Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to state my strong support for the VA-HUD Subcommittee's efforts to support funding in this legislation to combat the twin scourges of drugs and crime in low- income housing throughout the Nation. I am greatly encouraged by the subcommittee's action in maintaining $290 million in funding for the Drug Elimination Grant Program. Under this important program, the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] makes funds available to local housing authorities for the purpose of combating and preventing crime, including drug- related crime. Housing authorities have great flexibility in determining how best to use these funds to address local needs. Many authorities have used drug elimination funding to create and expand community policing efforts, to make capital improvements to improve security, to fund drug awareness, prevention, and treatment programs and to organize tenant patrols and neighborhood watch programs. I am also fully aware of the subcommittee's inclusion of $30 million for the New Approach antidrug program and I strongly support this provision. This funding will be available to help combat drugs and crime in non-federally assisted low-income housing which is too often overlooked in the traditional public housing programs. However, I would like to state my concern with one aspect of the structure of the account which provides funding for the Drug Elimination Program. This troubling aspect is the expansion of a set- aside for the Operation Safe Home initiative, administered by the HUD Office of Inspector General, within that account. Let me be clear, I do not question the effectiveness or usefulness of the Operation Safe Home initiative. This initiative has had gratifying success in confiscating guns and drugs from public housing. However, I am concerned with the source of funding for this initiative. By reducing the amount of funding available for drug elimination grants, we are effectively cutting into local efforts to combat crime and drugs. As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, the committee with authorizing jurisdiction over the multitude of HUD programs, I was pleased to cosponsor S. 462, the Public Housing Reform and Responsibility Act of 1997. This legislation, which was passed out of the Banking Committee on May 8, 1997 by a unanimous 18-0 vote, contains an important provision which would allow funding for the Operation Safe Home initiative to be provided from the HUD headquarters' reserve fund. I am convinced that this is a far more appropriate funding vehicle for this initiative. Like many other important HUD programs, such as public housing operating assistance and housing for the elderly and disabled, the administration requested a cut in the Drug Elimination Grant Program. This proposed $20 million cut would occur as a result of a set-aside within the program to fund the HUD inspector general's Operation Safe Home initiative. Mr. President, I am grateful that the VA-HUD Subcommittee did not follow the approach adopted in the House, and instead reduced the administration's recommended cut of $20 million to a $15 million cut. However, I believe that even this reduced cut in antidrug funding is too much and the full amount should be restored to the program. I express my wish to continue to work with the VA-HUD Subcommittee as we move toward conference with the House of Representatives on this important legislation. I am confident that attempts to increase this set-aside at conference will be unsuccessful and I am hopeful that together the Banking and Appropriations Committees can agree upon a more appropriate source of funding for the Operation Safe Home initiative. Mr. President, in conclusion, let me once again thank my good friend Senator Bond for his leadership and diligence in crafting a VA-HUD appropriations bill which makes tough choices with the limited amount of funds available. I look forward to working together as the process continues.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to express my appreciation to Senator Kit Bond for his efforts to provide funding within the VA- HUD Appropriations bill to expand homeownership activities through the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD]. In this regard, I note with particular appreciation the provision of $30 million in funding for the Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing program. This program was expanded and reauthorized by the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act [HOPE Act], which I was pleased to sponsor. It provides an unparalleled opportunity to support local housing and homeownership initiatives. Specifically, the HOPE Act provided for the support of housing organizations which utilize a self-help approach to homeownership opportunities. Mr. President, I would like to commend and bring to the attention of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee the outstanding efforts of one particular self-help housing provider located in my home state of New York. The Riverhead Revitalization and Preservation Corp. [Riverhead Corp.], under the guidance and leadership of Ms. Patricia Stark, utilizes donated labor from volunteers and potential homeowners to develop and rehabilitate homes on Long Island, NY. The Riverhead Corp. is helping to reverse the decline of neighborhoods by renovating blighted homes and providing a stake in the community for first-time homeowners. In addition, the Riverhead Corp. employs a revolving loan-fund strategy which reinvests proceeds from home sales in the further development of housing opportunities. Thus, the Riverhead Corp. helps to stimulate community revitalization, promotes job and business creation, and provides housing for deserving low- and moderate-income working families. I commend the efforts of the Riverhead Corp. to the Subcommittee and to HUD as a model of success which would be worthy of support under the self-help homeownership auspices of the Capacity Building program funded by this legislation. Once again, I would like to thank Senator Kit Bond for his efforts to support increased homeownership throughout the Nation.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today in support of my friend, Senator Kit Bond and his efforts to include funding for important community development programs within the VA-HUD Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998. In particular, I would like to highlight the provision of $12 million for the Community Outreach Partnerships Centers [COPC] program. I commend the subcommittee for its diligence in funding this program at this level. The COPC program provides assistance to public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education for a wide range of community outreach activities. These colleges and universities may utilize COPC funds to address a variety of local needs, including housing, economic development, neighborhood revitalization, job training, and crime prevention. The program thus utilizes and leverages the enormous resources of our institutions of higher learning to establish partnerships with local neighborhoods and communities to solve their common problems. Mr. President, I would like to applaud the outstanding community outreach efforts of Long Island University [LIU] located in my home State of New York and bring these efforts to the attention of the Subcommittee on VA-HUD Appropriations. Long Island University, founded in 1886, has a current enrollment of 24,000 students and conducts a variety of community oriented programs at each of its six New York campuses. LIU's various community outreach programs at its Brooklyn campus are particularly successful and well suited to the COPC program. For instance, the university operates a number of educational programs for senior citizens and New York City school students, including underprivileged and minority students. In addition, the university operates a small business development institute, a speech and pathology clinic which serves needy persons with disabilities free of charge, and a collaborative career development and cooperative education initiative. Mr. President, Long Island University has an outstanding track record of community involvement. It has formed successful partnerships with state and local governments, including the New York City Board of Education, as well as community and business groups. It has successfully leveraged additional funding from a wide variety of sources. I believe that its activities are a successful example of positive and constructive change within the community. I thank Senator Bond for his efforts and I commend the community outreach activities of Long Island University as a model for funding under the COPC program.

Mr. D'AMATO. First, I thank Chairman Bond and the ranking minority member, Senator Mikulski, for their tremendous leadership in developing this appropriations bill. I fully recognize the fiscal restraints under which the subcommittee must work to achieve our budgetary goals, and I commend them for effectively weighing our national priorities with those constraints. I file this amendment on behalf of my colleagues, Senator Moynihan, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Torricelli, because we have in the New York-New Jersey region a very difficult pressing problem. I rise today on behalf of New York's 1.7 million veterans, in particular, to address the expected loss of $180 million in veterans' health care funding over the next 3 years. What this amendment does is seek to ensure that the funding reallocation for the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation System, known as VERA, is distributed in a fair and reasonable manner. I want to respond to specific concerns with the data used by the VA to determine the allocation of health care resources to our Nation's veterans. This amendment would require the General Accounting Office to conduct a 4-month study, examining the factors relied upon by VERA and the Veterans Integrated Service Network to distribute health care funds. The study will focus on the following characteristics which are significant to New York, New Jersey, and to our veterans in the Northeast: First, the high number of special needs veterans residing in the Northeast States; second, the impact of eligibility reform on veterans; and third, the quality and accessibility of health care in the northeast region. In addition, the amendment would direct the Veterans Administration to fund all VISN's at their fiscal year 1996 level until the GAO study is received by the VA-HUD appropriations subcommittee. Mr. President, it is absolutely crucial for our veterans in New York that the factors I have just listed be considered by the VA as the VERA system continues to be implemented. It is imperative that the results of any GAO assessment of this VERA system being incorporated as soon as it is practicable because, without such consideration, the New York VA medical system could continue to suffer grievously. The effects of such a substantial funding cut--$180 million over 3 years--are something that we are very concerned about. For instance, a loss of VA services seems likely to have resulted in reduced levels of care. Two of New York's VA facilities, Montrose and Castlepoint, as well as others throughout the region, have suffered repeatedly. There are examples of poor care due to their ongoing merger under this system. Montrose and Castlepoint, two of the hospitals located in the Hudson Valley, have experienced skyrocketing mortality rates in both institutions. In addition, extremely poor health care and neglectful sanitary conditions have also been reported at both facilities, including: misdiagnosed infections and heart attacks; moldy suction tubes; patients lying for hours at a time in their own waste; and, in one report, a man dying for lack of a doctor as physicians conduct a meeting without their beepers. Question: Is this as a result of a lack of proper care? We have to find out the truth and be sure that the massive restructuring and relocation of resources is done fairly but safely. Mr. President, we are extremely concerned with concerned the effects of the VERA system on veterans health care in our Northeastern States. That is why I offer this amendment.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to commend my friend, Senator Kit Bond for his efforts as chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee to include $35 million in funding for the Youthbuild program. This innovative and successful program allows disadvantaged and at-risk youth to acquire educational and job skills and develop leadership abilities within their communities. In the process, the program helps to develop and rehabilitate physically distressed housing in order to provide decent, safe and affordable housing opportunities to low and moderate-income families. I also note that the subcommittee has instructed HUD to provide a priority in funding for program applicants that demonstrate an ability to leverage private and nonprofit funding. In this era of limited Federal funding, it is essential that our program dollars are stretched to the maximum extent possible. I fully support this important provision and believe it will result in a greater benefit for each Federal dollar provided and a greater amount of local community coordination and decisionmaking. I would like to bring one particular organization to the attention of the chairman and the ranking member, Senator Mikulski. The Bedford- Stuyvesant Restoration Corp. [Restoration] located in central Brooklyn has a 30-year legacy of economic development, job creation, and community building. Restoration currently operates an education and job training initiative, known as Career Path, which assists economically disadvantaged young adults, ages 16-24, to become productive members of the community by providing education and developing employment, citizenship, and leadership skills. I note that the Restoration Corp. has an outstanding record of successfully leveraging local, State, and private funding through private charities, foundation support, corporate sponsorship, and a variety of private fundraising efforts. One such effort recently resulted in Restoration receiving a 5 year $1.75 million grant from Cablevision, Inc. I believe Restoration's Career Path initiative represents a successful model which leverages private funding, invests in our youth and helps to revitalize the stock of affordable housing. By helping to fund Restoration's Career Path initiative, HUD can help to restore economic viability to the neighborhoods of central Brooklyn and assist at-risk young adults to become active and productive members of the community. Once again, I would express my appreciation and support for Senator Bond's continuing efforts to support successful housing and economic development initiatives.

Mr. D'AMATO. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Bond for his response. I thank him on behalf of the veterans of New York, New Jersey and, indeed, the whole Northeast region. I think we are appreciative of his efforts, and he recognizes the importance of these concerns. In particular, I am appreciative of the Senator's willingness to join me in ensuring that the GAO conducts a study which will specifically focus on the impact to the Northeast region. I understand that the Senator will join me in urging the Veterans' Administration to adopt GAO recommendations into its VERA system immediately. And because of the Senator's willingness to ensure that the New York and New Jersey VA health care needs are recognized and that the reallocation system will be fair and equitable, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, I will withdraw this amendment at this time. I thank the Senator, and I look forward to continuing to work with him on our veterans needs. So, Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment, and I thank my colleague, Senator Bond. I look forward to working with him, and I thank him for his responsiveness to this need.

Mr. D'AMATO. I thank you for your consideration and your continued commitment. I appreciate your willingness to continue this dialog and look forward to working with you throughout conference committee action to resolve this significant housing crisis in a fair and equitable manner.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Bond and Ranking Minority Member Mikulski for their steadfast recognition of the need to preserve our Nation's dwindling supply of affordable rental housing units. The Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 [LIHPRHA] is an important tool for maintaining this scarce resource. I appreciate your bill's provision of a structure for continuing a modified capital grant- capital loan program for housing preservation activities under the existing LIHPRHA program. As you are aware, there are almost 30,000 low-income rental units in 37 States that have been approved by HUD and are awaiting funding through this program. This represents a critical need for preservation of the existing stock, particularly in tight rental markets. In low vacancy rate areas, tenant-based rental assistance is often ineffective in meeting the housing needs of deserving low-income Americans. In New York City, for example, housing development and land acquisition costs are high and production of new affordable housing is very limited. Therefore, retaining the current housing stock is a cost-efficient and desirable means of meeting shelter needs.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, if I might ask my colleague to indulge me for one more moment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lautenberg's name be added also as an original cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I appreciate all that the chairman has done to accommodate the specific needs of military installations in New York. As you know, New York has been devastated by its losses from the last two BRAC rounds. However, the one positive effect of this paring down is that the remaining bases in New York are among the most efficient and effective in the world. That is why these military construction dollars are so important to New York State. One military base of particular concern to both Senator Moynihan and myself is Fort Drum in Watertown, NY. Fort Drum is home to the 10th Mountain Division. The mission of the 10th Mountain Division is to deploy rapidly anywhere in the world and be prepared to fight and win upon arrival. The 10th Mountain Division stands ready to depart Fort Drum and conduct operations anywhere in the world with minimal notice. The cornerstone to Fort Drum's preparedness is its high state of mission readiness. This readiness is sustained through intensive training and the most up-to-date, modern facilities. America continually asks our soldiers around the world to respond and they are always there for us. The 10th Mountain Division is the most frequently deployed division in the Army. It is only fair that Congress appropriate the necessary dollars to ensure that our troops remain the best in the world. Fort Drum has requested two very important projects that would greatly enhance readiness on the base and contribute to the 10th Mountain Division's extremely high response time. The first is an aerial gunnery range, funded at $17.5 million in the House. The proposed range will be an adequately sized and properly configured aerial gunnery range for Army rotary wing and Air National Guard fixed wing joint mission requirements. The facility and range area will enable the Air National Guard and Fort Drum range division to employ operations under the joint air attack team concept [JAAT] as well as consolidate existing operations to the northeast side of Fort Drum property for safe operations. Currently, rotary wing and fixed wing operations are conducted on separate sites across the Fort Drum installation. The second project is a military training and education center, funded at $6.9 million, to replace a number of widely scattered temporary 50-year old, inefficient and marginal World War II wood facilities. The center would make a valuable contribution to improving quality of life for soldiers, dependents and civilians at Fort Drum. Without the center, the condition of aging facilities will become less able to support the function and eventually continuing education opportunities for the population of Fort Drum will be negatively impacted. Last year, the Senate included this project in its version of the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization bill. I would hope that the House--Senate Conference Committee would include both of these important projects in the final conference report for fiscal year 1998.

Mr. D'AMATO. I wonder if the Chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee, Senator Burns, would yield for a question.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senator Grassley in the introduction of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers' Good Samaritan Act. This bill is essential to protect trained federal law enforcement officers who want to offer assistance when they witness a crime but are afraid of the repercussions afterwards if it is not a crime defined under their agency's authorizing statute. Agents in the federal law enforcement community are charged with the investigation of criminal activities defined in their authorizing statute. For example, DEA agents investigate drug crimes and a Secret Service agent's role is limited to financial crimes. If acting ``within the scope of their employment'', meaning they deal with only those crimes listed in their agency's authorizing statute, the actions of the Special Agent will not result in personal liability. In addition, the employing agency may assign counsel or provide worker's compensation if the Special Agent was injured in the line of duty. However, when an off-duty Federal Agent witnesses the commission of a violent crime, such as a DEA agent witnessing a robbery, the intervention is deemed to be outside the scope of his or her employment. Unfortunately, that special agent's intervention may subject the off-duty Federal Law Enforcement Agent to personal liability--without the protections afforded them if they were on duty. There are few cases nation-wide but it has affected the intervention of our Federal Law Enforcement Officers. In one instance, two DEA agents on a surveillance saw a parked car occupied by a man and a young woman. The car was not part of the surveillance. This did not stop the agents from intervening when they saw the young woman struggling with the man and screaming for help. Their assistance was not ``within the scope of their employment'' but these trained agents wanted to help, using their expertise in crisis situations. The DEA agents certainly were not thinking a lawsuit when they intervened but because their actions were outside the scope, they were acting as private citizens-- subjecting their personal assets to a lawsuit. Federal agents who unexpectedly encounter violence in our communities face an unconscionable choice: 1.) stand by and allow the violence to occur; 2.) refuse help to the victim and allow the perpetrator to escape; or 3.) intervene as a private citizen and risk bankruptcy by a potential lawsuit. Currently, there exists no federal statute authorizing Federal Special Agents to intervene during the commission of certain violent crimes outside the scope of their statutory authority, and protecting their personal assets when they assist someone in need. I urge my colleagues to review the merits of this bill and join in this effort to relieve the fear of our specially trained law enforcement agent and possibly encouraging their intervention when citizens need it the most. This bill explicitly defines when a specially trained agent may be protected if he or she offers assistance ``outside the scope of their employment''. These instances are limited to: (A) the protection of any person in his presence from the imminent infliction of bodily harm; (B) offering immediate help to any victim who suffers bodily harm in his presence; and (C) preventing the escape of any person he reasonably believes to be responsible for inflicting, attempting or threatening to inflict, bodily harm to another in his presence. It will provide the Agent with the same qualified immunity that he has if the act was within the ``scope of his employment'': counsel will be provided to the agent, the Federal Government will indemnify for the damages caused, worker's compensation will be available. This bill will not curtail the rights of an injured party. It does not prevent an injured party from suing for damages incurred during the intervention by the Agent nor will it restrict the amount of damages that an injured party may receive if the court finds that the Agent acted unreasonably. This bill will not expand the powers or authorities of Federal law enforcement agencies or give Federal law enforcement agents authority to investigate or to direct any state or local law enforcement body, usurping the powers of the state or local law enforcement agencies, outside of their jurisdiction. Finally, this bill will not restrict the filing of criminal charges if the action of the Agent fits the current statutory definition. Federal law enforcement agents need this protection and I urge its passage.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senator Grassley in the introduction of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers' Good Samaritan Act. This bill is essential to protect trained federal law enforcement officers who want to offer assistance when they witness a crime but are afraid of the repercussions afterwards if it is not a crime defined under their agency's authorizing statute. Agents in the federal law enforcement community are charged with the investigation of criminal activities defined in their authorizing statute. For example, DEA agents investigate drug crimes and a Secret Service agent's role is limited to financial crimes. If acting ``within the scope of their employment'', meaning they deal with only those crimes listed in their agency's authorizing statute, the actions of the Special Agent will not result in personal liability. In addition, the employing agency may assign counsel or provide worker's compensation if the Special Agent was injured in the line of duty. However, when an off-duty Federal Agent witnesses the commission of a violent crime, such as a DEA agent witnessing a robbery, the intervention is deemed to be outside the scope of his or her employment. Unfortunately, that special agent's intervention may subject the off-duty Federal Law Enforcement Agent to personal liability--without the protections afforded them if they were on duty. There are few cases nation-wide but it has affected the intervention of our Federal Law Enforcement Officers. In one instance, two DEA agents on a surveillance saw a parked car occupied by a man and a young woman. The car was not part of the surveillance. This did not stop the agents from intervening when they saw the young woman struggling with the man and screaming for help. Their assistance was not ``within the scope of their employment'' but these trained agents wanted to help, using their expertise in crisis situations. The DEA agents certainly were not thinking a lawsuit when they intervened but because their actions were outside the scope, they were acting as private citizens-- subjecting their personal assets to a lawsuit. Federal agents who unexpectedly encounter violence in our communities face an unconscionable choice: 1.) stand by and allow the violence to occur; 2.) refuse help to the victim and allow the perpetrator to escape; or 3.) intervene as a private citizen and risk bankruptcy by a potential lawsuit. Currently, there exists no federal statute authorizing Federal Special Agents to intervene during the commission of certain violent crimes outside the scope of their statutory authority, and protecting their personal assets when they assist someone in need. I urge my colleagues to review the merits of this bill and join in this effort to relieve the fear of our specially trained law enforcement agent and possibly encouraging their intervention when citizens need it the most. This bill explicitly defines when a specially trained agent may be protected if he or she offers assistance ``outside the scope of their employment''. These instances are limited to: (A) the protection of any person in his presence from the imminent infliction of bodily harm; (B) offering immediate help to any victim who suffers bodily harm in his presence; and (C) preventing the escape of any person he reasonably believes to be responsible for inflicting, attempting or threatening to inflict, bodily harm to another in his presence. It will provide the Agent with the same qualified immunity that he has if the act was within the ``scope of his employment'': counsel will be provided to the agent, the Federal Government will indemnify for the damages caused, worker's compensation will be available. This bill will not curtail the rights of an injured party. It does not prevent an injured party from suing for damages incurred during the intervention by the Agent nor will it restrict the amount of damages that an injured party may receive if the court finds that the Agent acted unreasonably. This bill will not expand the powers or authorities of Federal law enforcement agencies or give Federal law enforcement agents authority to investigate or to direct any state or local law enforcement body, usurping the powers of the state or local law enforcement agencies, outside of their jurisdiction. Finally, this bill will not restrict the filing of criminal charges if the action of the Agent fits the current statutory definition. Federal law enforcement agents need this protection and I urge its passage.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment along with Senator Helms and Senator Faircloth. My amendment would provide that none of the funds appropriated for the new arrangements to borrow [NAB] by the International Monetary Fund could be made available until the relevant authorizing committees have reviewed these provisions and authorizing legislation has been enacted. The Clinton administration and the International Monetary Fund have asked Congress to give the IMF $3.5 billion of the taxpayer's money to support the new arrangements to borrow. The NAB is an arrangement where 25 participating countries agree to lend funds to the IMF, in predetermined amounts, whenever the organization believes those funds are needed to forestall or cope with an impairment of the international monetary or to deal with an exceptional situation that poses a threat to the stability of that system. This appropriations bill supports this request by including $3.5 billion for the NAB. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the authorizing committees have not had an opportunity to review these new arrangements to borrow. We need to have hearings and fully review these provisions, which have significant consequences for the American taxpayer. We simply can't give an international bureaucracy such as the IMF a blank check without a thorough review by the relevant congressional committees. My amendment would simply do this--give us the opportunity to fully examine this proposal. Amendment No. 917 On page 30, line 9, after the word ``Act'' insert ``or the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961''.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and my good friend, Senator Domenici, and Senator Reid for giving me this opportunity to address what I consider to be the acts of a courageous individual and the fact that the House today acted in a bipartisan manner, unanimously passing S. 768, a bill to give to Christopher Meili the opportunity to live in this country, and to say once again that America understands the courage exhibited by Christopher Meili in his extraordinary action in reporting and making public the destruction of documents in Switzerland at great peril to himself and to his family. He was ostracized for this act. He was threatened with death. His family, his two children, can no longer live in their own country. Once again, America has opened its heart and its doors. The House, in an extraordinary act, has given him the opportunity to live here, to work here, to raise his family. Christopher Meili is a noble man whose actions ennobled all of us, and he has suffered greatly for his courage in exposing the truth. Now he simply desires to live in freedom here in America with his family, and now he can. I spoke to Christopher earlier today and told him that the House of Representatives had completed action and that it had passed the legislation, and now it awaits the President's signature. I am certain that the President will continue the process of making possible Christopher's staying here in this country and giving to him the freedom that he yearns for himself and his family. Mr. President, I commend those of my colleagues who, by way of their action in passing this legislation, have given Christopher an opportunity to live here in this country, and we once again demonstrate that we understand the extraordinary sacrifices that this young man made in the cause of freedom. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to cointroduce legislation with Senator Moynihan that would greatly assist economic development in Syracuse, NY. This legislation concerns Hancock Field in Syracuse. There are two parcels of land there that the Air Force Base Conversion Agency intends to dispose of, and would be of great value to the Hancock Field Development Corp. In this amendment, we ask that these parcels of land be conveyed to the corporation so that they may use the land to further economic development in the region and increase jobs. The first parcel of land was formerly the base housing management area. It is at a strategic spot on Performance Drive because it is needed to complete a major access way to the industrial airpark. The second parcel is 15 acres at the center of the airpark which is currently the site of the 152d Air Control Group, which is moving to a new location very soon. This parcel is owned by the Federal Government and will be declared surplus and disposed of through the traditional GSA property disposal process, rather than the BRAC disposal process. These small actions will have a big effect on the redevelopment at Hancock. I am very pleased that this amendment has been agreed to. I would also like to thank Chairman Thurmond and Senator Levin, the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee. Their leadership in getting this important legislation passed was very instrumental. amendment no. 813 (Purpose: To authorize a land conveyance, Havre Air Force Station, Montana, and Havre Training Site, Montana) On page 409, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me first say there are very few colleagues for whom I have greater respect and who are more knowledgeable in the areas of national security than the distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi, Senator Cochran. Indeed, he raises a very valid and natural concern that we have with respect to nuclear proliferation and the ability to enhance systems by way of the computer, the supercomputer in particular, and the need for proper balance in terms of export controls. That has been something which the Banking Committee has had jurisdiction over and has grappled with over the years. So, while I am sympathetic to the concerns that are raised, I just have to think that the issues of computer sales to foreign countries, as Senator Cochran has made clear to the Senate, is one that is so important that it really deserves much more analysis and much more debate than can be allowed for this floor amendment. Indeed, as the chairman of the Banking Committee's International Finance Subcommittee, I believe that Senator Grams has offered an amendment that is worthy of our support, because what it would do, it would allow the entire Senate to ascertain, by way of the kind of comprehensive analysis that we need by the General Accounting Office as it relates to what security needs may be open at the present time, what concerns are related to the sales of the high MTOPS computers to Tier 3 countries and what impact they may or may not have on this legislation that has been proposed. I think Senator Grams' amendment is the proper way to proceed, to give us an opportunity, not to just dive in after 45 minutes or 1 hour's worth of debate. We need the careful scrutiny, the careful study, to ascertain is there an availability of these computers to such an extent that this really becomes a meaningless impediment to our own trade? Will there be other countries in Europe and other areas that will rush to fill the vacuum? That is what I have been told. That may not be correct, but let's ascertain, let's find out. That is what Senator Grams' second-degree amendment would accomplish. It seems to me that makes sense. It would require the Commerce Committee to publish a list of questionable military and nuclear end users, with certain exceptions when sources and methods would be jeopardized. That is what we have to know. Let me depart just for a moment, if I might. If we want to do something as it relates to nuclear proliferation, let's say to some of those countries who are looking to get most-favored-nation trading status, or continue it, that you cannot be exporting--when we know they are exporting--the kind of missile systems and delivery systems which China is today exporting. That becomes something of a controversy. Let's find out how many of my colleagues are going to be willing to stand up to the business interests who look the other way and don't look at our national security interests or don't look at the abuse of human rights and the crackdown on religious freedoms that take place now or the forced sterilization of people. That is what is going on in China. They present, Mr. President, a very real and clear and present danger to the security of the world and to world peace by exporting to Iran and to other countries delivery systems and all kinds of enhancement of weapons systems which will endanger world peace. If we really want to do something, let's take that up, but to simply come forward at this point in time without the proper kind of analysis--again, Senator Grams should be commended because his second- degree amendment would say, ``OK, let's make a detailed analysis,'' and not come down on the floor and raise this. I think this is what we have to do. So not only on a jurisdictional basis would I have problems supporting the Cochran amendment, but basically on the basis of fact. I don't think we should just raise jurisdiction and say, ``That's within my committee, and, therefore, I want it to come through my committee.'' I sometimes get upset about that. If it is good legislation, so what if it didn't come through the committee process properly, particularly when we are talking about matters of national security. So I don't just raise that, but it does need the kind of careful thought, careful analysis that Senator Grams' amendment calls for. For that reason, I hope that we support overwhelmingly this cautious approach to making analysis of whether or not the export of the MTOPS to Tier 3 countries should go through another process with Government bureaucrats analyzing and never coming to a decision. I think that would be a mistake. Again, let's take a look at China: $50 billion surplus in trade, and yet she does what she wants, and she claims she wants friendship with us. I think on the altar of the almighty dollar, we just continue business as usual. I am more concerned about saying to them, ``You can't be our friend on one hand, you can't be enjoying a $50 billion trade surplus with us and then have a half a billion dollar industry that your generals are running,'' and we say, ``Oh, no, don't rock the boat.'' Do we really want to stop nuclear proliferation? Do we want to stop the export of deadly weapons systems? Let's do it when we have some clout, and we do have some clout. But I am afraid we will succumb to those who say, ``Oh, we can't do this, we'll lose a lot of jobs here in this country if we stand up to that kind of activity.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today, I am proud to sponsor a bill which attacks drug traffickers by making it harder for these criminals to profit from their illegal windfalls. We have long known of the terrible price our communities pay because of drug abuse; the dashed hopes and dreams and the shattered lives of millions of Americans. The Congress, and the Administration, have a responsibility to do everything we can to restore those dreams and rebuild these communities. Drug kingpins and cartels are destroying our neighborhoods and poisoning our children. Unless we put an immediate stop to this criminal behavior, drug lords will continue to penetrate our schools and families. Mr. President, through money laundering, drug traffickers are able to take their blood money and launder it clean. These ill-gotten gains are then filtered throughout our economy. Money laundering sustains drug and arms dealers, as well as terrorists and other criminals searching for a way to prolong their illegal enterprises. Tax evasions, and trade and insurance fraud are the related byproducts of money laundering. Money laundering robs our Nation's financial institutions of their most valuable asset--their integrity. By abusing the Nation's financial institutions, the launderers increase their wealth and power often by purchasing land and buildings with these illicit funds. So it soon becomes impossible to distinguish drug money from wealth earned by hard working taxpayers. Day in, day out, the drug lords relentlessly peddle their products of death and misery for huge profits. While our police are hampered by their inability to effectively target large cash transactions. This bill sends the message that ``enough is enough.'' It hands our law enforcement agencies the tools to hit the criminals where it hurts--in the pocketbook. Mr. President, the bill has three major provisions: First, It requires the Treasury Secretary to create a national money laundering strategy and report to Congress. Second, It allows the Secretary to designate ``high risk zones" where money laundering is concentrated. Third, The high risk zones will be eligible for law enforcement assistance and technical assistance and antimoney laundering grants. This bill is not based on hypotheticals--it was not drafted out of thin air--it is based on hands-on experience of what has worked for our drug enforcement agencies. We have learned that the most effective method of fighting this problem is for law enforcement agencies to work together. That is why we have called for a national strategy. And that is why the bill directs the Secretary to give special preference to law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies that coordinate activities when awarding grants to combat money laundering. This approach has proven successful in a recent New York undercover operation known as ``El Dorado''. This joint law enforcement effort used a Treasury Department tool known as a GTO-Geographic Targeting Order. Under the GTO, designated money remitters were required to report detailed information about all cash transfers to Columbia over $750. The results of Operation ``El Dorado'' were phenomenal: Cash transfers by three major remitters plummeted from $67 million to $2 million; The overall number of transactions by those same remitters dropped 95 percent and the dollar amount dropped 97 percent; There has been $30 million in currency seizures, three arrests and one conviction. Most importantly, Operation ``El Dorado'' disrupted the profit flow from the United State to the drug cartels. Operation El Dorado was a huge success--but it was limited by the nature of the GTO itself--it is a temporary legal device. We need to stop these criminals forever! Our experience in New York demonstrates that only a comprehensive and cooperative solution will achieve results. We must take decisive and immediate steps to stop this insidious cancer from rotting away at our country's legitimate economy and financial system. This bill would essentially put in place a permanent GTO in high risk areas.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to call to my colleagues' attention a column by Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post that was published in today's edition on page A19. This column is entitled ``'Diktat' From Washington,'' and discusses what happened after the announcement that the United States would support only the admission of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary into NATO. As Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, better known as the Helsinki Commission, I held a series of hearings on human rights and NATO enlargement, and last week released a Commission report assessing the readiness of candidate states to join the Alliance, based upon our evaluation of their human rights compliance. In the course of these hearings, I expressed my support for the inclusion of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Romania in the first round of NATO expansion. Now, Mr. Hoagland has recounted how the U.S. policy choice was conveyed to our allies and how they received it, both before and at the Summit of the Eight, just concluded in Denver. I commend this account to my colleagues and suggest that they consider what Hoagland calls the creation of at least a temporary line dividing nations that suffered equally under Soviet rule, and its probable consequences in central and eastern Europe. While I do not believe that equality of suffering is the standard by which candidate NATO members should be judged, I am afraid that omitting Slovenia, Romania, and the Baltic states could cause future problems that could be avoided if we admitted them now. I will have more to say on this subject as we approach the Madrid Summit. Mr. President, I ask that the aforementioned Jim Hoagland column be printed in the Record. The column follows: [From the Washington Post, June 25, 1997] Diktat From Washington (By Jim Hoagland) NEW YORK--The devil that always lurks in the details of cosmic feats of diplomacy has suddenly emerged to jab President Clinton's plans for NATO expansion with several sharp pitchforks. The pitchforks will not derail the administration's rush for expansion of the Atlantic alliance. But they could tarnish an event Clinton had confidently expected to be a crown jewel in his presidential legacy--the NATO summit in Madrid two weeks away. That meeting now will be approached without great enthusiasm by many of America's European allies, who are disturbed by what some see as an American attempt to ``dictate'' to them who will be admitted as new members of the alliance. France and a half-dozen other countries will continue to press at the Madrid summit to add Romania and Slovenia to the list of approved candidates, French President Jacques Chirac told Clinton in Denver last weekend during the Summit of the Eight, according to a senior French official aware of the contents of the conversation. The French do not expect to shake America's insistence that only the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland will be issued invitations at Madrid on July 7. All 16 members accept those three candidates; nine of the 16 favor expanding expansion to five. But Chirac's remarks represent a rebuff for an American attempt to shut off debate on the numbers game. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott convoked the ambassadors from NATO states on June 12 and delivered what diplomats from three of America's closest allies described to me later as a ``Diktat'' that stunned them. The normally elegantly mannered Talbott's demand for silence would have done justice to Ring Lardner's great line: ``Shut up,'' he explained.'' The tone between Clinton and Chirac in Denver was far more cordial, but their failure to agree was clear: ``Each one spoke as if disappointed that he had not been able to convince the other of a very good argument,'' a French official said. The Clintonites feel they minimize the initial problems of expansion by sticking to three clearly qualified candidates. Chirac argues that rejection of Romania is unfair, immoral and certain to further destabilize NATO's troubled southern flank. The bilateral French-U.S. meeting at the economic summit also failed, as expected, to resolve differences between Paris and Washington on internal NATO command arrangements. This means that the original U.S. hope that France would formally rejoin NATO's military command at the Madrid gathering and make it an even more glittering celebration has to be abandoned. A third maximum U.S. goal got hooked by gremlins at Denver when President Boris Yeltsin made it clear that Russia would not treat the Madrid summit as a high-level celebration of unity and harmony. Yeltsin curtly rejected a suggestion that he attend the gathering, saying pointedly that he would send his ambassador in Madrid instead. Later he was inveigled to upgrade Russia's representation to a deputy prime minister. Chirac, who worked hard to persuade Washington not to back Yeltsin into a corner on NATO expansion, finds Yeltsin much more at ease now that NATO and Moscow have signed an agreement establishing a NATO-Russia Council. Russian participation in the Denver summit provided Yeltsin with good arguments to use to explain NATO expansion to the Russian public, Chirac believes. Yeltsin, Chirac and other Europeans seem to fear that the Clintonites will attempt to turn Madrid into an event that combines holding a beauty contest for potential members and a crowning of the American president as king of NATO. The Czechs, Poles and Hungarians could hardly be blamed for using Madrid and its invitation to NATO as a seal of approval by the world's most important capitalist powers. They will advertise their NATO-approved stability to potential investors considering putting money into investment-hungry Central and Eastern Europe, widening the gap between them and Romania, Bulgaria, et al. That situation draws at least a temporary line dividing nations that suffered equally under Soviet rule. But the administration is unwilling to discuss publicly and frankly the consequences of that line-drawing. Nor does it squarely address the existential questions that its vague promises of future NATO expansion raise for the Baltics, Ukraine and other former Soviet republics want into the organization. Those questions will be forced on the administration in the U.S. Senate when it comes time to amend the alliance treaty and discuss U.S. responsibilities in Europe. Madrid, with all its devilish but surmountable details, is the beginning of a grand debate, not the end.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, to submit concurrent resolution to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the first Women's Rights Convention through the issuance of a U.S. postage stamp. American women in the middle part of the 19th century had few distinguishable rights. They did not possess the right to vote, participate in government and if married, were not allowed to own property or keep wages if they worked outside of the home. In the summer of 1848, a group of five women sought to change these circumstances. On July 19 and 20, 1848, 300 women and men converged on Wesleyan Methodist Church in Seneca Falls, NY to consider ``the social, civil and religious condition of women'' at that time. Led by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Jane Hunt, Ann McClintock and Martha Wright, a Declaration of Sentiments was presented to the audience which listed among them ``all men and women are created equal'' and that ``women's political equality with man is the legitimate outgrowth of the fundamental principles of our government as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.'' This historic Convention marked a turning point in the condition of women in American society. The public airing of the Declaration of Sentiments began a progressive pursuit of equality for women that has endured to this day. The issuance of this stamp will honor the courage that these early leaders had in presenting their convictions and pursuing change for all women. Through the issuance of a commemorative stamp, the commitment to women's rights will be celebrated. I encourage my colleagues to join Senator Moynihan and me by cosponsoring this measure.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, a number of recent studies have demonstrated that investments in medical research can lower health care costs through the development of more cost-effective treatments. Greater funding for research will also increase our ability to combat diseases which are very costly to our Nation's health care system. We voted on May 21, 1997, 98 to 0, to double the amount of funding for NIH so we can advance our biomedical research capabilities. This impressive show of support from this body will help reduce health care costs and increase the quality of health for all of our citizens. Voting to increase funding was easy. Now comes the hard part. Where do we get the money? We must not take money from other vital programs such as food stamps or senior citizen benefits. Can we afford to give more money for breast cancer research and take away money from programs for children? There would be no end to the debate on which is more worthy of our priorities. There is a better way to get funds for biomedical research without cutting from other programs. I suggest that each year the Secretary of the Treasury determine whether the actual revenue impact of the capital gains provisions of this bill are more positive--more revenues gained or less lost--than levels called for in revenue scoring of this provision. If the impact is more positive, half of the revenues will be put toward deficit reduction. We could then take the other half and deposit it into a National Fund for Health Research. This fund will expand support for medical research through the National Institutes of Health [NIH]. I believe that if we acquire the money for the fund in this way we can avoid hurting other programs. Using money when there is a more positive revenue will keep us within the bounds of the balanced budget agreement. I don't believe there is a better place to put this excess money than in the research fund. Mr. President, every one of us, the entire Senate called for an increase in funding for biomedical research. Again, I suggest that there is no better place to put the more positive revenue than in this fund. I believe that the establishment of this trust fund should be made in the same cooperative spirit that brought the entire Senate to agree to increase funding on May 21. We can then go home feeling proud that we did all we could to further advance our country's medical capabilities and in time reduce the costs of our entire health care system. Mr. President, we voted 98 to 0 to do this. This is a matter which we can prove that we meant it. Any additional moneys will go to deficit reduction and to NIH.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, thousands of Italian-Americans became innocent victims of wartime fever--a panicked and a paranoid reaction that all people of foreign extraction linked to belligerent countries were spies, sabatours and un-American. Fear of fifth columnists and quisling-type activities led government officials to abridge the civil rights of Americans who came from warring countries. Patriotic propaganda villifying the treachery of sneak attacks, blitzkrieg and totalitarian domination had an effect on the homefront view of Italian, German and Japanese immigrants as well as naturalized citizens, inducing discrimination. Initial mistakes were magnified by protective zeal into wholesale judgements about aliens, which led to the detainment, internment and harassment of these people. That is why, Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues Senator Chafee and Torricelli to right a terrible wrong that happened in this country over 50 years ago. In a country that so cherishes its equality among men and women, and boasts its democratic process, the United States has a dark spot in its history. Most Americans are not aware of the tragedy experienced by so many fellow citizens over half a century ago, a tragedy committed by the American government against people of Italian descent. In early 1942, 600,000 aliens of Italian descent were deemed to be ``enemy aliens'' and were forced to re-register and carry identification. Our government restricted their travel to their neighborhoods and classified normal household items, such as shortwave radios, cameras, flashlights and weapons as contraband material in their possession. On February 19, 1942, an Executive Order was issued giving the Secretary of War the authority to exclude American citizens as well as alien enemies, from such areas as the Secretary should designate. Americans now realize that this provision began a dark period of American history, authorizing the internment of immigrants residing in the United States as well as American citizens. While most Americans are aware of the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, few are aware that Italians and German legal residents of the United States were also restricted. Italian immigrants, Italian-Americans and their families were viewed as a genuine threat to American security at the beginning of World War II. Fear and ethnic bias led to the relocation of nearly 10,000 members of the Italian community from their homes on the West Coast. Hundreds of people were taken from their homes and brought to guarded army camp in areas as far east as Minnesota. And all this effort and anxiety for naught- even by war's end, not a single act of sabotage was attributable to Italian-Americans. On the contrary, Italians fought in America's victorious forces in the European and Asian theater and thousands made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation's survival. As one could imagine, the effects on these families were disastrous. Four men committed suicide. These men (Martini Battistessa, Guiseppe Micheli, Giovanni Sanguenetti and Stefano Terranova) suffered at the hands of government officials. Italian American fisherman were grounded, their livelihood gone. Several experts have taken a look at the treatment of Italian Americans during the early 1940's. Stephen Fox wrote a book called The Unknown Internment: An Oral History of the Relocation of Italian Americans during World War II. In the preface, Stephen Fox describes the horrific treatment of people whose only crime was being of Italian descent in America during World War II. Salvatore J. LaGumina, Professor of History and Director of the Center for Italian American Studies at Nassau Community College wrote an article in the Italian American Review called ``Enemy Alien: Italian Americans During World War II''. In the article he states: ``A ban on Italian language radio programs affected stations in New York City and Boston. Various Italian American newspapers suspended publication at least during the war years and in some instances ceased publication permanently. Customary Italian religious feast celebrations were likewise deferred or significantly diminished . . . In Westbury, Long Island, most Italian American organizations suspended their traditional feast celebrations for the duration of the war except for the Dell'Assunta Society which insisted it be allowed to march on the village streets during its festival, on the grounds that it was a religious not an ethnic celebration. Robert Masulla, writing for the Italic Way Newsletter, cited that Italian immigrant fishermen were denied their livelihood and some ``even had their boats impounded by the U.S. government and utilized for patrol and minesweeping duties''. It was not until October 12, 1942 that Italian immigrants were removed from the enemy alien category. Mr. Fox's historical study indicated that the internment effort was abandoned because the alien relocation would overly tax the U.S. Army's already over-extended logistical network, threaten the defense industry and lower civilian morale. In 1988, this body finally faced a terrible past that we could no longer ignore--the internment of immigrants from Japan or Japanese- Americans. Now it is time to provide recognition and remorsefulness for the treatment of Italian aliens and Italian Americans who had to endure the horrific actions of our own government--a government that has stood for freedom, not oppression. That is why I have joined with my colleagues in the House of Representatives, particularly its lead sponsors, Congressmen Engel and Lazio, to introduce this bill, the ``Wartime Violation of Italian American Civil Liberties Act''. Its provisions are clear and straight- forward: It recognizes the treatment of Italian Americans during World War II. It calls on the President to formally acknowledge that the civil liberties of Italian Americans were violated in the United States in the early 1940's. It encourages federal agencies to support projects which increase the public's awareness of the internment of Italians during the Second World War. It states that the President and Congress provide direct funding in order to educate the American public through a film documentary, particularly to document the testimony of the survivors of the internment. It recommends the formation of an advisory committee to assist in the compilation of historical data, to accurately reflect the incidents that transpired. It calls on the Department of Justice to publish a report on the U.S. Government's role in the internment. The facts need to be told in order to acknowledge that these events happened, to remember those who lived through the humiliation and to discourage any similar injustices from occurring in the future.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, thousands of Italian-Americans became innocent victims of wartime fever--a panicked and a paranoid reaction that all people of foreign extraction linked to belligerent countries were spies, sabatours and un-American. Fear of fifth columnists and quisling-type activities led government officials to abridge the civil rights of Americans who came from warring countries. Patriotic propaganda villifying the treachery of sneak attacks, blitzkrieg and totalitarian domination had an effect on the homefront view of Italian, German and Japanese immigrants as well as naturalized citizens, inducing discrimination. Initial mistakes were magnified by protective zeal into wholesale judgements about aliens, which led to the detainment, internment and harassment of these people. That is why, Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues Senator Chafee and Torricelli to right a terrible wrong that happened in this country over 50 years ago. In a country that so cherishes its equality among men and women, and boasts its democratic process, the United States has a dark spot in its history. Most Americans are not aware of the tragedy experienced by so many fellow citizens over half a century ago, a tragedy committed by the American government against people of Italian descent. In early 1942, 600,000 aliens of Italian descent were deemed to be ``enemy aliens'' and were forced to re-register and carry identification. Our government restricted their travel to their neighborhoods and classified normal household items, such as shortwave radios, cameras, flashlights and weapons as contraband material in their possession. On February 19, 1942, an Executive Order was issued giving the Secretary of War the authority to exclude American citizens as well as alien enemies, from such areas as the Secretary should designate. Americans now realize that this provision began a dark period of American history, authorizing the internment of immigrants residing in the United States as well as American citizens. While most Americans are aware of the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, few are aware that Italians and German legal residents of the United States were also restricted. Italian immigrants, Italian-Americans and their families were viewed as a genuine threat to American security at the beginning of World War II. Fear and ethnic bias led to the relocation of nearly 10,000 members of the Italian community from their homes on the West Coast. Hundreds of people were taken from their homes and brought to guarded army camp in areas as far east as Minnesota. And all this effort and anxiety for naught- even by war's end, not a single act of sabotage was attributable to Italian-Americans. On the contrary, Italians fought in America's victorious forces in the European and Asian theater and thousands made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation's survival. As one could imagine, the effects on these families were disastrous. Four men committed suicide. These men (Martini Battistessa, Guiseppe Micheli, Giovanni Sanguenetti and Stefano Terranova) suffered at the hands of government officials. Italian American fisherman were grounded, their livelihood gone. Several experts have taken a look at the treatment of Italian Americans during the early 1940's. Stephen Fox wrote a book called The Unknown Internment: An Oral History of the Relocation of Italian Americans during World War II. In the preface, Stephen Fox describes the horrific treatment of people whose only crime was being of Italian descent in America during World War II. Salvatore J. LaGumina, Professor of History and Director of the Center for Italian American Studies at Nassau Community College wrote an article in the Italian American Review called ``Enemy Alien: Italian Americans During World War II''. In the article he states: ``A ban on Italian language radio programs affected stations in New York City and Boston. Various Italian American newspapers suspended publication at least during the war years and in some instances ceased publication permanently. Customary Italian religious feast celebrations were likewise deferred or significantly diminished . . . In Westbury, Long Island, most Italian American organizations suspended their traditional feast celebrations for the duration of the war except for the Dell'Assunta Society which insisted it be allowed to march on the village streets during its festival, on the grounds that it was a religious not an ethnic celebration. Robert Masulla, writing for the Italic Way Newsletter, cited that Italian immigrant fishermen were denied their livelihood and some ``even had their boats impounded by the U.S. government and utilized for patrol and minesweeping duties''. It was not until October 12, 1942 that Italian immigrants were removed from the enemy alien category. Mr. Fox's historical study indicated that the internment effort was abandoned because the alien relocation would overly tax the U.S. Army's already over-extended logistical network, threaten the defense industry and lower civilian morale. In 1988, this body finally faced a terrible past that we could no longer ignore--the internment of immigrants from Japan or Japanese- Americans. Now it is time to provide recognition and remorsefulness for the treatment of Italian aliens and Italian Americans who had to endure the horrific actions of our own government--a government that has stood for freedom, not oppression. That is why I have joined with my colleagues in the House of Representatives, particularly its lead sponsors, Congressmen Engel and Lazio, to introduce this bill, the ``Wartime Violation of Italian American Civil Liberties Act''. Its provisions are clear and straight- forward: It recognizes the treatment of Italian Americans during World War II. It calls on the President to formally acknowledge that the civil liberties of Italian Americans were violated in the United States in the early 1940's. It encourages federal agencies to support projects which increase the public's awareness of the internment of Italians during the Second World War. It states that the President and Congress provide direct funding in order to educate the American public through a film documentary, particularly to document the testimony of the survivors of the internment. It recommends the formation of an advisory committee to assist in the compilation of historical data, to accurately reflect the incidents that transpired. It calls on the Department of Justice to publish a report on the U.S. Government's role in the internment. The facts need to be told in order to acknowledge that these events happened, to remember those who lived through the humiliation and to discourage any similar injustices from occurring in the future.