Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee for his help and his work. Indeed, he and his staff are working on important legislation with Senator Allard, and I believe the Presiding Officer and others have signed on to give some tax relief to the small community banks. The Senator and his staff have been most cooperative in helping to move it forward. I hope we would even have an opportunity to do something this year.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I also hope that the Economic Development Administration will see the merit in awarding a grant to Shea's. In addition to restoration and preservation efforts, the theater needs to be expanded backstage so that it can accommodate the large touring musicals and other productions that people would flock to downtown Buffalo to see. If Shea's were able to accommodate and present the biggest and best in live entertainment, it would be a tremendous boost for Buffalo's economy. I too hope my colleagues will encourage EDA to give every consideration to an application from Shea's.

Mr. D'AMATO. I also thank my colleagues for their help. Erie, PA, National Weather Service Office

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I support this important legislation to eliminate tariff duties on certain wool fabrics. Currently, there exists a disparity in the tariff schedule which forces companies like Hickey-Freeman, in Rochester, New York and Learbury in Syracuse, New York, who import very high quality wool fabric, to pay a tariff of 31.7 percent. These same finished suits imported from Canada come into the United States tariff free. If the suits are imported from Mexico, there is an 11 percent tariff and from other countries, the tariff rate is 20.2 percent. This inverted tariff schedule actually provides an incentive to import suits rather than produce them here in the United States with domestic labor and domestic wool. This straightforward, clear legislation would suspend through December 31, 2004 the duty on the finest wool fabrics (known specifically as Super 90s weight or higher grade wool). These higher quality fabrics are produced in very limited quantities in the United States, so this tariff reduction would have no negative impact on domestic producers. Clearly, if there were enough of this wool fabric produced domestically, there would be no need for this legislation since suitmakers would not need to import wool and pay the extortionately high rate of 31.7 percent. Indeed, if the U.S. suit manufacturing industry is allowed to compete fairly with imported suits, and not forced to reduce costs just to pay for inverted tariff rates, domestic wool use will actually increase with the additional suits that will be manufactured in the United States. Additionally, the provision would reduce the duty for slightly lower grade, fine wool fabric (Super 70s and 80s) to 20.2 percent--the same duty as on finished wool suits. Mr. President, under current law, if two fabric buyers, one American and the other Canadian, purchase fabric from a foreign country, say Italy, they each pay the exact same price. Yet when they bring the fabric back to their country to be made into suits that is where the problem occurs. The American is forced to pay a tariff of 31.7 percent on the imported fabric, which then must be absorbed into the cost of the suit, or eaten by the manufacturer. The Canadian buyer pays no tariff. Additionally, the Canadian suit maker can then export to the U.S., and because of the NAFTA agreement, they pay no tariff. As a result, Canadian shipments of men's suits into the United States has gone from 0 to 1.5 million in only ten years. Mr. President, I am extremely concerned with the current wool tariff because this inverted tariff policy has negatively impacted U.S. jobs. U.S. production has fallen by 40 percent and jobs by 50 percent. And, Mr. President, this additional tariff raises the costs for consumers as well. I am proud to join with Senators Moynihan and Specter in this important legislation, and look forward to its early passage and enactment into law.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I believe we are about to take historic action that is so important, because, to date, what we have been doing is pleading, negotiating, hoping while the world burns in front of us. When I say ``the world,'' I am talking of technically the people in this war-torn area of Kosovo. It is incredible that 90 percent of the population there are ethnic Albanians under withering attack. In today's New York Times, it graphically speaks about it on the front page. As a witness to this, a former paramilitary, former police officer in the Serbian police, said he can no longer stay there and work there as he watched innocent women and children being raped, killed, tortured and savaged--3 million people on the move, ethnic cleansing, moving them out of their homes, moving them out of their communities all because of one thing--all because of their ethnicity. What we do today is the least we should be doing; and that is calling for the United States to, yes, utilize the provisions that the United Nations set up in terms of Security Council Resolution 827 creating the International Criminal Tribunal. This man can and should be charged as the war crime criminal that he is. The documentation has already been chronicled in one of the best reports, which I have submitted to this body. The conclusions are inescapable. It is called ``War Crimes and the Issue of Responsibility,'' prepared by Norman Cigar and Paul Williams. It documents the systematic slaughter and use of paramilitary groups against innocent civilians. There is no doubt that not only did he know about that but that he continues to perpetuate this kind of conduct. To summarize briefly what Resolution 105 does, it says that we, the United States, should publicly declare its considered reasons to believe that Milosevic has committed war crimes; that we make the checks of information that can be supplied to the Tribunal as evidence to support an indictment and trial of Milosevic for war crimes against humanity and genocide; that we should undertake it as a high priority; all of the information that we collect should be provided to the Tribunal as soon as possible; and, thereafter, that we coordinate our activities with our allies, members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and others interested in a matter of discussion of what we can and should be doing to apprehend this war criminal and others. Yes. Mr. President, the time has come to gather the evidence and to submit it to the Tribunal, and to see to it that this man is branded as the war criminal that he is instead of us all sitting back silently as innocent lives continue to be taken. Mr. President, I thank all of the Members of the U.S. Senate for the relatively short period of time Senator Lieberman and I began this effort in terms of gathering cosponsors and support several days ago. It makes me proud to be a Member of this body, for people to come together in this way to see, yes, the indictment of this war criminal. And he is one of the most evil men of our period of time. Make no mistake about it.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I thank this body and thank all of my colleagues for their support of what I consider to be a very important initiative. I certainly hope that the House acts quickly on this. I believe this is the least that we can and should do. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 105, and, further, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Let me read a little excerpt: Serbian forces have been turning increasingly to the abduction and execution of small groups of civilians in their fight against ethnic Albanian separatists in Kosovo, according to human rights officials and witnesses. The article goes on to interview a man by the name of Ndue Biblekaj. Biblekaj was a member of the police force for 8 years, and he eventually left in disgust after having witnessed the kinds of things that he describes. He says he has witnessed the abductions and executions by members of the Serbian ``black hat'' unit, which was employed in Bosnia to kill Muslims and Croats and expel them from their homes. Imagine, they have an official unit, and their job is to get rid of-- and that is the ethnic cleansing--anyone who is different, like the Muslims and Croats. He said, ``I saw black hat units line up 13 civilians and shoot them. They stripped the bodies of their clothes, slashed the arms and legs with their knives and dug out their eyes. ``I will never forget this sight,'' he said. ``There were other executions that included women, children and the elderly. You could see the bodies, including one group of 15 people, lined up by the side of road.'' Biblekaj has deserted the police to join the rebel movement. He changed sides after the attack on Decani, because, he said, he was appalled by the killing there. That is just one man who was so repulsed at what he saw that he had to do something. He joined the rebel movement. This is a killing field once again. This is a killing field that unfortunately has been directed by Milosevic to empower himself. That is why this resolution, which is bipartisan and has the support of the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, and the ranking member, Senator Biden, and people from both sides of the aisle, is so important. It is a resolution that will send a clear and convincing signal to the entire world that the United States is sick and tired of the way the world treats war criminals and that the world community can no longer sit by idly while the Milosevic killing machine continues. Yes. Even this day as we are here that killing machine continues. And so tens of thousands of people are on the move, fleeing their homes, and fleeing the villages where they grew up and their forefathers--fleeing because of their ethnic background, and the military forces who are bound to destroy them. Madam President, I want to commend all of my colleagues who have worked, along with Senator Lieberman and I, in bringing this resolution forward, because the United States should be publicly declaring that there is no reason to continue this without seeking the collection of evidence and making it high priority--evidence that the United States already possesses--to make this evidence available to the tribunal, to that court, as soon as possible. The United States has the ability to do this, and we should discuss with our allies and other States the gathering of this evidence so that Mr. Milosevic can be indicted. And I am certain, given the numerous accounts by historical experts--one of the leading accounts on this is entitled, ``War Crimes and the Issues of Responsibility,'' which was prepared by Norman Cigar and Paul Williams. It is an outstanding study of what is taking place, and the inescapable conclusion that Milosevic can and should be tried as a war criminal. I ask unanimous consent to have excerpts from this report printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I would like to speak to this issue as we go forward. But I see that there is a colleague who has been waiting patiently. We are waiting for one of our Senate colleagues to also join us before I formally call up the amendment that I have described to you. At this time, I yield the floor so that my colleague, if he wants, can proceed, and I ask that I might be permitted to take the floor thereafter.

Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, for too long now, the world has been watching a terrible carnage take place with the changing of the former Yugoslavia, with the various factions fighting for autonomy, with the deterioration of respect for human life being so obvious, that we almost take it as a matter of fact when people are massacred, and we hear that the atrocities reach incredible levels. It becomes commonplace to hear of tens of thousands of people who can no longer live in their homes. Indeed, estimates are that 3 million people have been forced to move. They call it ``ethnic cleansing.'' Despite the best attempts by the United States and some of our allies, we have been unable to bring about some resolve. Tens of thousands of U.S. and NATO troops are now positioned in Bosnia to attempt to keep the conflict from again affecting the lives of the innocent--women and children, people who are held hostage, people who are abducted, women who are raped, young men who are killed because of their ethnic background. It is incredible. Muslims are killed because they are Muslims. Croats are killed because they are Croats. Serbs are killed because they are Serbs. The madness that exists in this day and age is incomprehensible. Madam President, the situation is not getting better. The situation is deteriorating. And behind it all, the motivator, the prime mover in all of this, is one man. That doesn't mean that there aren't others who are responsible on all of the sides for having had their people undertake horrific acts against humanity. But there is one person--a hard-core Communist dictator who has been able to keep power by way of appealing to the worst prejudices of people--by the name of Slobodan Milosevic. He would like to think of himself as a duly-elected President. He is the last surviving Communist leader still in power from before the wall fell. Make no mistake about it, although he may call himself a President, but he is a criminal, he is a thug, and he has been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people, including his own people. This is the man, the thug, the killer. Indeed, the resolution that I, Senator Lieberman, and a number of our colleagues, including the present Presiding Officer, have worked on is one that deals with this thug. It is one that will call for the United States and others to gather the factual information necessary to pursue a trial in the international courts that have been established just for that purpose. Indeed, the United Nations Security Council, in 1993, created the International Criminal Tribunal with the former Yugoslavia located in the Hague. The tribunal has already publicly indicted 60 people for war crimes or crimes against humanity. It is horrific. Even at this time, today, in the New York Times, we read an account of what is taking place. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Bond, Senator Mikulski, Senator Sarbanes, and others in opposition to the amendment offered by Senator Nickles. This amendment would strike the increase for Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loan limits in high cost areas and double the guaranty fees charged by the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA). I strongly oppose this amendment which would unfairly deny homeownership opportunities for moderate- income families in high cost areas and could increase housing costs for all FHA and Veterans Affairs (VA) home loan borrowers. I commend Senator Bond, Senator Mikulski, and the Appropriations Committee for including an increase in the FHA loan limits for both low-cost areas, including isolated rural areas, as well as for high cost areas, such as Long Island and New York City in my home state of New York. The Committee's inclusion of modest increases in the FHA loan-limits will create fairness by allowing Americans in high- and low-cost areas to also have the opportunities for homeownership which are provided by FHA to their fellow Americans. Mr. President, the FHA program is a true American success story, having provided an opportunity for homeownership to approximately 25 million families since its inception in 1934. It has served as the predominant player in the home mortgage market for low-income and minority borrowers, first-time home buyers and borrowers with high loan-to-value ratios. It operates in all regions, regardless of economic downturns. According to a 1996 Federal Reserve Board study, FHA bears about two-thirds of he aggregate credit risk for low-income and minority borrowers. FHA loans have made homeownership possible for many Americans who otherwise could not have qualified for mortgage credit. FHA generally differs from conventional lenders in the following ways: downpayments may be as low as 3 percent; closing costs may be financed; credit rating requirements are more flexible; monetary gifts may be used for downpayments; and a borrower may carry more debt. Mr. President, I acknowledge there are important questions that must be answered regarding FHA's current operations, including instances of foreclosures. The General Accounting Office and the HUD Inspector General have repeatedly expressed concerns regarding material weaknesses affecting the FHA program--such as staffing deficiencies, the lack of Year 2000 compliance, improper monitoring of the single- family property inventory, and insufficient early warning and loss preventions systems. HUD foreclosures have devastating effects on our families and our neighborhoods. Rundown properties left to stand vacant for months on end often become magnets for vandalism, crime and drug activity. These conditions decrease the marketability of the houses, increase HUD's holding costs, drive down the costs of surrounding homes, and in some cases threaten the health and safety of neighbors. HUD must do more to reduce default risks and mitigate losses. And if foreclosure prevention efforts fail, properties must be disposed of more quickly to protect our neighborhoods. The increases provided in this appropriations bill respond to inequities in home purchase prices that exist across our nation. Americans in high- and low-cost areas should not be denied the opportunity for homeownership simply because of the geographic regions in which they live. I strongly support Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski's initiative to right this wrong in high-cost urban and low- cost rural areas. The FAA loan-limit increase, for high-cost and low- cost areas, will allow more Americans equal access to median purchase homes with the needed help of FHA. FHA will still help to provide new and existing entry-level starter homes, not large or luxury homes. In fact, in the 32 high-cost areas across America where loan limits would be increased, the median price of a starter home is often twenty to thirty percent higher than the current maximum loan limit. In 1996, the average homeownership rate in these areas was approximately fifty eight percent, compared to a national rate of approximately sixty five percent. Clearly, the American Dream of homeownership is out of reach for too many hardworking moderate income families in these high cost areas. Mr. President, FHA's current loan limits do not adequately reflect the reality of housing prices in high cost areas. Portions of 43 metropolitan areas have median home prices at or above the current $170,362 high-cost limit. In the Dutchess County area, the median home sales price in 1997 was $175,000. In the Nassau-Suffolk area, the median home sales price was $195,000. And in New York City, the median home sales price was $208,000. Mr. President, 52.5 million people reside in high cost areas- comprising twenty one percent of the nation's population. It is inherently unfair that over 50 million Americans should not have the same opportunities through the FHA that other Americans have. American working families would benefit from the proposal, not the wealthy. The average FHA borrower has a family income of $40,800. According to HUD, the limit increases included in this bill would barely raise the average homeowner borrower income level. However, some borrowers would need an income of $70,000 to qualify for a $197,000 mortgage. In New York City or on Long Island, a family income of $70,000 is a typical two wage-earner family. These are middle class families--schoolteachers, policemen, and civil servants-- raising children and struggling to pay their bills. In Nassau and Suffolk counties the median income of a family of four is $63,400. Wages are higher in Long Island because the cost of living is higher. And home purchase prices are higher--which is why this increased adjustment is necessary. The high cost limit increase would simply grant these areas parity--not an underserved advantage. I am very pleased that the increase in the base limit will rural Americans in low-cost counties where existing housing may be substandard, the opportunity to purchase new homes. New York also has many low-cost areas, such as Buffalo, Elmira, Glens Falls, Jamestown- Dunkirk, Syracuse and Utica-Rome, which would be helped by the low-cost increase. I urge my colleagues from the states without high-cost areas to also be sympathetic to Americans in high-cost cities and suburbs, where home prices are higher due to high land, material and labor costs. Also, I urge my colleagues to not support doubling the guaranty fee charged by GNMA. There is no actuarial need for this proposal which would affect all regions of the country and could increase consumer costs for FHA and VA loans. This proposal is strongly opposed by numerous veterans' organizations. I ask unanimous consent that a letter in opposition to the amendment, signed by AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans, the Blinded Veterans' Association, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Non Commissioned Officers' Association of the USA be printed in the Record. In addition, I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum prepared by the Congressional Research Service for the Senate Banking Committee on this subject be entered into the Record. Mr. President, the modest, prudent loan limit increases contained in this bill are a compromise and do not reach the $227,150 national limit requested by the Administration. The proposed changes will assist potential homebuyers--first time homeowners, minorities, urban dwellers and rural Americans--who are not currently served by FHA or the conventional market--but whom should rightly qualify under FHA's existing mission. I respectfully urge the defeat of the amendment proposed by my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles. Mr. President, let me tell what you is happening now. We have over 50 million Americans who are being shut out of an opportunity to use FHA insurance, and they are not high income. Three million live in Long Island alone. These high cost areas include Levittown, Long Island, which saw such rapid expansion of home ownership for the first time for working middle-class families after World War II--where, today you can't buy a home with FHA because the median home price was $195,000 in 1997--well above the current FHA limit of $170,000. That is the median price for all of Long Island--where over 3 million live; in all, there are 11.5 million New Yorkers living in high cost areas, and they are not wealthy. They have incomes of $50,000 to $70,000, they are two-wage earner families, raising children, and you are shutting them out of home ownership. We need this increase. It is not for wealthy people. It is for working middle-class families.

Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues, Senator Kit Bond, the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Senator Connie Mack, the Chairman of the Banking Committee's Subcommittee on Housing Opportunity and Community Development. It is my understanding that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a series of regulations on June 30, 1998 dealing with a wide variety of HUD programs affecting millions of units of affordable housing. In each of these regulations, HUD has waived the sixty-day public comment period required under HUD's notice and comment rulemaking procedures. Instead, each of these regulations has included an expedited comment and review period. I would ask my colleagues if I have stated the facts accurately.

Mr. D'AMATO. I thank my colleagues for their remarks and I join them in urging HUD to extend the time allotted for public review and comment of these three important and expansive HUD rules. HUD's notice and comment rulemaking procedures are designed to ensure an adequate period of time for public notice, review and comment. It is essential that HUD provide an adequate timeframe in which housing organizations, residents of assisted housing and local government entities have a chance to offer meaningful input in the development of final regulations. Given the important nature of these three rules and the significant impact which they will likely have on the families assisted by HUD's programs, I believe it is essential that the public be granted an additional amount of time in which to comment.

Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I was tremendously heartened by the vote today on an amendment which would have set back home ownership tremendously. Indeed, by a vote of 69 to 27, the Senate voted to table the amendment offered by Senator Nickles which would have limited FHA insurance to over 50 million Americans. Currently, there are 52.5 million Americans who live in high-cost areas where FHA simply does not reflect the reality of the marketplace. In high cost areas, such as Nassau County, New York the current FHA limit of $170,000 is insufficient because the median cost for a home was $195,000 in 1997. It is nearly impossible for many young families starting out to achieve the American Dream of homeownership. Let me be clear, we are not talking about wealthy families; we are talking about a two-wage-earner couple, just married, a schoolteacher and a police officer--struggling to accumulate the necessary funds for that first downpayment. In many high cost areas, FHA no longer covers the cost for entry- level, new starter homes. In Levittown, Long Island--which epitomized post-war expansion of homeownership for working, middle-class families, especially for GIs returning home from the war--that opportunity, unfortunately, is becoming more difficult today. Even in times where we say the economy is booming and a nationwide rise in homeownership, families in high cost areas are too often being left behind. Indeed, in many of these high cost areas, the homeownership rate is lagging far behind the nationwide average. Young families starting out on their own have to come up with $25,000 for a downpayment--which is very, very difficult to achieve, especially in an area where the cost of living places such a tremendous strain on the family budget. We are not talking about people of affluence. Nor are we talking about magnificent estates or mansions, but simply average median-cost homes. Indeed, in Long Island, where homeownership has been such a key ingredient to permitting people to work and live as part of a community, home ownership is becoming more difficult for these working, middle-class families. It is simply beyond their reach. Thankfully, today we have helped to bring relief to families in high cost areas by raising the FHA limit. In Long Island, the area that I grew up in and live in, where there are nearly 3 million people, we will now be providing greater opportunities for young middle class families to own their own home. The current FHA limit, which is set at $170,000, is simply too low in an area where there are relatively very few homes that can be purchased in all of the island for $170,000 or less. By raising the limit up to $197,000, FHA will better reflect the reality of the marketplace where the median home prices in Nassau and Suffolk Counties were $195,000 in 1997. We will now be providing that opportunity to thousands of young families who will be looking to purchase that first home in Long Island. Nationwide, about 21 percent of the Nation's population lives in high-income areas. Again, this FHA increase in not for the benefit of the affluent--they do not need FHA insurance and will continue to be served by the private market. Indeed, they buy homes that cost much more than $197,000. What we have done is, I believe, struck a blow for home ownership, for young families who want to get an opportunity, from one length of the country to another. The mayor of Albany, Mayor Gerald Jennings, he called me yesterday. He was concerned because of the outlying communities in the Albany area. The county executive from Nassau, Tom Gulotta, called me because his housing experts advised him that too many young families are being denied the opportunity to purchase a home. They need to be able to get FHA insurance for young families who are starting out on their own. I commend the Senate for overwhelmingly supporting this provision by a vote of 69-27 to raise the FHA limits in high cost areas. I believe we achieved a big victory for home ownership throughout this country today. I yield the floor. Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I wonder if my colleague will yield for a suggestion that I would propound a unanimous consent. I have legislation that I know the Senator from Kansas is supportive of, and we want the Senate to be supportive. It would take me no more than 5 minutes to ask that it be brought up under a unanimous consent agreement. I will speak for no more than 10 minutes, and probably less, because I have had an opportunity to make my views known; then, further, that the ranking member, Senator Dorgan, on the legislative appropriations, be given up to 15 minutes so that he might make his opening remarks on the legislative appropriations. That would be no longer than 25 minutes, and thereafter the Senator would retain the floor and the floor would return to him.

Mr. D'AMATO. That would be the agreement.

Mr. D'AMATO. I thank my colleague from Kansas for being gracious, and Senator Dorgan, the ranking member, for his suggestion so we can accommodate the needs of our colleagues.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleagues in the Senate and the House for passing the Senate/House agreement on S. 318, the Homeowners Protection Act of 1998. This legislation, which I introduced last year, will put an end to forced payments by thousands of middle-class homeowners for unnecessary private mortgage insurance. These unnecessary premiums--which in some cases amount to over $1,000 per year--benefitted no one, other than the PMI companies that raked-in risk-free money. This legislation will make it thousands of dollars cheaper for struggling middle-class home buyers--as well as co-op and condominium buyers--to share in the American dream of home ownership without limiting this opportunity for people who do need PMI coverage. Mr. President, the House passed this legislation late last night, so this bill will be sent to the White House for the President's signature. Today, requiring unnecessary PMI is unethical--when the President signs S. 318 into law, this fleecing of homeowners will become illegal. Mr. President, let me begin by acknowledging the important and beneficial role PMI plays in our mortgage markets. Traditionally, lenders have required 20% down for home mortgage loans. PMI was developed to allow home buyers purchase with less than 20% down. PMI is typically required when a home buyer cannot make the standard 20% down payment. In many areas, such as my home region of Long Island, housing prices are so high that many middle class home buyers, particularly first-time buyers, can't come up with a 20% down payment. The problem faced by these home buyers arises because while PMI benefits one party, the lender, it is paid for by the home owner. As a result, the lenders and servicers have no vested interest in pursuing cancellation, and the homeowner who was paying for the PMI could not, or did not know, that the coverage could be canceled. By passing this legislation, Congress is helping to make the American dream of home ownership more affordable for many home buyers-- particularly struggling working families and people in areas with high housing costs--who needed PMI because they don't have a lot of cash on hand for a down payment. Some industry proponents have questioned whether this is a problem. Mr. President, the numbers speak for themselves. Every year, approximately 1 million mortgage loans are made with PMI coverage. In hearings in front of the Senate Banking Committee, even the private mortgage insurance industry was forced to admit that at least 250,000 homeowners have at least 20% equity in their homes and are still paying for unnecessary insurance. PMI premiums vary from $20 to $100 or more monthly. This means that working families are losing anywhere from $240 to $1200 or more per year in unnecessary payments. At $100 per month, the savings for 250,000 homeowners would be $300 million yearly. And these are just low-ball estimates of the extent of this problem-- a 1997 analysis of a 20,000 loan portfolio indicated that 1 out of 5 homeowners were still paying for PMI, despite the fact that they had accumulated equity in excess of 20 percent. S. 318 will remedy this market anomaly by requiring automatic cancellation of PMI once a homeowner has accumulated 22% home equity if homeowner is current on payments. In addition, homeowners with good payment histories can initiate cancellation at 20% equity. This bill will prohibit life-of-the-loan PMI coverage by requiring that coverage be canceled half-way through the loan, regardless of circumstances. S. 318 also provides that current and future homeowners be given notice of their cancellation rights on an annual basis. S. 318 will accomplish these goals without adding to the regulatory bureaucracy. This legislation is self-effecting and does not have a federal regulator. In closing, I would like to thank my colleagues in the Senate that have worked tirelessly on this legislation--Senator Lauch Faircloth, Senator Rod Grams, Senator Paul Sarbanes, Senator Richard Bryan, Senator Christopher Dodd, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun and all cosponsors of the bill. I would also like to commend Chairman Leach of the House Banking Committee for his tireless leadership on this issue, and Representative Rick Lazio who chairs the Housing Subcommittee in the House. Finally, I would like to thank Representative Jim Hansen of Utah. Representative Hansen first discovered the problem confronting homeowners when he tried to cancel the PMI on his condominium. It was Representative Hansen who brought this abuse to our attention and first introduced PMI legislation in the House. I think we all owe Representative Hansen a debt of gratitude for his work on this issue. One more point that needs to be addressed is what is meant by the term ``single-family dwelling.'' This is a defined term in the bill, and is incorporated in defined terms ``residential mortgage'' ``residential mortgage transaction.'' It the intent of the Congress that this term, as used in this legislation, apply to condominiums and cooperatives as well as more traditional single-family detached homes. Many coops and condos are single family dwelling units within multiple dwelling unit structures; however, they are still single family dwelling units as described in the definition of ``single family dwelling'' in this bill (as opposed to multi-family dwellings that include rental units). In fact this issue came to the Congress' attention when Representative Hansen tried to cancel the PMI on his condominium. The authors of this legislation realize that within real estate industry the term ``single-family dwelling'' is frequently used to refer to detached single family homes alone, and not to the full spectrum of single family housing units (including Condos and coops). Nevertheless, this industry usage was not what we were attempting codify in this bill--in this legislation ``single family dwelling'' includes all single family dwelling units, including condominiums and cooperatives, and owners of all single family residences, and are intended to be covered under this act.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with my friend Senator Kit Bond, the distinguished Chairman of the Veterans Affairs and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Appropriations Subcommittee. I applaud the strong efforts of the Chairman in protecting funding for housing programs for senior citizens. I am pleased to support the funding provided by this bill for elderly housing. I was pleased to cosponsor Senator Bond's amendment to the Senate Budget Resolution earlier this year, expressing the Sense of the Senate that funding for the HUD Section 202 Elderly Housing program should be protected. The amendment, which passed the Senate by a vote of 97-2 on April 2, 1998, expressed a policy that was not only met but exceeded by this bill. Specifically, I fully support this bill's inclusion of $676 million for the Section 202 program in Fiscal Year 1999--a $31 million increase from the Fiscal Year 1998 funding level. The HUD Section 202 program is a critical component of our federal housing strategy. The program provides funding for the development of new affordable housing opportunities and services for seniors. This combination of affordable housing with services helps to promote and maintain the independence and dignity of our senior citizens. This critical program helps to protect seniors' quality of life by offering them an opportunity to remain active and respected members of the community. I was dismayed earlier this year by the Administration's proposal to reduce funding for this important program by over 83 percent, to a level of $109 million. This proposal to cut housing for the elderly was unacceptable. The funding increase provided by this bill sends a strong signal to the Administration that future proposals to cut the program will be met by fierce opposition by the Senate. Mr. President, I would also like to applaud Chairman Bond's inclusion of a requirement for HUD to conduct a formal study assessing the housing needs of elderly Americans. This much-needed study will examine the unmet housing needs of the elderly and assess the physical condition of the existing stock of affordable housing for the elderly. In connection with this study, I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate an important resource for elderly housing in my home state of New York. The Council of Senior Centers and Services of New York City (Council) can provide invaluable input to HUD during the development of this study. The Council represents 265 senior service organizations--ranging from individual community centers to large, multiservice, city-wide organizations. I would ask the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee if it is his intent that HUD should develop the required study with the input and assistance of local senior housing providers and nonprofit organizations such as the Council of Senior Centers and Services?

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, Senator Moynihan, in introducing this bill that will designate that the U.S. Post Office located at 297 Larkfield Road in East Northport, New York, as the ``Jerome Anthony Ambro, Jr. Post Office Building.'' The designation will be a tribute to the life and legacy of a strong and able local and federal representative and I am proud to be a co- sponsor of this bill. In doing so, we join the entire New York delegation in supporting this bill. The designation will be a tribute to the life and legacy of a strong and able local and federal representative and I am proud to be a co- sponsor of this bill. In doing so, we join the entire New York delegation in supporting this bill. Anthony Ambro was a full fledge New Yorker. He had his own ideas and his own means of accomplishing his goals--and those goals greatly assisted his constituency. He was a great man from a different political persuasion. But one thing is certain, he put people ahead of politics. Born in Brooklyn, he attended New York University where he received his Bachelor's degree. He served in the United States Army, Military Police before he began his career in public service. He was budget officer, purchasing and personnel director for the Town of Huntington, served on Suffolk County Board of Supervisors and was elected to four terms as Supervisor of the Town of Huntington. In addition, he was president of the freeholders of the Town of Huntington and co-founder of the New York State Coalition of Suburban Towns. To reward him for the tremendous accomplishments for the people of Suffolk County, he was elected to the House of Representatives beginning in 1975, for three terms. Beginning in 1981, he operated a consulting business bringing his own brand of humor and sagacity to bear on behalf of hundreds of New Yorkers as they struggled to make sense of Washington's labyrinth. During his tenure he served as Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Natural Resources and the Environment, working on environmental issues, including the prohibiting the dumping of dredged material in Long Island Sound. As a local official, he supported housing projects for the elderly. He was a free-thinking man whose primary purpose was to represent the needs of his constituency and whose tenacity was driven by his beliefs. I counted him as a friend and advisor who made many a lunch-time meal at the Monocle a pleasure as well as an education. Anthony Ambro passed away in March, 1993 from diabetes complications. I am sure he is missed terribly by his wife Antoinette Salatto Ambro, and his children, step children and grandchildren. His qualities endeared him to the people of New York and I hope these sentiments will be reflected in the passage of this measure. I thank the senior Senator from New York and urge its enactment.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, Senator Moynihan, in introducing this bill that will designate that the U.S. Post Office located at 297 Larkfield Road in East Northport, New York, as the ``Jerome Anthony Ambro, Jr. Post Office Building.'' The designation will be a tribute to the life and legacy of a strong and able local and federal representative and I am proud to be a co- sponsor of this bill. In doing so, we join the entire New York delegation in supporting this bill. The designation will be a tribute to the life and legacy of a strong and able local and federal representative and I am proud to be a co- sponsor of this bill. In doing so, we join the entire New York delegation in supporting this bill. Anthony Ambro was a full fledge New Yorker. He had his own ideas and his own means of accomplishing his goals--and those goals greatly assisted his constituency. He was a great man from a different political persuasion. But one thing is certain, he put people ahead of politics. Born in Brooklyn, he attended New York University where he received his Bachelor's degree. He served in the United States Army, Military Police before he began his career in public service. He was budget officer, purchasing and personnel director for the Town of Huntington, served on Suffolk County Board of Supervisors and was elected to four terms as Supervisor of the Town of Huntington. In addition, he was president of the freeholders of the Town of Huntington and co-founder of the New York State Coalition of Suburban Towns. To reward him for the tremendous accomplishments for the people of Suffolk County, he was elected to the House of Representatives beginning in 1975, for three terms. Beginning in 1981, he operated a consulting business bringing his own brand of humor and sagacity to bear on behalf of hundreds of New Yorkers as they struggled to make sense of Washington's labyrinth. During his tenure he served as Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Natural Resources and the Environment, working on environmental issues, including the prohibiting the dumping of dredged material in Long Island Sound. As a local official, he supported housing projects for the elderly. He was a free-thinking man whose primary purpose was to represent the needs of his constituency and whose tenacity was driven by his beliefs. I counted him as a friend and advisor who made many a lunch-time meal at the Monocle a pleasure as well as an education. Anthony Ambro passed away in March, 1993 from diabetes complications. I am sure he is missed terribly by his wife Antoinette Salatto Ambro, and his children, step children and grandchildren. His qualities endeared him to the people of New York and I hope these sentiments will be reflected in the passage of this measure. I thank the senior Senator from New York and urge its enactment.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to make a few comments regarding the passage of H.R. 3156 late yesterday. This bill authorizes the President to present, on behalf of Congress, the Congressional Gold Medal to Nelson Mandela. I am very pleased that the Senate has acted swiftly to pass this legislation. The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest honor that the United States Congress may bestow on a civilian. This prestigious award has been bestowed on a variety of people whose leadership and lives have left an indelible impression on our great nation. President Mandela is without a doubt, one of those persons who has earned our recognition through his leadership in the quest for freedom and equality. His ongoing struggle for such noble causes has carried the people of South Africa into a new era. And, his compassion for the downtrodden has been felt around the world uplifting all people suffering from oppression. Mr. President, I would like to thank the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Sarbanes for his efforts in seeing this legislation through the Senate in an expedited manner. I would also like to thank Congressman Houghton for first introducing this bill, H.R. 3156, in the House and for all of his hard work and leadership.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment relating to rural housing programs of the Department of Agriculture. I express my sincere appreciation to Chairman Cochran and Ranking Minority Member Bumpers for their consideration of the amendment which I offer with Senator Paul Sarbanes, Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. I commend them for their steadfast commitment to providing affordable housing for rural Americans. The Department of Agriculture operates a number of successful housing programs under the auspices of its Rural Housing Service (RHS). Rural housing programs, while a function of the Department of Agriculture, are under the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. As Chairman of the Banking Committee, I respectfully request the adoption of this amendment. This amendment will permit vital housing programs to continue in an uninterrupted fashion. It includes one-year extensions of existing housing programs. Specifically, the RHS Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Program, the RHS Section 538 Rural Rental Housing Loan Guarantee Program, and the RHS Underserved Areas Program would be extended until September 30, 1999. These short-term extensions are necessary to ensure that needy Americans continue to be served. There is a critical need for affordable housing in rural America. According to the 1990 census, over 2.7 million rural Americans live in substandard housing. In my home State of New York, 76 percent of renters are paying 30 percent or more of their income for housing. Approximately 60 percent of New York renters pay over 50 percent of their income for rent. The Rural Housing Service Section 515 and Section 538 programs represent a significant portion of the limited resources available to respond to this serious unmet housing need. Since its inception in 1962, the Section 515 rental loan program has financed the development of over 450,000 units of affordable housing in over 18,000 apartment projects. The program assists elderly, disabled and low-income rural families with an average income of $7,200. The Section 538 program is a relatively new loan guarantee program which has proven to have widespread national appeal. With a subsidy rate of approximately 3 cents per dollar, it is an example of cost-efficient leveraging of public resources. I thank the Appropriations Committee for its recognition of the great need for these essential rural housing programs. I support immediate adoption of this amendment.