Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Yes. Amendment No. 476, As Modified

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President on behalf of Senator Harkin, myself, Senators Mack, Jeffords, Specter, and Rockefeller, we offer an amendment that will fulfill this Chamber's commitment, a commitment that it made on January 21 when it voted 89-0 to double the amount of funding for the National Institutes of Health to provide medical research. Everybody says we need more money for cancer research, heart research, and for Alzheimer's and diabetes. We say we are going to do it and we never do it. This amendment says that any excessive funds that are saved, over and above that anticipated by this budget resolution, by Medicare and Medicaid, certified by the CBO, will then be utilized to meet these functions. Only after CBO has certified that there are excess savings will those savings be placed in this account. Mr. President, that is keeping our commitment.

Mr. D'AMATO. I move to waive.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate John Giovanni and Carmella Seminerio Gandolfo of Lynbrook, NY. After 50 years of love, hard work and spirit, the two are about to renew their marriage vows and celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. As I remark on this union, created in Aragona, Sicily, half a century ago, I must comment that their unconditional love for each other is equal to the one they share for their community. John and Carmella reside in Lynbrook where John is now retired from the construction industry and Carmella is a dedicated homemaker. Mr. and Mrs. Gandolfo have been blessed with three children, and five grandchildren. Family and friends see the couple as a tower of strength, support, understanding, and limitless love. They have passed these same attributes on to their loved ones, creating a model family that is admired by their community. Their marriage serves as a milestone to be duplicated by others. This record does not do justice to commemorate the longevity of such an event of triumph, tenacity, and joy. John and Carmella's marriage embodies what all citizens should try to achieve, and captures the true meaning of love and citizenship. Once again, I would like to congratulate John and Carmella on their joyous day. I hope these renewed vows will add another 50 years of fortune to their lives.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I guess it was about 5, 6 years ago, my friend and colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, came to me and said, ``You know, we haven't been able to get sufficient funding for breast cancer research because there are those who object to our attempt to take it from defense and transfer it over to NIH.'' I think we had just been rebuffed 50 some odd to 42 or 43. Then he said, ``How about us keeping that money in the defense budget. After all, a significant portion of the military will be women. This is a matter of national health in our defense of our families.'' And we came forth with that proposal, and we were able to get a huge vote. Since that point in time, forget about votes, we have produced, in addition to what was being funded by NIH, something in excess of $600 million for breast cancer research, and it has made a difference. My colleague, once again, has come forth and said this time, ``Alfonse, why don't we look to meet the needs that this body itself has acknowledged in their overwhelming vote on January 21, 1997,'' when Senator Mack and my friend from Iowa, Senator Harkin, myself and others, who offered an amendment which was designed to say, let us double, we call it the biomedical commitment research resolution, and it is so easy for us to vote for it because we voted to say yes, we want to double the amount of money going into NIH for biomedical research because the demands are incredible, absolutely incredible. So we voted 100 to 0. Now comes the problem. How do we fund it? Notwithstanding that the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Specter, is making every effort to find the funds, where does he get them? Where does he get them? What program does he cut? Does he cut food stamps further? We just heard an eloquent presentation as it relates to the needs of children. What senior citizen program does he cut it from? We have already seen the battles when we look for funds. Do we give more money to breast cancer research at the expense of diabetes? What about emerging infectious diseases? Incredible, frightening if you read what is going on. Let me tell you, the investment of moneys into biomedical research will pay great dividends, it will save lives, it will result in savings many, many, many times more than what we invest, and it is so necessary. I think about 80 to 90 percent of the worthy applications by some of the great medical research centers of this country are being turned down, not because they are deficient, but because we simply don't have the money. I have to tell you something, there is nothing better that we can be investing money in than in terms of medical research for the prevention of illnesses, for finding out the cures, for doing the genetic research, for doing all of that work that so many of us talk about. We go home and say, ``Yes, I am going to vote to increase it.'' Here is what we do. Let us take the cumulated savings annually from Medicare and Medicaid that this bill provides. Let me tell you, the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, deserves the appreciation and accolades of everyone, Democrat and Republicans, because he has crafted a bill that is designed to control costs and to produce savings. Let CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, look at the end of each fiscal year how much in the way of savings have been accumulated and provide these moneys be set aside to be used exactly for that which we voted 100 to 0, biomedical research in NIH. Let us not fight to take money from one program that is so desperately needed, whether it be for senior citizens, whether it be for food stamps, and then say we are going to make winners of some at the expense of others and not nearly meet the needs. If we looked at the last 4 years, we will see we increased the total appropriations in these accounts by about $400 million a year. That is not going to meet our commitment when we are talking about increasing it by $2.5 billion annually. Mr. President, again, this does not impact, it does not need a revenue offset. If the revenues are not generated, the savings, no expenditure. If they are, I suggest we couldn't find a better and finer place to put those moneys. If someone wants to then come in and make an amendment to take part of those moneys and put them someplace else, they can come to the floor and we can argue it out. But I believe the establishment of that trust fund keeps the promise we made, that we attempt to look for ways to find the moneys that we all came out here on the floor and voted for. I commend my colleague. It has been a great privilege and pleasure for me to work with him in this endeavor. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. D'AMATO. I move to waive the point of order on the budget.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I move to waive.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Harkin, Senator Specter, Senator Mack, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Daschle, Senator Boxer, Senator Kerry, Senator Durbin, and myself, I offer this amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. D'AMATO. Just 5.

Mr. D'AMATO. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. D'AMATO. I will take 5 minutes and the Senator 10 minutes.

Mr. D'AMATO. Ten minutes.

Mr. D'AMATO. First of all, let me say there is no one that I have greater respect for and no one who I admire more than my colleague and friend from New Mexico, Senator Domenici. And I would ask, if the Senator might be willing, between now and the time the amendment comes up, to look at the question of the trust fund. As far as I am concerned, and I think I speak for my colleague, if that were one of the important issues, I think we could put that aside and have those moneys allocated directly into NIH. I would also indicate that I think in the draftsmanship of this we provided that it would be only the year after on the look-back that the Congressional Budget Office would ascertain whether or not the mark we have set, which would be set in law, by the way--this will no longer be an estimate, be set in law--that if it has been achieved and there has been an excess in the way of savings, that those dollars then would go into this account at NIH for biomedical research. Understand, it is exactly my friend's point that no one really knows where to get the money and that here is an opportunity to say that if we do achieve these savings, yes, that we are making a judgment now; that if we do, we are making a judgment to see that these dollars will be allocated for these areas, whether it is Alzheimer's research, diabetes, cancer, research on the brain. I mean, the fact is, we desperately, desperately need these moneys. And here is an opportunity to identify with specificity and, yes, to come forward and say, yes, if we have an extra $500 million or $1 billion, that it will go into that account. And we will be making that commitment that we talked about a reality. So I ask my colleague and friend to just look at it in terms of if there needs to be some additional language to tighten this up and to deal with some of the parliamentary objections. And if there is a real question whether or not you want to set up a trust fund for this, that possibly we could deal with that in the manner that would facilitate the spirit of that resolution that was passed saying we must do more. Because I believe that the spirit was there and the recognition that we have to do more in biomedical research. I yield the floor. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce the Community Health Care Access Act of 1997. This act will help ensure that the residents of our inner-city and rural areas, in New York and across the Nation, will have increased access to affordable health care. This legislation will establish a procedure within the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] for foreign medical students, who are granted temporary residency status in order to complete their medical education, to retain their legal status in exchange for practicing in areas with serious physician shortages. Mr. President, throughout my home State of New York, there are numerous inner-city and rural communities which face a real crisis in the availability of qualified physicians. Too often, these communities face enormous difficulty attracting physicians to help serve the needs of their residents. Physicians are desperately needed to help cope with the growing incidence of drug-resistant tuberculosis, HIV, and other infectious diseases, as well as other critical health care needs such as pre-natal and neo-natal care. The act I am introducing today will help address this crisis by requiring the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to request a J-1 visa waiver for any qualified medical professional who agrees to practice in an underserved area. This bill will allow hundreds of qualified doctors who are willing and able to serve in these communities to partner with existing health care facilities in order to serve needy populations who lack access to affordable health care. This legislation will help hospitals which are located in areas which are designated by the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] as ``Health Professional Shortage Areas'' to draw upon a pool of doctors who are among the best and the brightest in the world. Currently, there is a severe shortage of U.S. medical residents who are willing to serve in these areas. These urban and rural areas often have large uninsured populations with a variety of critical unmet health needs. In a nation with the greatest health care system in the world, there exist communities which are unfairly denied access to affordable quality health care. This disparity can be seen both in isolated rural areas and in the high-impact urban cores of some of our largest cities. Too often, the members of these communities have been left out of the American dream. It is intolerable that certain parts of many American cities are experiencing higher infant mortality rates than many third- world countries. The costs of providing health care increase as hospitals struggle to attract qualified physicians. As costs rise, the unmet health care needs of local residents are exacerbated. Thus, the supply shortage of qualified physicians creates a vicious cycle in which local residents are trapped. My legislation will help break this cycle by increasing the availability of doctors in underserved areas while reducing health care costs. Let me briefly provide some background information. Under the J-1 visa program, foreign medical students are temporarily admitted to the United States in order to complete their medical education and clinical training. Upon completion of their education, these students are required to leave the United States for a minimum of 2 years before they can become eligible for an extension of their legal residency status. However, current law provides an exception to this 2-year foreign residency requirement if the medical graduate agrees to practice in a designated ``Health Professional Shortage Area.'' Congress reaffirmed its commitment to the J-1 program, as well as to the waiver of the 2-year foreign residency requirement for international medical graduates who agree to practice in underserved areas, when it passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996--Public Law 104-208. This Act was signed into law on September 30, 1996. Mr. President, in December 1996, the General Accounting Office [GAO] released a report assessing the J-1 visa waiver program. This report, entitled ``Foreign Physicians: Exchange Visitor Program Becoming Major Route to Practicing in U.S. Underserved Areas'' noted the growing use of the visa waiver process and made several recommendations for improvement. In conjunction with the reforms enacted last year as part of the Immigration Reform Act, the legislation I introduce today will effectively implement several of the recommendations made by the GAO. As noted in the report, last year's Immigration Reform Act required Federal agencies to utilize the same criteria for approval that previously applied to State health departments seeking such waivers. These new safeguards required physicians to: First, agree to work for at least 3 years for the health facility named in the application; second, work in an area designated by the Secretary of HHS as having a shortage of health care professionals; third, commence work within 90 days of receipt of the waiver; and fourth, maintain a nonimmigrant status until the completion of the 3-year commitment term. In addition, physicians who fail to comply with the terms of their agreements would face a termination of their residency status and a loss of eligibility to apply for legal immigrant status in the future. This legislation would further improve compliance with the waiver requirements. This act will address the GAO report's finding that Federal agencies need to improve coordination in granting waivers. The act requires HUD to report to HHS on the number and location of physicians requesting waivers. I fully expect the Department of Health and Human Services to utilize this information in its annual designations of physician underserved areas. In addition, the legislation would require the sponsoring hospitals to provide HUD with periodic notices as to the compliance of physicians with the terms of the waiver agreements. Hospitals will also be required to provide HUD with immediate notice of the termination or cessation of compliance with these terms. The addition of these reforms will ensure the effective continuation of this vital program. The GAO noted that, as of January 1, 1996, there were approximately 1,374 physicians admitted to practice in underserved areas through the J-1 visa waiver program. These physicians served in 49 States and the District of Columbia. According to a survey conducted by the General Accounting Office, approximately 40 percent of these physicians served in nonprofit community or migrant health care centers. Almost all of these physicians were practicing in primary care specialties. More than half were practicing in internal medicine. The other major specialties were pediatrics and family practice. Mr. President, it is important to note the outstanding caliber and the unique qualifications of the doctors participating in this program. In order to receive a J-1 visa, many of the participants were accepted into medical universities and world-renowned teaching hospitals with rigorous acceptance standards. In some cases, the admitted physicians are often specifically recruited by particular health facilities on the basis of their superior foreign language skills and cultural familiarity. For instance, the GAO cited a migrant health center in eastern Washington which actively recruited native-Spanish speakers for its program. HUD plays a critical role in the reduction of health care costs. The agency operates a number of programs which benefit hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care organizations. The role played by HUD's hospital insurance program, for instance, is absolutely essential for many health care institutions in obtaining private market financing for hospital construction, renovation, and modernization. The credit enhancement provided by this program results in a tangible reduction in health care costs at little or no cost to the taxpayer. I believe it is essential for Congress to continue to act expeditiously to address the valid concerns raised by the GAO. At the same time, we must remain cognizant of the basic soundness of the waiver program and strive to improve and reform it. The waiver process has made basic health care available to many communities with desperate needs. Mr. President, in conclusion I would emphasize the hardships which face many of our Nation's urban and rural residents as a result of the crisis in health care availability. The J-1 visa waiver program is an important tool to address these needs. The reforms to the current waiver process are also critical to ensuring that any noncompliance within the program is eradicated. I urge my colleagues to support the Community Health Care Access Act of 1997 in order to ensure that the waiver program remains a viable option in addressing our country's local health care needs for years to come. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce the Community Health Care Access Act of 1997. This act will help ensure that the residents of our inner-city and rural areas, in New York and across the Nation, will have increased access to affordable health care. This legislation will establish a procedure within the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] for foreign medical students, who are granted temporary residency status in order to complete their medical education, to retain their legal status in exchange for practicing in areas with serious physician shortages. Mr. President, throughout my home State of New York, there are numerous inner-city and rural communities which face a real crisis in the availability of qualified physicians. Too often, these communities face enormous difficulty attracting physicians to help serve the needs of their residents. Physicians are desperately needed to help cope with the growing incidence of drug-resistant tuberculosis, HIV, and other infectious diseases, as well as other critical health care needs such as pre-natal and neo-natal care. The act I am introducing today will help address this crisis by requiring the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to request a J-1 visa waiver for any qualified medical professional who agrees to practice in an underserved area. This bill will allow hundreds of qualified doctors who are willing and able to serve in these communities to partner with existing health care facilities in order to serve needy populations who lack access to affordable health care. This legislation will help hospitals which are located in areas which are designated by the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] as ``Health Professional Shortage Areas'' to draw upon a pool of doctors who are among the best and the brightest in the world. Currently, there is a severe shortage of U.S. medical residents who are willing to serve in these areas. These urban and rural areas often have large uninsured populations with a variety of critical unmet health needs. In a nation with the greatest health care system in the world, there exist communities which are unfairly denied access to affordable quality health care. This disparity can be seen both in isolated rural areas and in the high-impact urban cores of some of our largest cities. Too often, the members of these communities have been left out of the American dream. It is intolerable that certain parts of many American cities are experiencing higher infant mortality rates than many third- world countries. The costs of providing health care increase as hospitals struggle to attract qualified physicians. As costs rise, the unmet health care needs of local residents are exacerbated. Thus, the supply shortage of qualified physicians creates a vicious cycle in which local residents are trapped. My legislation will help break this cycle by increasing the availability of doctors in underserved areas while reducing health care costs. Let me briefly provide some background information. Under the J-1 visa program, foreign medical students are temporarily admitted to the United States in order to complete their medical education and clinical training. Upon completion of their education, these students are required to leave the United States for a minimum of 2 years before they can become eligible for an extension of their legal residency status. However, current law provides an exception to this 2-year foreign residency requirement if the medical graduate agrees to practice in a designated ``Health Professional Shortage Area.'' Congress reaffirmed its commitment to the J-1 program, as well as to the waiver of the 2-year foreign residency requirement for international medical graduates who agree to practice in underserved areas, when it passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996--Public Law 104-208. This Act was signed into law on September 30, 1996. Mr. President, in December 1996, the General Accounting Office [GAO] released a report assessing the J-1 visa waiver program. This report, entitled ``Foreign Physicians: Exchange Visitor Program Becoming Major Route to Practicing in U.S. Underserved Areas'' noted the growing use of the visa waiver process and made several recommendations for improvement. In conjunction with the reforms enacted last year as part of the Immigration Reform Act, the legislation I introduce today will effectively implement several of the recommendations made by the GAO. As noted in the report, last year's Immigration Reform Act required Federal agencies to utilize the same criteria for approval that previously applied to State health departments seeking such waivers. These new safeguards required physicians to: First, agree to work for at least 3 years for the health facility named in the application; second, work in an area designated by the Secretary of HHS as having a shortage of health care professionals; third, commence work within 90 days of receipt of the waiver; and fourth, maintain a nonimmigrant status until the completion of the 3-year commitment term. In addition, physicians who fail to comply with the terms of their agreements would face a termination of their residency status and a loss of eligibility to apply for legal immigrant status in the future. This legislation would further improve compliance with the waiver requirements. This act will address the GAO report's finding that Federal agencies need to improve coordination in granting waivers. The act requires HUD to report to HHS on the number and location of physicians requesting waivers. I fully expect the Department of Health and Human Services to utilize this information in its annual designations of physician underserved areas. In addition, the legislation would require the sponsoring hospitals to provide HUD with periodic notices as to the compliance of physicians with the terms of the waiver agreements. Hospitals will also be required to provide HUD with immediate notice of the termination or cessation of compliance with these terms. The addition of these reforms will ensure the effective continuation of this vital program. The GAO noted that, as of January 1, 1996, there were approximately 1,374 physicians admitted to practice in underserved areas through the J-1 visa waiver program. These physicians served in 49 States and the District of Columbia. According to a survey conducted by the General Accounting Office, approximately 40 percent of these physicians served in nonprofit community or migrant health care centers. Almost all of these physicians were practicing in primary care specialties. More than half were practicing in internal medicine. The other major specialties were pediatrics and family practice. Mr. President, it is important to note the outstanding caliber and the unique qualifications of the doctors participating in this program. In order to receive a J-1 visa, many of the participants were accepted into medical universities and world-renowned teaching hospitals with rigorous acceptance standards. In some cases, the admitted physicians are often specifically recruited by particular health facilities on the basis of their superior foreign language skills and cultural familiarity. For instance, the GAO cited a migrant health center in eastern Washington which actively recruited native-Spanish speakers for its program. HUD plays a critical role in the reduction of health care costs. The agency operates a number of programs which benefit hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care organizations. The role played by HUD's hospital insurance program, for instance, is absolutely essential for many health care institutions in obtaining private market financing for hospital construction, renovation, and modernization. The credit enhancement provided by this program results in a tangible reduction in health care costs at little or no cost to the taxpayer. I believe it is essential for Congress to continue to act expeditiously to address the valid concerns raised by the GAO. At the same time, we must remain cognizant of the basic soundness of the waiver program and strive to improve and reform it. The waiver process has made basic health care available to many communities with desperate needs. Mr. President, in conclusion I would emphasize the hardships which face many of our Nation's urban and rural residents as a result of the crisis in health care availability. The J-1 visa waiver program is an important tool to address these needs. The reforms to the current waiver process are also critical to ensuring that any noncompliance within the program is eradicated. I urge my colleagues to support the Community Health Care Access Act of 1997 in order to ensure that the waiver program remains a viable option in addressing our country's local health care needs for years to come. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to commend all those assisting in the ongoing Senate Banking Committee Inquiry into Holocaust Assets. I must start with the leading role of the World Jewish Congress, particularly Edgar Bronfman who along with WJC Secretary General Israel Singer brought this issue to me on December 7, 1995. Their work, along with that of Elan Steinberg has been a true force to reckon with for the Swiss banks. I cannot forget the absolutely invaluable help of Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat and his very able staff in finding and preparing the administration's exhaustive report on the subject. Of particular help has been the work of Judy Barnett. She has fought the tough interagency battles to establish the truth. State Department Historian Bill Slany did an incredible job in assembling the report. I want to also thank the following members of the various departments of the U.S. Government: Francine Barber, Abby Gilbert, David Joy, Felix Hernandez, Judy Liberson, Bill McFadden, Eli Rosenbaum, Ruth Van Heuven, and Barry White. I hope that I have not left out anyone. The National Archives at College Park has been nothing less then amazing. The staff has gone out of their way to provide our researchers with help, including declassification, record and document locations, use of their facilities, overall access to the building and records, and the wisdom, and advice of the gifted archivists. Put all together, their help was indispensable in establishing, continuing and expanding the research of the Committee. Of particular help to our staff and researchers has been that of Greg Bradshear who compiled the finding aid for the various record groups of documents, Calvin Jefferson who has provided us with every appropriate extension of help with regard to use of the Textual Reference Room, Clarence Lyons for his help in the overall effort, Cary Conn for his help in declassifying hundreds of boxes of documents, and John Taylor for his wisdom and guidance. In addition to these fine and dedicated people, I would like to thank the following for their help in our effort: Rich Boylan, Rebecca Collier, David Giordano, Milt Gustafson, Ken Heger, Marty McGann, Wil Mahoney, William Deutscher, Robert Coren, Tim Nenninger, David Pfieiffer, Fred Ramanski, Ken Schlessinger, Amy Schmidt, Donald Singer, Marilyn Stachelczyk, Carolyn Powell, Dr. Michael Kurz, R. Michael McReynolds, Peter Jefferies, and Lee Rose. Again, I hope that I have not left out anyone. I am truly grateful for their help to my staff and the researchers. In regard to the researchers, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum for their unwavering support to the committee by their provision of interns to us for the research. Of particular help and support, and for which this part of the project could not have gotten off the ground, I have to thank Walter Reich and Stan Turesky. Specifically without Stan, we could not have done the research among many other aspect of this inquiry. The museum provided the committee with top rate college students to conduct the research. I would like to thank the following researchers for their dedicated work: Charles Borden, Rick Crowley, Polly Crozier, Joshua Cypress, Mary Helen Dupree, Ben Fallon, Aaron Field, David Ganz, Avi Glazer, Jessica Hammer, Anantha Hans, Miriam Haus, Olivia Joly, Kelsey Libner, Mary McCleery, Daniel Renna, Adam Sonfield, Hannah Trooboff, Kevin Vinger, and Brian Wahl. Hannah Trooboff did excellent work with her research at the various research archives in and around New York City. She did this research while attending Columbia University. Additionally, I would like to thank those who were either volunteers, interns, or Legislative Fellows in my office who participated in the research Marc Isser, now a member of my staff was an early member of the research team and the third person out at the archives to dig through the records Marc Mazurovsky was extremely helpful in aiding our effort by pointing us in the right direction and helping us with the record groups. Sid Zabludoff provided help with particular record group sources as well. Moreover, I want to extend particular thanks to the dogged research of a Legislative Fellow in my office, B.J. Moravek, who was the man who interviewed and tracked down dozens of survivors, found information that no one else could have found, and was as dedicated as anyone could possibly be to obtain the truth about the misdeeds of the Swiss bankers. I also want to thank another Legislative Fellow in my office, Brian Hufker. Brian has been indispensable in translating documents from the German and French languages and researching for the complicated and vast amount of detail involved in this inquiry. I am proud to have him as a member of my staff. I also have to thank Miriam Kleiman who was literally the first person in the archives for us researching this subject. She has been diligent, dedicated, and totally committed to achieving justice for the victims of the Holocaust, survivors, and heirs who have assets in Swiss banks. While the term indispensable might be overused, she truly has been She found the first ``five-star'' documents, and she continues finding them today as she continues her fine work for this worthy topic. In addition, I want to thank Willi Korte, who along with Miriam was there from the beginning and continues to this day to help in the cause. Willi has selflessly dedicated his time, efforts, vast knowledge on the subject, and even his own resources to get to the truth. My greatest debt of gratitude goes to my legislative director, Gregg Rickman. Gregg was with me from the very beginning of this inquiry. He spent countless hours toiling through thousands of pages of documentation from so many sources. He also worked behind the scenes to organize four Senate Banking Committee hearings and numerous meetings with many of the principals involved. There was no institutional knowledge on this subject when we started. The inquiry evolved through a painstaking learning process derived from listening to the tragic recollections of Holocaust victims and their descendants, and conducting persistent detective work. In the latter Gregg has no equal. Gregg, I thank you and your wife, Sonia, who made personal sacrifices to see that some measure of justice is achieved. Mr. President, I wanted to take this opportunity to thank all of these fine people who made the revelations and discoveries of the past year and more possible. I mean this when I say that they have all made history. They have contributed to correcting a great injustice and have tried with all of their might to set history straight. They should be proud of their work and I know that the claimants and survivors would agree. For my part, I am immensely proud of their effort and I heartily congratulate them for their fine work. While there is still a great amount of work to be done, we could not have gotten even this far without all of these fine people.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, this year John J. DePierro, president and chief executive officer of the Sisters of Charity Health Care System, celebrates a milestone in his career. For 25 years he has served the Sisters of Charity health care efforts on Staten Island in New York City. In so doing, he has given vision to the health care mission of the sisters and has been a pivotal force in insuring the success of the many institutions of human service that comprise the Sisters of Charity Health Care System. Through St. Vincent's Medical Center of Richmond, a broad array of acute care services are made available to the community including maternal and child care programs, centers of excellence in cardiology and oncology, a broad array of psychiatric and addiction services and an active emergency medicine program. Through Bayley Seton Hospital which was the former Public Health Service Hospital which Mr. DePierro played a key role in providing for its transition to community service working closely with me, a strong range of outpatient services together with inpatient programs with specific emphasis on the centers of excellence of dermatology and ophthalmology are available to the community. As with St. Vincent's, there is an effective emergency medicine program to meet the needs of the surrounding community. Bayley Seton has also, working closely with me, forged a productive relationship with the Department of Defense to provide military health care as a uniformed services treatment facility. In 1994, St. Elizabeth Ann's Health Care and Rehabilitation Center became a reality and through it a range of chronic, subacute and rehabilitative services were provided for the community of Staten Island. Special populations that are served include persons with AIDS as well as ventilator-dependent patients. The system also has concerned itself with insuring a continuum of community-based services. Pax Christi Hospice, a home-based hospice program, has served the needs of Staten Islanders since 1988 and the Sisters of Charity Home Health Care Program meets their posthospital needs. To Mr. DePierro's abiding credit, he has also concerned himself with other human needs of the community of Staten Island. Through his commitment, three senior housing programs have been developed to provide over 225 residential units of housing for seniors. He is also seeing to the needs of the employees of the system with the development of the Sister Elizabeth Boyle Child Learning Center which provides day care services for both the staff of the corporations of the system, let alone the community. It is rare in the context of health care today to see an individual have such long and illustrious tenure in an institution. This is made all the more unique by the strength that has been created in the vertically integrated health care delivery system that is the Sisters of Charity. Mr. DePierro's background speaks to his capacity as a hospital administrator and health care leader. A graduate of St. Peter's College with a master's in business administration majoring in hospital administration from George Washington University, he completed a residency in hospital administration at Bellevue Hospital Center. He is a fellow of the American College of Health Care Executives, a member of the American Hospital Association, the American Public Health Association and the Public Health Association of New York City. He has served as a regent for New York State for the American College of Health Care Executives. He has lent his significant leadership to the professional associations of the industry including serving as a member of the board of governors of the Greater New York Hospital Association of which he is also past chairman as well as a member of the board of the Healthcare Association of New York State of which he is also a past chairman. He has been a delegate to the regional advisory board II of the American Hospital Association and currently serves as chairperson of the hospital advisory council of the Catholic Health Care Network of the Archdiocese of New York. Mr. DePierro, despite the heavy demands on his professional responsibilities, makes time to serve on the board of the Seton Foundation for Learning which provides educational programs in the Catholic tradition for special children. He is also a past president of the foundation. A man committed to his family, he and his wife, Jeanne, are the proud parents of four children and delight in their six grandchildren--soon to be seven. All of this, Mr. President, gives testimony to the capacity of a single individual motivated and concerned about the needs of others to work effectively over the course of time to insure that those needs are provided for effectively and good works are accomplished by harnessing the involvement of others and by personal example. I am proud of the strong relationship that I have enjoyed with the Sisters of Charity Health Care System over the years and the opportunities that I have had to work with Mr. DePierro in the transition of Bayley Seton Hospital, the provision of military health care and the development of housing programs. I know of his forthright commitment and his unquestioned integrity in his dealings will all. These traits are exemplary of the pattern of care of the Sisters of Charity on Staten Island. I join with Mr. DePierro's countless friends and associates in wishing him professional and personal success in the years ahead. I trust too Mr. President that knowing of John's fondness for golf, that his handicap will be reduced in inverse ratio to his years of service with the Sisters of Charity and his hole-in-one shot in Aruba was only the first of many. I share the prayer of those who are honoring John at a celebration on Staten Island on Tuesday, July 1, that he shall continue to be blessed with good health and a steadfast concern for others.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Chafee, Senator Moynihan, Senator Breaux, Senator Hatch, and Senator Bob Graham in introducing legislation that will induce investment and create employment in Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. Since World War I an estimated 200,000 Puerto Ricans have served in the U.S. Armed Forces. Yet, the Puerto Rican unemployment rate is more than twice the national average, its annual per capita income is less than half the national average, and well over 50 percent of its population live below the poverty line. We as a Congress must take action to bring Puerto Rico's economy up to the levels that we expect for all Americans. Under current law, section 30A of the Internal Revenue Code provides a targeted wage credit to companies during business in Puerto Rico based upon the compensation paid to their employees. It does not allow new business starts and the credit terminates in 2006. As a result, existing companies have little incentive to make new investments or replace depreciating plant and equipment. Job losses will occur as existing plants are shut down and these activities may be transferred to foreign locations. Net job growth can only occur if new firms start up and if expanding firms replace job losses. Manufacturing accounts for more than 40 percent of Puerto Ricos gross domestic product. This legislation expands section 30A to provide an employer tax credit for employees located in Puerto Rico that will also cover new businesses. This credit is based upon the compensation to their employees. The credit will only remain until economic conditions improve within Puerto Rico including an unemployment rate not to exceed 150 percent of the U.S. average, per capita income is at least 66 percent of the national average, and that the poverty level does not exceed 30 percent. The economic conditions for the tax incentives to end are modest but achieve significant economic progress for the people of Puerto Rico. This legislation serves U.S. fiscal interests. Without spurring job creation in Puerto Rico, the United States will be paying unemployment and welfare benefits to people that have a strong work ethic and impressive job skills. Puerto Rico has a labor force of 1.3 million people. Of this total approximately 190,000 are available for employment. We must do everything possible to help facilitate employment for these people. Even though Puerto Rico is located 1,600 miles southeast of New York City, the people of New York have a direct interest in the Puerto Rican economy. Puerto Rican subsidiaries of mainland companies purchase approximately $195 million per year worth of supplies and services from New York. Corporations headquartered in New York State that have invested in Puerto Rico employ over 39,000 persons in New York. If corporations are drawn to other regions where there are tax incentives, New York State will not only lose jobs but also significant amounts of income from goods and services. Mr. President, this legislation is a powerful economic development initative that is vital to Puerto Rico because of the many hurdles the people face in their struggle for development. The island faces much higher transportation costs than most States; an infrastructure which still needs billions in investment to bring it up to acceptable standards and it is faced with competition within the Caribbean and other locations which pay wages a fraction of Puerto Rico's. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete text of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Baucus in introducing legislation that will amend the Tax Code to provide a permanent extension of a grandfather provision contained in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987. This 10 year grandfather provision was provided for publicly traded partnerships [PTP's] that were in existence as of December 17, 1987. A PTP is a partnership whose interests are traded on established securities exchanges or are readily tradable in secondary markets. Included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 is section 7704 of the Internal Revenue Code. The section provides that PTP's will generally be taxed as corporations; income or loss does not pass through to the partners. Section 7704 does not apply, however, to PTP's where 90 percent or more of their income is qualifying income, such as from interest, dividends, real estate, timber, oil, and gas. This exception applies regardless when the PTP was formed. Other PTP's in existence when section 7704 was enacted were grandfathered, but only for 10 years, through 1997. Our legislation would extend the grandfather provision permanently. The purpose of section 7704 according to the committee reports was intended to stop the long term erosion of the corporate tax base. There was a concern that much of corporate America would convert to PTP's resulting in a decline of corporate tax revenues. This purpose has been achieved because of the prospective application of that section. There were approximately 120 PTP's in existence in 1987 and because of the legislation the number of PTP's did not snowball. Permanently grandfathering PTP's would not defeat the purpose of the 1987 legislation since the grandfather applies only to those PTP's that were in existence at the time of the 1987 legislation. Fairness to the owners of the PTP's that were grandfathered during the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 is an important issue. The conversion from a corporation to a PTP was a costly and time- consuming process. The companies that converted to PTP form relied on the expectation that they would be able to operate as partnerships as long as they wanted. The conversion process involved consultation with investment bankers, appraisals, planning by corporate finance, securities and tax lawyers, multiple filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and State securities agencies, proxy statements and shareholder votes, et cetera. This process would not have been started or completed had there been any reasonable prospect that a change in the tax law would have applied retroactively or after a limited period of time. Failure to pass this legislation will be punishing PTPs that played by the rules. If the grandfather is not made permanent many of these same costs will be incurred once again. Grandfathered PTP's will be forced to convert to corporate form by January 1998. To do so will require lengthy planning, and the same investment banking advice, appraisals and attorney fees. The need for extensive, advance planning makes it essential that the matter be resolved this year. These PTP's relied on the law in effect before passage of the 1987 act and it is unreasonable and unfair to now force these PTP's to undergo this expensive, time consuming process to convert to corporate form. No public purpose will be served by such forced conversions. The loss of the grandfather will hurt PTP investors and employees of the companies. The value of PTP units will decline if the grandfather is not permanently implemented. Most of these investors are average, middle-class taxpayers who have invested in PTP units oftentimes through an individual retirement account, because of the desire for a safe, liquid investment. As PTP units decline in value, a company's ability to expand will be negatively affected and the employees will suffer. We do not achieve any tax policy goal by honoring the 10-year grandfather. That goal was fully achieved by making section 7704 apply prospectively. Instead, all we would accomplish by not making the grandfather provision permanent would be harm to these PTP's and their investors. The PTP's operate in all 50 States affecting many of our districts and include a wide variety of industries, from motels and restaurants to chemicals and financial advising. The most recent count indicates that there are well over 300,000 individual investors. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me and Senator Baucus in cosponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete text of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Chafee, Senator Moynihan, Senator Breaux, Senator Hatch, and Senator Bob Graham in introducing legislation that will induce investment and create employment in Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. Since World War I an estimated 200,000 Puerto Ricans have served in the U.S. Armed Forces. Yet, the Puerto Rican unemployment rate is more than twice the national average, its annual per capita income is less than half the national average, and well over 50 percent of its population live below the poverty line. We as a Congress must take action to bring Puerto Rico's economy up to the levels that we expect for all Americans. Under current law, section 30A of the Internal Revenue Code provides a targeted wage credit to companies during business in Puerto Rico based upon the compensation paid to their employees. It does not allow new business starts and the credit terminates in 2006. As a result, existing companies have little incentive to make new investments or replace depreciating plant and equipment. Job losses will occur as existing plants are shut down and these activities may be transferred to foreign locations. Net job growth can only occur if new firms start up and if expanding firms replace job losses. Manufacturing accounts for more than 40 percent of Puerto Ricos gross domestic product. This legislation expands section 30A to provide an employer tax credit for employees located in Puerto Rico that will also cover new businesses. This credit is based upon the compensation to their employees. The credit will only remain until economic conditions improve within Puerto Rico including an unemployment rate not to exceed 150 percent of the U.S. average, per capita income is at least 66 percent of the national average, and that the poverty level does not exceed 30 percent. The economic conditions for the tax incentives to end are modest but achieve significant economic progress for the people of Puerto Rico. This legislation serves U.S. fiscal interests. Without spurring job creation in Puerto Rico, the United States will be paying unemployment and welfare benefits to people that have a strong work ethic and impressive job skills. Puerto Rico has a labor force of 1.3 million people. Of this total approximately 190,000 are available for employment. We must do everything possible to help facilitate employment for these people. Even though Puerto Rico is located 1,600 miles southeast of New York City, the people of New York have a direct interest in the Puerto Rican economy. Puerto Rican subsidiaries of mainland companies purchase approximately $195 million per year worth of supplies and services from New York. Corporations headquartered in New York State that have invested in Puerto Rico employ over 39,000 persons in New York. If corporations are drawn to other regions where there are tax incentives, New York State will not only lose jobs but also significant amounts of income from goods and services. Mr. President, this legislation is a powerful economic development initative that is vital to Puerto Rico because of the many hurdles the people face in their struggle for development. The island faces much higher transportation costs than most States; an infrastructure which still needs billions in investment to bring it up to acceptable standards and it is faced with competition within the Caribbean and other locations which pay wages a fraction of Puerto Rico's. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete text of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Baucus in introducing legislation that will amend the Tax Code to provide a permanent extension of a grandfather provision contained in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987. This 10 year grandfather provision was provided for publicly traded partnerships [PTP's] that were in existence as of December 17, 1987. A PTP is a partnership whose interests are traded on established securities exchanges or are readily tradable in secondary markets. Included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 is section 7704 of the Internal Revenue Code. The section provides that PTP's will generally be taxed as corporations; income or loss does not pass through to the partners. Section 7704 does not apply, however, to PTP's where 90 percent or more of their income is qualifying income, such as from interest, dividends, real estate, timber, oil, and gas. This exception applies regardless when the PTP was formed. Other PTP's in existence when section 7704 was enacted were grandfathered, but only for 10 years, through 1997. Our legislation would extend the grandfather provision permanently. The purpose of section 7704 according to the committee reports was intended to stop the long term erosion of the corporate tax base. There was a concern that much of corporate America would convert to PTP's resulting in a decline of corporate tax revenues. This purpose has been achieved because of the prospective application of that section. There were approximately 120 PTP's in existence in 1987 and because of the legislation the number of PTP's did not snowball. Permanently grandfathering PTP's would not defeat the purpose of the 1987 legislation since the grandfather applies only to those PTP's that were in existence at the time of the 1987 legislation. Fairness to the owners of the PTP's that were grandfathered during the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 is an important issue. The conversion from a corporation to a PTP was a costly and time- consuming process. The companies that converted to PTP form relied on the expectation that they would be able to operate as partnerships as long as they wanted. The conversion process involved consultation with investment bankers, appraisals, planning by corporate finance, securities and tax lawyers, multiple filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and State securities agencies, proxy statements and shareholder votes, et cetera. This process would not have been started or completed had there been any reasonable prospect that a change in the tax law would have applied retroactively or after a limited period of time. Failure to pass this legislation will be punishing PTPs that played by the rules. If the grandfather is not made permanent many of these same costs will be incurred once again. Grandfathered PTP's will be forced to convert to corporate form by January 1998. To do so will require lengthy planning, and the same investment banking advice, appraisals and attorney fees. The need for extensive, advance planning makes it essential that the matter be resolved this year. These PTP's relied on the law in effect before passage of the 1987 act and it is unreasonable and unfair to now force these PTP's to undergo this expensive, time consuming process to convert to corporate form. No public purpose will be served by such forced conversions. The loss of the grandfather will hurt PTP investors and employees of the companies. The value of PTP units will decline if the grandfather is not permanently implemented. Most of these investors are average, middle-class taxpayers who have invested in PTP units oftentimes through an individual retirement account, because of the desire for a safe, liquid investment. As PTP units decline in value, a company's ability to expand will be negatively affected and the employees will suffer. We do not achieve any tax policy goal by honoring the 10-year grandfather. That goal was fully achieved by making section 7704 apply prospectively. Instead, all we would accomplish by not making the grandfather provision permanent would be harm to these PTP's and their investors. The PTP's operate in all 50 States affecting many of our districts and include a wide variety of industries, from motels and restaurants to chemicals and financial advising. The most recent count indicates that there are well over 300,000 individual investors. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me and Senator Baucus in cosponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete text of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, the trigger date for nationwide interstate branching has passed--June 1, 1997. This important legislation will preserve the benefits of the dual banking system and keep the State banking charter competitive in an interstate environment. It is critical that the Senate now consider and pass H.R. 1306, the Riegle-Neal Clarification Act of 1997. The dual banking system has served this country well for over 100 years. The State banking system has been the source of major advances in the banking industry for the past 70 years. Mr. President, the dual banking system is under attack. The bill is necessary to preserve confidence in a State banking charter for banks with such a charter that wish to operate in more than one State. In addition, it will curtail incentives for unnecessary Federal preemption of State laws. Finally, the bill will restore balance to the dual banking system by ensuring that neither charter operates at an unfair advantage in this new interstate environment. Mr. President, the importance of this bill to my State has been communicated by Governor Pataki and the superintendent of banking. New York has more than 90 state-chartered banks with a total of more than half a trillion dollars in assets. These institutions play a vital role in the economic wellbeing of the State of New York. Without this legislation, the largest of these institutions may be tempted to convert to a national charter in order to operate in more than one State. The local bond with these institutions could be broken. New York State bank examiners would be no longer be examining these institutions for compliance with our State community reinvestment and consumer protection laws. H.R. 1306 will help prevent this alarming scenario. It protects the dual banking system. Mr. President, the problem cured by this bill can be simply described. The current law may be unclear as to whether consistent rules are used to determine what laws and powers apply to the out-of- State branches of State and federally chartered banks. To the extent it remains uncertain that current law establishes rough parity between charters in this regard, some banks may conclude that the national bank charter is the preferable option. This is not a hypothetical concern; Key Corp., one of the largest State-chartered banks in New York, converted to a national bank because of this uncertainty. H.R. 1306 would resolve any such ambiguity. First, it would establish that a host State's law would apply to the out-of-State branches of a State-chartered bank only to the same extent that those laws apply to the branches of out-of-State national banks located in the host State. Second, it would make clear that host State branches would be allowed to exercise powers granted by their home State if such powers are permissible for either banks chartered by the host State or for national bank branches in that host State. Enactment of H.R. 1306 also would bolster efforts in New York and other States to make sure that the State-chartered banks have the powers they need to compete efficiently and effectively in an interstate environment. Mr. President, this bill is especially important now because of the efforts of the Comptroller of the Currency to preempt State laws and promote the national bank charter at the expense of the States and other Federal regulators. At a recent oversight hearing, I presented documentation, prepared by the OCC, that confirms that the OCC has mounted an unprecedented, aggressive marketing effort to convince State chartered banks to flip to a national charter. I am pleased that our colleagues in the House, particularly Chairman Leach and Representative Roukema, were able to expeditiously guide this bill through the House, where the bill passed on the suspension calendar. I also want to thank my Senate colleagues for their cooperation, especially Senator Sarbanes. Mr. President, Senator Sarbanes has reviewed and analyzed carefully the House bill and he has identified the need for a technical clarification to the House-passed bill contained in the amendment we have developed. The amendment would modify the title of the bill, provide a technical clarification to ensure that a national statute that applies to a State-chartered bank in its home State will also apply to a branch of the bank in a host State; and, finally, require the OCC to report to Congress on its preemption decisions since January 1, 1992, and annually thereafter. The information yielded by this preemption reporting requirement on the OCC's preemption of State law in numerous areas will assist oversight of the Comptroller's use of preemptive authority. In my judgment, in recent years the OCC has used his authority over national banks to thwart traditional areas of State regulation--such as regulation of insurance and consumer protection. With the benefit of the information and analysis the amendment will require, Congress will be in a better position to determine whether current law regarding preemption is too broad or its administrative interpretation and applications have been too expansive. Mr. President, again I thank my distinguished ranking minority member, Senator Sarbanes, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and the bill.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kerry as my primary cosponsor to reintroduce legislation to protect consumers from excessive and redundant fees imposed by automated teller machine [ATM] operators. I am also pleased that Senators Boxer, Bryan, Moseley-Braun, Murray, and Chafee have chosen to join with me once again in cosponsoring this important initiative. Mr. President, last year, I introduced legislation to eliminate ATM fees. At that time, some of my colleagues argued that consumers could always choose to go to an ATM that does not double-charge. I predicted then that if we permit this practice, eventually every bank will double-charge consumers would have no choice but to pay through the nose. Last fall, I asked the General Accounting Office to examine ATM fees. I want to know how many banks are double charging and how much consumers are being forced to pay. This morning the Banking Committee heard GAO's results. Their results detail the spread of the anticonsumer, anticompetitive, and anti-free- market practice--double ATM fees. In a nutshell, this abusive practice is spreading like wildfire and consumers across the country are getting burned. When I received the GAO report, I was shocked to find that, in just over a year, the number of ATM's that double charge consumers has risen 320 percent since the end of 1995. That means that consumers have less and less of a choice when they need to use an ATM. The GAO study also reveals that 54 percent of the ATM's in the United States are now double-charging. Soon consumers will have nowhere to turn. For that reason, I am reintroducing my bill, the Fair ATM Fees for Consumers Act. Until April of last year, most consumers paid a fee, usually about $1, to their own bank each time they used another bank's ATM. This fee was intended to cover the cost of the transaction. Now, in addition to that fee, the ATM operator may charge these consumers a second fee. This second fee can run as high as $3 per transaction. Many consumers are forced to pay a total of $3 or more just to take $20 of their own money out of the bank. That's outrageous. Double-charging was prohibited in most of the country until April 1, 1996, when Visa and MasterCard, which operate the two largest ATM networks, endorsed this practice. When the Banking Committee held a hearing on double ATM charges last summer Visa and MasterCard refused to appear. I intend to hold further hearings on this issue and I fully expect Visa and MasterCard to testify as to why they suddenly permitted this double charge which hurts consumers and community banks. Recent estimates show that the average consumer is paying a whopping $155 per year to use automated teller machines or ATM's. The average family will pay several times that amount. That's outrageous. The banks are making windfall profits from working people. A transaction conducted at an ATM costs about 25 cents while the same transaction conducted by a teller in a bank branch costs well over a dollar. Realizing this, banks strongly encouraged their customers to use ATM's. ATM's appeared everywhere as banks cut bank on branches and teller service. ATM networks were formed when individual banks joined together and agreed to let each other's customers use any ATM in the network without paying any extra charges. Now, banks are suddenly claiming that ATM's are no longer cost effective. They have decided to soak consumers with multiple fees every time they need to take money out of their accounts. Banks report record profits in part by slapping customers and noncustomers with ever-increasing convenience fees. In many cases, consumers are forced to pay multiple fees for a single ATM transaction. Imagine, working men and women are paying two separate fees for the privilege of getting their own money. This is a windfall for the banks. The consumer receives no additional benefit and the bank provides no additional service. A recent study by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group [U.S. PIRG] reported that banks will profit $1.9 billion from ATM surcharges alone this year. This double charge is a free lunch for the banks and consumers are footing the bill. I am not opposed to banks making a profit, but double ATM fees unfairly exploit the consumer. Banks argue that consumers have the freedom to go to an ATM that doesn't double-charge. But working people on their lunch hours, or late at night, have no time to hunt for a free ATM when they need cash. As the GAO reported, those free ATM's are getting very hard to find. The people who are getting hit the hardest are the ones who can least afford it. While many Americans can simply choose to avoid extra fees by taking $100 or $200 every time they go to an ATM, many families struggling to make ends meet don't have that option. Senior citizens on fixed incomes and students with little money to space are being forced to pay $2 or $3 just to take out $20. A $3 fee on a $200 withdrawal is a nuisance, but taking a $3 bite out of a $20 withdrawal is outrageous. Mr. President, double-charging is a monopolistic practice that eliminates competition and distorts the free market. Banks are using double ATM fees to squeeze small competitors out of business. Community banks, thrifts, and credit unions have customers who depend on access to other institutions' ATM's. These customers now pay twice whenever they use an ATM. Large banks with many ATM's are exploiting this situation to lure away small bank customers. Eventually, small banks will not be able to survive. That's not competition, that's a monopoly. When ATM's were first introduced, banks claimed that these machines would give consumers more choices and greater convenience. ATM's were supposed to reduce costs and the savings could be passed on to consumers. Today, when bank profits are at record highs, it is astonishing that banks cannot resist the temptation to squeeze consumers a little harder by doubling ATM fees, I look forward to holding additional hearings on ATM fees during this Congress to provide opponents and proponents of the bill, including representatives of various States that are attempting to enact bans, an opportunity to participate in this debate. I hope may colleagues will join me in taking a stand against this predatory banking practice. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is and shall remain the undivided capital of the State of Israel. The facts are simple: Jerusalem belongs to Israel for the simple reason that for three millennia, it has been the spiritual, historical, cultural, and moral capital of the Jewish people. In recognition of this fact, the relocation of our Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem should take place as called for in the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act of 1995. Thirty years after reuniting the city after preempting another attack by her surrounding Arab neighbors, Israel has sought to make the city open to people of all faiths and to make the holy sites available to all who come. The fact remains, that Jerusalem has never been the capital of any nation but that of the Jews. That is the way it should remain. Mr. President, Jerusalem has been central in the thoughts and minds of the Jewish people for 3,000 years. As the holy city, Jerusalem is the spiritual and religious center of Judaism and is an indivisible part of the State of Israel. While I understand that the present Middle East peace negotiations are both complicated and delicate, I do not want anyone to fall under the impression that Jerusalem will belong to anyone other than Israel. If the future of Jerusalem remains unclear in the minds of the Palestinians then they will increase their demands and this will further complicate the already tense negotiations. Let the message be clear: A united Jerusalem is off limits to negotiation.