the President agreed during the budget negotiations to accept the provisions that were included in this bill. The fact of the matter is, I believe it was June 25 when these provisions were adopted by the full Senate. Mr. President, there was no secret. The administration knew. The administration had ample time all during that process to say ``no'', this is unacceptable. I have to tell you, I am shocked and outraged that the administration has singled out New York for this particular provision by stating that this is an ``item that would have given preferential treatment to only New York.'' Mr. President, that is blatantly, patently false. It is a total misstatement. I hope that the President will have an opportunity to examine this because I believe that his advisers have given him very poor advice. I can't believe, knowing the President's commitment to attempt to deal with the problem of the uninsured, particularly the children--he had full knowledge of the manner and the totality of dealing with the shortcomings because we are attempting to reduce the burdens, we are attempting to get our Medicaid and Medicare costs under control. In this bill, notwithstanding that the administration claimed and advised the President and his people that this was a special provision just for New York, there are instance after instance, in case after case after case, where other States received similar treatment, as they can and should have in order to push the tremendous cuts --15 percent-plus in some cases. There were going to be 25 percent cuts that hospitals dealing with a disproportionate share of this Nation's poor would otherwise have had to make. That is DSH payments. Let's understand what we are talking about. The average person--what are you talking about? What is this DSH? How do you take care, in large metropolitan areas in the North, the South, the East, and the West of our country, of those who do not have medical insurance? What do those hospitals do? Close their doors? Go bankrupt? Who is to pay for them? So there was a conscious effort by the committee to see to it that States with these disproportionate problems in terms of dealing with the uninsured, with those who had just Medicaid and Medicaid alone, who cannot sustain the operations of our medical centers, to give relief. Indeed, Mr. President, I believe if one were to add up the totality of the money provided, it would be in the area of $700 to $800 million that was given in relief to pushing the cuts that these States and these institutions would otherwise absorb. Let me give you just some of the States. Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont. Mr. President, to suggest that New York was the only one, indeed, New York could have been included. And if draftsmanship had been used, if we had known that we would have been singled out in this manner, I tell you we could have included the provision within the budget in such a way that all of these States including New York would have had to be vetoed then. Are we saying it is the poor of New York who should be disadvantaged? We don't begrudge help to those States that are needing it. This is not an attempt to game the system. And let me talk about that. There came a point in time when the Federal Government became aware that some States were gaming the system. In other words, certain States were guilty of scamming. That was wrong, and both Senator Moynihan and I provided the support, and it passed unanimously, that we put a stop to that. But let's understand that is not what New York was doing. For example, for those who were gaming the system, a provider would pay a $5,000 provider tax to the State. The State would then draw a matching $5,000 from the Federal Government and then reimburse the provider. It was a scam. It was simply a bookkeeping entry to get the Federal Government to pick up an expense that the State never really incurred and the provider did not incur. That is wrong. That is not our system. New York was not then and is not now involved in that scam. This wasn't an attempt to bill poor people for services and build roads or not use those moneys. That has never been the allegation. And, indeed, as a matter of fact, New York has had a long history of requiring insurers to pay assessments on hospital services. Thereby, that assessment over and above that particular service would go to help the poorest of the poor. And, indeed, we now have a program by utilizing these provider taxes that provides insurance for those families who could not purchase it for their youngsters. We provide up to 140,000 youngsters, children up to the age of 19, with insurance. It comes from this provider tax. Let me say that these assessments provide $1.1 billion a year in gross provider tax collections and are used for dealing with uninsured children, the poorest of the poor. The Balanced Budget Act contained language which specifically determined that New York provider taxes meet the legitimate requirements. That is what we did. Now, Mr. President, we have attempted for more than 2 years to get a resolve of this matter from HCFA. Nothing. Nothing. No response. Delay, delay, delay, delay. You can't do that to a community. You are not doing it just to a State government. That impacts on the lives of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people. Is that fair? And so, Mr. President, I find it incomprehensible and absolutely a tragedy that the President would have received this kind of advice. People, I believe, did not tell the President the entire story. I cannot believe that he really would want to veto a provision, the dollars of which are used to take care of the truly needy. I hope that between the time this legislation that we have introduced comes to a vote, we can get a resolve of this matter, not to deal with it in a confrontational, adversarial way, but in a way that makes sense, in a way that is fair, that is fair intellectually, that is fair morally, that is fair ethically. And I want to make it clear that I concede nothing. If we have to fight, why then we will, because this is a battle not about a State being treated fairly or unfairly but about its people and their needs. This is a battle that says that a State does have a right to raise revenues in a particular manner and to utilize them for the purpose which I have attempted to outline. I want to commend my colleague, who, as the ranking member of Finance and, indeed, the senior member on Budget, was there every moment of the negotiations, and never once were we told this is a special treatment.

Mr. D'AMATO. Never once. And so for it to be sprung on us --I was out of the country--I said, when asked, that I was shocked, truly shocked. Again, I think the President is a big enough person to look at this in a way, or to say to those in charge at HCFA, come on, let's resolve this. Let's see to it that New York's problem, which is one of seeing to the needs of the uninsured--and, by the way, we have plans in speaking to the administration--and Senator Moynihan and I have been conferring with the health department people. They believe that this program can be and will be in the fullness of time--it is a program to provide insurance where families pay a very modest amount, in some cases $25 a month, and some none depending upon their income--that it can be expanded to take care of up to 500,000 young people, youngsters, children who otherwise would not be insured. Mr. President, we are not going to give up the battle. It is a battle that we are committed to winning on behalf of the poor, on behalf of the needy, on behalf of the uninsured, on behalf of the many working families that do not have full coverage. And I am proud and privileged to join the senior Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, in an attempt to get justice for these children and for those in need. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, may I suggest the absence of a quorum so I will have an opportunity to concur with my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from New York? Let me say, No. 1, that I totally support his presentation as it related to the manner in which this veto took place. It is something that none of us were apprised of or aware of; that there had been extended negotiations with his administration during this process. It came as a total surprise. But I would like to take one moment and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Never once. And so for it to be sprung on us --I was out of the country--I said, when asked, that I was shocked, truly shocked. Again, I think the President is a big enough person to look at this in a way, or to say to those in charge at HCFA, come on, let's resolve this. Let's see to it that New York's problem, which is one of seeing to the needs of the uninsured--and, by the way, we have plans in speaking to the administration--and Senator Moynihan and I have been conferring with the health department people. They believe that this program can be and will be in the fullness of time--it is a program to provide insurance where families pay a very modest amount, in some cases $25 a month, and some none depending upon their income--that it can be expanded to take care of up to 500,000 young people, youngsters, children who otherwise would not be insured. Mr. President, we are not going to give up the battle. It is a battle that we are committed to winning on behalf of the poor, on behalf of the needy, on behalf of the uninsured, on behalf of the many working families that do not have full coverage. And I am proud and privileged to join the senior Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, in an attempt to get justice for these children and for those in need. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise this morning, along with Senator Moynihan, to introduce legislation to ``disapprove'' President Clinton's line-item veto that cancels a Medicaid provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which provides health care to the poorest of the poor in New York. Let me say that that is the legislation which has just been sent to the desk. That is legislation to disapprove this veto. Let me also say that I must speak out not about the authority of the line-item veto, which I support, but about its use in this particular case. Mr. President, I have to tell you--and I listened intently to Senator Moynihan making his presentation with respect to the manner in which the entire budget negotiations and the process was conducted. The fact of the matter is that the administration and the President agreed during the budget negotiations to accept the provisions that were included in this bill. The fact of the matter is, I believe it was June 25 when these provisions were adopted by the full Senate. Mr. President, there was no secret. The administration knew. The administration had ample time all during that process to say ``no'', this is unacceptable. I have to tell you, I am shocked and outraged that the administration has singled out New York for this particular provision by stating that this is an ``item that would have given preferential treatment to only New York.'' Mr. President, that is blatantly, patently false. It is a total misstatement. I hope that the President will have an opportunity to examine this because I believe that his advisers have given him very poor advice. I can't believe, knowing the President's commitment to attempt to deal with the problem of the uninsured, particularly the children--he had full knowledge of the manner and the totality of dealing with the shortcomings because we are attempting to reduce the burdens, we are attempting to get our Medicaid and Medicare costs under control. In this bill, notwithstanding that the administration claimed and advised the President and his people that this was a special provision just for New York, there are instance after instance, in case after case after case, where other States received similar treatment, as they can and should have in order to push the tremendous cuts --15 percent-plus in some cases. There were going to be 25 percent cuts that hospitals dealing with a disproportionate share of this Nation's poor would otherwise have had to make. That is DSH payments. Let's understand what we are talking about. The average person--what are you talking about? What is this DSH? How do you take care, in large metropolitan areas in the North, the South, the East, and the West of our country, of those who do not have medical insurance? What do those hospitals do? Close their doors? Go bankrupt? Who is to pay for them? So there was a conscious effort by the committee to see to it that States with these disproportionate problems in terms of dealing with the uninsured, with those who had just Medicaid and Medicaid alone, who cannot sustain the operations of our medical centers, to give relief. Indeed, Mr. President, I believe if one were to add up the totality of the money provided, it would be in the area of $700 to $800 million that was given in relief to pushing the cuts that these States and these institutions would otherwise absorb. Let me give you just some of the States. Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont. Mr. President, to suggest that New York was the only one, indeed, New York could have been included. And if draftsmanship had been used, if we had known that we would have been singled out in this manner, I tell you we could have included the provision within the budget in such a way that all of these States including New York would have had to be vetoed then. Are we saying it is the poor of New York who should be disadvantaged? We don't begrudge help to those States that are needing it. This is not an attempt to game the system. And let me talk about that. There came a point in time when the Federal Government became aware that some States were gaming the system. In other words, certain States were guilty of scamming. That was wrong, and both Senator Moynihan and I provided the support, and it passed unanimously, that we put a stop to that. But let's understand that is not what New York was doing. For example, for those who were gaming the system, a provider would pay a $5,000 provider tax to the State. The State would then draw a matching $5,000 from the Federal Government and then reimburse the provider. It was a scam. It was simply a bookkeeping entry to get the Federal Government to pick up an expense that the State never really incurred and the provider did not incur. That is wrong. That is not our system. New York was not then and is not now involved in that scam. This wasn't an attempt to bill poor people for services and build roads or not use those moneys. That has never been the allegation. And, indeed, as a matter of fact, New York has had a long history of requiring insurers to pay assessments on hospital services. Thereby, that assessment over and above that particular service would go to help the poorest of the poor. And, indeed, we now have a program by utilizing these provider taxes that provides insurance for those families who could not purchase it for their youngsters. We provide up to 140,000 youngsters, children up to the age of 19, with insurance. It comes from this provider tax. Let me say that these assessments provide $1.1 billion a year in gross provider tax collections and are used for dealing with uninsured children, the poorest of the poor. The Balanced Budget Act contained language which specifically determined that New York provider taxes meet the legitimate requirements. That is what we did. Now, Mr. President, we have attempted for more than 2 years to get a resolve of this matter from HCFA. Nothing. Nothing. No response. Delay, delay, delay, delay. You can't do that to a community. You are not doing it just to a State government. That impacts on the lives of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people. Is that fair? And so, Mr. President, I find it incomprehensible and absolutely a tragedy that the President would have received this kind of advice. People, I believe, did not tell the President the entire story. I cannot believe that he really would want to veto a provision, the dollars of which are used to take care of the truly needy. I hope that between the time this legislation that we have introduced comes to a vote, we can get a resolve of this matter, not to deal with it in a confrontational, adversarial way, but in a way that makes sense, in a way that is fair, that is fair intellectually, that is fair morally, that is fair ethically. And I want to make it clear that I concede nothing. If we have to fight, why then we will, because this is a battle not about a State being treated fairly or unfairly but about its people and their needs. This is a battle that says that a State does have a right to raise revenues in a particular manner and to utilize them for the purpose which I have attempted to outline. I want to commend my colleague, who, as the ranking member of Finance and, indeed, the senior member on Budget, was there every moment of the negotiations, and never once were we told this is a special treatment.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, may I suggest the absence of a quorum so I will have an opportunity to concur with my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from New York? Let me say, No. 1, that I totally support his presentation as it related to the manner in which this veto took place. It is something that none of us were apprised of or aware of; that there had been extended negotiations with his administration during this process. It came as a total surprise. But I would like to take one moment and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, S. 1140, regarding Long Island drinking water protection be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, S. 1140, regarding Long Island drinking water protection be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I joined with Senators Moynihan, Chafee, Hatch, Graham, and Breaux recently in introducing S. 906, which would provide job creation incentives for our fellow 3.8 million American citizens in Puerto Rico. I am disappointed that these incentives were not included in the bill before us today, H.R. 2014, the Taxpayers Relief Act. S. 906 had the unified support of the public and private sectors in Puerto Rico, was endorsed by the President, and has received bipartisan support in Congress. It was my goal to include this job creation incentive in today's legislation. But because of extreme economic constraints on available resources, this was not possible. As a result of the changes made to tax incentives affecting Puerto Rico in 1993 and 1996, Puerto Rico has no Federal economic incentives to attract new businesses or jobs. Further, existing U.S. companies operating on the island have little incentive to make new investments or replace depreciating plant and equipment. This is inequitable and should be changed. Our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico, where there is an unemployment rate more than twice the national average, and well over 50 percent of its population living below the poverty line, can least afford to suffer economic setbacks. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to consider S. 906, or other incentives for economic growth in Puerto Rico at the first available opportunity. This legislation provides a wage-based tax credit that encourages U.S. companies to stay and expand on the island. We cannot wait until the damage is done. Puerto Rican Americans, no less than Americans living in the States, should be receiving the benefits of economic growth and job creation that the Taxpayer Relief Act provides to so many others.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, 2 million college faculty participants-- 260,000 in my State of New York--rely on TIAA and CREF pensions to provide retirement security. Participants know when they choose CREF, every contribution dollar goes to the retirement annuity accumulations, or payout company, CREF offers no guarantees nor does it maintain contingency reserves. Yet CREF performs functions similar to a separate account of a life insurance company by allowing retirees to receive variable annuity payouts. I would like to join Senator Moynihan and ask Senator Roth, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, to comment on the intent of the bill concerning the taxation of CREF?

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and distinguished colleague, Senator Moynihan, in introducing legislation that we believe will curb the devastating effects of acid rain in New York State and throughout the entire Nation. Our bill seeks to place controls on the emission of the pollutants that cause acid rain and acid deposition--Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)--beyond those levels enacted in the 1990 Clean Air Act. In this way, we will ensure that those entities that are primarily responsible for the pollution that affects down-wind States such as New York are held to the same strict accountability. New Yorkers know all too well that pollution transported from up-wind sources has had a devastating impact on the Adirondacks as well as other regions within the State. The prevalence of acid deposition has reached the point where the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] estimates that without further controls of nitrogen oxides, the number of acidic lakes in the Adirondacks could increase to 43 percent by the year 2040. Such an increase will see approximately 1,300 lakes out of the 3,000 in the Adirondacks become chronically acidic. Clearly, we must take action to prevent this from becoming a reality. Under the 1990 Clean Air Act, a cap on SO2 emissions was enacted. It was designed to reduce the overall level of this pollutant by 50 percent by the year 2000. To provide an incentive to decrease emissions even more, a system of trading allowances for SO2 was established. An ``allowance'' allows a utility to emit 1 ton of SO2 pollution. These trading allowances enable utilities that have reached their allowable emission caps for SO2 to buy another utility's excess capability. This ability to ``trade'' tons of SO2 has been popular with utilities and has actually brought significant reductions in the amount of SO2 emitted in a cost-effective manner. The legislation that we are introducing today builds on that success by instituting a NOx cap and trade program that we believe will have a positive impact on the environment. Under the bill, the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] would be required to allocate a capped number of NOx emission allowances nationwide--excluding Alaska and Hawaii. The EPA would base each State's allotment on the percentage share of power each State generates within the 48 contiguous States. So, if a particular State generates 5 percent of the power in the Continental United States, then that State would be entitled to 5 percent of the total emissions pool. Once a State had received its emission allowances, the State would be able to divide those allowances within the State in any manner it chooses. Utilities would be required to ensure that they have enough tons at their disposal to cover their total emission tonnage. If a State had additional tons, they would be able to sell allowances or ``bank'' them for use at a future time. A utility without enough allowances would have to buy them on the open market, an option currently in practice with SO2. Utilities that do not abide by these restrictions on capping and trading NOx allowances would be fined $6,000 per ton emitted over the established limit for that plant. States that are unwilling or unable to determine the allocation of allowances to utilities within their State would have that capability default to the EPA. The NOx trading program would go into effect in the year 2000 with an annual cap of 5.4 million allowances nationwide decreasing to 3 million allowances in 2003. Currently, utilities emit approximately 6.5 million tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx). The bill would also create further protections against harmful pollution during the summer months when ozone levels are at their highest. When NOx combines with heat, sunlight and volatile organic compounds [VOC's], the end product is ozone. Thus, ideal conditions for high levels of ground-level ozone occur mainly in the summer months. To combat this, the legislation calls for utilities to give up two allowances for each ton of NOx emitted during the months of May, June, July, August and September instead of the one allowance per ton that would apply for the remaining 7 months of the year. This would effectively drop the total emission of NOx to 2.3 million tons after the year 2003 and would create approximately a 70 percent reduction in NOx emissions from the 1990 level. In addition, the bill calls for further reductions in SO2 in the year 2003, when utilities will be required to use two allowances per ton of SO2 emitted instead of one. This would cut these emissions in half. The bill also requires the EPA to conduct a study on the effects that mercury, a toxic metal, may have on the environment and how to measure this mercury with an eye towards possible monitoring and control of mercury emissions in the future. Finally, the bill contains a provision for specific research on the effect of acid deposition on the sensitive ecosystems of the Adirondacks, the Southern Blue Ridge Mountains, the Mid-Appalachian Mountains and water bodies of the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain, Long Island Sound and the Chesapeake Bay. If proven by research that a particular region is still threatened, then the Administrator may take further steps to promote environmental recovery of that region. We in New York continue to see the effects that acid rain and acid deposition have on our environment. Lakes, streams and trees in the Adirondacks are still dying due to the continued emission and transport of these pollutants. Other states and other regions throughout our nation have similar problems. If we are to pass along a healthy environment to our children and grandchildren, we must be willing to enact the controls that will preserve that legacy. The legislation that Senator Moynihan and I have proposed is strong medicine, but it will enable us to sustain our heritage for generations to come.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to commend the conferees for the provisions of this legislation that establish new preventive care benefits within the Medicare Program. There has been some criticism of these provisions by those who do not see the wisdom of adding new Medicare benefits at a time when we are cutting over $110 billion from the program. However, at a time when we are forced to reduce program spending, our goal should be to make the overall program as cost- effective as possible. These new preventive benefits, particularly colorectal cancer screening, are both medically wise and economically smart. I am proud to have the opportunity to be in the Senate at a time when we enact these new benefits into law. I am pleased that the conference report provides that the determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services [HHS] regarding the coverage of the barium examination as a colorectal cancer screening provision will be made by January 1, 1998 or within 90 days of enactment, whichever is earlier. Given the recent recommendations of the American Cancer Society and reports by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research and other groups, I see no reason that HHS cannot meet this deadline. Medicare coverage of colorectal cancer screening takes effect on January 1, 1998. This deadline assures that the determination on Medicare coverage of the barium examination and other screening procedures will be made as the program goes into effect. I also note that the conference report incorporates language from the Senate provision directing the Secretary of HHS to consult with appropriate organizations in making the determination with regard to coverage of the barium examination and other new screening technology. The American Cancer Society is one of the organizations that HHS should consult with because that group, more than any other, represents the interests of cancer patients and their families. The new ACS guidelines, which I understand are based upon the results of a 2-year study by a panel of 16 experts on colorectal cancer, should be of great assistance to HHS in establishing the best possible colorectal cancer screening program for Medicare recipients. Mr. President, this budget agreement represents a major accomplishment for our Government, our economy, and our Nation as a whole. It also represents a major step forward for elderly Americans across this country. These new preventive benefits will help our senior citizens and save thousands of lives. I am glad to have had the opportunity to work on this legislation. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and distinguished colleague, Senator Moynihan, in introducing legislation that we believe will curb the devastating effects of acid rain in New York State and throughout the entire Nation. Our bill seeks to place controls on the emission of the pollutants that cause acid rain and acid deposition--Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)--beyond those levels enacted in the 1990 Clean Air Act. In this way, we will ensure that those entities that are primarily responsible for the pollution that affects down-wind States such as New York are held to the same strict accountability. New Yorkers know all too well that pollution transported from up-wind sources has had a devastating impact on the Adirondacks as well as other regions within the State. The prevalence of acid deposition has reached the point where the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] estimates that without further controls of nitrogen oxides, the number of acidic lakes in the Adirondacks could increase to 43 percent by the year 2040. Such an increase will see approximately 1,300 lakes out of the 3,000 in the Adirondacks become chronically acidic. Clearly, we must take action to prevent this from becoming a reality. Under the 1990 Clean Air Act, a cap on SO2 emissions was enacted. It was designed to reduce the overall level of this pollutant by 50 percent by the year 2000. To provide an incentive to decrease emissions even more, a system of trading allowances for SO2 was established. An ``allowance'' allows a utility to emit 1 ton of SO2 pollution. These trading allowances enable utilities that have reached their allowable emission caps for SO2 to buy another utility's excess capability. This ability to ``trade'' tons of SO2 has been popular with utilities and has actually brought significant reductions in the amount of SO2 emitted in a cost-effective manner. The legislation that we are introducing today builds on that success by instituting a NOx cap and trade program that we believe will have a positive impact on the environment. Under the bill, the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] would be required to allocate a capped number of NOx emission allowances nationwide--excluding Alaska and Hawaii. The EPA would base each State's allotment on the percentage share of power each State generates within the 48 contiguous States. So, if a particular State generates 5 percent of the power in the Continental United States, then that State would be entitled to 5 percent of the total emissions pool. Once a State had received its emission allowances, the State would be able to divide those allowances within the State in any manner it chooses. Utilities would be required to ensure that they have enough tons at their disposal to cover their total emission tonnage. If a State had additional tons, they would be able to sell allowances or ``bank'' them for use at a future time. A utility without enough allowances would have to buy them on the open market, an option currently in practice with SO2. Utilities that do not abide by these restrictions on capping and trading NOx allowances would be fined $6,000 per ton emitted over the established limit for that plant. States that are unwilling or unable to determine the allocation of allowances to utilities within their State would have that capability default to the EPA. The NOx trading program would go into effect in the year 2000 with an annual cap of 5.4 million allowances nationwide decreasing to 3 million allowances in 2003. Currently, utilities emit approximately 6.5 million tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx). The bill would also create further protections against harmful pollution during the summer months when ozone levels are at their highest. When NOx combines with heat, sunlight and volatile organic compounds [VOC's], the end product is ozone. Thus, ideal conditions for high levels of ground-level ozone occur mainly in the summer months. To combat this, the legislation calls for utilities to give up two allowances for each ton of NOx emitted during the months of May, June, July, August and September instead of the one allowance per ton that would apply for the remaining 7 months of the year. This would effectively drop the total emission of NOx to 2.3 million tons after the year 2003 and would create approximately a 70 percent reduction in NOx emissions from the 1990 level. In addition, the bill calls for further reductions in SO2 in the year 2003, when utilities will be required to use two allowances per ton of SO2 emitted instead of one. This would cut these emissions in half. The bill also requires the EPA to conduct a study on the effects that mercury, a toxic metal, may have on the environment and how to measure this mercury with an eye towards possible monitoring and control of mercury emissions in the future. Finally, the bill contains a provision for specific research on the effect of acid deposition on the sensitive ecosystems of the Adirondacks, the Southern Blue Ridge Mountains, the Mid-Appalachian Mountains and water bodies of the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain, Long Island Sound and the Chesapeake Bay. If proven by research that a particular region is still threatened, then the Administrator may take further steps to promote environmental recovery of that region. We in New York continue to see the effects that acid rain and acid deposition have on our environment. Lakes, streams and trees in the Adirondacks are still dying due to the continued emission and transport of these pollutants. Other states and other regions throughout our nation have similar problems. If we are to pass along a healthy environment to our children and grandchildren, we must be willing to enact the controls that will preserve that legacy. The legislation that Senator Moynihan and I have proposed is strong medicine, but it will enable us to sustain our heritage for generations to come.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, the Senate has accepted an amendment that Senator Moynihan and I offered to the fiscal year 1998 Transportation appropriations bill that I believe will help provide a measure of financial relief to the working men and women of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Putnam and Dutchess counties. Residents of these counties pay a premium price to commute each day into New York City by commuter railroad. Roughly half of these commuters then have to pay another fare to get to their final destination by bus or subway. Our amendment will require the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority [MTA] to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of providing a free subway or bus transfer to those persons who use the Long Island Rail Road [LIRR] or Metro North commuter railroad so that these daily riders may decrease their commuting costs. Recently, the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority [MTA] announced its MetroCard Gold program. This program for the first time provides free transfers for those who transfer between New York City buses and subways. In essence, the commuter who until now commuted from a two-fare zone now pays only one fare. This program will greatly benefit city commuters, saving them approximately $750 per year. It will also have a positive impact on the local economy and the environment. In addition, at my urging, the MTA will extend this single fare policy for similar bus-to-bus and bus-to-subway transfers for the MTA's 40,000 Long Island Bus commuters traveling between Long Island and New York City. It is estimated that these commuters will realize an average yearly savings of approximately $900 based on current fare structures. The intended goal of this policy is to create a seamless, integrated transportation system that will benefit commuters in the most transit- dependent region of our country and, indeed, the world. I commend Governor George Pataki and MTA Chairman Virgil Conway for this forward thinking initiative. What now needs to be determined is if this policy can be expanded. My amendment will require the Metropolitan Transportation Authority [MTA] to conduct a feasibility study, from funds made available to the MTA from the Federal Transit Administration, on extending this policy to New York's two commuter railroads. New York is home to the two largest commuter railroads in the Nation--the Long Island Rail Road [LIRR] and the Metro North railroad. Each day, approximately 235,000 commuters depend on these two railroads to get to work and back home again. Almost half of these commuters-- 108,000 or 46 percent--transfer to subways and buses once they arrive in New York City. They also repeat the trip in the evening as they head back to the train station. These are commuters who may pay $125, $175, $225 or more per month to take these two commuter railroads. On top of that, they can pay an additional $750 over the course of a year for that portion of their commute that occurs on the city's subways and buses. If we really want to create a seamless transit system, one that encourages more people to take the train and leave their cars at home, then Metro North and Long Island Rail Road commuters should be offered a free transfer to the City's subways and buses. In addition to the financial savings for commuters, the benefits to public health, the environment and the preservation of natural resources as well as the enhancements to the quality of life for these commuters should be powerful incentives to extend this single-fare policy. More than 100,000 Long Island Rail Road and Metro North rail commuters use New York's subway and bus systems daily. If it is feasible--and taking into consideration all factors--then the commuters who use Long Island Rail Road [LIRR] or Metro North and the New York City subway or bus systems should receive similar benefits as are available under the MTA's single-fare policy. This amendment will move us one step closer to that goal.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, I introduce the Homelessness Assistance and Management Reform Act of 1997 at the request of the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, I introduce the Homelessness Assistance and Management Reform Act of 1997 at the request of the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from California for yielding. I think it is just gratitude at this time because there is no one who has worked harder than Senator Feinstein in terms of the attempts to bring forward this passage. This will permit the Postal Service to go forward with a program that will pay for it itself and dedicate 70 percent of the net proceeds to cancer research at NIH and give the other 30 percent to the Department of Defense. We worked together on this with the House, and I think it is a great testimony to the dedication of bringing people together for a sole purpose. I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed in the Record at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside for up to 3 minutes; and I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1585, which was just received from the House.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I join my friend and colleague from the Banking Committee, Senator Sarbanes, to offer a bill that would authorize a congressional gold medal in recognition of the tremendous leadership role--in interfaith relations, international affairs, the promotion of global environmental protection, and the defense of human rights worldwide--of his all holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. In addition, we are submitting a concurrent resolution providing for the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony honoring Patriarch Bartholomew on his visit to the United States in late October of this year. The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is the 270th successor of the nearly 2,000 year old Orthodox Christian Church founded in 36 A.D. As the spiritual leader of the Orthodox Christian Church, Patriarch Bartholomew is the voice for nearly 300 million followers around the world--5 million of which live in the United States and are of Greek, Russian, Ukrainian, and Serbian descent. The contributions of these Americans to our history and culture exemplify the values, ideals, and dreams of this great Nation. A champion 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 faiths of America's multiethnic diversity. Patriarch Bartholomew has also sought to strengthen the bonds between Judaism and Orthodox Christianity. In 1994, he 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. 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 the human rights of victims of aggression. The impact of Patriarch Bartholomew's compassion is far-reaching. In the war-torn countries of the Balkans, Patriarch Bartholomew has helped to advance reconciliation among Catholic, Muslim, and Orthodox communities. Mr. President, Patriarch Bartholomew also cares very deeply for 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. Born in Turkey in 1940, Patriarch Bartholomew has selflessly dedicated his life to religious service. He is a graduate of the renowned Theological School of Halki, which was forced to close by the Turkish Government in 1971. This school must re-open as a basic matter of religious freedom. Patriarch Bartholomew has also received numerous honorary doctorates and academic honors from institutes and universities all across the globe. 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 our belief that Congress honor the work of this great leader in recognition of his outstanding and enduring contributions to: the freedom of the world's religions, world peace, conflict resolution and the rule of law, global environmental protection, the betterment of humankind, and the protection of dignity and human rights of every man, woman, and child. Therefore, Mr. President, it is fitting and appropriate that this body bestow the congressional gold medal upon a visionary for our times, his all holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. 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, today I join my friend and colleague from the Banking Committee, Senator Sarbanes, to offer a bill that would authorize a congressional gold medal in recognition of the tremendous leadership role--in interfaith relations, international affairs, the promotion of global environmental protection, and the defense of human rights worldwide--of his all holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. In addition, we are submitting a concurrent resolution providing for the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony honoring Patriarch Bartholomew on his visit to the United States in late October of this year. The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is the 270th successor of the nearly 2,000 year old Orthodox Christian Church founded in 36 A.D. As the spiritual leader of the Orthodox Christian Church, Patriarch Bartholomew is the voice for nearly 300 million followers around the world--5 million of which live in the United States and are of Greek, Russian, Ukrainian, and Serbian descent. The contributions of these Americans to our history and culture exemplify the values, ideals, and dreams of this great Nation. A champion 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 faiths of America's multiethnic diversity. Patriarch Bartholomew has also sought to strengthen the bonds between Judaism and Orthodox Christianity. In 1994, he 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. 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 the human rights of victims of aggression. The impact of Patriarch Bartholomew's compassion is far-reaching. In the war-torn countries of the Balkans, Patriarch Bartholomew has helped to advance reconciliation among Catholic, Muslim, and Orthodox communities. Mr. President, Patriarch Bartholomew also cares very deeply for 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. Born in Turkey in 1940, Patriarch Bartholomew has selflessly dedicated his life to religious service. He is a graduate of the renowned Theological School of Halki, which was forced to close by the Turkish Government in 1971. This school must re-open as a basic matter of religious freedom. Patriarch Bartholomew has also received numerous honorary doctorates and academic honors from institutes and universities all across the globe. 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 our belief that Congress honor the work of this great leader in recognition of his outstanding and enduring contributions to: the freedom of the world's religions, world peace, conflict resolution and the rule of law, global environmental protection, the betterment of humankind, and the protection of dignity and human rights of every man, woman, and child. Therefore, Mr. President, it is fitting and appropriate that this body bestow the congressional gold medal upon a visionary for our times, his all holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment relating to Department of Agriculture rural housing programs. I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman Cochran and Ranking Minority Member Bumpers for their consideration of this amendment and their continued commitment to providing affordable housing for our Nation's rural Americans. The Department of Agriculture has a number of successful housing programs under the auspices of its Rural Housing Service [RHS]. Although operated by the Department of Agriculture, rural housing programs are under the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. As chairman of the Banking Committee, I respectfully request the consideration of this much needed amendment. This amendment contains provisions which will permit important housing programs to continue in an uninterrupted and cost-efficient fashion. It includes 1-year extensions of housing programs which have expired or will expire in the near future. Specifically, the RHS Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Program, the RHS Section 538 Rural Rental Housing Loan Guarantee Program, and the RHS Underserved Areas Program would be extended until September 30, 1998. Due to the uncertainty of final passage of housing reauthorization legislation this year, these short-term extensions are essential. In addition, the amendment would alter the section 515 loan term and amortization schedule. This provision would change the loan term from 50 to 30 years, but allow the borrower to have the loan amortized for a period not to exceed 50 years. This statutory change incurs no cost to the American taxpayer, and is necessary to ensure that budget authority provided will support the administration's proposed fiscal year 1998 section 515 program level. The need for affordable housing in rural areas is severe. According to the 1990 census, over 2.7 million rural Americans live in substandard housing. In my home State of New York, 76 percent of renters are paying 30 percent or more of their income for housing. Approximately 60 percent of New York renters pay over 50 percent of their income for rent. The section 515 and section 538 programs are some of the few resources available to respond to this serious unmet housing need. Since its inception in 1962, the section 515 rental loan program has financed the development of over 450,000 units of affordable units in over 18,000 apartment projects. The program assists elderly, disabled, and low-income rural families with an average income of $7,200. The alteration of the section 515 loan term and amortization schedule will provide over 500 additional units. The section 538 program is a relatively young loan guarantee program which has already proven to have widespread national appeal. With a proposed subsidy rate of approximately 3 cents per $1, it is an example of cost-effective leveraging of public resources. I thank the Appropriations Committee for its recognition of the great need for these important rural housing programs and its steadfast commitment to ensuring that every Federal dollar appropriated serves the greatest number of our low-income rural Americans. I support immediate passage of this amendment. Thank you.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, one year ago today, our friend and former colleague in the other body, Hamilton Fish, died here in Washington. Ham and his forebears, statesman and patriots to a man, were gifts to our Nation's Capital from New York where they emerged from immigrant roots that were truly extraordinary in the American experience. In the years I knew Ham, I saw reflected in his bearing, his code of life, his approach to the law and devotion to public service, a man whose very genes held rich lessons of bravery, honesty, integrity and patriotism handed down from those who had formed this Nation, nurtured and served it since the 17th Century. And yet he never let on about the first Mayor of New York, the last Mayor of Brooklyn, a hero of the Battle of Yorktown who looks down from the nearby Rotunda's wall, the Secretary of State, the Senators, Rough Riders and Members of the House of Representatives who filled his family tree. An impressive lineage was not what was important to him. To Ham, what one did in the time allotted by God was what mattered. Officially, Hamilton Fish, was the 13-term Congressman from the Empire State's Hudson Valley, who from his earliest years in Congress wrestled with the turmoil of Watergate and the Vietnam war, the causes of civil rights, refugees, the environment, and a daily concern that Washington respond to and be a positive influence for his constituents and all Americans. He was neither a ``hawk'' nor a ``dove'' in the contentious and important issues of his time, but rather an impressive ``owl''--a wise owl, using head and heart, with the talons to fight a ferocious battle when needed, but possessing the sharp ears and keen eyes to recognize and counsel for the strength to be gained from collegial compromise; knowing the ways to bridge often great divides of politics and ideologies. Ham Fish was also a very private figure in our midst. The deep love he shared with his wife and family was obvious soon after first meeting him; but the little known, almost spiritual way he approached, planned and prepared for each and every one of his days until he died, whether for legislating, trout fishing or making a favorite soup recipe, being with his grandchildren near his beloved Hudson River or meeting with the famous or not so famous, was astonishing. Hamilton Fish the private man knew each and every day was to be cherished: taken all in all, of limited number and deserving to be filled with actions and thoughts that were positive, moral and strong. His memory will remain strong for all of us that worked with him. I hope those who are just beginning their lives of public service will take a moment today to think about Hamilton Fish of New York . . . a genuine gift to our nation.