Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I rise to once more address a bill I introduced earlier this month. A bill to award a congressional gold medal to not only recognize Frank Sinatra, as one of the most notable entertainers of our time, but also to recognize his unsurpassed humanitarian efforts. I am speaking of Frank Sinatra's generous and unostentatious philanthropic accomplishments. This one man has raised hundreds of millions of dollars to benefit the poor, the hungry, the chronically and terminally ill, and a variety of charities for children all over the world. The lives of countless ailing youngsters have been touched by the benevolence of Frank Sinatra through his funding of entire hospital units dedicated to caring for children. Specifically, the Frank Sinatra Child Care Unit at St. Jude's Children's Research Center in Memphis, TN, and the Sinatra Family Children's Unit for the Chronically Ill at Children's Orthopedic Hospital in Seattle, WA. Let me mention two examples of Frank Sinatra's generosity. This great man set out on a world tour to benefit children's hospitals, orphanages, and schools. He personally and completely financed 30 concerts in 10 weeks stopping in the international capitals of the world. All in all he raised more than $1 million throughout this effort. And that was in 1962. More recently, starting in 1979, Frank Sinatra coordinated a historical series of five annual concerts showcasing and sharing the stage with renowned entertainers such as Ella Fitzgerald, Victor Borge, Diana Ross, and opera singers Luciano Pavarotti, Placido Domingo, and Montserrat Caballe. These five concerts generated $11 million, I repeat, $11 million for the Frank Sinatra Fund of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. These donations have helped ensure that patients of the cancer center who cannot afford treatment are not turned away. Frank Sinatra's generosity has channeled money for strengthening educational opportunities and programs for inner-city youths as well as university coeds. Examples of his work stretch from Hoboken, NJ, to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and many points in between. Not only has Frank Sinatra done more than a lion's share to assist his fellow man, he has done so through anonymity. He is not one to trumpet his goodwill. And that, Mr. President is a class act. I am proud to say that support for this bill from my colleagues has been overwhelming. I thank all of my friends on both sides of the aisle who have looked to the goodness in a fellow man and made the easy decision to recognize that goodness. Mr. President, that is the right thing to do. That is what we should do more of. We should rally 'round and show our thanks for the goodwill of individuals who willingly share the fruits of their success with those less fortunate. On another note, Mr. President, I feel very strongly that the pubic sale of bronze duplicates of the original Frank Sinatra gold medal has a very real potential to raise money for the Treasury.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I hold in my hand a press statement sent to my office and I believe to all of the Senate and House offices from a Congressman from Oklahoma, Congressman Tom Coburn, regarding the showing of ``Schindler's List,'' this past Sunday. I have to tell you, we had to call the office to assert whether or not this was a joke. We thought it was a prank. The Congressman in his press release goes on to raise concerns on behalf of the family caucus, and says that the airing and demonstration of the television program that depicted sex and violence was inappropriate. He complains about the nudity of the program. I cannot believe, and I am shocked and appalled, that any Member of Congress would put out a statement of this kind that shows those who were imprisoned and being sent to their death--it seems to me that anyone who would make a statement condemning ``Schindler's List'' is totally out of touch with the importance of this historic film, depicting the monstrous deeds that took place and the heroism that was also displayed. To equate the nudity of the Holocaust victims in a concentration camp with any sexual connotation is outrageous and offensive. I am shocked and appalled that any Member of Congress would make these kinds of statements. I am particularly embarrassed that they were made by a Member of my own party. I understand that the Congressman is planning to make a clarification of his statement. While I await them, I think that everyone should seek that clarification. Certainly, this should not be a view expressed by anyone in public office who is right-thinking. Again, I thought this press release was a prank at first, and it was only when I called that we verified it was not the case. The Congressman should respond quickly and clarify exactly what he meant by this statement. I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to approve Dr. Janet Yellen, the distinguished nominee, for the position of the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. The nomination was approved by the Banking Committee by a vote of 17-0. Dr. Yellen last appeared before the Senate nearly 3 years ago when she was nominated and confirmed to serve on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. While on the board of governors, Dr. Yellen focused on the important issues of consumer credit and small business lending and provided useful congressional testimony on these topics. Prior to her tenure at the Federal Reserve Board, Dr. Yellen was the Bernard T. Rocca Jr. Professor of International Business and Trade at the Haas School of Business of the University of California at Berkeley where she taught since 1980. Dr. Yellen has also served as a senior adviser to the Brookings Panel on Economic Activity and as a member of the Economics Panel of the Congressional Budget Office. Dr. Yellen has written on a wide variety of macroeconomic issues, including the causes and implications of unemployment. She is also a recognized scholar in international economics, recently focusing on the trade balance and reforms in Eastern Europe. Dr. Yellen has distinguished herself in academia and at the Federal reserve. She will bring to this position competence and a record of excellence. I believe the administration and the Congress will both benefit from her wise counsel. I am pleased to support this nomination.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask that I may be permitted to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rule of the Senate, I hereby submit for publication in the Congressional Record, the rules of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. The rules follow:

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that seeks to protect our Nation's homeowners, particularly low-income and first- time home buyers, from having to pay for unnecessary and costly private mortgage insurance. Thousands of hard working Americans who strive every day to afford a house of their own are unfairly paying for private mortgage insurance which is not required and is no longer necessary. We must not have current and future homeowners paying up to hundreds of millions of dollars a year for insurance that serves no useful purpose. This is a practice which must be stopped. Today, it is unethical. Tomorrow, after this bill becomes law, it will be illegal. This legislation is intended to stop this injustice, while still providing lenders with fair protection against default. In 1995, almost 6 million Americans bought homes. Approximately 2 million of those homeowners also purchased private mortgage insurance. Today, over 40 percent of new homeowners purchase private mortgage insurance. Thousands of American homeowners--perhaps as many as 20 percent of homeowners who have private mortgage insurance--are overinsuring their homes simply because they are not informed of whether they have the right to cancel private mortgage insurance. Many homeowners are being forced to make payments for private mortgage insurance even after they have accumulated substantial equity in their homes; they continue to pay for private mortgage insurance long after the loan-to-value ratio is sufficient to protect lenders against default. Private mortgage insurance rates average between $20 and $100 per month, depending on the home purchase price, the amount of downpayment and other factors. These consumers are unknowingly paying from $240 a year to $1,200 a year for absolutely no reason--no potential benefit can accrue to the homeowner who is unnecessarily paying for this insurance. When the legitimate need for private mortgage insurance ends, the payments should stop immediately. My legislation, the Homeowners' Protection Act, would ensure that this unfair practice is discontinued by giving future homeowners the right to cancel private mortgage insurance when it is no longer needed to protect the homeowner--in most cases, when they accumulate equity equal to 20 percent of their original loan value. With respect to existing mortgages, the Homeowners' Protection Act would mandate disclosure of cancellation rights to the homeowner on an annual basis. This important legislation potentially could save current and future homeowners millions of dollars. Now let me make one thing clear--private mortgage insurance does serve a purpose. Typically, lenders require home buyers to purchase private mortgage insurance if the borrower makes a downpayment of less than 20 percent of the purchase price. The purpose of the insurance is to provide lenders, and subsequent purchasers of the mortgage, with protection in the event of default on the mortgage. It is in the best interest of all Americans that lenders have fair protection against default, so as to ensure their continued safety and soundness. Together, we can encourage the pursuit of the American dream of home ownership without allowing the fleecing of homeowners in the process. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in support in this legislation which will help to make sure that money for unnecessary insurance premiums stays where it belongs--in homeowners' pockets. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise this morning to introduce legislation on behalf of 48 Senators. I know and feel very strongly that when all of my colleagues are informed of the legislation that it will be unanimous and that all will join to authorize a congressional gold medal for Frank Sinatra. The time has come for Congress to acknowledge this great American and his contributions to the world of entertainment and society as a whole. It is fitting that we honor this man in the autumn of his years, as we have honored Bob Hope, John Wayne, Marian Anderson and other great performers, not only for the fact of their entertainment and the wonderful gift that God bestowed upon them, but for so many other aspects in terms of their bond with America, its people, and their contributions. Mr. President, this bill would authorize the U.S. Mint to commemorate the humanitarian and professional accomplishments of Frank Sinatra with a gold medal to be presented by the President on behalf of the Congress. In addition, bronze replicas of the original gold medal will be available to the general public for their private collection. It is estimated that not only will we be doing great honor to Frank Sinatra, but, in addition, it will result in a very substantial profit to the Treasury because many will buy these replicas, and indeed millions of dollars can and will be raised by our Government. Mr. President, Frank Sinatra has become one of the most, if not the most, recognizable vocalists in America and in the world. This talented man has singularly defined America's love affair with popular music for over five generations and has remained to this day a man of the people, a man who has brought pleasure to countless persons. The tremendous, positive impact Frank Sinatra has on people throughout the world is truly phenomenal. His songs have become a standard for young and old alike. Indeed, this impact goes beyond song and it goes beyond adversity. Frank Sinatra knew adversity and he overcame it in his own career rising to great heights. He overcame the trials and tribulations during his life and became a great humanitarian. Many people who adore Frank Sinatra and his music are not aware of that other side of the man--his generosity. Truly he could be called Mr. Anonymous because, Mr. President, unlike many who trumpet their generosity, who trumpet their gift giving, Mr. Sinatra did not do this. Indeed, he has raised literally hundreds of millions of dollars--not tens of millions--hundreds of millions of dollars for children, in particular, throughout the world, for those who were in need of help, whether it be for cancer, for AIDS, for retinitis pigmentosa--just name the charity and you will see that Francis Albert Sinatra most likely has been there, quietly giving of his time and his energy in caring for his fellow human being, giving back to the people of this country, throughout the length and breadth, establishing scholarships for young people, going back to his hometown and to his old high school to give of his time and his money. He took his wonderful gift of song and used it as a vehicle of benevolence. Let me just touch on one of these as an example. Mr. Sinatra has raised $9 million for just one institution, a great cancer center, Sloan-Kettering, by holding five concerts. I do not know how many know that. He did not ask his publicist to go out and speak to that. The money raised by Frank Sinatra began programs whereby those who are in need of treatment and do not have the financial wherewithal will not be turned away. This is because of the generosity of Frank Sinatra. Indeed, New Jersey can be rightfully proud of him, born in Hoboken in 1915 to parents of modest means. I am pleased that both of the Senators from New Jersey have joined in cosponsoring this legislation. Those of us in New York are so proud, and we also claim him as a son of New York. He has given us the gift of his great performances, and we particularly love his rendition of ``New York, New York.'' But look throughout the country, the great Windy City of Chicago, and how fitting that the senior Senator from Illinois has also joined in this tribute which is long overdue. Mr. President, it cannot be denied that Frank Sinatra has had a remarkable career. Not long after reaching adolescence, he developed a keen love of music and the desire to perform. In high school he was responsible for screening and scheduling dance bands for Demarest High School's Wednesday night dances. In exchange for hiring musicians, he was permitted to sing a few songs with the different bands. A dream was growing in the young Frank Sinatra--his dream of becoming a successful entertainer. By the age of 21, Frank Sinatra was a professional singer. His first group was the Three Flashes, a singing and dancing trio which later became the Hoboken Four. A few years later, Frank Sinatra's investment in vocal lessons would prove to be invaluable as his singing career propelled him into stardom. In 1939, Frank Sinatra was hired by Harry James who had recently formed an orchestra of his own. The earliest performance reviews were not favorable, but Frank Sinatra persevered. Seven months later, he was hired away to join Tommy Dorsey's orchestra where he would formulate the essence of his signature singing style. After a successful, 2-year tour with Tommy Dorsey, Frank Sinatra made the move to go out on his own in 1942. He recorded the first of numerous hit singles titled ``Night and Day.'' A year later he made his motion picture debut and had appeared in several movies by 1950. But, as quickly as Frank Sinatra found himself ``king of the hill, at the top of the heap,'' he found the constant demand on his time and talent contributing to a decline in his vocal quality. By the end of 1952, he had lost his agent and his film and recording contracts. The ``voice'' was nearly lost as well. Frank Sinatra was once eloquently quoted saying: ``You have to scrape bottom to appreciate life and start living again.'' This personally and professionally trying time ended in 1953 with Frank Sinatra's award winning performance playing the role of Maggio in the production ``From Here to Eternity.'' The rebirth of his career was finally at hand. Frank Sinatra's new stardom quickly surpassed that which he had realized in the 1940's. Beginning in the 1960's, Frank Sinatra's flourishing acclaim as a preeminent performer earned him the title ``Chairman of the Board.'' He established his own recording company, Reprise, and began recording again, this time with more conviction than ever before. Frank Sinatra orchestrated television specials which featured little-known musical talents, performed live for huge, adoring audiences and began to evolve as a legend. By 1984, his singing repertoire included well over 50 albums and record sales in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Throughout his entertainment career and rise to fame, Frank Sinatra worked tirelessly and steadfastly to cure some of the ills of society. In one of the most outstanding examples of his generosity, Frank Sinatra personally, and entirely, I might add, financed and donated his talent and superstardom along with other renowned performers for a world tour benefitting children's hospitals, orphanages, and schools in six countries. This whirlwind jaunt included 30 concerts in 10 weeks. And never once did Frank Sinatra seek glory from this feat through publicity or any other means. Frank Sinatra's generosity has touched the lives of the underprivileged, the terminally and chronically ill, children, minorities and students not only in this country, but in Latin America, Israel, Europe, and Mexico. His works of goodwill have financed entire wings in hospitals, numerous scholarships, educational programs, and student centers. He has selflessly served as chairman on numerous boards for charities and councils borne out of sincerity, humility, and the goal of equality. If I could stand here and recite all of the things Frank Sinatra has done from his heart for his fellow man and woman, poor, old, young, sick and the like, and recited all of the awards this giant among us has received, I would be here all day. Mr. President, since 1945 Frank Sinatra's national and international humanitarian activities have been recognized. Just as a small sampling, he has been awarded with the Lifetime Achievement Award from the NAACP, the Achievement Award from the Screen Actors Guild, the New York City Columbus Citizens Committee Humanitarian Award, the Kennedy Center Honors, the Scopus Award from the American Friends of Hebrew University, the Philadelphia Freedom Medal and the highest civilian honor in out country, the Medal of Freedom given to him by another American hero, President Ronald Reagan. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a selection of charities Mr. Sinatra graciously donated to and honors he received be printed in the record. Mr. President, I must say to you that the idea and the driving force behind Congressional recognition of Francis Albert Sinatra in the autumn of his life came from a Congressman born in Puerto Rico. This Congressman recently told me the touching and true story of how he learned English at the age of five from Frank Sinatra. That Congressman is Congressman Jose Serrano. His father, a World War II veteran, came home from the war with a group of 78 RPM records. On those records was the melodic voice of Frank Sinatra. Congressman Serrano said to me, ``Senator, I learned to speak English. I didn't know any English. When my father came home, as a youngster, I would play these records. Frank Sinatra has been my idol.'' Mr. Sinatra's voice filled the Serrano household then as it does today. I thank my colleague for his diligence in working to have Frank Sinatra placed in a league with other deserving performers and philanthropists. Mr. President, let me conclude my remarks by citing a great song that Frank Sinatra popularized, ``My Way.'' I am not going to attempt the lyrics. I have sung on the Senate floor before and I promised Senator Ford I would not do so again, after his admonition. He was about to rise up and object. My mother cautioned me against attempting to sing again. But let me say when Frank Sinatra sings ``My Way,'' those words embody the spirit of this country, the spirit of giving people having the opportunity to do it their way, to rise, to climb to the heights that only America ensures. My true hope is that before this legislation is enacted, we will have 100 cosponsors honoring a talented American, a gifted American, who has given so generously of himself not only in his performances but in terms of making this a better country and a better world for so many who are less fortunate.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that seeks to protect our Nation's homeowners, particularly low-income and first- time home buyers, from having to pay for unnecessary and costly private mortgage insurance. Thousands of hard working Americans who strive every day to afford a house of their own are unfairly paying for private mortgage insurance which is not required and is no longer necessary. We must not have current and future homeowners paying up to hundreds of millions of dollars a year for insurance that serves no useful purpose. This is a practice which must be stopped. Today, it is unethical. Tomorrow, after this bill becomes law, it will be illegal. This legislation is intended to stop this injustice, while still providing lenders with fair protection against default. In 1995, almost 6 million Americans bought homes. Approximately 2 million of those homeowners also purchased private mortgage insurance. Today, over 40 percent of new homeowners purchase private mortgage insurance. Thousands of American homeowners--perhaps as many as 20 percent of homeowners who have private mortgage insurance--are overinsuring their homes simply because they are not informed of whether they have the right to cancel private mortgage insurance. Many homeowners are being forced to make payments for private mortgage insurance even after they have accumulated substantial equity in their homes; they continue to pay for private mortgage insurance long after the loan-to-value ratio is sufficient to protect lenders against default. Private mortgage insurance rates average between $20 and $100 per month, depending on the home purchase price, the amount of downpayment and other factors. These consumers are unknowingly paying from $240 a year to $1,200 a year for absolutely no reason--no potential benefit can accrue to the homeowner who is unnecessarily paying for this insurance. When the legitimate need for private mortgage insurance ends, the payments should stop immediately. My legislation, the Homeowners' Protection Act, would ensure that this unfair practice is discontinued by giving future homeowners the right to cancel private mortgage insurance when it is no longer needed to protect the homeowner--in most cases, when they accumulate equity equal to 20 percent of their original loan value. With respect to existing mortgages, the Homeowners' Protection Act would mandate disclosure of cancellation rights to the homeowner on an annual basis. This important legislation potentially could save current and future homeowners millions of dollars. Now let me make one thing clear--private mortgage insurance does serve a purpose. Typically, lenders require home buyers to purchase private mortgage insurance if the borrower makes a downpayment of less than 20 percent of the purchase price. The purpose of the insurance is to provide lenders, and subsequent purchasers of the mortgage, with protection in the event of default on the mortgage. It is in the best interest of all Americans that lenders have fair protection against default, so as to ensure their continued safety and soundness. Together, we can encourage the pursuit of the American dream of home ownership without allowing the fleecing of homeowners in the process. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in support in this legislation which will help to make sure that money for unnecessary insurance premiums stays where it belongs--in homeowners' pockets. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise this morning to introduce legislation on behalf of 48 Senators. I know and feel very strongly that when all of my colleagues are informed of the legislation that it will be unanimous and that all will join to authorize a congressional gold medal for Frank Sinatra. The time has come for Congress to acknowledge this great American and his contributions to the world of entertainment and society as a whole. It is fitting that we honor this man in the autumn of his years, as we have honored Bob Hope, John Wayne, Marian Anderson and other great performers, not only for the fact of their entertainment and the wonderful gift that God bestowed upon them, but for so many other aspects in terms of their bond with America, its people, and their contributions. Mr. President, this bill would authorize the U.S. Mint to commemorate the humanitarian and professional accomplishments of Frank Sinatra with a gold medal to be presented by the President on behalf of the Congress. In addition, bronze replicas of the original gold medal will be available to the general public for their private collection. It is estimated that not only will we be doing great honor to Frank Sinatra, but, in addition, it will result in a very substantial profit to the Treasury because many will buy these replicas, and indeed millions of dollars can and will be raised by our Government. Mr. President, Frank Sinatra has become one of the most, if not the most, recognizable vocalists in America and in the world. This talented man has singularly defined America's love affair with popular music for over five generations and has remained to this day a man of the people, a man who has brought pleasure to countless persons. The tremendous, positive impact Frank Sinatra has on people throughout the world is truly phenomenal. His songs have become a standard for young and old alike. Indeed, this impact goes beyond song and it goes beyond adversity. Frank Sinatra knew adversity and he overcame it in his own career rising to great heights. He overcame the trials and tribulations during his life and became a great humanitarian. Many people who adore Frank Sinatra and his music are not aware of that other side of the man--his generosity. Truly he could be called Mr. Anonymous because, Mr. President, unlike many who trumpet their generosity, who trumpet their gift giving, Mr. Sinatra did not do this. Indeed, he has raised literally hundreds of millions of dollars--not tens of millions--hundreds of millions of dollars for children, in particular, throughout the world, for those who were in need of help, whether it be for cancer, for AIDS, for retinitis pigmentosa--just name the charity and you will see that Francis Albert Sinatra most likely has been there, quietly giving of his time and his energy in caring for his fellow human being, giving back to the people of this country, throughout the length and breadth, establishing scholarships for young people, going back to his hometown and to his old high school to give of his time and his money. He took his wonderful gift of song and used it as a vehicle of benevolence. Let me just touch on one of these as an example. Mr. Sinatra has raised $9 million for just one institution, a great cancer center, Sloan-Kettering, by holding five concerts. I do not know how many know that. He did not ask his publicist to go out and speak to that. The money raised by Frank Sinatra began programs whereby those who are in need of treatment and do not have the financial wherewithal will not be turned away. This is because of the generosity of Frank Sinatra. Indeed, New Jersey can be rightfully proud of him, born in Hoboken in 1915 to parents of modest means. I am pleased that both of the Senators from New Jersey have joined in cosponsoring this legislation. Those of us in New York are so proud, and we also claim him as a son of New York. He has given us the gift of his great performances, and we particularly love his rendition of ``New York, New York.'' But look throughout the country, the great Windy City of Chicago, and how fitting that the senior Senator from Illinois has also joined in this tribute which is long overdue. Mr. President, it cannot be denied that Frank Sinatra has had a remarkable career. Not long after reaching adolescence, he developed a keen love of music and the desire to perform. In high school he was responsible for screening and scheduling dance bands for Demarest High School's Wednesday night dances. In exchange for hiring musicians, he was permitted to sing a few songs with the different bands. A dream was growing in the young Frank Sinatra--his dream of becoming a successful entertainer. By the age of 21, Frank Sinatra was a professional singer. His first group was the Three Flashes, a singing and dancing trio which later became the Hoboken Four. A few years later, Frank Sinatra's investment in vocal lessons would prove to be invaluable as his singing career propelled him into stardom. In 1939, Frank Sinatra was hired by Harry James who had recently formed an orchestra of his own. The earliest performance reviews were not favorable, but Frank Sinatra persevered. Seven months later, he was hired away to join Tommy Dorsey's orchestra where he would formulate the essence of his signature singing style. After a successful, 2-year tour with Tommy Dorsey, Frank Sinatra made the move to go out on his own in 1942. He recorded the first of numerous hit singles titled ``Night and Day.'' A year later he made his motion picture debut and had appeared in several movies by 1950. But, as quickly as Frank Sinatra found himself ``king of the hill, at the top of the heap,'' he found the constant demand on his time and talent contributing to a decline in his vocal quality. By the end of 1952, he had lost his agent and his film and recording contracts. The ``voice'' was nearly lost as well. Frank Sinatra was once eloquently quoted saying: ``You have to scrape bottom to appreciate life and start living again.'' This personally and professionally trying time ended in 1953 with Frank Sinatra's award winning performance playing the role of Maggio in the production ``From Here to Eternity.'' The rebirth of his career was finally at hand. Frank Sinatra's new stardom quickly surpassed that which he had realized in the 1940's. Beginning in the 1960's, Frank Sinatra's flourishing acclaim as a preeminent performer earned him the title ``Chairman of the Board.'' He established his own recording company, Reprise, and began recording again, this time with more conviction than ever before. Frank Sinatra orchestrated television specials which featured little-known musical talents, performed live for huge, adoring audiences and began to evolve as a legend. By 1984, his singing repertoire included well over 50 albums and record sales in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Throughout his entertainment career and rise to fame, Frank Sinatra worked tirelessly and steadfastly to cure some of the ills of society. In one of the most outstanding examples of his generosity, Frank Sinatra personally, and entirely, I might add, financed and donated his talent and superstardom along with other renowned performers for a world tour benefitting children's hospitals, orphanages, and schools in six countries. This whirlwind jaunt included 30 concerts in 10 weeks. And never once did Frank Sinatra seek glory from this feat through publicity or any other means. Frank Sinatra's generosity has touched the lives of the underprivileged, the terminally and chronically ill, children, minorities and students not only in this country, but in Latin America, Israel, Europe, and Mexico. His works of goodwill have financed entire wings in hospitals, numerous scholarships, educational programs, and student centers. He has selflessly served as chairman on numerous boards for charities and councils borne out of sincerity, humility, and the goal of equality. If I could stand here and recite all of the things Frank Sinatra has done from his heart for his fellow man and woman, poor, old, young, sick and the like, and recited all of the awards this giant among us has received, I would be here all day. Mr. President, since 1945 Frank Sinatra's national and international humanitarian activities have been recognized. Just as a small sampling, he has been awarded with the Lifetime Achievement Award from the NAACP, the Achievement Award from the Screen Actors Guild, the New York City Columbus Citizens Committee Humanitarian Award, the Kennedy Center Honors, the Scopus Award from the American Friends of Hebrew University, the Philadelphia Freedom Medal and the highest civilian honor in out country, the Medal of Freedom given to him by another American hero, President Ronald Reagan. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a selection of charities Mr. Sinatra graciously donated to and honors he received be printed in the record. Mr. President, I must say to you that the idea and the driving force behind Congressional recognition of Francis Albert Sinatra in the autumn of his life came from a Congressman born in Puerto Rico. This Congressman recently told me the touching and true story of how he learned English at the age of five from Frank Sinatra. That Congressman is Congressman Jose Serrano. His father, a World War II veteran, came home from the war with a group of 78 RPM records. On those records was the melodic voice of Frank Sinatra. Congressman Serrano said to me, ``Senator, I learned to speak English. I didn't know any English. When my father came home, as a youngster, I would play these records. Frank Sinatra has been my idol.'' Mr. Sinatra's voice filled the Serrano household then as it does today. I thank my colleague for his diligence in working to have Frank Sinatra placed in a league with other deserving performers and philanthropists. Mr. President, let me conclude my remarks by citing a great song that Frank Sinatra popularized, ``My Way.'' I am not going to attempt the lyrics. I have sung on the Senate floor before and I promised Senator Ford I would not do so again, after his admonition. He was about to rise up and object. My mother cautioned me against attempting to sing again. But let me say when Frank Sinatra sings ``My Way,'' those words embody the spirit of this country, the spirit of giving people having the opportunity to do it their way, to rise, to climb to the heights that only America ensures. My true hope is that before this legislation is enacted, we will have 100 cosponsors honoring a talented American, a gifted American, who has given so generously of himself not only in his performances but in terms of making this a better country and a better world for so many who are less fortunate.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today with the cosponsorship of my colleagues, Senators Gramm, Grams, and Bennett, I am introducing the ``Depository Institutions Affiliation Act of 1997,'' to modernize the laws governing the financial services industry in a comprehensive, progressive fashion. I am pleased that Representative Richard Baker, chairman of the Housing Banking Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities and Government Sponsored Enterprises, will introduce similar legislation, joined by Representatives McCollum, La Falce, and Dreier. This legislation will promote efficiency and fair competition between all financial service providers and make U.S. financial firms stronger in global competition. Mr. President, Congress has been struggling to modernize the financial system since before I became a member of the Banking Committee in 1981. That effort must continue and should conclude successfully in this Congress. Our existing legal framework is fundamentally outdated. The Glass-Steagall and Bank Holding Company Acts impose regulatory structures that are inadequate for today's global marketplace and the financial needs of consumers. Mr. President, our Nation's entire financial system --including traditional banks, insurance companies, and securities firms--faces a future that is somewhat unsettled. Competitive developments in the marketplace and the technological revolution that is well underway have brought about significant changes in the financial system, domestic and international. And these changes have already had a significant influence on all financial services providers and their customers. Mr. President, there is widespread recognition that the United States must adopt a regulatory regime that recognizes market realities and assesses and controls risk. Our present patchwork of financial laws protects particular industries, restrains competition, prevents diversification that would limit risks, restricts potential sources of capital, and undermines the efficient delivery of financial services and the competitive position of our financial institutions in world markets. Mr. President, Congress' reform effort in the 105th Congress must be forward-looking, not merely a reengineering of the legacy and laws from the New Deal. Our reform effort must not be limited in its design by unfounded fears and outdated philosophies. The far-reaching changes we are witnessing require a top-to-bottom examination of long-standing conventions about the way our financial system should be structured and regulated as we approach the 21st century. Already, banks and competitors from outside the conventional banking system are jockeying for position and advantage as competition heats up for control of market share and customers in a world of electronic commerce. Existing institutions that fight for legislative restrictions to protect their markets are fighting the last war. Debate over financial modernization that focuses primarily on issues like the future of the banking franchise or gerrymandering markets through piecemeal legislation to protect a particular market segment is too narrow from a public policy standpoint. Such a narrow approach addresses questions and solves problems that existed in the 1970's and 1980's; however, the year 2000 is quickly approaching and the policy debate in Congress and among industry leaders should be oriented toward the future. Technology and new financial competitors from outside the traditional arena will now provide an important and new catalyst for meaningful change and long overdue comprehensive financial modernization. Mr. President, in its consideration of financial modernization, the new Congress will need to explore a number of new and important issues, including: Given all the technological changes and new players in the market, what does it mean to be a bank? Does it make sense to maintain an artificial distinction between banks and nonbanks? Does it make sense to preserve the fiction that banking and commerce are somehow separate? Does it make sense to prohibit information-driven firms from owning or affiliating with banks now that financial services are in large part information processing activities? How will the old system of deposit insurance fit into this environment? Should more complex institutions be required to give up deposit insurance, as was suggested by one of the Federal Reserve Bank presidents? How do we ensure that technology results in greater choice, lower fees and fair, readily available access by consumers? The experience we are having with ATM's raises questions about whether consumers will share in the benefits of technology or whether the benefits will go primarily to the owners of that technology. How can we protect individual privacy now that computers make it so easy to collect and disseminate personal information? This is such a sensitive concern that the Congress directed the Federal Reserve to conduct a study. I do not know the answers, but these are provocative questions which require careful study and debate. Others are studying these issues as well. Last year, Congress directed the Treasury Department to conduct a study of all issues relating to a common charter for all federally insured depository institutions as part of the law stabilizing and eventually merging the two Federal deposit insurance funds (BIF and SAIF) (P.L. 104-208). The Treasury Department is expected to submit that study next month. The Treasury Department appointed a consumer electronic payments task force which will include the principal Federal agencies involved in the payments system. In addition, the Treasury Department is completing a study on the strengths and weaknesses of our financial services system in meeting the needs of the system's users. Most recently, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan announced formation of a committee that will look at the Fed's role in the payments system of the future. Mr. President, I introduce the Depository Institution Affiliation Act as a prelude to a vigorous debate about the future of our financial system. Let me explain how the Depository Institution Affiliation Act [DIAA] will make the financial system safer, more stable, and more competitive. I will submit a more detailed section-by-section explanation of the bill at the end of my remarks. The bill is virtually identical to legislation that I have previously sponsored or cosponsored in 1987 (S. 1905) and in 1989 (S. 530). In the previous Congress, it was S. 337. With the exception of technical and conforming changes to reflect the enactment of banking laws since its original introduction, the text of the bill is unchanged. Mr. President, comprehensive financial modernization as proposed in this reform legislation would produce many beneficial changes for all financial intermediaries. First, the legislation will enable all financial intermediaries-- commercial banks, investment banks, thrifts, and so forth--to attract financial capital and managerial expertise by eliminating existing restrictions on ownership by and affiliations among depository and nondepository firms. However, the DIAA preserves all the safety-and- soundness and conflict-of-interest protections of the present system, while providing legal flexibility for a company to meet the financial needs of consumers, businesses, and others. Mr. President, some detractors of DIAA describe it as too radical because it permits these affiliations. However, this type of common ownership is already allowed by our laws and has existed for decades without any evidence of problems. Federal law and public policy expressly allows commercial companies to own and affiliate with a variety of federally insured banks--for example, credit card banks, limited purpose banks, trust companies, and so forth--and savings and loans. For example, unitary thrift holding companies have proven that finance and commerce can be mixed safely. In fact, the lack of ownership restrictions on thrifts has worked to expand the capital and managerial talent available to thrifts. And the successful record of unitary holding companies demonstrates that broader ownership affiliations can actually strengthen depository institutions through greater diversification and financial strength. Moreover, the reality is that nonbank organizations, including telecommunications, cable companies, and software firms are designing and delivering banklike financial services and products over the Internet and World Wide Web without owning a bank. Second, this bill will facilitate diversification and assure fair competition by creating a new charter alternative for all companies interested in entering or diversifying in the financial services field--a financial services holding company--FSHC. These FSHC's will be authorized to engage in any financial activity through separately regulated affiliates of the holding company. The bill would permit the merging of banking and commerce under carefully regulated circumstances by allowing a FSHC to own both a depository institution and companies engaged in both financial and nonfinancial activities. Third, this legislation will insulate insured subsidiaries--for example, banks--from the more risky business activities of its affiliates, as well as the parent holding company. It would not authorize or allow these activities to be conducted in a bank's operating subsidiary. Mr. President, by authorizing this alternative regulatory framework, the legislation would essentially exempt a FSHC's subsidiaries and affiliates from those sections of the Glass-Steagall and Bank Holding Company Acts that restrict mixing commercial banking with other financial--securities, investment banking, and so forth--and nonfinancial activities--retailing, technology, manufacturing. A FSHC would be able to diversify into any activity through affiliates of the holding company, with such affiliates subject to enhanced regulation. Fourth, this bill will enhance substantially the quality and effectiveness of regulation through functional regulation. The regulation of the bank and nonbank affiliates of financial services holding companies would be along functional lines. The insured bank affiliate would be regulated by Federal and State bank regulators, the securities affiliate by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and so on. Thus, for each affiliate, existing regulatory expertise and resources will be applied to protect consumers, investors, and taxpayers. Functional regulation will also assure that competition in discrete products and services is fair by eliminating advantages attributable to current loopholes, regulatory gaps, and cost subsidies. Finally, the bill would improve coordination and supervision of the overall financial system by permitting more effective analysis and monitoring of aggregate stability and vulnerability to severe disruptions and breakdown. By removing unnecessary barriers to competition between providers of financial service in the United States, this legislation will permit U.S. capital markets to maintain their preeminence, and will allow U.S. financial intermediaries to respond to growing competition from foreign companies. Mr. President, I want to underscore that the DIAA would not require existing firms to alter their regulatory structure. By permitting financial services providers to become FSHC's, such providers will have the option to phase gradually into, or expand within, the financial services industry. Mr. President, the DIAA provides a solid platform and a sound approach to modernizing our financial structure. I recognize that this bill can be improved, and I am specifically requesting constructive and helpful comments to improve and to refine the major principles underlying the bill. As the committee proceeds to hearings and further consideration of the bill, I intend to make changes and adjustments in order to ensure competitive fairness, promote safety and soundness; achieve depositor, investor, and consumer protection; and assure effective and efficient functional regulation. Modernization of the financial services industry should not include the preemption of State consumer protection laws. Mr. President, in the absence of congressional action, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve Board have acted to achieve limited modernization with results often of questionable legal authority and public policy results. Specifically, I am concerned about the OCC's action to permit a bank's operating subsidiaries to engage in activities that are not permissible for the bank. I believe this regulation is unwise. And I am deeply concerned that the Comptrollers action may subject federally insured banks to excessive risks and expose the bank insurance funds, and therefore taxpayers, to unnecessary liability. Congress can never forget the lessons of the savings and loan crisis in the late 1980's. In addition, the Fed's recent actions to increase the aggregate level of business a section 20 securities affiliate may engage in and its proposal to reduce or even eliminate important firewalls and safeguards that have existed for over a decade are also imprudent. Mr. President, the rivalry between regulators to attempt unilaterally to set public policy and alter the competitive balance for their constituencies is not wholesome or helpful. The regulators actions will never be a substitute for comprehensive and balanced congressional action. For far too long, Congress has ceded the field to piecemeal deregulation by bank regulators and the courts. The time has come for Congress to decide on a legal and policy framework that prepares our financial institutions for the new century and the challenges of a rapidly changing global economy. The 105th Congress must address and resolve the important questions relating to the health and future of the banking industry in the broader context of a financial system that is increasingly composed of nonbank financial service providers. We must focus on the needs of our economy for credit and growth in the future and the next century. We must focus on financial stability, safety and soundness, fair competition, and functional regulation of all financial service providers--whether they are banks, investment banks, insurance companies, finance companies or even telecommunications or computer companies. Mr. President, the benchmark provisions, principles, and purposes of DIAA, as stated above, have been tested and explored over the years. During a decade of debate several studies, including a 1991 study by the Treasury Department entitled, ``Modernizing the Financial System: Recommendations for Safer More Competitive Banks'', these principles and the framework of the bill have become the centerpiece of an emerging consensus in favor of forward-looking, balanced and prudent approach to modernization. I am hopeful that a new study underway by the Treasury Department and due to be submitted to Congress in March related to a common bank and thrift charter will reach similar conclusions. Mr. President, by continuing to work together, as demonstrated by the BIF/SAIF bill last year, the Congress and the administration can overcome the complaints of vested interests and reform our antiquated financial services laws. We should not miss this opportunity for constructive bipartisanship. I believe that this bill provides a good starting point for the 105th Congress to act on financial modernization. Passage of this bill will be a high priority for the Banking Committee. I believe this is a realistic objective. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a more detailed section- by-section summary of the bill be reprinted in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today with the cosponsorship of my colleagues, Senators Gramm, Grams, and Bennett, I am introducing the ``Depository Institutions Affiliation Act of 1997,'' to modernize the laws governing the financial services industry in a comprehensive, progressive fashion. I am pleased that Representative Richard Baker, chairman of the Housing Banking Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities and Government Sponsored Enterprises, will introduce similar legislation, joined by Representatives McCollum, La Falce, and Dreier. This legislation will promote efficiency and fair competition between all financial service providers and make U.S. financial firms stronger in global competition. Mr. President, Congress has been struggling to modernize the financial system since before I became a member of the Banking Committee in 1981. That effort must continue and should conclude successfully in this Congress. Our existing legal framework is fundamentally outdated. The Glass-Steagall and Bank Holding Company Acts impose regulatory structures that are inadequate for today's global marketplace and the financial needs of consumers. Mr. President, our Nation's entire financial system --including traditional banks, insurance companies, and securities firms--faces a future that is somewhat unsettled. Competitive developments in the marketplace and the technological revolution that is well underway have brought about significant changes in the financial system, domestic and international. And these changes have already had a significant influence on all financial services providers and their customers. Mr. President, there is widespread recognition that the United States must adopt a regulatory regime that recognizes market realities and assesses and controls risk. Our present patchwork of financial laws protects particular industries, restrains competition, prevents diversification that would limit risks, restricts potential sources of capital, and undermines the efficient delivery of financial services and the competitive position of our financial institutions in world markets. Mr. President, Congress' reform effort in the 105th Congress must be forward-looking, not merely a reengineering of the legacy and laws from the New Deal. Our reform effort must not be limited in its design by unfounded fears and outdated philosophies. The far-reaching changes we are witnessing require a top-to-bottom examination of long-standing conventions about the way our financial system should be structured and regulated as we approach the 21st century. Already, banks and competitors from outside the conventional banking system are jockeying for position and advantage as competition heats up for control of market share and customers in a world of electronic commerce. Existing institutions that fight for legislative restrictions to protect their markets are fighting the last war. Debate over financial modernization that focuses primarily on issues like the future of the banking franchise or gerrymandering markets through piecemeal legislation to protect a particular market segment is too narrow from a public policy standpoint. Such a narrow approach addresses questions and solves problems that existed in the 1970's and 1980's; however, the year 2000 is quickly approaching and the policy debate in Congress and among industry leaders should be oriented toward the future. Technology and new financial competitors from outside the traditional arena will now provide an important and new catalyst for meaningful change and long overdue comprehensive financial modernization. Mr. President, in its consideration of financial modernization, the new Congress will need to explore a number of new and important issues, including: Given all the technological changes and new players in the market, what does it mean to be a bank? Does it make sense to maintain an artificial distinction between banks and nonbanks? Does it make sense to preserve the fiction that banking and commerce are somehow separate? Does it make sense to prohibit information-driven firms from owning or affiliating with banks now that financial services are in large part information processing activities? How will the old system of deposit insurance fit into this environment? Should more complex institutions be required to give up deposit insurance, as was suggested by one of the Federal Reserve Bank presidents? How do we ensure that technology results in greater choice, lower fees and fair, readily available access by consumers? The experience we are having with ATM's raises questions about whether consumers will share in the benefits of technology or whether the benefits will go primarily to the owners of that technology. How can we protect individual privacy now that computers make it so easy to collect and disseminate personal information? This is such a sensitive concern that the Congress directed the Federal Reserve to conduct a study. I do not know the answers, but these are provocative questions which require careful study and debate. Others are studying these issues as well. Last year, Congress directed the Treasury Department to conduct a study of all issues relating to a common charter for all federally insured depository institutions as part of the law stabilizing and eventually merging the two Federal deposit insurance funds (BIF and SAIF) (P.L. 104-208). The Treasury Department is expected to submit that study next month. The Treasury Department appointed a consumer electronic payments task force which will include the principal Federal agencies involved in the payments system. In addition, the Treasury Department is completing a study on the strengths and weaknesses of our financial services system in meeting the needs of the system's users. Most recently, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan announced formation of a committee that will look at the Fed's role in the payments system of the future. Mr. President, I introduce the Depository Institution Affiliation Act as a prelude to a vigorous debate about the future of our financial system. Let me explain how the Depository Institution Affiliation Act [DIAA] will make the financial system safer, more stable, and more competitive. I will submit a more detailed section-by-section explanation of the bill at the end of my remarks. The bill is virtually identical to legislation that I have previously sponsored or cosponsored in 1987 (S. 1905) and in 1989 (S. 530). In the previous Congress, it was S. 337. With the exception of technical and conforming changes to reflect the enactment of banking laws since its original introduction, the text of the bill is unchanged. Mr. President, comprehensive financial modernization as proposed in this reform legislation would produce many beneficial changes for all financial intermediaries. First, the legislation will enable all financial intermediaries-- commercial banks, investment banks, thrifts, and so forth--to attract financial capital and managerial expertise by eliminating existing restrictions on ownership by and affiliations among depository and nondepository firms. However, the DIAA preserves all the safety-and- soundness and conflict-of-interest protections of the present system, while providing legal flexibility for a company to meet the financial needs of consumers, businesses, and others. Mr. President, some detractors of DIAA describe it as too radical because it permits these affiliations. However, this type of common ownership is already allowed by our laws and has existed for decades without any evidence of problems. Federal law and public policy expressly allows commercial companies to own and affiliate with a variety of federally insured banks--for example, credit card banks, limited purpose banks, trust companies, and so forth--and savings and loans. For example, unitary thrift holding companies have proven that finance and commerce can be mixed safely. In fact, the lack of ownership restrictions on thrifts has worked to expand the capital and managerial talent available to thrifts. And the successful record of unitary holding companies demonstrates that broader ownership affiliations can actually strengthen depository institutions through greater diversification and financial strength. Moreover, the reality is that nonbank organizations, including telecommunications, cable companies, and software firms are designing and delivering banklike financial services and products over the Internet and World Wide Web without owning a bank. Second, this bill will facilitate diversification and assure fair competition by creating a new charter alternative for all companies interested in entering or diversifying in the financial services field--a financial services holding company--FSHC. These FSHC's will be authorized to engage in any financial activity through separately regulated affiliates of the holding company. The bill would permit the merging of banking and commerce under carefully regulated circumstances by allowing a FSHC to own both a depository institution and companies engaged in both financial and nonfinancial activities. Third, this legislation will insulate insured subsidiaries--for example, banks--from the more risky business activities of its affiliates, as well as the parent holding company. It would not authorize or allow these activities to be conducted in a bank's operating subsidiary. Mr. President, by authorizing this alternative regulatory framework, the legislation would essentially exempt a FSHC's subsidiaries and affiliates from those sections of the Glass-Steagall and Bank Holding Company Acts that restrict mixing commercial banking with other financial--securities, investment banking, and so forth--and nonfinancial activities--retailing, technology, manufacturing. A FSHC would be able to diversify into any activity through affiliates of the holding company, with such affiliates subject to enhanced regulation. Fourth, this bill will enhance substantially the quality and effectiveness of regulation through functional regulation. The regulation of the bank and nonbank affiliates of financial services holding companies would be along functional lines. The insured bank affiliate would be regulated by Federal and State bank regulators, the securities affiliate by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and so on. Thus, for each affiliate, existing regulatory expertise and resources will be applied to protect consumers, investors, and taxpayers. Functional regulation will also assure that competition in discrete products and services is fair by eliminating advantages attributable to current loopholes, regulatory gaps, and cost subsidies. Finally, the bill would improve coordination and supervision of the overall financial system by permitting more effective analysis and monitoring of aggregate stability and vulnerability to severe disruptions and breakdown. By removing unnecessary barriers to competition between providers of financial service in the United States, this legislation will permit U.S. capital markets to maintain their preeminence, and will allow U.S. financial intermediaries to respond to growing competition from foreign companies. Mr. President, I want to underscore that the DIAA would not require existing firms to alter their regulatory structure. By permitting financial services providers to become FSHC's, such providers will have the option to phase gradually into, or expand within, the financial services industry. Mr. President, the DIAA provides a solid platform and a sound approach to modernizing our financial structure. I recognize that this bill can be improved, and I am specifically requesting constructive and helpful comments to improve and to refine the major principles underlying the bill. As the committee proceeds to hearings and further consideration of the bill, I intend to make changes and adjustments in order to ensure competitive fairness, promote safety and soundness; achieve depositor, investor, and consumer protection; and assure effective and efficient functional regulation. Modernization of the financial services industry should not include the preemption of State consumer protection laws. Mr. President, in the absence of congressional action, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve Board have acted to achieve limited modernization with results often of questionable legal authority and public policy results. Specifically, I am concerned about the OCC's action to permit a bank's operating subsidiaries to engage in activities that are not permissible for the bank. I believe this regulation is unwise. And I am deeply concerned that the Comptrollers action may subject federally insured banks to excessive risks and expose the bank insurance funds, and therefore taxpayers, to unnecessary liability. Congress can never forget the lessons of the savings and loan crisis in the late 1980's. In addition, the Fed's recent actions to increase the aggregate level of business a section 20 securities affiliate may engage in and its proposal to reduce or even eliminate important firewalls and safeguards that have existed for over a decade are also imprudent. Mr. President, the rivalry between regulators to attempt unilaterally to set public policy and alter the competitive balance for their constituencies is not wholesome or helpful. The regulators actions will never be a substitute for comprehensive and balanced congressional action. For far too long, Congress has ceded the field to piecemeal deregulation by bank regulators and the courts. The time has come for Congress to decide on a legal and policy framework that prepares our financial institutions for the new century and the challenges of a rapidly changing global economy. The 105th Congress must address and resolve the important questions relating to the health and future of the banking industry in the broader context of a financial system that is increasingly composed of nonbank financial service providers. We must focus on the needs of our economy for credit and growth in the future and the next century. We must focus on financial stability, safety and soundness, fair competition, and functional regulation of all financial service providers--whether they are banks, investment banks, insurance companies, finance companies or even telecommunications or computer companies. Mr. President, the benchmark provisions, principles, and purposes of DIAA, as stated above, have been tested and explored over the years. During a decade of debate several studies, including a 1991 study by the Treasury Department entitled, ``Modernizing the Financial System: Recommendations for Safer More Competitive Banks'', these principles and the framework of the bill have become the centerpiece of an emerging consensus in favor of forward-looking, balanced and prudent approach to modernization. I am hopeful that a new study underway by the Treasury Department and due to be submitted to Congress in March related to a common bank and thrift charter will reach similar conclusions. Mr. President, by continuing to work together, as demonstrated by the BIF/SAIF bill last year, the Congress and the administration can overcome the complaints of vested interests and reform our antiquated financial services laws. We should not miss this opportunity for constructive bipartisanship. I believe that this bill provides a good starting point for the 105th Congress to act on financial modernization. Passage of this bill will be a high priority for the Banking Committee. I believe this is a realistic objective. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a more detailed section- by-section summary of the bill be reprinted in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to do again something I have done many times in the past--to say good things about Sam Wise. Sam passed away during the early morning on Tuesday, January 21, 1997, after a short illness. Our thoughts and our prayers go out to his wife, Mary, and the rest of his family in this most difficult time. I first met Sam in 1981, when I came to the Senate as a freshman and joined the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which is better known as the Helsinki Commission. I have worked with him, traveled with him, relied upon him, trusted him as a staff member, a diplomat, and a friend. When I first served as the Helsinki Commission's chairman, in 1985 and 1986, Sam was already the pillar of wisdom, the font of all Commission and CSCE knowledge, and the balance wheel of good judgment that kept things under control. At the Vienna CSCE Review Conference, which began under my chairmanship, Sam became the deputy head of the U.S. delegation, and was awarded the personal rank of Ambassador by the President. It was an honor hard-earned and richly deserved. With the start of the 105th Congress, the Commission is suddenly and sadly lacking Sam's leadership, professionalism, and gravitas. The obituary published in the Washington Post on Thursday, January 23, 1997, summarizes the facts of his life. But it doesn't tell the story of the arduous travel, the late nights, the haggling over bracketed text, the personal integrity and ex-marine toughness that made seasoned diplomats trust him and rely upon him and allowed him to close the deal when other people couldn't. The measure of his loss will test us. In life, he taught and led, and gave of himself unstintingly in the service of his country, and in the service of humanity. Retired from the Department of State in 1982, after serving with the Commission on detail since 1977, the year after the Commission's founding, he had his greatest impact on U.S. policy with the Commission. He subsequently served as the Commission's staff director, and later as its director of international policy. His skillful, steady hand helped guide the Helsinki Accords from a contentious and little-known artifact of detente to a living, growing international process and organization that has brought much good to many people, and has helped build peace, prosperity, and security for the United States, our allies, and all of the people of Europe. His work with the Commission specifically advanced the cause of human rights to its highest level of achievement in international relations. During the cold war, prisoners of conscience, refuseniks, persons whose families had been separated, the oppressed of all kinds, had a friend and a skillful ally in Sam. Many cases were resolved--among them those of Anatoly Scharansky and Yuri Orlov--and many families were reunited. We can make a list of individual people he helped, and every one of these cases in whose resolution he had a hand adds luster to his name. More importantly, in international meeting after international meeting, Sam did the hard work of diplomacy, out of the spotlight, helping bring together the United States, Canada, and the nations of Europe to agree, word by painfully negotiated word, on commitments that made human rights a legitimate issue in international relations, not one that an oppressive state could easily dismiss as outside interference in its internal affairs. This is hard work, building the foundation of human civilization. That's what Sam helped do. The modern Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and especially the established human rights standards it embodies and advances, are a product, in larger part than the world knows, of his dedication, skill, tireless effort, and commitment to principle. While the world at large may little note his passing, those of us who know the Helsinki process and the demanding work of establishing and protecting human rights, we know we have lost one of the people who count. His achievements in life will serve as a lasting tribute to him, and will continue to do good for his country, our friends, and humanity in general for many years to come. Nothing I can say, nothing anyone can do, can make up for his loss. We can all, however, take some comfort in his accomplishments in life, and rededicate ourselves to the service of our country and to the advancement of those causes we shared with him. Sam, I will miss you. God bless you and God speed you home to His care.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I come here today and rise to introduce a bill that I think is unfortunately necessary, unfortunately because HMO's and insurance carriers--and I don't mean this for all, but we are seeing a growing tendency--are doing the kinds of things nobody would have imagined, and they are doing it and interfering with good, sound medical care, because they are more interested in the bottom line. Indeed, there are some who are already beginning to drumbeat against health maintenance organizations per se, and we would be losers, because there are important innovations and savings that can be made, but those savings and innovations should not be made at the expense of the traditional and important and sacred--sacred--right that a patient should have with their physician. Maybe it takes the specter of cancer and breast cancer, in particular, because people are concerned and it is a fright, to get people to focus on what is taking place, and that is insurance carriers placing arbitrary limits on patients as it relates to the length of stay or time that they can use a medical facility, a hospital. It is interesting and, indeed, ironic that as I make these remarks, the presiding officer who sits in the chair and presides over the Senate today is a distinguished Senator and a distinguished citizen who spent so much of his life in the area of healing and of practicing medicine and who knows better than I. I am so pleased to be able to have his counsel and to share these thoughts with him today personally. While I introduce this legislation on behalf of 16 colleagues in the Senate of the United States and 20-plus Representatives in the House, Democrats and Republicans--totally bipartisan--I do not suggest that this is the cure-all for what we see taking place. Indeed, we have specifically limited this legislative initiative. There were calls and outcries that HMO's and insurance carriers be required to provide at least a minimum of time as it relates to mastectomies. Many in the medical profession came forward and said, ``We think that is the worst kind of legislation. We would rather see no time, nor do we think that the health providers should be setting times.'' That is a larger debate for a larger area, but I subscribe to that, and I think that we should say very clearly here in the U.S. Senate and Congress, By gosh, insurance carriers should not be saying, ``If there is a particular disease, we are only going to insure you up to X hours.'' What happens if there is a complication? It may be that a procedure, whether it be a mastectomy or whether it be prostate cancer or whether it be some other disease, that ordinarily, under normal circumstances, there is an average length of time. It might be 1 day, 2 days, 3 days. But who is to say, if there is a complication and it takes 6 days or 2 weeks, are we then going to say something that ordinarily would be covered in insurance policies, that somehow because someone has adopted a rule--and why they have adopted that rule; I don't know how they can practice that, they are not practitioners--that we are going to exclude you if you go over that period of time? This is wrong. This should not be the way in which we attempt to manage health care costs, and it is, I believe, taken by many people to mean the greed of the industry. The fact that there are now today many in the HMO business, some almost startup companies overnight, making millions and millions of dollars--I am not against profits, but if you are going to make profits by denying adequate basic medical treatment, then that is wrong, that is immoral and we in the Congress of the United States have a business to do something about it. I know there are going to be those who say let the marketplace work, let free competition work. Well, that is naive. To simply say that by insisting on a minimum standard, that minimums be observed, that no one interferes with the patient and that very special relationship with the doctor--we are now seeing that taking place, because there are those carriers who are punishing doctors, punishing them by denying them adequate compensation or penalizing them by denying them moneys they otherwise would have because they recommend treatments that may cost that insurance carrier more but which they feel are necessary for the safety, health, and protection of their patients. How dare we permit and countenance that kind of thing today? We know it is going on, and to the health maintenance organizations and to the insurance carriers who say it is not going on and this legislation is not necessary, well, if it is not necessary, don't oppose it. It is that simple. If you are not penalizing doctors or rewarding them because they hold back on treatments that might cost more and which are necessary, then why should you be opposed to it? If you are not arbitrarily limiting the time that a patient may have or necessary treatments, then why would you be opposed to it? This legislation basically says you cannot do that, you cannot prescribe 48 hours as it relates to mastectomies. You cannot deny that doctor-patient relationship by penalizing a doctor. We say you are not permitted to do that, or rewarding a doctor on the basis of cost- effectiveness. In a third provision, we say that when it comes to the devastating disease and the specter of cancer, not only breast cancer, but prostate cancer--all cancers--that people are entitled to a second opinion. There is not anyone I know who, if they faced a diagnosis and were given a particular course of treatment that would be suggested, that they would not look for a second opinion. That is fact. If the doctor and the attending physician recommended a second opinion, our legislation says the company must pay for that. If that physician feels that there is a need to get some specialist outside of the organization, outside of that HMO, the company must pay for that. What do we say to the average worker who has no independent resources who can't pay $500 or $1,000, or whatever it might be for that specialist, for that second opinion? You cannot have it? So, Mr. President, we provide that with respect to this particular disease. I believe we should go further, and I think in the fullness of the discussions and the legislative actions that this Congress will undertake that we will examine this, and your committee, the Health Committee, in particular will be looking at it. But I think certainly at this time we should begin to say, Listen, as it relates to this particular disease of cancer, where the treating and attending physician recommends a second opinion, that patient should have the ability and the right to be covered and have that second opinion. I am going to relate two specific examples, because we have spent some time in shaping and putting together this legislation and it is by no ways written in stone or steel. It is in the sand, it is something to be looked at, something to be worked with. I look forward to the help and recommendations of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, who presides today, on how we can improve and make this legislative effort a better one. Last, but not least, in the area of breast cancer in particular, one of the very shattering thoughts and a fear that women live with today is the fact that they may be one of the eight who is diagnosed with breast cancer, and that is a national average. They are concerned about the treatment that might permanently disfigure them and, therefore, it becomes absolutely imperative that, as a nation, we indicate to people that there are courses of treatment that cannot only save a life but, indeed, do not have to be disfiguring, and in this way, as it relates to breast cancer in particular, have more women coming in for early diagnosis and treatment and avoid, No. 1, death, and, No. 2, disfigurement, because we provide that breast cancer reconstruction and that reconstructive surgery not be considered cosmetic. If someone loses an ear, that surgery is not considered cosmetic. However, incredibly, we find insurance carriers denying reconstruction on the basis that it is cosmetic. So we create a double tragedy by denying women who have that disease and who don't have the ability to pay for reconstruction the ability to have that. And, second, and probably just as important, there are many who will not go for early diagnosis, and, therefore, the treatment is not available to them until it is too late. That has to be avoided. So we provide that HMO's and insurance carriers must make this available. It is not an option that they can just simply turn away. The title of our bill is called the ``Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1997.'' Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1997. This important reform legislation will significantly change the way insurance companies provide coverage for women diagnosed with breast cancer. The problem of the so-called drive- through mastectomies must be eliminated from our society. Physicians must not be forced to have their best medical judgment questioned by insurance companies who put their bottom line before a woman's health. The women of New York and America deserve better. Today, there are 2.6 million women living with breast cancer. In 1997 alone, more than 184,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and, tragically, 44,000 women will die of this dreaded disease. Breast cancer is still the most common form of cancer in women; every 3 minutes another woman is diagnosed and every 11 minutes another woman dies of breast cancer. The D'Amato-Feinstein-Snowe legislation makes critically important changes in how breast cancer patients receive medical care. Specifically, the bill requires health insurance companies to cover an unlimited stay in the hospital following mastectomies, lumpectomies, and lymph node dissection for the treatment of breast cancer when the attending physician decides a longer stay is necessary. Every physician would have the freedom to prescribe longer stays when necessary, and the confidence that insurers will not punish them for practicing sound medical treatment. My bill would make it illegal to penalize a doctor for following good medical judgment. The time for a hospital stay will no longer be an arbitrary determination made on the basis of saving money. Another important provision of the D'Amato-Feinstein-Snowe bill ensures that mastectomy patients will have access to reconstructive surgery. Scores of women have been denied reconstructive surgery following mastectomies because insurers have deemed the procedure cosmetic and not medically necessary. It is absolutely unacceptable and wrong that many insurers deem this essential surgery as cosmetic, and it is a practice that must be changed. The Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act also includes a unique provision for coverage of second opinions by specialists. The bill would require health care providers to pay for secondary consultations when cancer tests come back either negative or positive. This important provision will help identify false negatives as well as false positives. Additionally, if the attending physician recommends consultation by a specialist not covered by the health plan, the bill would allow the doctor to make such a referral at no additional cost to the patient. This legislation is particularly important for the women of Long Island. Our families have been ravaged by this horrible disease. Our grandmothers, mothers and daughters, sisters and wives, children and friends have been afflicted at rates that are unexplained and far too high. We must continue to work together to find a cure for breast cancer. But until a cure is found, we must ensure that women receive the treatment they deserve. This legislation protects women and anyone ever diagnosed with cancer. It is the most comprehensive bill introduced in the Senate and I am proud to offer it today. I want to thank Senator Feinstein and Senator Snowe for the contributions that they have made as it relates to helping prepare this legislation. The Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act is important. It is important again that we preserve adequate, decent, affordable medical care and not tamper with that sacred relationship that should be preserved between a doctor and his patient. I would like, if I might, to share with the Senate the remarks of a great surgeon, Dr. Larry Norton, Chief of Breast Cancer Medicine at Sloan Kettering, one of the great cancer hospitals in this Nation. He is reflecting about a patient. I will not read all of it. He tells why, I think, this legislation is so necessary. He said: There was a patient that I saw on a second opinion not too long ago who paid herself for a second opinion because her HMO . . . wouldn't [do that]. I saw her and told her about a therapy that was very scientifically based that we thought was superior here, in fact clinical trials have demonstrated to be superior, and it has become a standard now, throughout the United States. . . . we offered her that particular treatment. Speaking to the person on the other end of the phone at her managed care plan, and I managed to work my way up to the physician level through several clerical levels. . . . Here is the chief of surgery at Sloan Kettering Memorial calling an HMO to suggest this course of treatment. I want to describe what is going on. He had to call clerk after clerk after clerk, and he finally got someone who was a physician. By the way, most people cannot do that and they cannot work through that. And he was told that they would not pay for the care. He went on to say--and this is the person on the other end: . . . Dr. Norton, we are not saying . . . Imagine, this is an HMO, a doctor on the other side of the HMO. He is saying: . . . Dr. Norton, we are not saying that [it] is not the right treatment, we are just saying that we are not going to pay for it. By the way, what I am reading to you is testimony he gave publicly about 10 days ago in New York at Sloan Memorial. He went on to say: I put the phone down, shaking, and called her [that is, his patient] to discuss this with her, and her 10-year-old son answered the phone. I said who I was and he said, calling to his mother, ``Mommy, your doctor is on the phone.'' I knew at that moment that the discussion that she could not get the care that was appropriate was not what I was going to say. Through enormous efforts, and through the support of my terrific institution, [we] were able to provide her that care and things turned out very well for her, as we could have anticipated. The doctor goes on to say: The point is that there is a holy alliance between the doctor and the patient, and the entire structure of medicine is because of that holy alliance. It is a religious experience [a religious experience] to take care of a patient well and, if you feel any less motivation, you are not [going to be] doing your job as a physician. We feel that kind of motivation here. We are living in an era where a lot of steps are coming between the doctors and the patients. Their motivations are not necessarily the same motivations that have driven us to this point of advance. What we see before us today . . . He talks about legislation and the fact that it was a bipartisan effort to protect that relationship, that special relationship that I know that the President understands well. Again, we are going to hear cries of intrusion, or about the marketplace. Well, since when do you tell me we do not have a right to set basic minimums? We do that in many areas. We do that as it relates to quality of food. We do that as it relates to protecting our drinking water. We certainly have a right to say you cannot interfere with that special relationship by punishing a doctor because he is giving what he feels is the proper medical advice and withholding from him and having him think that he may be penalized. That is wrong. That is wrong. Mr. President, I want to share another experience. When we initially talked about introducing this bill, we did not talk about breast cancer reconstruction. And I got a call from the executive director of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of New York, a remarkable woman by the name of Mary McCarthy. She said, ``Senator, we've been making studies.'' She was a person who brought to our attention, Senator Feinstein and Senator Snowe, and others, the fact that there was this great problem of insurance carriers not providing for reconstructive surgery when it came to the breast and considering it as cosmetic. Let me just read to you her words which communicate the problem. Not only is she the executive director of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of New York, she goes on to say: I am a breast cancer patient myself. I would like to share [with you] my experiences on the three major subjects within the bill, the mastectomy surgery, the reconstructive surgery and the second opinion. She says: I thought I was very well informed on health care and I thought I had excellent health care coverage. Yet my own reconstructive surgery and my second opinion were both denied by my health care plan. My reconstruction was denied last April as not medically necessary. She went on to say she was able to eventually get this surgery. She said: I am concerned that other women do not have these kinds of resources. I would like to touch, although personal, on the importance of reconstructive surgery for women who opt to have reconstruction surgery. My mastectomy was clinically curative surgery, but my reconstruction was emotionally healing. There is no longer a reminder every day of my cancer. When I get dressed in the morning, in an intimate moment with my husband, if I have my nightgown on at home with my kids, I look normal and I feel normal. If you lose an ear or a testicle, or part of your face to cancer, there is no question that reconstruction is covered. Yet denials for breast [cancer] reconstruction are serious and they are rising. For a disease with the magnitude of cancer, it is very important to have access to second opinions and to be able to [go] outside your HMO, if necessary, for the kind of expertise you need. To my surprise, and to the surprise of my physicians within my plan, my plan adamantly refused to authorize my second opinion. I paid for my second opinion myself, not all women have these resources . . . No family should be forced to assume this kind of responsibility. Then she goes on to say something. When I was in the hospital after my surgery . . . [the nurses] actually cringed [the people responsible for taking care of me] and looked upset when they changed my dressing. I spoke candidly to my husband, who is loving and caring and goes with me to most of my medical appointments, and he felt that he could not have handled the emotional or the clinical responsibility of helping with drains and bandages. The appropriate length of stay is critically needed and the language in the bill to ensure that the appropriate stay for each individual is met is vital. What she is saying is that if she had been discharged, her husband could not have taken care of her. And you just simply cannot set a time limit. Mr. President, I want to offer that bill. I send it to the desk with the cosponsors. I commend all of my colleagues to join in this legislative effort. It is one that we will be serious and purposeful for. I hope we can have hearings sooner rather than later. Again, as I said, this is totally bipartisan in nature. Cancer does not look to see the politics of its victims. In particular, we address some of the major concerns as they relate to cancer. But I think problems that we have go well beyond this. This is something that this Congress should become involved in, the vital interest of the health of all of our citizens. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Has the Justice Department involved itself in this matter?

Mr. D'AMATO. Was the crime committed here in DC?

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, for bringing to the attention of the Senate and to the Nation as a whole, I think, a very serious situation. Because this portends the kind of thing that may take place, I think notice has to be served by those within the court itself. Clearly, this case goes well beyond the realm of someone having a difference of legal opinion. The question of jurisdiction alone is a frightening one and how someone could reach well beyond and entertain a matter--are we going to say any Federal judge in any Federal jurisdiction can review matters that do not legally come before them or within their purview or power? (The remarks of Mr. D'Amato pertaining to the introduction of S. 249 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. D'AMATO. I yield the floor and I thank the Chair. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. So if the crime was in North Carolina, the prisoner is in the Carolinas, the question is total lack of jurisdiction. So the thing that becomes shocking is what is to prevent this judge from issuing or entertaining a case, let us say, from Utah where a Utah judge and court had ruled; she is claiming that she could ask that judge to come here and to explain to her why the judge made that decision.

Mr. D'AMATO. Will the Senator from Utah yield for a question?

Mr. D'AMATO. First, let me, if I might, say that I commend the Senator for taking the time to bring to the attention of the Congress and of the Senate such a glaring, incredible abuse of judicial authority. It is obvious that that is the case. But let me ask--I am confused as to how it is that the district court judge here in Washington would assert jurisdiction. What was her jurisdiction?

Mr. D'AMATO. Is it the intent then of the Senator to bring this to the attention of the Justice Department and ask them, would it not be correct, to seek an order from a higher court right here to quash this? This is incredible.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I come here today and rise to introduce a bill that I think is unfortunately necessary, unfortunately because HMO's and insurance carriers--and I don't mean this for all, but we are seeing a growing tendency--are doing the kinds of things nobody would have imagined, and they are doing it and interfering with good, sound medical care, because they are more interested in the bottom line. Indeed, there are some who are already beginning to drumbeat against health maintenance organizations per se, and we would be losers, because there are important innovations and savings that can be made, but those savings and innovations should not be made at the expense of the traditional and important and sacred--sacred--right that a patient should have with their physician. Maybe it takes the specter of cancer and breast cancer, in particular, because people are concerned and it is a fright, to get people to focus on what is taking place, and that is insurance carriers placing arbitrary limits on patients as it relates to the length of stay or time that they can use a medical facility, a hospital. It is interesting and, indeed, ironic that as I make these remarks, the presiding officer who sits in the chair and presides over the Senate today is a distinguished Senator and a distinguished citizen who spent so much of his life in the area of healing and of practicing medicine and who knows better than I. I am so pleased to be able to have his counsel and to share these thoughts with him today personally. While I introduce this legislation on behalf of 16 colleagues in the Senate of the United States and 20-plus Representatives in the House, Democrats and Republicans--totally bipartisan--I do not suggest that this is the cure-all for what we see taking place. Indeed, we have specifically limited this legislative initiative. There were calls and outcries that HMO's and insurance carriers be required to provide at least a minimum of time as it relates to mastectomies. Many in the medical profession came forward and said, ``We think that is the worst kind of legislation. We would rather see no time, nor do we think that the health providers should be setting times.'' That is a larger debate for a larger area, but I subscribe to that, and I think that we should say very clearly here in the U.S. Senate and Congress, By gosh, insurance carriers should not be saying, ``If there is a particular disease, we are only going to insure you up to X hours.'' What happens if there is a complication? It may be that a procedure, whether it be a mastectomy or whether it be prostate cancer or whether it be some other disease, that ordinarily, under normal circumstances, there is an average length of time. It might be 1 day, 2 days, 3 days. But who is to say, if there is a complication and it takes 6 days or 2 weeks, are we then going to say something that ordinarily would be covered in insurance policies, that somehow because someone has adopted a rule--and why they have adopted that rule; I don't know how they can practice that, they are not practitioners--that we are going to exclude you if you go over that period of time? This is wrong. This should not be the way in which we attempt to manage health care costs, and it is, I believe, taken by many people to mean the greed of the industry. The fact that there are now today many in the HMO business, some almost startup companies overnight, making millions and millions of dollars--I am not against profits, but if you are going to make profits by denying adequate basic medical treatment, then that is wrong, that is immoral and we in the Congress of the United States have a business to do something about it. I know there are going to be those who say let the marketplace work, let free competition work. Well, that is naive. To simply say that by insisting on a minimum standard, that minimums be observed, that no one interferes with the patient and that very special relationship with the doctor--we are now seeing that taking place, because there are those carriers who are punishing doctors, punishing them by denying them adequate compensation or penalizing them by denying them moneys they otherwise would have because they recommend treatments that may cost that insurance carrier more but which they feel are necessary for the safety, health, and protection of their patients. How dare we permit and countenance that kind of thing today? We know it is going on, and to the health maintenance organizations and to the insurance carriers who say it is not going on and this legislation is not necessary, well, if it is not necessary, don't oppose it. It is that simple. If you are not penalizing doctors or rewarding them because they hold back on treatments that might cost more and which are necessary, then why should you be opposed to it? If you are not arbitrarily limiting the time that a patient may have or necessary treatments, then why would you be opposed to it? This legislation basically says you cannot do that, you cannot prescribe 48 hours as it relates to mastectomies. You cannot deny that doctor-patient relationship by penalizing a doctor. We say you are not permitted to do that, or rewarding a doctor on the basis of cost- effectiveness. In a third provision, we say that when it comes to the devastating disease and the specter of cancer, not only breast cancer, but prostate cancer--all cancers--that people are entitled to a second opinion. There is not anyone I know who, if they faced a diagnosis and were given a particular course of treatment that would be suggested, that they would not look for a second opinion. That is fact. If the doctor and the attending physician recommended a second opinion, our legislation says the company must pay for that. If that physician feels that there is a need to get some specialist outside of the organization, outside of that HMO, the company must pay for that. What do we say to the average worker who has no independent resources who can't pay $500 or $1,000, or whatever it might be for that specialist, for that second opinion? You cannot have it? So, Mr. President, we provide that with respect to this particular disease. I believe we should go further, and I think in the fullness of the discussions and the legislative actions that this Congress will undertake that we will examine this, and your committee, the Health Committee, in particular will be looking at it. But I think certainly at this time we should begin to say, Listen, as it relates to this particular disease of cancer, where the treating and attending physician recommends a second opinion, that patient should have the ability and the right to be covered and have that second opinion. I am going to relate two specific examples, because we have spent some time in shaping and putting together this legislation and it is by no ways written in stone or steel. It is in the sand, it is something to be looked at, something to be worked with. I look forward to the help and recommendations of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, who presides today, on how we can improve and make this legislative effort a better one. Last, but not least, in the area of breast cancer in particular, one of the very shattering thoughts and a fear that women live with today is the fact that they may be one of the eight who is diagnosed with breast cancer, and that is a national average. They are concerned about the treatment that might permanently disfigure them and, therefore, it becomes absolutely imperative that, as a nation, we indicate to people that there are courses of treatment that cannot only save a life but, indeed, do not have to be disfiguring, and in this way, as it relates to breast cancer in particular, have more women coming in for early diagnosis and treatment and avoid, No. 1, death, and, No. 2, disfigurement, because we provide that breast cancer reconstruction and that reconstructive surgery not be considered cosmetic. If someone loses an ear, that surgery is not considered cosmetic. However, incredibly, we find insurance carriers denying reconstruction on the basis that it is cosmetic. So we create a double tragedy by denying women who have that disease and who don't have the ability to pay for reconstruction the ability to have that. And, second, and probably just as important, there are many who will not go for early diagnosis, and, therefore, the treatment is not available to them until it is too late. That has to be avoided. So we provide that HMO's and insurance carriers must make this available. It is not an option that they can just simply turn away. The title of our bill is called the ``Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1997.'' Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1997. This important reform legislation will significantly change the way insurance companies provide coverage for women diagnosed with breast cancer. The problem of the so-called drive- through mastectomies must be eliminated from our society. Physicians must not be forced to have their best medical judgment questioned by insurance companies who put their bottom line before a woman's health. The women of New York and America deserve better. Today, there are 2.6 million women living with breast cancer. In 1997 alone, more than 184,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and, tragically, 44,000 women will die of this dreaded disease. Breast cancer is still the most common form of cancer in women; every 3 minutes another woman is diagnosed and every 11 minutes another woman dies of breast cancer. The D'Amato-Feinstein-Snowe legislation makes critically important changes in how breast cancer patients receive medical care. Specifically, the bill requires health insurance companies to cover an unlimited stay in the hospital following mastectomies, lumpectomies, and lymph node dissection for the treatment of breast cancer when the attending physician decides a longer stay is necessary. Every physician would have the freedom to prescribe longer stays when necessary, and the confidence that insurers will not punish them for practicing sound medical treatment. My bill would make it illegal to penalize a doctor for following good medical judgment. The time for a hospital stay will no longer be an arbitrary determination made on the basis of saving money. Another important provision of the D'Amato-Feinstein-Snowe bill ensures that mastectomy patients will have access to reconstructive surgery. Scores of women have been denied reconstructive surgery following mastectomies because insurers have deemed the procedure cosmetic and not medically necessary. It is absolutely unacceptable and wrong that many insurers deem this essential surgery as cosmetic, and it is a practice that must be changed. The Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act also includes a unique provision for coverage of second opinions by specialists. The bill would require health care providers to pay for secondary consultations when cancer tests come back either negative or positive. This important provision will help identify false negatives as well as false positives. Additionally, if the attending physician recommends consultation by a specialist not covered by the health plan, the bill would allow the doctor to make such a referral at no additional cost to the patient. This legislation is particularly important for the women of Long Island. Our families have been ravaged by this horrible disease. Our grandmothers, mothers and daughters, sisters and wives, children and friends have been afflicted at rates that are unexplained and far too high. We must continue to work together to find a cure for breast cancer. But until a cure is found, we must ensure that women receive the treatment they deserve. This legislation protects women and anyone ever diagnosed with cancer. It is the most comprehensive bill introduced in the Senate and I am proud to offer it today. I want to thank Senator Feinstein and Senator Snowe for the contributions that they have made as it relates to helping prepare this legislation. The Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act is important. It is important again that we preserve adequate, decent, affordable medical care and not tamper with that sacred relationship that should be preserved between a doctor and his patient. I would like, if I might, to share with the Senate the remarks of a great surgeon, Dr. Larry Norton, Chief of Breast Cancer Medicine at Sloan Kettering, one of the great cancer hospitals in this Nation. He is reflecting about a patient. I will not read all of it. He tells why, I think, this legislation is so necessary. He said: There was a patient that I saw on a second opinion not too long ago who paid herself for a second opinion because her HMO . . . wouldn't [do that]. I saw her and told her about a therapy that was very scientifically based that we thought was superior here, in fact clinical trials have demonstrated to be superior, and it has become a standard now, throughout the United States. . . . we offered her that particular treatment. Speaking to the person on the other end of the phone at her managed care plan, and I managed to work my way up to the physician level through several clerical levels. . . . Here is the chief of surgery at Sloan Kettering Memorial calling an HMO to suggest this course of treatment. I want to describe what is going on. He had to call clerk after clerk after clerk, and he finally got someone who was a physician. By the way, most people cannot do that and they cannot work through that. And he was told that they would not pay for the care. He went on to say--and this is the person on the other end: . . . Dr. Norton, we are not saying . . . Imagine, this is an HMO, a doctor on the other side of the HMO. He is saying: . . . Dr. Norton, we are not saying that [it] is not the right treatment, we are just saying that we are not going to pay for it. By the way, what I am reading to you is testimony he gave publicly about 10 days ago in New York at Sloan Memorial. He went on to say: I put the phone down, shaking, and called her [that is, his patient] to discuss this with her, and her 10-year-old son answered the phone. I said who I was and he said, calling to his mother, ``Mommy, your doctor is on the phone.'' I knew at that moment that the discussion that she could not get the care that was appropriate was not what I was going to say. Through enormous efforts, and through the support of my terrific institution, [we] were able to provide her that care and things turned out very well for her, as we could have anticipated. The doctor goes on to say: The point is that there is a holy alliance between the doctor and the patient, and the entire structure of medicine is because of that holy alliance. It is a religious experience [a religious experience] to take care of a patient well and, if you feel any less motivation, you are not [going to be] doing your job as a physician. We feel that kind of motivation here. We are living in an era where a lot of steps are coming between the doctors and the patients. Their motivations are not necessarily the same motivations that have driven us to this point of advance. What we see before us today . . . He talks about legislation and the fact that it was a bipartisan effort to protect that relationship, that special relationship that I know that the President understands well. Again, we are going to hear cries of intrusion, or about the marketplace. Well, since when do you tell me we do not have a right to set basic minimums? We do that in many areas. We do that as it relates to quality of food. We do that as it relates to protecting our drinking water. We certainly have a right to say you cannot interfere with that special relationship by punishing a doctor because he is giving what he feels is the proper medical advice and withholding from him and having him think that he may be penalized. That is wrong. That is wrong. Mr. President, I want to share another experience. When we initially talked about introducing this bill, we did not talk about breast cancer reconstruction. And I got a call from the executive director of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of New York, a remarkable woman by the name of Mary McCarthy. She said, ``Senator, we've been making studies.'' She was a person who brought to our attention, Senator Feinstein and Senator Snowe, and others, the fact that there was this great problem of insurance carriers not providing for reconstructive surgery when it came to the breast and considering it as cosmetic. Let me just read to you her words which communicate the problem. Not only is she the executive director of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of New York, she goes on to say: I am a breast cancer patient myself. I would like to share [with you] my experiences on the three major subjects within the bill, the mastectomy surgery, the reconstructive surgery and the second opinion. She says: I thought I was very well informed on health care and I thought I had excellent health care coverage. Yet my own reconstructive surgery and my second opinion were both denied by my health care plan. My reconstruction was denied last April as not medically necessary. She went on to say she was able to eventually get this surgery. She said: I am concerned that other women do not have these kinds of resources. I would like to touch, although personal, on the importance of reconstructive surgery for women who opt to have reconstruction surgery. My mastectomy was clinically curative surgery, but my reconstruction was emotionally healing. There is no longer a reminder every day of my cancer. When I get dressed in the morning, in an intimate moment with my husband, if I have my nightgown on at home with my kids, I look normal and I feel normal. If you lose an ear or a testicle, or part of your face to cancer, there is no question that reconstruction is covered. Yet denials for breast [cancer] reconstruction are serious and they are rising. For a disease with the magnitude of cancer, it is very important to have access to second opinions and to be able to [go] outside your HMO, if necessary, for the kind of expertise you need. To my surprise, and to the surprise of my physicians within my plan, my plan adamantly refused to authorize my second opinion. I paid for my second opinion myself, not all women have these resources . . . No family should be forced to assume this kind of responsibility. Then she goes on to say something. When I was in the hospital after my surgery . . . [the nurses] actually cringed [the people responsible for taking care of me] and looked upset when they changed my dressing. I spoke candidly to my husband, who is loving and caring and goes with me to most of my medical appointments, and he felt that he could not have handled the emotional or the clinical responsibility of helping with drains and bandages. The appropriate length of stay is critically needed and the language in the bill to ensure that the appropriate stay for each individual is met is vital. What she is saying is that if she had been discharged, her husband could not have taken care of her. And you just simply cannot set a time limit. Mr. President, I want to offer that bill. I send it to the desk with the cosponsors. I commend all of my colleagues to join in this legislative effort. It is one that we will be serious and purposeful for. I hope we can have hearings sooner rather than later. Again, as I said, this is totally bipartisan in nature. Cancer does not look to see the politics of its victims. In particular, we address some of the major concerns as they relate to cancer. But I think problems that we have go well beyond this. This is something that this Congress should become involved in, the vital interest of the health of all of our citizens. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to the recent death of Garbriel Lewis Galindo, a noted statesman from Panama and friend of the United States of America. Gabriel Lewis is perhaps best known for his efforts to conclude the Panama Canal Treaty. As Panama's envoy to the United States on this issue he worked closely with the Carter administration to this end. In the process he gained the respect of many people in our Government. Mr. Lewis continually sought to restore democratic principles to Panama and used the Panamanian-United States negotiations regarding the canal to press Panama's dictator, Omar Torrijos, to move in a more democratic direction. Mr. Lewis' hard work was rewarded as Omar Torrijos eventually granted more freedom to the media and political parties in Panama. When Gen. Manuel Noriega rose to power in Panama 2 years after the death of Omar Torrijos, he undertook measures to reverse those democratic gains which had been achieved. Gabriel Lewis became an outspoken opponent of Manuel Noriega, a strategy which eventually forced him to leave Panama after he unsuccessfully sought Noriega's removal from power. Gabriel Lewis was both pragmatic and visionary. He understood the need for a close and productive relationship between the United States and Panama based on respect, dignity, and shared ideals of democracy. Mr. Lewis fought to make this happen. He will be missed.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.