Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I would be pleased to do so. I believe the National Housing Act currently gives HUD the power to protect elderly homeowners seeking home equity conversion mortgage loans, including the authority to regulate or prohibit unnecessary or excessive fees that mortgagors pay to third parties for referrals to HECM lenders and related services. Due to the urgent need to protect elderly homeowners, S. 562 will require HUD initially to implement these provisions through an interim notice in the Federal Register. HUD will also be required to proceed with formal notice and comment rulemaking and issue a final rule within 90 days. If needed to meet the 90-day target, HUD may provide an abbreviated public comment period.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I simply want to say that no one has worked harder in bringing this matter to light and sponsoring this legislation than Senator Bryan. He has pointed out that there are 12 million elderly homeowners who own their homes free and clear, and what has taken place is that they have become targets of these people who masquerade as estate planners. There are tens of thousands of older homeowners who are house-rich but cash-poor and have successfully utilized this program. But we have to see to it that we keep these scam artists from moving in further. The success of the reverse mortgage program has opened the door to scam artists that are moving into our communities. To date, fortunately, this has not become a situation that is widespread. Hopefully, we will be educating people by speaking to them today and telling them to watch out. But, more importantly, we should see to it that they have the protections afforded by this legislation. Let me also say that the State of Nevada has many senior citizens who are potential targets. Obviously, the Senator from Nevada is very concerned. Mr. President, one who has worked tirelessly in this matter has been Senator Dodd. I yield the floor to my friend and colleague, Senator Dodd.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am introducing this bill in an effort to protect the vast majority of patients in this country. Currently, in order to control the cost of health care, managed care organizations often place limits on the delivery of necessary medical services. I believe American families must be guaranteed basic health rights when dealing with HMOs and managed care providers. The bottom line in medicine must be the health of the patient, not the profits of any given company. This legislation, the Patient Access to Responsible Care Act, will meet this obligation. With this Act, I seek to establish basic protections for patients and health care providers in order to ensure the best medical care for patients. I envision these basic provisions giving Americans a set of health rights, in the form of a Patients' Bill of Rights, when dealing with HMOs and other health insurance plans. These rights include: The Right to Choose Your Own Doctor. This bill will allow patients to select their own doctors within their plan and change their selection of doctor as the patient feels necessary. It also gives patients, who are in managed care-only health plans, the option to see doctors outside their HMOs for an additional fee. The Right to Quality Health Care. This legislation will ensure that doctors are not prohibited or limited in any way from discussing a patient's health status, treatment options or any other medical communications. It also stops HMOs from using financial incentives for doctors to deny or limit care to patients. We must make sure that health care decisions are based on sound medical criteria and not the financial bottom line. The Right to Justice. This Act closes loopholes in current law that allow the vast majority of health insurance plans to escape legal responsibility for decisions causing needless injury or death to a patient. Currently, self-insured managed care plans cannot be held liable for a patient's wrongful death or personal injuries resulting from plan policies even when those policies directly contributed to the patient's death or injury. This is wrong and this bill would guarantee that if HMO policies hurt patients, the HMO will be held accountable for their actions. In addition, within a patient's health plan, this bill guarantees patients can quickly and easily appeal adverse decisions by their manage care plans. We've heard too many horror stories of patients who have been denied treatment by a health plans' policy. In addition, the appeals process is too bureaucratic and lengthy, sometimes resulting in tragic consequences. We must always put the quality of patient care first. The Right to Full Disclosure. This bill also provides that health insurance plans make available to each patient a list of what health care is covered, what are the plans costs and profits, and how much is the plan spending on marketing and other non-medical costs. This is a sort of ``truth-in-lending'' statement for health plans. When I first considered introducing this Patients' Bill of Rights, I was concerned about how prevalent a need there was for this type of legislation. I quickly found numerous instances where patients were suffering adverse outcomes from poor medical decisions made by managed care companies. The most publicized recent case is Corcoran versus United Health Care. In this case, Ms. Corcoran, a Louisiana woman with a high risk pregnancy, was admitted to a hospital under her physician's orders. She was discharged from the hospital after her health plan refused to pay for her care. The health plan would only authorize a visiting nurse to check on the woman at home. At one point, when the nurse was absent, the unborn child went into distress and died. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the woman had no right to sue the HMO for damages because the insurance plan was governed under ERISA laws. These laws preempt state insurance laws allowing patients to seek due process. Americans cannot expect health care with this type of managed health care. As I said before, there are numerous instances where managed care is revealed to be ruled by a company's profits. In New York, a diabetic developed an infection in his foot that had become gangrenous and had spread all the way to his groin. Almost his entire leg was infected and the blood vessels clogged. His doctor, a cardio-vascular specialist, feared that the gentleman could lose his foot if treatment was not initiated immediately. So, as a responsible physician, he admitted his patient to the hospital where he was immediately treated with intravenous antibiotics to combat the infection. Once in the hospital, the gentleman's HMO contacted the doctor to find out how long he anticipated the hospital stay would be. Since the man had clogged blood vessels and had to undergo a vascular bypass in order to be treated, the doctor estimated a stay between 10 and 15 days. Upon learning this, an HMO official went to the gentleman's hospital room, and without even notifying the doctor, told the man that ``he could watch Oprah and be treated as well from home with a visiting nurse.'' The gentleman's doctor repeatedly argued with the HMO that it was not medically safe to release his patient from the hospital. But, with fluid still draining from his wounds and the doctor still protesting against the early discharge, the gentleman was sent home just a week after being admitted. The next day, the HMO sent a nurse-- not a cardiovascular specialist or even a doctor, but a nurse--to his home to evaluate his condition and to show his wife how to change the dressing covering his wounds. With this state of affairs, the man eventually required surgery. With the early discharge and the lack of responsible care on the part of the HMO, the surgery had to be postponed because the patient's blood had become too thin to safely perform surgery. In Georgia, a 2-year old boy was suffering from a high fever which did not respond to medication. His parents followed the insurance company's instructions for pre-authorization of emergency room care and attempted to drive 42 miles to the preferred hospital. The couple passed five emergency rooms along the way. Before they could reach the preferred hospital, their son went into cardiac arrest and stopped breathing. The child slipped into a coma, developed gangrene in his extremities, and subsequently lost his arms and legs to amputation. In California, a young girl was diagnosed with Wilm's tumor, a rare childhood kidney cancer. The families new HMO required that the girl's surgery be performed by a surgeon within the managed care plan. None of the plan's surgeons had any experience with Wilm's tumor. The family chose to use an expert surgeon outside of the plan who had a proven track record with this type of tumor. The surgery was a success and the child has fully recovered. However, the HMO denied coverage for going outside of their system causing the family to enter a 2 year legal battle with the plan. In the first ever enforcement action against an HMO for a patient complaint, the state imposed a $500,000 fine against the plan for denying appropriate medical care. In Colorado, a 75-year old woman was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer, but her plan refused to authorize surgery to remove the kidney and tumor of such an elderly woman. The plan only relented and allowed the surgery to be performed when a Congressman finally intervened on her behalf. The lady's cancer is now in full remission. In Texas, a 17-year old Texas girl was critically injured in a head- on car crash that left her with severe head trauma, a broken back, a crushed pelvis, and numerous other injuries. She eventually pulled through, but her health plan refused to pay $40,000 of her hospital bill because her family had not received ``prior authorization'' for her emergency admission to the hospital--even though the hospital was a preferred provider for the plan. These stories are not isolated incidents. They do not happen just in New York and Georgia, but across the nation. They speak for the thousands of patients across the country who have been denied access to the responsible care they need and deserve. Mr. President, I believe it would be beneficial for my colleagues if I summarized what rights this bill will provide for patients across the country and how this bill meets those rights. First of all, we are trying to increase patient access to plans and doctors. Patients, including those in under served inner-city and rural areas, are ensured their choice of doctor within the plan. The bill will ensure that health plans have enough doctors to guarantee this choice. Patients will also have access to any specialist required by their medical condition within the plan. In addition, patients are to have emergency health care without the burden of seeking prior approval from their health plan. Also in this Act, patients will have an expanded choice of health care providers inside and outside of the network. People can either go through the network, or choose a plan that allows them to go out of the network, although at a higher cost. They will be allowed to select their own personal doctors within their plan and change their selection as the patient feels necessary. Patients will also be given the option to choose a health insurance plan that covers health care options not offered in the network. The managed care plan would reimburse the costs of these services based on rates consistent with those negotiated under the plan. Patients would be responsible for any remaining costs. This bill will include a prohibition on gag rules. Patients are ensured that the health plan will not in any way limit doctors from discussing the patient's health status, treatment options or any other medical communication. Health plans can not offer any incentives, financial or otherwise, for doctors to deny or limit any health care. In addition, this Bill of Rights forces HMOs to be responsible for their decisions. Currently, HMOs can not be held liable for wrongful death or personal injury suffered by the medical decision making policies of the plan, action may only be brought against the doctor and the hospital. Even if the HMO or the plan had in place a policy which directly contributed to death or injury of a patient, they are protected. This bill changes that by ensuring that managed care plans are held responsible for any medical decisions that they make. This bill says that if you make a medical decision, no matter who you are, you will be responsible for your actions. ERISA was never intended to be used as a shield for health plans providing negligent medical care. Also, there will be a provision providing due process on patient appeals claims made to their heath plans. Within the plan, patients will be guaranteed the ability to quickly and easily appeal adverse decisions. The act will establish an information disclosure provision allowing patients to make informed decisions about which health plan would be best for them. This is a sort of ``Truth in Lending'' statement for HMO's. Every health plan will be required to disclose information about plan benefits, appeals procedures, plan performance measures, history of patient satisfaction, as well as the number and type of health care providers participating in the network. Based on this information, patients will be guaranteed the ability to make informed decisions about the quality of their health care and the managed care companies they choose from. In addition, there will be doctor and patient protections from discrimination. The provision allows any doctor who meets a clear set of standards the opportunity to be a member of any managed care plan. In addition, patients will not be discriminated against based on their personal background or preexisting conditions, such as long-term and costly diseases. Mr. President, we have an obligation to set minimum health care standards in the private sector to protect American families and ensure they have access to quality health care. We cannot allow the profits of the company to get in the way of patient health. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am introducing this bill in an effort to protect the vast majority of patients in this country. Currently, in order to control the cost of health care, managed care organizations often place limits on the delivery of necessary medical services. I believe American families must be guaranteed basic health rights when dealing with HMOs and managed care providers. The bottom line in medicine must be the health of the patient, not the profits of any given company. This legislation, the Patient Access to Responsible Care Act, will meet this obligation. With this Act, I seek to establish basic protections for patients and health care providers in order to ensure the best medical care for patients. I envision these basic provisions giving Americans a set of health rights, in the form of a Patients' Bill of Rights, when dealing with HMOs and other health insurance plans. These rights include: The Right to Choose Your Own Doctor. This bill will allow patients to select their own doctors within their plan and change their selection of doctor as the patient feels necessary. It also gives patients, who are in managed care-only health plans, the option to see doctors outside their HMOs for an additional fee. The Right to Quality Health Care. This legislation will ensure that doctors are not prohibited or limited in any way from discussing a patient's health status, treatment options or any other medical communications. It also stops HMOs from using financial incentives for doctors to deny or limit care to patients. We must make sure that health care decisions are based on sound medical criteria and not the financial bottom line. The Right to Justice. This Act closes loopholes in current law that allow the vast majority of health insurance plans to escape legal responsibility for decisions causing needless injury or death to a patient. Currently, self-insured managed care plans cannot be held liable for a patient's wrongful death or personal injuries resulting from plan policies even when those policies directly contributed to the patient's death or injury. This is wrong and this bill would guarantee that if HMO policies hurt patients, the HMO will be held accountable for their actions. In addition, within a patient's health plan, this bill guarantees patients can quickly and easily appeal adverse decisions by their manage care plans. We've heard too many horror stories of patients who have been denied treatment by a health plans' policy. In addition, the appeals process is too bureaucratic and lengthy, sometimes resulting in tragic consequences. We must always put the quality of patient care first. The Right to Full Disclosure. This bill also provides that health insurance plans make available to each patient a list of what health care is covered, what are the plans costs and profits, and how much is the plan spending on marketing and other non-medical costs. This is a sort of ``truth-in-lending'' statement for health plans. When I first considered introducing this Patients' Bill of Rights, I was concerned about how prevalent a need there was for this type of legislation. I quickly found numerous instances where patients were suffering adverse outcomes from poor medical decisions made by managed care companies. The most publicized recent case is Corcoran versus United Health Care. In this case, Ms. Corcoran, a Louisiana woman with a high risk pregnancy, was admitted to a hospital under her physician's orders. She was discharged from the hospital after her health plan refused to pay for her care. The health plan would only authorize a visiting nurse to check on the woman at home. At one point, when the nurse was absent, the unborn child went into distress and died. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the woman had no right to sue the HMO for damages because the insurance plan was governed under ERISA laws. These laws preempt state insurance laws allowing patients to seek due process. Americans cannot expect health care with this type of managed health care. As I said before, there are numerous instances where managed care is revealed to be ruled by a company's profits. In New York, a diabetic developed an infection in his foot that had become gangrenous and had spread all the way to his groin. Almost his entire leg was infected and the blood vessels clogged. His doctor, a cardio-vascular specialist, feared that the gentleman could lose his foot if treatment was not initiated immediately. So, as a responsible physician, he admitted his patient to the hospital where he was immediately treated with intravenous antibiotics to combat the infection. Once in the hospital, the gentleman's HMO contacted the doctor to find out how long he anticipated the hospital stay would be. Since the man had clogged blood vessels and had to undergo a vascular bypass in order to be treated, the doctor estimated a stay between 10 and 15 days. Upon learning this, an HMO official went to the gentleman's hospital room, and without even notifying the doctor, told the man that ``he could watch Oprah and be treated as well from home with a visiting nurse.'' The gentleman's doctor repeatedly argued with the HMO that it was not medically safe to release his patient from the hospital. But, with fluid still draining from his wounds and the doctor still protesting against the early discharge, the gentleman was sent home just a week after being admitted. The next day, the HMO sent a nurse-- not a cardiovascular specialist or even a doctor, but a nurse--to his home to evaluate his condition and to show his wife how to change the dressing covering his wounds. With this state of affairs, the man eventually required surgery. With the early discharge and the lack of responsible care on the part of the HMO, the surgery had to be postponed because the patient's blood had become too thin to safely perform surgery. In Georgia, a 2-year old boy was suffering from a high fever which did not respond to medication. His parents followed the insurance company's instructions for pre-authorization of emergency room care and attempted to drive 42 miles to the preferred hospital. The couple passed five emergency rooms along the way. Before they could reach the preferred hospital, their son went into cardiac arrest and stopped breathing. The child slipped into a coma, developed gangrene in his extremities, and subsequently lost his arms and legs to amputation. In California, a young girl was diagnosed with Wilm's tumor, a rare childhood kidney cancer. The families new HMO required that the girl's surgery be performed by a surgeon within the managed care plan. None of the plan's surgeons had any experience with Wilm's tumor. The family chose to use an expert surgeon outside of the plan who had a proven track record with this type of tumor. The surgery was a success and the child has fully recovered. However, the HMO denied coverage for going outside of their system causing the family to enter a 2 year legal battle with the plan. In the first ever enforcement action against an HMO for a patient complaint, the state imposed a $500,000 fine against the plan for denying appropriate medical care. In Colorado, a 75-year old woman was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer, but her plan refused to authorize surgery to remove the kidney and tumor of such an elderly woman. The plan only relented and allowed the surgery to be performed when a Congressman finally intervened on her behalf. The lady's cancer is now in full remission. In Texas, a 17-year old Texas girl was critically injured in a head- on car crash that left her with severe head trauma, a broken back, a crushed pelvis, and numerous other injuries. She eventually pulled through, but her health plan refused to pay $40,000 of her hospital bill because her family had not received ``prior authorization'' for her emergency admission to the hospital--even though the hospital was a preferred provider for the plan. These stories are not isolated incidents. They do not happen just in New York and Georgia, but across the nation. They speak for the thousands of patients across the country who have been denied access to the responsible care they need and deserve. Mr. President, I believe it would be beneficial for my colleagues if I summarized what rights this bill will provide for patients across the country and how this bill meets those rights. First of all, we are trying to increase patient access to plans and doctors. Patients, including those in under served inner-city and rural areas, are ensured their choice of doctor within the plan. The bill will ensure that health plans have enough doctors to guarantee this choice. Patients will also have access to any specialist required by their medical condition within the plan. In addition, patients are to have emergency health care without the burden of seeking prior approval from their health plan. Also in this Act, patients will have an expanded choice of health care providers inside and outside of the network. People can either go through the network, or choose a plan that allows them to go out of the network, although at a higher cost. They will be allowed to select their own personal doctors within their plan and change their selection as the patient feels necessary. Patients will also be given the option to choose a health insurance plan that covers health care options not offered in the network. The managed care plan would reimburse the costs of these services based on rates consistent with those negotiated under the plan. Patients would be responsible for any remaining costs. This bill will include a prohibition on gag rules. Patients are ensured that the health plan will not in any way limit doctors from discussing the patient's health status, treatment options or any other medical communication. Health plans can not offer any incentives, financial or otherwise, for doctors to deny or limit any health care. In addition, this Bill of Rights forces HMOs to be responsible for their decisions. Currently, HMOs can not be held liable for wrongful death or personal injury suffered by the medical decision making policies of the plan, action may only be brought against the doctor and the hospital. Even if the HMO or the plan had in place a policy which directly contributed to death or injury of a patient, they are protected. This bill changes that by ensuring that managed care plans are held responsible for any medical decisions that they make. This bill says that if you make a medical decision, no matter who you are, you will be responsible for your actions. ERISA was never intended to be used as a shield for health plans providing negligent medical care. Also, there will be a provision providing due process on patient appeals claims made to their heath plans. Within the plan, patients will be guaranteed the ability to quickly and easily appeal adverse decisions. The act will establish an information disclosure provision allowing patients to make informed decisions about which health plan would be best for them. This is a sort of ``Truth in Lending'' statement for HMO's. Every health plan will be required to disclose information about plan benefits, appeals procedures, plan performance measures, history of patient satisfaction, as well as the number and type of health care providers participating in the network. Based on this information, patients will be guaranteed the ability to make informed decisions about the quality of their health care and the managed care companies they choose from. In addition, there will be doctor and patient protections from discrimination. The provision allows any doctor who meets a clear set of standards the opportunity to be a member of any managed care plan. In addition, patients will not be discriminated against based on their personal background or preexisting conditions, such as long-term and costly diseases. Mr. President, we have an obligation to set minimum health care standards in the private sector to protect American families and ensure they have access to quality health care. We cannot allow the profits of the company to get in the way of patient health. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, America has always been a haven for victims of oppression and it is fitting that Members of this body rise every year to mark April 24--the day that commemorates Turkey's genocide of the Armenians. In the first instance in the 20th century when a state declared war on a minority group, an estimated 1.5 million people were killed. We rise today to show our solidarity with the victims and our condemnation of the slaughterers. Many Armenian survivors came to the United States, where they found sanctuary. They have prospered and their vibrant community as a whole has become an integral part of American life and the democratic process. But while realizing and contributing to the American dream, they always remembered their Armenian origins, and never forgot their national sorrow. As Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel has written, the Armenian people are rooted firmly ``in their collective and immutable memory where death itself is vanquished, because the memory of death is received as a symbol, an instant of eternity.'' Their sharing of the Armenian historical experience with non- Armenians has served as a stark reminder for us all of the universality of human evil and the strength of the human spirit, even at the darkest moments. The resilience of the survivors and Armenians the world over have inspired in other peoples feelings of shared sorrow and admiration. We mourn with them, and simultaneously take pride in their ability to overcome a great historical injustice, the consciousness of which never disappears. Unhappily for them, Armenians have been called upon to be our teachers. From their terrible suffering we have learned that states may not make war upon minority groups, and the international community will neither tolerate nor forget such transgressions. From their ability to transcend the saddest moments of their history, we take heart and recommit ourselves to remembrance, celebration, and vigilance.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, on August 22, 1997, in nearly 100 days, approximately half a million legal immigrants in this country, currently receiving SSI, will lose their benefits. These recipients are elderly or disabled--a vulnerable part of our population. Of the 80,000 legal immigrants at risk of losing their SSI benefits in New York State, more than 70,000 are in New York City. The city estimates that there will also be 130,000 immigrants who will lose food stamps. According to New York City estimates, the loss of SSI and food stamps to city immigrants is a loss of $442 million from the Federal Government to immigrants in New York City in 1998. On April 17, I joined with my colleagues Senators Chafee, Feinstein, Moynihan, DeWine, Lieberman, and Mikulski to introduce legislation that will allow immigrants who were in the United States legally and were receiving SSI and food stamps on August 22, 1996 (the day the welfare reform bill was enacted) to continue to receive those benefits. Legal immigrants who were in this country and receiving benefits at the time the welfare reform act was enacted should not have the rules changed midstream. The legislation introduced last Thursday also allows refugees who were legally in the United States as of August 22, 1996 to receive SSI or food stamps, without a 5-year limitation. Refugees who entered after August 1996 will only be able to receive benefits for 5 years. Congress needs time to enact legislation that will protect the most vulnerable population--the elderly and the disabled who are relying on these Federal benefits and refugees who are fleeing persecution. Enacting a legislative fix will take time but the clock is ticking closer to August 1997, when benefits are expected to be cut. That is why Senator Chafee, DeWine, and I are introducing a bill that will provide the necessary time for Congress to further examine options and take action. The bill will delay the cut-off period for legal immigrants who are SSI and food stamp recipients until February 22, 1998. A delay in implementation will also allow immigrants who are trying to naturalize an additional 6 months to complete the citizenship process. This is especially important, because under the Welfare Reform Act, a legal immigrant who becomes an American citizen is eligible for benefits as any other citizen. The naturalization process can prove to be a bureaucratic nightmare-- especially for elderly and disabled poor immigrants. These people should not be unfairly penalized for being caught in the bureaucracy. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues review the merits of this bill, as well as the Chafee-Feinstein-D'Amato bill to restore benefits to certain categories of immigrants, and hope for their passage.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, on August 22, 1997, in nearly 100 days, approximately half a million legal immigrants in this country, currently receiving SSI, will lose their benefits. These recipients are elderly or disabled--a vulnerable part of our population. Of the 80,000 legal immigrants at risk of losing their SSI benefits in New York State, more than 70,000 are in New York City. The city estimates that there will also be 130,000 immigrants who will lose food stamps. According to New York City estimates, the loss of SSI and food stamps to city immigrants is a loss of $442 million from the Federal Government to immigrants in New York City in 1998. On April 17, I joined with my colleagues Senators Chafee, Feinstein, Moynihan, DeWine, Lieberman, and Mikulski to introduce legislation that will allow immigrants who were in the United States legally and were receiving SSI and food stamps on August 22, 1996 (the day the welfare reform bill was enacted) to continue to receive those benefits. Legal immigrants who were in this country and receiving benefits at the time the welfare reform act was enacted should not have the rules changed midstream. The legislation introduced last Thursday also allows refugees who were legally in the United States as of August 22, 1996 to receive SSI or food stamps, without a 5-year limitation. Refugees who entered after August 1996 will only be able to receive benefits for 5 years. Congress needs time to enact legislation that will protect the most vulnerable population--the elderly and the disabled who are relying on these Federal benefits and refugees who are fleeing persecution. Enacting a legislative fix will take time but the clock is ticking closer to August 1997, when benefits are expected to be cut. That is why Senator Chafee, DeWine, and I are introducing a bill that will provide the necessary time for Congress to further examine options and take action. The bill will delay the cut-off period for legal immigrants who are SSI and food stamp recipients until February 22, 1998. A delay in implementation will also allow immigrants who are trying to naturalize an additional 6 months to complete the citizenship process. This is especially important, because under the Welfare Reform Act, a legal immigrant who becomes an American citizen is eligible for benefits as any other citizen. The naturalization process can prove to be a bureaucratic nightmare-- especially for elderly and disabled poor immigrants. These people should not be unfairly penalized for being caught in the bureaucracy. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues review the merits of this bill, as well as the Chafee-Feinstein-D'Amato bill to restore benefits to certain categories of immigrants, and hope for their passage.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I introduce the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1997. This legislation is substantively identical to S. 1317 which the Senate Banking Committee reported in the 104th Congress. The bill would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, [PUHCA] and would transfer residual regulatory authority from the Securities and Exchange Commission to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and State public service commissions. Mr. President, this bill is introduced with the bipartisan cosponsorship of Senators Murkowski, Dodd, Sarbanes, Gramm, Shelby, Mack, Faircloth, Allard, Lott, Domenici, Akaka, Inouye, Coats, Cochran, Roberts, Brownback, Coverdell, and Specter. Mr. President, this legislation would eliminate duplicative, unnecessary regulation which unfairly burdens a few utility holding companies. It would allow holding companies to improve service and possibly lower the costs of consumers' utility bills. The bill would enhance existing regulatory tools and provide State and Federal regulators new authority to ensure that they can protect energy consumers from unfair rate increases. PUHCA was originally enacted more than six decades ago to regulate public utility holding companies. At that time, this Federal statute was needed to fill the regulatory gap that enabled holding companies to conceal assets by creating and speculating in public utility companies. Mr. President, PUHCA has achieved the congressional purpose--it broke up the mammoth holding company structures that existed more than half a century ago. PUHCA is not only outdated, it is the relic of a different era. Today there is strong regulation of the energy industry at the State and Federal level. In addition, the Federal securities laws' registration and disclosure requirements have become effective tools for the SEC to protect investors and ensure the integrity of the market for public utility holding company securities. Originally enacted to protect consumers and investors, PUHCA has become an unnecessary impediment to efficient and flexible business operations. Currently, there are 180 public utility holding companies in the United States. Of these 180 companies, 165 are exempt from PUHCA and only 15 companies are subject to direct SEC regulation. As a result, PUHCA imposes a burdensome regulatory scheme on these 15 registered holding companies and prevents them from diversifying into new business areas. PUHCA keeps these holding companies from diversifying, limits their growth opportunities and options, and requires the companies to apply for SEC permission to engage in almost all new business activities. PUHCA also hinders the growth of nonregistered, exempt holding companies. Once exempt companies expand their business across State lines they too become subject to PUHCA's restrictions. As a result, exempt companies refrain from expanding across State lines even when such a move would lead to cheaper and more efficiently produced energy for consumers. Similarly, PUHCA prevents non-utility holding companies from diversifying into utility business. Mr. President, PUHCA is more than just another example of Government overregulation--it is an impediment to both the deregulation of the energy industry and to the growth and diversification of existing businesses. Since many States have begun to deregulate the energy industry and Congress plans to review energy reform issues, the time for PUHCA reform is now. This year, in my own backyard, Long Island, two utility companies will merge. This merger is expected to reduce energy bills for Long Island energy customers who currently pay the highest rates for energy in the continental U.S. The merger will not only lead to lower rates, but it should also mean better service for customers. While Long Island's energy customers can finally look forward to lower rates, PUHCA prevents other utility companies from expanding, merging, and offering new services to consumers. Like any other utility merger, the State, the FERC and other Federal regulators will have to approve this merger. Under PUHCA, if either of these companies was a registered holding company or the merger involved companies from neighboring States, the companies would also have to seek SEC approval of the merger in advance and at all subsequent stages of restructuring. For example, if this merger included utility companies from New Jersey or Connecticut, PUHCA's restrictions on diversification and burdensome requirements, could have prevented a merger that would benefit consumers, investors, and business. As one of the leaders in energy deregulation, New York State provides an example of why PUHCA reform is necessary now. Without PUHCA reform, companies will choose alternative corporate structures to avoid PUHCA's restrictive requirements, preventing the efficient restructuring of the energy industry. Congress must reform PUHCA so that the energy industry will be efficient and consumers can realize the reduction in rates and improvement in services they deserve. Mr. President, the bill I introduce today follows the SEC's Division of Investment Management's 1995 recommendation to conditionally repeal PUHCA since ``the current regulatory system imposes significant costs, in direct administrative charges and foregone economies of scale and scope, that often cannot be justified in terms of benefits to utility investors.'' The legislation has been crafted in consultation with State and Federal utility regulators, public interest groups, the Senate Energy Committee, and both registered and non-registered utility companies. Mr. President, let me summarize the purpose of the bill. The Public Utility Company Act of 1997 would maintain the provisions of the 1935 Act essential to consumer protection. In fact, the bill enhances consumer safeguards by enabling energy regulators to oversee all holding company operations. Specifically, the bill makes it easier for FERC and State public service commissions to protect consumers from paying nonutility related costs by giving the regulators expanded authority to review the books and records of all holding company activities to determine energy rates. At the same time, the bill would preserve FERC's authority to review transactions, acquisitions, and mergers of utilities and would clarify the FERC and state commission's authority to allocate costs when setting rates. The bill also gives state commissions vital enforcement backup to ensure that they can access all the books and records necessary to make rate determinations. Mr. President, the goal of PUHCA reform is increased competition--to make sure consumers ultimately pay lower utility rates not higher ones. While some would prefer to address PUHCA reform in the larger context of comprehensive energy deregulation, there is no reason to delay consideration of this separate bill I introduce today. Rather than package PUHCA with comprehensive reform of the federal energy laws, PUHCA reform can proceed, on a stand alone basis, as it does not affect the larger energy issues which my knowledgeable colleagues on the Energy Committee are considering. In fact, the experts in the energy field, lead by the distinguished chairman and former ranking member of the Energy Committee, Senators Murkowski and Johnston, who testified before the Banking Committee on this issue last year, believe that PUHCA reform should move independently of, and separate from, full energy deregulation. PUHCA reform is a necessary first step in creating an efficient energy industry. Mr. President, I have been a proponent of PUHCA reform for 16 years. Congress should allow consumers access to the cheapest power and the best services by repealing this burdensome and unnecessary law. The American people deserve and expect an efficient energy industry unfettered by unnecessary regulation. The legislation I introduce today accomplishes this by removing the energy industry from the 60-year-old regulatory shackles put in place by PUHCA. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that we may provide consumers with a highly efficient energy market that has better consumer protections. 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, today I introduce the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1997. This legislation is substantively identical to S. 1317 which the Senate Banking Committee reported in the 104th Congress. The bill would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, [PUHCA] and would transfer residual regulatory authority from the Securities and Exchange Commission to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and State public service commissions. Mr. President, this bill is introduced with the bipartisan cosponsorship of Senators Murkowski, Dodd, Sarbanes, Gramm, Shelby, Mack, Faircloth, Allard, Lott, Domenici, Akaka, Inouye, Coats, Cochran, Roberts, Brownback, Coverdell, and Specter. Mr. President, this legislation would eliminate duplicative, unnecessary regulation which unfairly burdens a few utility holding companies. It would allow holding companies to improve service and possibly lower the costs of consumers' utility bills. The bill would enhance existing regulatory tools and provide State and Federal regulators new authority to ensure that they can protect energy consumers from unfair rate increases. PUHCA was originally enacted more than six decades ago to regulate public utility holding companies. At that time, this Federal statute was needed to fill the regulatory gap that enabled holding companies to conceal assets by creating and speculating in public utility companies. Mr. President, PUHCA has achieved the congressional purpose--it broke up the mammoth holding company structures that existed more than half a century ago. PUHCA is not only outdated, it is the relic of a different era. Today there is strong regulation of the energy industry at the State and Federal level. In addition, the Federal securities laws' registration and disclosure requirements have become effective tools for the SEC to protect investors and ensure the integrity of the market for public utility holding company securities. Originally enacted to protect consumers and investors, PUHCA has become an unnecessary impediment to efficient and flexible business operations. Currently, there are 180 public utility holding companies in the United States. Of these 180 companies, 165 are exempt from PUHCA and only 15 companies are subject to direct SEC regulation. As a result, PUHCA imposes a burdensome regulatory scheme on these 15 registered holding companies and prevents them from diversifying into new business areas. PUHCA keeps these holding companies from diversifying, limits their growth opportunities and options, and requires the companies to apply for SEC permission to engage in almost all new business activities. PUHCA also hinders the growth of nonregistered, exempt holding companies. Once exempt companies expand their business across State lines they too become subject to PUHCA's restrictions. As a result, exempt companies refrain from expanding across State lines even when such a move would lead to cheaper and more efficiently produced energy for consumers. Similarly, PUHCA prevents non-utility holding companies from diversifying into utility business. Mr. President, PUHCA is more than just another example of Government overregulation--it is an impediment to both the deregulation of the energy industry and to the growth and diversification of existing businesses. Since many States have begun to deregulate the energy industry and Congress plans to review energy reform issues, the time for PUHCA reform is now. This year, in my own backyard, Long Island, two utility companies will merge. This merger is expected to reduce energy bills for Long Island energy customers who currently pay the highest rates for energy in the continental U.S. The merger will not only lead to lower rates, but it should also mean better service for customers. While Long Island's energy customers can finally look forward to lower rates, PUHCA prevents other utility companies from expanding, merging, and offering new services to consumers. Like any other utility merger, the State, the FERC and other Federal regulators will have to approve this merger. Under PUHCA, if either of these companies was a registered holding company or the merger involved companies from neighboring States, the companies would also have to seek SEC approval of the merger in advance and at all subsequent stages of restructuring. For example, if this merger included utility companies from New Jersey or Connecticut, PUHCA's restrictions on diversification and burdensome requirements, could have prevented a merger that would benefit consumers, investors, and business. As one of the leaders in energy deregulation, New York State provides an example of why PUHCA reform is necessary now. Without PUHCA reform, companies will choose alternative corporate structures to avoid PUHCA's restrictive requirements, preventing the efficient restructuring of the energy industry. Congress must reform PUHCA so that the energy industry will be efficient and consumers can realize the reduction in rates and improvement in services they deserve. Mr. President, the bill I introduce today follows the SEC's Division of Investment Management's 1995 recommendation to conditionally repeal PUHCA since ``the current regulatory system imposes significant costs, in direct administrative charges and foregone economies of scale and scope, that often cannot be justified in terms of benefits to utility investors.'' The legislation has been crafted in consultation with State and Federal utility regulators, public interest groups, the Senate Energy Committee, and both registered and non-registered utility companies. Mr. President, let me summarize the purpose of the bill. The Public Utility Company Act of 1997 would maintain the provisions of the 1935 Act essential to consumer protection. In fact, the bill enhances consumer safeguards by enabling energy regulators to oversee all holding company operations. Specifically, the bill makes it easier for FERC and State public service commissions to protect consumers from paying nonutility related costs by giving the regulators expanded authority to review the books and records of all holding company activities to determine energy rates. At the same time, the bill would preserve FERC's authority to review transactions, acquisitions, and mergers of utilities and would clarify the FERC and state commission's authority to allocate costs when setting rates. The bill also gives state commissions vital enforcement backup to ensure that they can access all the books and records necessary to make rate determinations. Mr. President, the goal of PUHCA reform is increased competition--to make sure consumers ultimately pay lower utility rates not higher ones. While some would prefer to address PUHCA reform in the larger context of comprehensive energy deregulation, there is no reason to delay consideration of this separate bill I introduce today. Rather than package PUHCA with comprehensive reform of the federal energy laws, PUHCA reform can proceed, on a stand alone basis, as it does not affect the larger energy issues which my knowledgeable colleagues on the Energy Committee are considering. In fact, the experts in the energy field, lead by the distinguished chairman and former ranking member of the Energy Committee, Senators Murkowski and Johnston, who testified before the Banking Committee on this issue last year, believe that PUHCA reform should move independently of, and separate from, full energy deregulation. PUHCA reform is a necessary first step in creating an efficient energy industry. Mr. President, I have been a proponent of PUHCA reform for 16 years. Congress should allow consumers access to the cheapest power and the best services by repealing this burdensome and unnecessary law. The American people deserve and expect an efficient energy industry unfettered by unnecessary regulation. The legislation I introduce today accomplishes this by removing the energy industry from the 60-year-old regulatory shackles put in place by PUHCA. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that we may provide consumers with a highly efficient energy market that has better consumer protections. 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 call to my colleagues' attention human rights developments in Slovakia. These developments point Slovakia in the opposite direction from the road their neighbors have been traveling. Their neighbors accept western values and seek integration into western institutions, developments leading to individual freedom, political democracy, and economic prosperity in a free market system. In stark contrast, Slovakia is not in compliance with some important Helsinki process commitments and is showing signs of regression toward authoritarian, if not totalitarian relations between the state and its citizens. This country, which showed so much promise upon gaining independence in 1993, has failed to press ahead with vitally needed democratic reforms, in contrast with so many other countries in the region, including other newly independent countries. While the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland have worked hard to qualify for EU membership and NATO accession, Slovakia has lagged behind. While states like Lithuania and Slovenia have emerged from repressive empires to bring prosperity and hope to their peoples, Slovakia has not. Even Romania, which has struggled profoundly with the transition from totalitarianism, has managed to undertake significant reforms in the past few months. From the outset, members of the Helsinki Commission have supported the democratic transformation in Slovakia. We believe that a strong, democratic Slovakia will enhance stability and security in Europe. Unfortunately, human rights and democratization in Slovakia have taken a severe beating--both literally and figuratively--in recent months. The hopes raised by free and fair elections and by the passage of a democratic constitution have been dashed Last month, I understand some officials in Bratislava criticized a congressional report on NATO enlargement and complained that the discussion of Slovakia's progress toward democracy was too superficial. Well, I will provide a little more detail for those who genuinely want to know what worries us here in Washington. Parliamentary democracy in Slovakia took a bullet in late November, when parliamentarian Frantisek Gaulieder, after announcing his resignation from the ruling coalition's Movement for a Democratic Slovakia, was stripped of his parliamentary mandate through antidemocratic means that are unheard of anywhere else in Europe. His removal has been protested by the European Union and the United States at OSCE meetings in Vienna, but, so far, to no avail. Even more outrageously, there was a bomb attack against Mr. Gaulieder's home, while he and his family were present. This is a tactic that reminds me of the Communists, fascists, and other similarly bloody and ruthless groups. The 1995 kidnaping of President Kovac's son is not only still unsolved, but the manner in which this matter has been investigated has fueled speculation that the government's own security forces were directly involved in this crime. The murder last year of Robert Remias, who may have had key evidence in this case, and the ineffectual investigation of that case has deepened these suspicions. Adding to this disturbing pattern, questions are already being raised about the official investigation of the December bomb attack on Frantisek Gaulieder's home: Mr. Gauliedier has reported that some of his testimony regarding the attack is missing from his police file, that the first investigator was removed after only 3 days on the case, and that the Slovak Minister of Interior has, shockingly, suggested that Mr. Gaulieder may have planted the bomb himself--the same ``he- did-it-himself'' story that no one believes regarding the kidnaping of Mr. Kovac, Jr. I am now informed that this investigation, like the Kovac and Remias cases, has been ``closed for lack of evidence.'' For a country supposedly seriously committed through its OSCE obligations to the establishment of a ``rule of law'' state, this is a damagingly poor performance. In addition to these acts of violence, it has been reported that the President, the President's son, and members of the Constitutional Court have been subjected to death threats. In fact, in early December the Association of Slovak Judges characterized the anonymous, threatening letters addressed to Milan Cic, the Chair of the Slovak Constitutional Court, as an attack against the court as a whole and a means of political intimidation. It has also been reported that on February 24 an opposition political figure in Banska Bystrica, Miroslav Toman, was attacked by four assailants. We see a country where politically motivated violence is on the increase, where public confidence in the government's intent to provide security for all Slovaks has plummeted, and where acts of violence and threats of violence have brought into question both the rule of law and the very foundations of democracy. The ruling coalition has continued to pursue an openly hostile agenda toward a free and independent media and free speech in general. During the course of the past year, two newspapers--Slovenska Republika and Naroda Obroda--have seen a total of 21 editors quit over alleged political interference with their work. Defamation suits launched by public officials appear to be a common vehicle for harassing one's political opponents. Most recently, on November 19, the government barred four journalists from attending a regular press conference after the weekly cabinet meeting because the journalists were believed to be unsympathetic to the government. Although this decision was ultimately rescinded after a public outcry--including a protest from the journalists' union--it was further evidence of the government's relentless efforts to curb any reporting it doesn't like. In fact, in one of the more shocking episodes of the battle for free speech in Slovakia, it has been reported that Vladimir Meciar--the Prime Minister of the country and, not insignificantly, a former boxer--warned journalist Dusan Valko just a few weeks ago that ``I will punch you so that your own mother will not recognize you.'' So much for Mr. Meciar's tolerance for other points of view and nonviolence. The Slovak Government continues to pursue a minorities policy that would be laughable if it were not so wrong and harmful. This policy has included everything from banning the playing of non-Slovak national anthems last year to the more recent decision to bar the issuance of report cards in the Hungarian language, reversing long-standing practices. Such petty gestures are beneath the dignity of the Slovak people, whose heritage has survived more than a thousand years of foreign--and often markedly repressive--rule. The Slovak language and culture, now protected in an independent Slovakia, are not so weak that they can only flourish at the expense of others. More seriously, it should be noted that past repressive crackdowns on minorities--for example, in Cluj, Romania, and in Kosovo, Serbia--began by whittling away at the minority language opportunities that had traditionally been respected by the majority community. Accordingly, these seemingly small restrictions on the Hungarian minority in Slovakia may very well be the harbinger of more repressive tactics ahead. With this in mind, the failure of the Slovak parliament to adopt a comprehensive minority language law, and the recommendation of the Ministry of Culture that such a law is not even necessary, defy common sense. Current laws on minority-language use in Slovakia do not provide adequate or satisfactory guidance regarding the use of Hungarian for official purposes, as the recent report-card flap shows. Much harm can be done until a minority language law is passed based on a genuine accommodation between the majority and minority communities. Finally, recent reductions in government-provided cultural subsidies have had a disproportionately negative effect on the Hungarian community. The Slovak Government's defense, that all ethnic groups have been equally disadvantaged by these cut-backs, is unpersuasive in light of the Culture Minister Hudec's stated intent to ``revive'' Slovak culture in ethnically mixed areas and to make cultural subsidies reflect that goal. While Hungarians suffer from a more direct form of government intolerance, other ethnic groups suffer more indirectly. Put another way, it is not so much government action which threatens Romani communities in Slovakia, it is government inaction. According to the most recent State Department report on Slovakia, skinhead violence against Roma is a serious and growing problem; three Roma were murdered as a result of hate crimes last year, and others have been severely injured. Some Roma leaders, in response to their government's inability or unwillingness to protect them, have called for the formation of self-defense units. Obviously, the Slovak Government is just not doing enough to address the deadly threats they face. Moreover, the repugnant anti-Roma statements that have repeatedly been made by Jan Slota, a member of the ruling coalition, have fostered this climate of hatred. The fact that the Czech Republic, Germany, and other European countries also confront skinhead movements in no way relieves Slovakia of its responsibility to combat racism, just as Slovakia's skinhead problem does not relieve the other countries of their responsibilities. It is time and past time for Prime Minister Meciar to use his moral authority and political leadership to set Slovakia on the right course. He must make clear, once and for all, that Jan Slota--who also called the Hungarian minority ``barbarian Asiatic hordes''--is not his spokesman, and that the Slovak National Party's unreconstructed fascists do not represent the majority of the people of Slovakia. Mr. President, the leadership of the Helsinki Commission, including my co-chairman, Representative Christopher H. Smith, and ranking members Senator Frank Lautenberg and Representative Steny Hoyer, have raised our concern about developments in Slovakia with Slovak officials on a number of occasions. Unfortunately, all we hear from the Slovak leadership is one excuse after another, and all we see is a search for one scapegoat after another: it's the Hungarians, it's the Czechs, it's the Ukrainian mafia, it's the hostile international community seeking to destroy Slovakia's good name, it's a public relations problem abroad, not real problems back home--in short, there is always somebody else to blame besides the people that are, in fact, running the country. I don't mean to suggest that there have been no positive developments in Slovakia over the past 4 years. In fact, I have been especially heartened by the emergence of a genuine civil society that is increasingly willing to express its views on a broad range of issues. But positive initiatives by the Government have been too few and too far between. I make this statement today in the hope that the leadership in Bratislava will start to make real reforms, like their colleagues in Romania, and begin to restore the promising future that the people of Slovakia deserve. Their present policies are leading down a path toward international isolation, increasing criticism, and economic deprivation for their people. One Belarus is enough.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my statement be submitted in the Record at the appropriate place. The welfare reform law that passed last year will have an adverse impact on legal immigrants who are elderly and disabled, the most vulnerable of our population. That is why I am joining my colleagues, Senators Chafee, Feinstein, Moynihan, DeWine, Lieberman and Mikulski in introducing this legislation to protect vulnerable legal immigrants who are facing a loss of their supplemental security income [SSI] and food stamp benefits this August. Now that the welfare reform law is being implemented, with nearly 900,000 SSI recipients nationwide receiving preliminary noncitizen status notices of the changes in the law, there has emerged a crisis facing legal immigrants who are elderly and disabled. The Social Security Administration has estimated that these welfare reform changes may result in 434,000 legal immigrants actually losing SSI benefits. Of the 80,000 legal immigrants at risk of losing their SSI benefits in New York State, roughly 70,000 are in New York City. New York City also expects that more than 130,000 legal immigrants currently receiving food stamps will lose those benefits by 1998. The bill we are introducing will grandfather those immigrants who were receiving SSI or food stamp benefits as of August 22, 1996, the date of enactment of the Welfare bill. And it will grandfather refugees and asylees who were in this country as of August 22, 1996. This bill is about making sure that some of the most vulnerable people, the elderly and the disabled, are not pushed out of the SSI and Food Stamp Programs. The people of America recognize that many people who are elderly and disabled are in fact unable at times to take care of themselves without assistance through no fault of their own. To turn our back on these people would be cruel and not in keeping with our Nation's tradition of supporting those in need. Refugees who have been granted political asylum also merit that extra consideration that comes from leaving one's own country under duress searching for freedom and a new way of life. They also need a hand up and that too is in the great and long tradition of America. This is not a welfare bill, it is a bill of fundamental fairness and compassion. These people came to the United Sates and have been living under our laws for years. It is unfair to change the rules on them suddenly. That is the crux of this bill. This isn't just a matter of statistics and hypothetical situations of what might happen. There are real people out there, and you can be sure that they are going to get hurt if we do nothing. We are not going to let that happen. We want to work with our colleagues to pass a bill that will not put the elderly and the disabled out on the streets.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill offered by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that will correct a drafting error in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, thereby removing an impediment that would have restricted U.S. victims or their U.S. survivors to sue a country, designated by the Department of State, that sponsored the terrorist act which caused the death. The Antiterrorism Act contained provisions that limited the jurisdictional immunities of foreign states, particularly those countries that sponsored acts of terrorism. It was intended that a victim of terrorism who is an American national, or their American survivors, would not be barred from filing a claim against a country that sponsored the terrorist act. Unfortunately, as drafted, it was not clear that Congress intended this right of action to be available to victims who are American as well as survivors who are American, even if the victim who perished was not a U.S. citizen. Countries, designated by the Department of State, that sponsor terrorism should be subject to civil suits by the victim or their surviving families. This right of action should be available whether the victim was American or the survivor was American. This clarification should allow for the suit of an American citizen whose spouse perished in the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in December 1988. I thank my colleague for taking up this issue and urge immediate passage so that justice can be achieved for several of the families of Pan Am 103, and all future victims of state-sponsored terrorism. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the understanding reached between the United States and the European Union regarding the implementation of the Helms-Burton Act and the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. I want, from the start, to congratulate Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, Undersecretary of Commerce, who negotiated this understanding. His commitment to easing relations between the United States and the European Union is unending. His work on the issue of Holocaust victims assets in Swiss banks has also played a vital role in settling that problem. I am honored to work with him on both counts. The understanding, as it relates to the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, is quite clear. It states: The U.S. will continue to work with the EU toward the objectives of meeting the terms (1) for granting EU Member States a waiver under Section 4.C of the Act with regard to Iran, and (2) for granting companies from the EU waivers under Section 9.C of the Act with regard to Libya. It should be clear that the terms for granting a waiver, specifically with regard to Iran are very simple. If the country from which the company to be sanctioned is situated imposes substantial measures, including the imposition of economic sanctions, then a waiver can be granted. Yes, there is a provision for national security waivers, but to simply provide a blanket waiver for the European Union, is a clear contravention to the will of Congress and goes against the very fact that the President signed the bill. Congress intends for this law to be implemented in full, without blanket waivers that do not follow the provisions enacted unanimously last year. If blanket waivers are provided without just cause then only Iran will benefit. Congress enacted this bill with the intention of denying the funds to Iran necessary to fund terrorism, as shown by the verdict in Mykonos and the strong speculation that Iran had a role in the bombing of the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia. It also did so to deny Iran the funds with which to obtain weapons of mass destruction. We must remember that the Iranian Government, at the highest levels, has been implicated in ordering the assassination of Kurdish dissidents in Berlin. This terrorist act was conducted on European soil, not American. It is unfortunate that Europeans are blind to the need for action to curb Iranian terrorism, even when it is occurring on their own streets. For Europeans to push for a relaxation of antiterrorism legislation to counter Iran, is even worse. Yet, all of this seems to be of little matter to them. The only thing that does matter is that trade continues, even with the likes of Iran. I wonder if they will ever understand this all? I look forward to seeing how this understanding progresses, and I look forward to European compliance with the legislation. Europeans may take this issue lightly. If they think that they can get a simple waiver so that they can conduct business as usual with the foremost sponsor of international terrorism, but they're wrong--very wrong.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will protect our Nation's senior citizens from exploitation by fraudulent operators who are manipulating the Department of Housing and Urban Development's [HUD] Federal Housing Administration [FHA] home equity conversion mortgage program. I commend the cosponsors of this legislation and thank them for their support of this essential initiative: Senator Lauch Faircloth; Senator Robert Bennett; Senator Paul Sarbanes; Senator Christopher Dodd; Senator John Kerry; Senator Richard Bryan; Senator Barbara Boxer; Senator Moseley-Braun; Senator Tim Johnson; and Senator Jack Reed. I am pleased to announce a bicameral, bipartisan response to this injustice. Identical companion legislation is being introduced today by Representative Rick Lazio, chairman of the House Banking Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. I salute Congressman Lazio for his swift response in condemning this outrageous practice and for proposing a legislative solution. I pledge to work side-by-side with him on this important issue until our companion bills become law. This legislation has been endorsed by the administration. I would like to commend HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo for recognizing this serious problem, bringing these abuses to our attention, and acting courageously to prohibit their continued occurrence. The FHA home equity conversion mortgage program offers elderly homeowners the opportunity to borrow against the equity in their homes. This effective program assists our senior citizens who have substantial equity in their property but have incomes too low to meet ordinary or extraordinary living expenses. A program recipient can receive cash through this reverse mortgage in the following ways: a lifetime guaranteed monthly payment; a line of credit; a combination of monthly payment and line-of-credit options; or a lump sum. These mortgages are originated by FHA-approved lenders, insured by the FHA and purchased by the secondary mortgage market. Since the program's inception, approximately 20,000 loans have been made. The median age of borrowers is 76 years old and the median income is $10,400. This reverse mortgage program represents an ideal public/ private partnership in which needy, very-low income Americans are aided without cost to the Federal Government. Unfortunately, unscrupulous middlemen, posing as service providers or estate planners have taken advantage of seniors by charging unnecessary and excessive fees to assist them in obtaining a home equity conversion mortgage. These predators have charged elderly homeowners fees ranging from 6 to 12 percent of the loan amount. In hundreds of cases, very low-income seniors have been manipulated into paying several thousand dollars in return for ministerial and often meaningless services. The Department of Housing and Urban Development provides information on applying for a reverse mortgage at no cost. These abuses must be stopped at once. Such exploitation is absolutely unconscionable. The elderly who are being preyed upon are some of the most vulnerable in our society. Reverse mortgage proceeds are generally used by the homeowner to maintain a decent standard of living and pay for essentials like property taxes, medical bills, and groceries. The legislation we are introducing today will assist HUD with its efforts to ensure that our senior citizens are protected. We must ensure that not even one recipient of a HUD reverse mortgage is charged any unnecessary or excessive costs for obtaining that mortgage. The bill provides two important safeguards to achieve this purpose. First, it provides a requirement that the mortgagor has received a full disclosure of all costs of obtaining the mortgage, including any costs of estate planning, financial advice or other related services. Second, it clarifies that the HUD Secretary has authority to impose restrictions to ensure that the mortgagor is not charged any unnecessary or excessive costs for obtaining a reverse mortgage. The legislation requires the HUD Secretary to implement the above described safeguards in an expeditious manner by interim notice. Within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue final regulations after providing notice and opportunity for public comment. The terms of the interim notice shall not be effective after the final regulations are in place. I urge all my colleagues to support this vital legislation and look forward to its speedy passage by the Senate. The Senate, the House of Representatives and the administration must work together quickly to ensure that our Nation's most vulnerable homeowners are no longer victimized. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in the introduction of the Drug Free Communities Act and urge its passage. This bill responds to a distressing increase in teenage drug use by providing startup funding and technical assistance to community coalitions that work together to prevent drug use. According to the University of Michigan's 1996 Monitoring the Future study, more than half of all high school students use illicit drugs by the time they graduate. The Office of National Drug Control Policy cited in their strategy report that nearly 1 in 4 high school seniors used marijuana on a past-month basis in 1996. The age for which children start using drugs is declining. While the number of teenagers using marijuana increased 37 percent from 1994 to 1995, the age of first use declined from 17.8 years of age in 1987 to 16.3 years of age in 1994. There was also a drop in age for first use of cocaine from 23.3 years to 19 years old. Drug use is starting at an early age. Drug abuse costs this country approximately $67 billion a year in social, health and criminal costs. But the 14,000 drug-related deaths each year cannot be calculated in costs. The destruction of lives of the drug users, their families, friends, and neighbors is inevitable. The need to correct the trend is imperative and it is communities that can do it. Community coalitions are essential for an effective prevention program. It is the community groups that see the problem first hand and know what is needed in that area to stop children from using drugs. This bill will provide the incentive for community action groups to work together for the sole purpose of drug prevention. Groups representing youths, parents, businesses, schools, law enforcement, religious organizations, health professionals, as well as government agencies will be expected to prepare a strategy and implement it-- together. But the community must be organized first, prior to receiving grant funds, in order for the coalition to prove a long-term commitment. The grants will be distributed to organized community coalitions that have matching funds and those funds cannot be derived from the Federal Government. This requirement ensures that the coalition has support and can be sustained after the grant sunsets. This will not be another Federal program, but rather a means to support organized coalitions that devise and implement a comprehensive antidrug campaign while they get off the ground. Several groups in my State have already endorsed this proposal including the Syracuse Police Department, the mayor of Syracuse and agencies in Onondaga County. Respected national organizations that deal with drug and alcohol abuse have also endorsed the proposal including DARE, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Partnership for a Drug-Free America, and Empower America, among others. This is a comprehensive strategy to a problem that is best dealt with at the local level. I urge my colleagues to closely review the merits of this bill and support its passage. Our communities need it.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in the introduction of the Drug Free Communities Act and urge its passage. This bill responds to a distressing increase in teenage drug use by providing startup funding and technical assistance to community coalitions that work together to prevent drug use. According to the University of Michigan's 1996 Monitoring the Future study, more than half of all high school students use illicit drugs by the time they graduate. The Office of National Drug Control Policy cited in their strategy report that nearly 1 in 4 high school seniors used marijuana on a past-month basis in 1996. The age for which children start using drugs is declining. While the number of teenagers using marijuana increased 37 percent from 1994 to 1995, the age of first use declined from 17.8 years of age in 1987 to 16.3 years of age in 1994. There was also a drop in age for first use of cocaine from 23.3 years to 19 years old. Drug use is starting at an early age. Drug abuse costs this country approximately $67 billion a year in social, health and criminal costs. But the 14,000 drug-related deaths each year cannot be calculated in costs. The destruction of lives of the drug users, their families, friends, and neighbors is inevitable. The need to correct the trend is imperative and it is communities that can do it. Community coalitions are essential for an effective prevention program. It is the community groups that see the problem first hand and know what is needed in that area to stop children from using drugs. This bill will provide the incentive for community action groups to work together for the sole purpose of drug prevention. Groups representing youths, parents, businesses, schools, law enforcement, religious organizations, health professionals, as well as government agencies will be expected to prepare a strategy and implement it-- together. But the community must be organized first, prior to receiving grant funds, in order for the coalition to prove a long-term commitment. The grants will be distributed to organized community coalitions that have matching funds and those funds cannot be derived from the Federal Government. This requirement ensures that the coalition has support and can be sustained after the grant sunsets. This will not be another Federal program, but rather a means to support organized coalitions that devise and implement a comprehensive antidrug campaign while they get off the ground. Several groups in my State have already endorsed this proposal including the Syracuse Police Department, the mayor of Syracuse and agencies in Onondaga County. Respected national organizations that deal with drug and alcohol abuse have also endorsed the proposal including DARE, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Partnership for a Drug-Free America, and Empower America, among others. This is a comprehensive strategy to a problem that is best dealt with at the local level. I urge my colleagues to closely review the merits of this bill and support its passage. Our communities need it.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, at the close of last Congress, I submitted a concurrent resolution addressing property claims issues in Central and Eastern Europe. Representative Christopher H. Smith, the cochairman of the Commission, submitted an identical resolution in the House. Today, we are resubmitting this measure, and are joined by all the members of the Helsinki Commission as original cosponsors. Mr. President, I wish I could report to you that there has been improvement in this area since our concurrent resolution was submitted last September. Regrettably, there has not. Let me give you just two examples of the kinds of cases that moved me to submit this concurrent resolution. In 1991, Latvia passed a restitution law after regaining its independence from the Soviet empire. This law raised the hope that those forced from their homes by the 1940 Soviet invasion, and kept out by a 50-year occupation, would finally be able to return. And this is what Eso Anton Benjamins thought, too, when in 1995 a Latvian municipal court ordered that the current occupants of the Benjamins' family home vacate the property. Unfortunately, the current occupant is none other than the Russian Ambassador to Latvia. The Russian Government has refused to move its representative from the private property of Mr. Benjamins, notwithstanding the Latvian court's legal order to do so, and the Latvian authorities have not evicted them. In the Czech Republic, things are not much better. Under laws adopted after the Velvet Revolution, Susan Benda is theoretically eligible for the restitution of her family property, which had been confiscated by the Nazis but which her family had been unable to reclaim at the end of World War II. Notwithstanding this eligibility under the law and the Czech Government's purported intention to restore Jewish properties that had been seized by the Nazis, the Czech Ministry of Finance has arbitrarily imposed onerous and burdensome conditions for restitution which appear to be designed to defeat the intent of the law. So while Czech officials may tell us they have properly addressed this issue, those seeking the return of wrongfully confiscated property in Prague find that an entirely different reality awaits them. I am also deeply troubled by recent reports that some $50 million may have been embezzled from the funds received by Ukraine from Germany for the victims of Nazi prosecution. It is imperative that the Ukrainian Government make an investigation into this matter an urgent priority. Not only must this money be found and returned to the rightful recipients, but immediate measures should be taken to ensure that this cannot happen again. Americans who came to this country to escape persecution are discovering that, in many Central and East European countries, they are once again being penalized, this time by discriminatory laws that restrict restitution or compensation to those who currently hold the citizenship of or residency in the country in question. This is the case in the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Slovakia. Mr. President, this status quo cannot continue. I know it is not possible to turn back the clock completely or erase the wrongs that have been done. I commend the many emerging democracies attempting to address this complex issue, acting on both a moral obligation to redress past wrongs and a desire to underscore the differences between their new and old systems of government. But more can and should be done--and this resolution calls for concrete steps. It deserves our support, and the victims of past wrongs in this region deserve our help. I urge my colleagues to join with me and the other cosponsors of this concurrent resolution in pressing for a fair, just, and timely property restitution and compensation process so that the victims of the Holocaust and subsequent Communist oppression are not denied what is rightfully theirs.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997. This important piece of legislation will address a serious affordable housing crisis by restructuring the Department of Housing and Urban Development's [HUD] Federal Housing Administration [FHA] insured and section 8 assisted multifamily housing portfolio. I wish to thank my friend and colleague Senator Connie Mack, chairman of the Banking Committee's Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, for his extraordinary leadership in crafting this measured and thoughtful legislative initiative which deals with a vexing and complicated issue--the approaching crisis in HUD section 8 contract renewals. I would also like to recognize Senator Kit Bond, the chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, who has also played a critical role in the development of this bill. I commend him for the significant contributions he has made in addressing this crisis. In addition, I would like to express my appreciation to Senator Robert Bennett for his diligence in confronting this complex issue. The legislation we are introducing today is very similar to S. 2042, introduced by Senators Mack, Bond, Bennett, and myself in August 1996. This bill constitutes a major step toward reducing the costs of the Section 8 Program, and will allow for existing residents to be fully protected and for contracts to be renewed. HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, in recent testimony before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee's Human Resources Subcommittee, described the increasing costs of renewing expiring section 8 contracts as, ``the greatest crisis HUD has ever faced.'' I must concur with Mr. Cuomo. Let me briefly describe some of the growing costs associated with this program. In fiscal year 1997, Congress appropriated $3.6 billion for the renewal of expiring section 8 contracts. Large numbers of long-term section 8 contracts, which were written as long as 5 to 20 years ago, will expire this year. According to the Congressional Budget Office's latest estimates, the budget authority required to renew these contracts will increase to $10.2 billion in fiscal year 1998. Within the next 5 years, renewal needs will increase further until they consume nearly all of HUD's current budget of approximately $19.5 billion. These cost increases will occur without the adoption of a single new unit of section 8 housing. In addition, many of these expiring contracts cover units which are subsidized at rates significantly above the surrounding local market rents. Also, many contracts affect units which have serious repair and rehabilitation needs. These escalating costs, in budget authority and outlays, must be reduced in order to avoid resident displacement and reduced funding of important and needed housing and community development programs. Mr. President, millions of needy Americans depend on section 8 housing to provide them with affordable shelter. The average income of persons assisted with section 8 is similar to that of persons living in Federal public housing--approximately 17 percent of the local area median income. In addition, over 35 percent of these persons are elderly. Many more are disabled and single parents with limited work experience or education. It is imperative that we protect our needy and vulnerable residents. Importantly, this bill will protect existing residents through the renewal of project-based contracts. The legislation will allow the mortgages of the affected projects to be refinanced and restructured, thereby reducing debt service costs. As a result, the projects will be able to continue to operate with correspondingly reduced rent levels without experiencing significant hardship. This restructuring will protect the FHA insurance fund from increased risk of default which would occur if section 8 payments were reduced without any corresponding reduction in debt service payments. Mr. President, our legislation will also maintain the existing stock of decent, safe, and affordable housing because it provides for the renewal of section 8 contracts as project-based assistance. Our legislation recognizes the enormous investment we have made in this portfolio and reaffirms our commitment to maintaining it as a stock of affordable housing which will be available for people of modest means for years to come. It also fulfills our obligation to the American taxpayer to ensure that our Federal expenditures serve vital public interests in a cost-effective manner. In addition, the bill contains important new enforcement tools for HUD to employ to crack down on fraud, waste, and abuse within the program by unscrupulous landlords. Other provisions within the bill will help recapitalize projects with deferred maintenance needs. The bill also recognizes that there is a portion of this portfolio which is seriously distressed and has deteriorated to such a point that it is no longer financially possible to continue as project-based housing. In this relatively small number of cases, residents would be protected with section 8 vouchers to enable them to continue to live in affordable housing. While the bill will refocus HUD's efforts on enforcing rules against fraud and waste, it also recognizes HUD's admitted lack of capacity. Therefore, while HUD's staff management will be refocused on enforcement, the bill will place primary responsibility for conducting mortgage workouts with State and local housing finance agencies [HFA's]. A preference would be provided to qualified HFA's to oversee mortgage workouts. By encouraging the involvement of the HFA's, the bill will build on the existing financial and housing management expertise which already exists at the State and local level. The HFA's are already accountable to the public interest and have extensive experience in working with this portfolio. Also, residents of affected properties would be provided with an opportunity for input in a communitywide consultation process, and will be provided adequate notice, access to information, and an adequate time period for analysis and comment. Mr. President, during the 104th Congress, the Banking Committee held a number of hearings and discussions with all interested parties on this issue. This legislation represents the culmination of that important effort. A general consensus of support has developed behind the committee's legislative framework. As the committee continues its deliberations on this bill, there will be a continuing opportunity for input from residents, owners, housing and finance experts, State and local governments, and HUD. I thank all members of the Banking Committee for their efforts on behalf of affordable housing and look forward to continuing our bipartisan commitment to resolving the HUD section 8 crisis.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997. This important piece of legislation will address a serious affordable housing crisis by restructuring the Department of Housing and Urban Development's [HUD] Federal Housing Administration [FHA] insured and section 8 assisted multifamily housing portfolio. I wish to thank my friend and colleague Senator Connie Mack, chairman of the Banking Committee's Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, for his extraordinary leadership in crafting this measured and thoughtful legislative initiative which deals with a vexing and complicated issue--the approaching crisis in HUD section 8 contract renewals. I would also like to recognize Senator Kit Bond, the chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, who has also played a critical role in the development of this bill. I commend him for the significant contributions he has made in addressing this crisis. In addition, I would like to express my appreciation to Senator Robert Bennett for his diligence in confronting this complex issue. The legislation we are introducing today is very similar to S. 2042, introduced by Senators Mack, Bond, Bennett, and myself in August 1996. This bill constitutes a major step toward reducing the costs of the Section 8 Program, and will allow for existing residents to be fully protected and for contracts to be renewed. HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, in recent testimony before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee's Human Resources Subcommittee, described the increasing costs of renewing expiring section 8 contracts as, ``the greatest crisis HUD has ever faced.'' I must concur with Mr. Cuomo. Let me briefly describe some of the growing costs associated with this program. In fiscal year 1997, Congress appropriated $3.6 billion for the renewal of expiring section 8 contracts. Large numbers of long-term section 8 contracts, which were written as long as 5 to 20 years ago, will expire this year. According to the Congressional Budget Office's latest estimates, the budget authority required to renew these contracts will increase to $10.2 billion in fiscal year 1998. Within the next 5 years, renewal needs will increase further until they consume nearly all of HUD's current budget of approximately $19.5 billion. These cost increases will occur without the adoption of a single new unit of section 8 housing. In addition, many of these expiring contracts cover units which are subsidized at rates significantly above the surrounding local market rents. Also, many contracts affect units which have serious repair and rehabilitation needs. These escalating costs, in budget authority and outlays, must be reduced in order to avoid resident displacement and reduced funding of important and needed housing and community development programs. Mr. President, millions of needy Americans depend on section 8 housing to provide them with affordable shelter. The average income of persons assisted with section 8 is similar to that of persons living in Federal public housing--approximately 17 percent of the local area median income. In addition, over 35 percent of these persons are elderly. Many more are disabled and single parents with limited work experience or education. It is imperative that we protect our needy and vulnerable residents. Importantly, this bill will protect existing residents through the renewal of project-based contracts. The legislation will allow the mortgages of the affected projects to be refinanced and restructured, thereby reducing debt service costs. As a result, the projects will be able to continue to operate with correspondingly reduced rent levels without experiencing significant hardship. This restructuring will protect the FHA insurance fund from increased risk of default which would occur if section 8 payments were reduced without any corresponding reduction in debt service payments. Mr. President, our legislation will also maintain the existing stock of decent, safe, and affordable housing because it provides for the renewal of section 8 contracts as project-based assistance. Our legislation recognizes the enormous investment we have made in this portfolio and reaffirms our commitment to maintaining it as a stock of affordable housing which will be available for people of modest means for years to come. It also fulfills our obligation to the American taxpayer to ensure that our Federal expenditures serve vital public interests in a cost-effective manner. In addition, the bill contains important new enforcement tools for HUD to employ to crack down on fraud, waste, and abuse within the program by unscrupulous landlords. Other provisions within the bill will help recapitalize projects with deferred maintenance needs. The bill also recognizes that there is a portion of this portfolio which is seriously distressed and has deteriorated to such a point that it is no longer financially possible to continue as project-based housing. In this relatively small number of cases, residents would be protected with section 8 vouchers to enable them to continue to live in affordable housing. While the bill will refocus HUD's efforts on enforcing rules against fraud and waste, it also recognizes HUD's admitted lack of capacity. Therefore, while HUD's staff management will be refocused on enforcement, the bill will place primary responsibility for conducting mortgage workouts with State and local housing finance agencies [HFA's]. A preference would be provided to qualified HFA's to oversee mortgage workouts. By encouraging the involvement of the HFA's, the bill will build on the existing financial and housing management expertise which already exists at the State and local level. The HFA's are already accountable to the public interest and have extensive experience in working with this portfolio. Also, residents of affected properties would be provided with an opportunity for input in a communitywide consultation process, and will be provided adequate notice, access to information, and an adequate time period for analysis and comment. Mr. President, during the 104th Congress, the Banking Committee held a number of hearings and discussions with all interested parties on this issue. This legislation represents the culmination of that important effort. A general consensus of support has developed behind the committee's legislative framework. As the committee continues its deliberations on this bill, there will be a continuing opportunity for input from residents, owners, housing and finance experts, State and local governments, and HUD. I thank all members of the Banking Committee for their efforts on behalf of affordable housing and look forward to continuing our bipartisan commitment to resolving the HUD section 8 crisis.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, one of our Nation's most outstanding citizens Mayor Hattie H. Harris will celebrate her 100th birthday April 25, 1997, God willing. For nearly one century Hattie's unimpeachable integrity, brilliant mind, and inconquerable spirit have dominated the scene in Rochester, NY. She courageously faces each challenge and perpetually accomplishes worthy humanitarian deeds. Hattie consistently demonstrates that eternal youth rules father time. Mayor Hattie's grueling schedule puts to shame some persons half her age. Mayor Hattie's unswerving devotion to assisting mankind is a tribute to democracy's dream. She embraces every request to inspire mankind: whether it be delivering meals herself as chairperson of the 1995-6 Meals on Wheels Program, or awarding scholarships from the endowment in her name, Hattie is an exemplary humanitarian. She has received accolades and honors too numerous to list here. Suffice it to say that Hattie has done many good things for good people and has been recognized for many of her efforts with awards, titles, honors, and tributes. Hattie was born on April 25, 1897 in Rochester and has lived there all of her life. She had to leave school at the tender age of 11 and become a buttonhole maker to earn money and help support the family. As a child she never had a birthday party, her toys and clothes were second-hand. All her life she has done all she can so other children will get the chances she never did. She has endowments bearing her name at Monroe Community College, St. John Fisher College, Mary Cariola Children's Center, and Campership Fund for Needy Children. Hattie is a wonderful human being whose outstanding lifelong humanitarian achievements deserve special recognition from each of us. Happy birthday Hattie Harris.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to cosponsor the Public Housing Reform and Responsibility Act of 1997. This important legislation contains significant policy reforms which will greatly improve our Nation's public and tenant based housing programs. The Public Housing Reform and Responsibility Act of 1997 is very similar to legislation (S. 1260) which was passed unanimously by the Senate in January 1996. I wish to salute Senator Connie Mack, chairman of the Banking Committee's Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, for his successful leadership in the development and passage of public housing reform legislation in the 104th Congress. I commend Senator Mack for his initiative and steadfastness in producing an improved housing bill which builds on the lessons learned during the last Congress. Substantial input from the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD], resident associations, public housing authorities and other interested parties has been received and incorporated into this legislation. This legislation addresses just one area of long overdue reform needed at HUD. Given limited Federal resources and the need to balance the budget by the year 2002, Congress must find more cost-effective ways to provide affordable housing. This bill represents a concrete step in the fulfillment of Congress' responsibility to the American taxpayer to ensure that every Federal dollar is maximized to its greatest potential. The reform provisions contained in this bill will help to ensure the long-term viability of our Nation's existing stock of affordable housing and reaffirms our commitment to providing decent, safe, and affordable housing. Efficiencies will be realized from the elimination and consolidation of duplicative and burdensome Federal regulations, while the essential mission of our housing programs is retained and strengthened. Mr. President, I would like to comment on several guiding principles of the legislation. First, it will reform the public housing system through the devolution of control from the Federal Government to high performing public housing authorities and their residents. It will streamline program requirements, consolidate programs and provide increased flexibility to public housing authorities which have demonstrated a track record of good management. Federal oversight and enforcement of troubled housing authorities will be increased significantly. The bill provides incentives to empower public housing residents and facilitate the transition from welfare to work. It provides important linkages to the welfare reform bill which became law last year. This will allow our Nation's public housing residents a greater opportunity to achieve economic independence. Mr. President, the bill seeks to increase the local accountability of housing authorities through the implementation of a local planning process. Public housing authorities will prepare 5-year and annual plans which will include all significant matters related to the operation of the housing authority. These plans will be required to be consistent with relevant State and local comprehensive plans. In addition, plans will be reviewed by resident advisory boards. The bill recognizes that public housing is most effective when there is a viable income mix among its residents. Federal preferences will be repealed. The Brooke amendment, which requires residents to pay 30 percent of their income as rent, would be altered to allow tenants to pay ``up to'' 30 percent of their incomes in rent. This will remove a work disincentive which has hampered the economic livelihoods of many residents, while retaining the 30 percent limit as a cap. The bill has additional rent reforms such as income disregards which will allow welfare recipients to move to work without losing 30 percent of their new-found income to rent, and ceiling rents which will allow working families to continue to move up the economic ladder without a 30 percent tax on income. Mr. President, this legislation ensures that a significant percentage of units that become vacant in a given year will be set aside for the lowest income families. I believe this bill achieves the delicate balance between fostering the growth of mixed-income communities while ensuring that our neediest citizens will continue to be served. The safety and security of the residents of public and assisted housing is a paramount objective. Many safety and security measures, including allowing public housing authorities increased access to criminal conviction records and greater flexibility in the eviction of drug criminals, were passed last year in legislation which I introduced, the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act (Pub. L. 104- 120). This legislation includes numerous additional safety and security provisions, including allowing HUD to waive rent requirements to permit police officers a lower rent as an inducement to living in project- based section 8 housing. Furthermore, the bill will streamline the demolition and disposition process of distressed housing projects through the repeal of the one- for-one replacement requirement and other measures. This impractical and counterproductive Federal requirement has been waived for the last 2 fiscal years through the appropriations process. By making this repeal permanent, our housing authorities will be able to operate with certainty. Mr. President, the Banking Committee and its Housing Subcommittee will continue to evaluate proposals for HUD reorganization. Legislation to reform HUD's Federal Housing Administration insured and section 8 assisted multifamily properties will be introduced this spring. Additional legislative initiatives to reform HUD and its multitude of duplicative programs also will be considered. We must remember that the fundamental goal of this process is to address adequately the affordable housing and community development needs of our citizens in a time of dwindling Federal resources. It is imperative that we protect our needy poor and working class residents whom these programs are intended to serve. Reforms must be made with caution and careful consideration. This legislation has been crafted with the benefit of a lengthy and productive debate in the 104th Congress. The Banking Committee conducted a series of hearings on HUD and its public and assisted housing programs during the 104th Congress. Additional hearings are planned for this year. The Banking Committee will seek to achieve the swift implementation of needed reforms. The committee will utilize an open process with an opportunity for input from all concerned parties, which has as its goal the formation of a consensus for change. Mr. President, I believe this bill appropriately balances the social purpose of public and assisted housing programs while also responding to Federal fiscal constraints. I look forward to working with all Members of the Banking Committee on a bipartisan basis to ensure the speedy passage of this important housing initiative.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate March 10, 1959, a dark day in history for all of us. It was on this day that Chinese troops viciously attacked and murdered 87,000 Tibetan civilians who sought to protect their beloved Dalai Lama, a man whose love of peace is known to all of us. The pattern of intimidation and human rights abuses by the Chinese Government against the people of Tibet, unfortunately, continues today. It is quite frankly unsuitable for a country like China which seeks status as a responsible member of the community of nations. The Chinese pattern of intimidation is especially seen in the case of Ngawang Choephel, a former Fulbright scholar at Middlebury College and friend of the United States. Last December, Chinese officials sentenced Mr. Choephel to an 18-year prison term for supposed espionage activities. This is an outrage. In January I joined with other Members of the Senate in writing a letter to the new Secretary of State Madeleine Albright expressing our concerns about Mr. Choephel's sentence. We requested that she raise Mr. Choephel's case in discussions with Chinese leaders on her trip to China. I also cosponsored a resolution which calls on the Chinese Government to release Mr. Choephel immediately and unconditionally. I am pleased to be a part of a bipartisan effort on this important issue. Relations with other powerful countries are by their nature complex, but we owe it to the people of Tibet and we owe it to ourselves as Americans, to stress the importance of human rights as a cornerstone of all relations. All people have a right to religious freedom. The people of Tibet certainly have that right, and they have a right to live in peace. The people of Tibet also have a right to live their lives in a dignified manner free of oppression. It is the sacred duty of all of us to make sure that happens. I applaud the efforts of those who are gathering today in New York for Tibet National Uprising Day to show the world that vigilance does not sleep and to express solidarity with the people of Tibet. As long as people such as those who are coming together today in New York take a personal interest in the suffering of others, I have to believe that we will reach our goals of democracy and religious freedom for the suffering people of Tibet.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today, I introduce with Senator Gramm, Senator Sarbanes, and Senator Dodd, a bill to extend for 90 days the effective date of title III of the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1997. The Investment Advisers Supervision Coordination Act enacted as part of the National Securities Market Improvement Act, divides the regulation of the Nation's 22,500 registered investment advisers between the SEC and State commissions. Under the new divided jurisdiction, investment advisers entrusted with over $10 trillion in customer funds, will be subject to better regulation and regular examination. As a result, consumers and investors will be better protected. The legislation we introduce today will extend the effective date of the title III, section 308 of the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 90 days, from April 9, 1997 to July 8, 1997. This extension was requested by the Chairman of the SEC, Arthur Levitt, in his letter to the committee dated February 12, 1997. The legislation is necessary to ensure that the proper rules are in place to carry out the provisions of this title. While the Securities and Exchange Commission is working diligently to complete its rules by the original effective date, the Commission is concerned that investment advisers will not have enough time to examine the final rules and to complete and submit the new forms required. Mr. President, Congress intended for State commissions to regulate investment advisers with assets under $25 million. However, State law will be preempted as it relates to all investment advisers who are still registered with the SEC when the provision becomes effective, regardless of their asset value. This means that if the SEC rules are not final or if investment advisers have not submitted forms to end their registration by April 9, 1997, State commissions will be unable to regulate the investment advisers who fall within their jurisdiction. Extending the effective date of the Investment Advisers Supervision Coordination Act would ensure that all investment advisers have sufficient time to register with the proper commission and prevent a gap in effective regulation. I would like to thank the chairman of the Securities Subcommittee, and the ranking members of both the Banking Committee and the Securities Subcommittee for their cosponsorship of this legislation. It is my hope that the Senate will pass this legislation without amendment or delay so that the SEC and the State commissions can continue to move forward with these important changes to improve the regulation of investment advisers and protect investors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill and the February 12, 1997 letter from Securities and Exchange Commission be included in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which will require the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] to compensate the many State, county, and local governments throughout New York that assisted Federal officials in the rescue and salvage operations immediately following the crash of Trans World Airlines Flight 800. As you will recall Mr. President, on July 17, 1996, TWA flight 800 crashed into Federal waters off the coast of Long Island, NY killing all 230 persons aboard. Immediately following the incident a vast army of rescuers set forth from the counties of Nassau and Suffolk, Long Island, and the city of New York to offer their assistance. Many of the rescuers were ordinary citizens. Others were from U.S. Coast Guard stations located within the area. However, the vast majority of the rescuers came from the many State, county, and local municipalities throughout the region. Braving darkness and rolling seas these heroes set forth upon the Atlantic Ocean, in many cases in small boats piloted by area residents and fishermen to help persons unknown to them. In the hours and days immediately following the tragic crash, divers from the city of New York, and the New York State Police, working with Navy and Coast Guard officials, began their search for survivors. Braving frigid waters, darkness and the hazards created by the wreckage itself they soon realized the enormity of the loss of life. They then began the undaunted task of recovering the bodies of those who had lost their lives in the crash. These divers labored around the clock for weeks on end with only a few hours of fitful sleep performing this most sensitive of tasks. The men and women who labored under these harshest of conditions are to be commended. While efforts continued under the water, the air above the crash site was filled with activity. National Guard helicopters stationed in New York were requested to transport Federal officials to and from the crash site and to assist in recovery operations. On land, National Guard engineers provided cranes to lift large pieces of the aircraft. These pieces were eventually loaded upon National Guard trucks in Brooklyn, NY, and transported to a hangar at Calverton, Long Island where they were reassembled. National Guard units provided security at the Brooklyn and Calverton facilities. National Guard units also provided generators to provide desperately needed lighting to assist in the recovery process. Additionally, the New York State Department of Transportation provided steel and lumber in support of the National Guard's recovery efforts. The New York State Department of Corrections provided mobile homes to provide temporary housing for U.S. Navy and Coast Guard officials. New York State, county, and local police officials assisted the FBI with the collection and processing of large pieces of the aircraft. These same officials also provided security at the reassembly facility at Calverton. In probably one of the most sensitive and delicate of efforts, members of the Suffolk County Medical Examiners Office worked tirelessly and expeditiously in the identification of the victims of the crash in order that they might be returned to their loved ones. These are only a few of the examples of the assistance that was provided by and continues to this date to be provided by the citizens of the State of New York to Federal authorities. New York State, New York City, Suffolk and Nassau Counties offered their assistance in this emergency without hesitation. However, the magnitude of the rescue and recovery operation imposed tremendous financial strains on these entities. To date, nearly $13 million has been spent by State, city, and county governments and this total could very well increase as the final accountings are tallied. The legislation that I am introducing today will provide financial compensation to these entities for the costs they incurred in responding to and assisting in the efforts to retrieve the bodies and wreckage of TWA flight 800. This legislation will require that all requests for restitution be forwarded directly to the Governor of New York who will in turn submit a request to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Total compensation would be capped at $20 million. Mr. President, we all commend the efforts of the State of New York, the city of New York, and Nassau and Suffolk Counties and the many thousands of men and women who offered their assistance in this time of need. I believe that this is the right thing to do to provide fair compensation to those entities that responded to this extraordinary and tragic incident. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this measure and I urge its prompt consideration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which will require the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] to compensate the many State, county, and local governments throughout New York that assisted Federal officials in the rescue and salvage operations immediately following the crash of Trans World Airlines Flight 800. As you will recall Mr. President, on July 17, 1996, TWA flight 800 crashed into Federal waters off the coast of Long Island, NY killing all 230 persons aboard. Immediately following the incident a vast army of rescuers set forth from the counties of Nassau and Suffolk, Long Island, and the city of New York to offer their assistance. Many of the rescuers were ordinary citizens. Others were from U.S. Coast Guard stations located within the area. However, the vast majority of the rescuers came from the many State, county, and local municipalities throughout the region. Braving darkness and rolling seas these heroes set forth upon the Atlantic Ocean, in many cases in small boats piloted by area residents and fishermen to help persons unknown to them. In the hours and days immediately following the tragic crash, divers from the city of New York, and the New York State Police, working with Navy and Coast Guard officials, began their search for survivors. Braving frigid waters, darkness and the hazards created by the wreckage itself they soon realized the enormity of the loss of life. They then began the undaunted task of recovering the bodies of those who had lost their lives in the crash. These divers labored around the clock for weeks on end with only a few hours of fitful sleep performing this most sensitive of tasks. The men and women who labored under these harshest of conditions are to be commended. While efforts continued under the water, the air above the crash site was filled with activity. National Guard helicopters stationed in New York were requested to transport Federal officials to and from the crash site and to assist in recovery operations. On land, National Guard engineers provided cranes to lift large pieces of the aircraft. These pieces were eventually loaded upon National Guard trucks in Brooklyn, NY, and transported to a hangar at Calverton, Long Island where they were reassembled. National Guard units provided security at the Brooklyn and Calverton facilities. National Guard units also provided generators to provide desperately needed lighting to assist in the recovery process. Additionally, the New York State Department of Transportation provided steel and lumber in support of the National Guard's recovery efforts. The New York State Department of Corrections provided mobile homes to provide temporary housing for U.S. Navy and Coast Guard officials. New York State, county, and local police officials assisted the FBI with the collection and processing of large pieces of the aircraft. These same officials also provided security at the reassembly facility at Calverton. In probably one of the most sensitive and delicate of efforts, members of the Suffolk County Medical Examiners Office worked tirelessly and expeditiously in the identification of the victims of the crash in order that they might be returned to their loved ones. These are only a few of the examples of the assistance that was provided by and continues to this date to be provided by the citizens of the State of New York to Federal authorities. New York State, New York City, Suffolk and Nassau Counties offered their assistance in this emergency without hesitation. However, the magnitude of the rescue and recovery operation imposed tremendous financial strains on these entities. To date, nearly $13 million has been spent by State, city, and county governments and this total could very well increase as the final accountings are tallied. The legislation that I am introducing today will provide financial compensation to these entities for the costs they incurred in responding to and assisting in the efforts to retrieve the bodies and wreckage of TWA flight 800. This legislation will require that all requests for restitution be forwarded directly to the Governor of New York who will in turn submit a request to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Total compensation would be capped at $20 million. Mr. President, we all commend the efforts of the State of New York, the city of New York, and Nassau and Suffolk Counties and the many thousands of men and women who offered their assistance in this time of need. I believe that this is the right thing to do to provide fair compensation to those entities that responded to this extraordinary and tragic incident. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this measure and I urge its prompt consideration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.