Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I rise to encourage Senate passage of H.R. 3156, a bill to authorize the President to present Nelson Mandela with the Congressional gold medal. President Mandela is a courageous world leader who has championed rights for freedom and equality for decades. Nelson Mandela was born in South Africa in 1918, the son of a Tembu tribal chief. His tribal name, Rolihlahla, means, ``one who brings trouble upon himself.'' The name seems to have led the young Mandela into a life of challenge, from the time he chose to enroll in college in pursuit of a law degree over his right to become tribal chiefdom, to his more than 25 years spent incarcerated as a political prisoner in his native South Africa. Nelson Mandela continually led the cause for liberation of his people. Mr. President, who could forget the image as multitudes of South Africans stood in long lines on April 27, 1994 to cast their first vote in the country's first-ever democratic elections. In his inaugural address, President Mandala presented himself as the right man to lead all people of South Africa into a time of healing for peace, justice, and democracy. His blueprint for South Africa is one for all citizens of that country regardless of race, religious affiliation or gender, working together to build a nation of prosperity. Nelson Mandela is known throughout the world for his long struggle in the fight against apartheid and has received a number of prestigious humanitarian awards, including the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993. It is only fitting that this country recognize Nelson Mandela's life of dedication and sacrifice and his victory over racial inequality not only for South Africa, but for all peoples everywhere.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, first, I would like to thank my colleague, who has been waiting so patiently, for giving me the opportunity of sharing some thoughts with respect to the IRS reform package. I assure you I will keep my remarks to a minimum. But I would like to congratulate the manager of the bill, the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, and the ranking member, my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan. They have done an outstanding job. I would like to commend Senator Bob Kerrey for his work. His work truly has helped bring together the Senate and the Finance Committee in a way in which we can pass this legislation that will be helping millions of taxpayers and change, I think, the culture--the culture--in which the IRS has been operating. Indeed, the litany of witnesses and stories--anecdotal and otherwise--that demonstrated that there seemed to be a pattern that none of us could be proud of--the abuse of the little guy, not the big corporate giant, but the small business entrepreneur, the average-day citizen who lived in fear and, indeed, tyranny, and in some cases was rampant tyranny. And in no case was it worse than as it related to the innocent spouse. And every year approximately 50,000 cases were opened. And the revenuer was after a spouse who had little, if anything, to do with not paying their fair share of taxes--innocent of the fact--and in 90 percent of the cases they were women. They signed a joint return, and in some cases didn't even sign a return. We had some cases where their signature was forged, but we were so desperate for money, they were hunted down. Indeed, some had to give up their jobs and some had to live in fear, and some even left their spouses, their new spouses because they were afraid that the new spouse and his family would have the revenue agent after them. Horrendous. Incredible. I take this opportunity to salute a courageous person who came and testified before our committee, a citizen of New York, Beth Cockrell, who epitomized this tragedy and whose case went all the way up to the Supreme Court. And because of the manner in which the law was written, why, the court ruled against her. But nonetheless--nonetheless--she is a person who was abused by the revenue code and the agents who pursued her. Indeed, now they will be free, hundreds and hundreds of thousands-- mostly women--who have lived for years with open cases against them, who had accumulations of interest and penalties, in some cases that go into the hundreds and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars, and they can hopefully now begin to resume a more normal life and clear away that pattern of abuse with which they have had to live. Hundreds of thousands will be free. And, yes, tens of thousands on a regular basis no longer will have to face this because they were married, and someone--their mate--did not pay his or her proper taxes, they were then held responsible. They would be totally innocent and unaware of this fact. I have heard colleagues speak to many issues in terms of what this bill does. I think it is important so the culture, hopefully, will be changed. I think one of the most significant provisions, one that I was proud to author along with Senator Graham of Florida and Senator Moynihan, the Innocent Spouse Relief Act of 1998, a bill that would give protection to innocent spouses, and is supported by all of our colleagues, will now be the law of the land, and those who are innocent will no longer have to live in fear for the actions of someone else. I thank my colleague for giving me this opportunity, Senator McCain of Arizona, to make these remarks. I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation with my friend and colleague, Senator Murkowski, to correct an inequity in the Tax Code that deprives working people of hard earned pension benefits. The problem is section 415 of the Internal Revenue Code, which sets compensation based limits and a dollar limit on pension plans. In effect, these section 415 limits discourage retirement savings. Workers are being denied the full benefits that they have earned through many years of labor and on which they and their spouses have counted in planning their retirement. We can all appreciate the frustration and anger of workers who are told, upon applying for their pension, that the federal government won't let their pension plan pay them the full amount of the benefits that they earned under the rules of their plan. For some workers, this benefit cutback means that they will not be able to retire when they wanted or needed to. For other workers, it means retirement with less income to live on, and in some cases, retirement without health care coverage and other necessities of life. The bill that Senator Murkowski and I are introducing today will give these workers relief from the most confiscatory provisions of section 415 and enable them to receive the full measure of their retirement savings, consistent with the policy goals of the National Summit on Retirement Savings recently sponsored by the President and the Congress. Mr. President, Congress has recognized and corrected the adverse effects of section 415 on government employee pension plans. In fact, as part of the Small Business Jobs Protection Act of 1996 and the Tax Relief Act of 1997, we exempted government employee pension plans from the compensation-based limit, from certain early retirement limits, and from other provisions of section 415. Relief measures for workers covered by multiemployer plans have been passed three times by the Senate, most recently in the Senate version of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Unfortunately, those changes were not maintained in the Senate/House Conference Report. Section 415 was enacted more than two decades ago when the pension world was quite different than today. The section 415 limits were designed to contain the tax-sheltered pensions that could be received by highly paid executives and professionals. The passage of time and Congressional action has stood this original design on its head. Today, the limits are forcing cutbacks in the pensions of rank-and-file workers. Executives and professionals are now able to receive pensions far in excess of the section 415 limits by establishing non-qualified supplemental retirement programs. Generally, section 415 limits the benefits payable to a worker by defined benefit pension plans to the lesser of (1) the worker's average annual compensation for the three consecutive years when his compensation was the highest (the compensation-based limit); and (2) a dollar limit that is sharply reduced if a worker retires before the Social Security normal retirement age of 65 or 66. The compensation-based limit assumes that the pension earned under a plan is linked to each worker's salary, as is typical in corporate pension plans (e.g., a percentage of the worker's final year's salary for each year of employment). That assumption is wrong as applied to multiemployer pension plans. Multiemployer plans, which cover more than ten million individuals, have long based their benefits on the collectively bargained contribution rates and years of covered employment with one or more of the multiple employers which contribute to the plan. In other words, benefits earned under a multiemployer plan generally have no relationship to the wages received by a worker from the contributing employers. The same benefit level is paid to all workers with the same contribution and covered employment records regardless of their individual wage histories. A second assumption underlying the compensation based limit is that workers' salaries increase steadily over the course of their careers so that the three highest salary years will be the last three consecutive years. While this salary history may be the norm in the corporate world, it is unusual in the multiemployer plan world. In multiemployer plan industries like building and construction, a worker's wage earnings typically fluctuate from year-to-year according to several variables including the availability of covered work and whether the worker is unable to work due to illness or disability. An individual worker's wage history may include many dramatic ups-and-downs. Because of these fluctuations, the three highest years of compensation for many multiemployer plan participants are not consecutive. Consequently, the section 415 compensation-based limit for these workers is artificially low; lower than it should be if they were covered by corporate plans. The dollar limit under section 415 is forcing severe cutbacks in the earned pensions of workers who retire under multiemployer pension plans before they reach age 65. For example, construction work is physically hard, and is often performed under harsh climatic conditions. Workers are worn down sooner than those in most other industries. Often, early retirement is a must. Multiemployer pension plans accommodate these needs of their covered worker by providing for early retirement, disability, and service pensions that provide a subsidized, partial or full pension benefit. As it stands now, section 415 is forcing cutbacks in these pensions because the dollar limit is severely reduced for each year you are under the normal Social Security retirement age. For a worker who retires at age 50, the dollar limit restricts their pension at about $40,000 per year. This reduced limit applies regardless of the circumstances under which the worker retires and regardless of his plan's rules regarding retirement age. A multiemployer plan participant who becomes disabled and is forced into early retirement is nonetheless subject to the reduced limit. In addition, a construction worker who, after 30 years of demanding labor, has well-earned a 30-and-out service pension at age 50, is nonetheless subject to the reduced limit. Our bill will ease this early retirement benefit cutback by extending to workers covered by multiemployer plans some of the more favorable early retirement rules that now apply to government employee pension plans and other retirement plans. These rules still provide for a reduced dollar limit for retirements earlier than age 62, but the reduction is less severe than under the current rules that apply to multiemployer plans. Mr. President, I am particularly concerned that early retirees who suffer pension benefit cutbacks will not be able to afford the health care coverage that they need. Workers who retire before they become eligible for Medicare are typically required to pay all or a substantial part of the cost of their health insurance. Section 415 pension cutbacks deprive workers of income they need to bear these health care costs. This is contrary to the sound public policy of encouraging workers and retirees to responsibly provide for their health care. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to cosponsor this important and necessary legislation. 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, today I introduce legislation with my friend and colleague, Senator Murkowski, to correct an inequity in the Tax Code that deprives working people of hard earned pension benefits. The problem is section 415 of the Internal Revenue Code, which sets compensation based limits and a dollar limit on pension plans. In effect, these section 415 limits discourage retirement savings. Workers are being denied the full benefits that they have earned through many years of labor and on which they and their spouses have counted in planning their retirement. We can all appreciate the frustration and anger of workers who are told, upon applying for their pension, that the federal government won't let their pension plan pay them the full amount of the benefits that they earned under the rules of their plan. For some workers, this benefit cutback means that they will not be able to retire when they wanted or needed to. For other workers, it means retirement with less income to live on, and in some cases, retirement without health care coverage and other necessities of life. The bill that Senator Murkowski and I are introducing today will give these workers relief from the most confiscatory provisions of section 415 and enable them to receive the full measure of their retirement savings, consistent with the policy goals of the National Summit on Retirement Savings recently sponsored by the President and the Congress. Mr. President, Congress has recognized and corrected the adverse effects of section 415 on government employee pension plans. In fact, as part of the Small Business Jobs Protection Act of 1996 and the Tax Relief Act of 1997, we exempted government employee pension plans from the compensation-based limit, from certain early retirement limits, and from other provisions of section 415. Relief measures for workers covered by multiemployer plans have been passed three times by the Senate, most recently in the Senate version of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Unfortunately, those changes were not maintained in the Senate/House Conference Report. Section 415 was enacted more than two decades ago when the pension world was quite different than today. The section 415 limits were designed to contain the tax-sheltered pensions that could be received by highly paid executives and professionals. The passage of time and Congressional action has stood this original design on its head. Today, the limits are forcing cutbacks in the pensions of rank-and-file workers. Executives and professionals are now able to receive pensions far in excess of the section 415 limits by establishing non-qualified supplemental retirement programs. Generally, section 415 limits the benefits payable to a worker by defined benefit pension plans to the lesser of (1) the worker's average annual compensation for the three consecutive years when his compensation was the highest (the compensation-based limit); and (2) a dollar limit that is sharply reduced if a worker retires before the Social Security normal retirement age of 65 or 66. The compensation-based limit assumes that the pension earned under a plan is linked to each worker's salary, as is typical in corporate pension plans (e.g., a percentage of the worker's final year's salary for each year of employment). That assumption is wrong as applied to multiemployer pension plans. Multiemployer plans, which cover more than ten million individuals, have long based their benefits on the collectively bargained contribution rates and years of covered employment with one or more of the multiple employers which contribute to the plan. In other words, benefits earned under a multiemployer plan generally have no relationship to the wages received by a worker from the contributing employers. The same benefit level is paid to all workers with the same contribution and covered employment records regardless of their individual wage histories. A second assumption underlying the compensation based limit is that workers' salaries increase steadily over the course of their careers so that the three highest salary years will be the last three consecutive years. While this salary history may be the norm in the corporate world, it is unusual in the multiemployer plan world. In multiemployer plan industries like building and construction, a worker's wage earnings typically fluctuate from year-to-year according to several variables including the availability of covered work and whether the worker is unable to work due to illness or disability. An individual worker's wage history may include many dramatic ups-and-downs. Because of these fluctuations, the three highest years of compensation for many multiemployer plan participants are not consecutive. Consequently, the section 415 compensation-based limit for these workers is artificially low; lower than it should be if they were covered by corporate plans. The dollar limit under section 415 is forcing severe cutbacks in the earned pensions of workers who retire under multiemployer pension plans before they reach age 65. For example, construction work is physically hard, and is often performed under harsh climatic conditions. Workers are worn down sooner than those in most other industries. Often, early retirement is a must. Multiemployer pension plans accommodate these needs of their covered worker by providing for early retirement, disability, and service pensions that provide a subsidized, partial or full pension benefit. As it stands now, section 415 is forcing cutbacks in these pensions because the dollar limit is severely reduced for each year you are under the normal Social Security retirement age. For a worker who retires at age 50, the dollar limit restricts their pension at about $40,000 per year. This reduced limit applies regardless of the circumstances under which the worker retires and regardless of his plan's rules regarding retirement age. A multiemployer plan participant who becomes disabled and is forced into early retirement is nonetheless subject to the reduced limit. In addition, a construction worker who, after 30 years of demanding labor, has well-earned a 30-and-out service pension at age 50, is nonetheless subject to the reduced limit. Our bill will ease this early retirement benefit cutback by extending to workers covered by multiemployer plans some of the more favorable early retirement rules that now apply to government employee pension plans and other retirement plans. These rules still provide for a reduced dollar limit for retirements earlier than age 62, but the reduction is less severe than under the current rules that apply to multiemployer plans. Mr. President, I am particularly concerned that early retirees who suffer pension benefit cutbacks will not be able to afford the health care coverage that they need. Workers who retire before they become eligible for Medicare are typically required to pay all or a substantial part of the cost of their health insurance. Section 415 pension cutbacks deprive workers of income they need to bear these health care costs. This is contrary to the sound public policy of encouraging workers and retirees to responsibly provide for their health care. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to cosponsor this important and necessary legislation. 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 in strong support of the Education Savings and School Excellency Act that is embodied in the conference report which is before the Senate today. I take the opportunity to congratulate and commend Senator Coverdell for his leadership and, indeed, a bipartisan leadership of Democrats and Republicans attempting to deal with the most important area that we face as a Nation, and that is improving the educational opportunities for our children. That is critical. This bill makes a great contribution to education in a number of areas. First, it gets parents more involved in educational decisions by increasing the annual contribution limits into a child's education savings account. I can't think of anything better. There are some people who don't want to do that. I don't know why. Why wouldn't you want to give people of modest means the ability to provide for the educational choice that they decide is best for their child? It increases those accounts from $500 to $2,000, and the bill allows a parent or a grandparent to really make an impact on a child's education. More parental involvement is an absolute critical piece of the educational puzzle. We must do everything we can to give parents more power in education, and that is what this bill does, because when parents have input into educational decisions, the children are winners. It seems all too often that we are worried about everybody but the children. That is what it comes down to. This bill helps parents and children. In addition to more parental involvement, another critical education reform relates to teachers. We simply must make sure that all teachers are competent in the subjects they teach. Most teachers are, and, indeed, we have dedicated, great teachers who make magic in the classroom. That is why there are particular important provisions in this bill that give to States and will give to local school districts the ability to reward the great and the outstanding educators in the classroom by making merit pay available. Why not give to the best and the brightest? And why not allow local school districts, working with their teachers, working with their local school boards the opportunity to design programs to do exactly that? Give the best and the brightest the compensation they are entitled to; reward them with merit pay. Secondarily, why shouldn't we see to it that every teacher who teaches our children is competent and proficient in the subject matters that they are teaching? We can't pay the great teachers enough, but we should attempt to find a system that does reward them. In addition to that, outstanding performances should be recognized. I am pleased to see that the conference included the merit amendment that Senator Mack and I offered. Indeed, one of our colleagues spoke to it just recently and indicated, wouldn't it be terrible if local school districts could actually draw revenues from other areas for this purpose. I think it is great. Why shouldn't they be able to make that decision? Why shouldn't they set up a system that rewards the competent teachers? Why shouldn't they set up a system where there is regular testing every 3 to 5 years to ascertain who is the best and who is the brightest and who is doing the work for our children? When we look at reforming our public schools, one thing must always be kept foremost in our efforts: We must put our children first. Our children are the best and the brightest, and they are our most precious resource. A fight to reform our education system is a fight for America's future. Our children are depending on us, and it is clear that parental involvement, merit pay, teacher competency testing are necessary if we are going to give the children the education they need. The time for talk is over; the time for action is now. Again, I commend Senator Coverdell for his outstanding leadership and his dedication to this process, because that is what this bill begins. It is not going to solve all the problems, but it really begins to make a difference and begins to address the area of increasing parental responsibility, giving them the opportunity to make resources available, and to also local districts and States, giving them the opportunity to provide those great teachers with the merit pay to which they are entitled. I yield the floor. Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I submit a resolution that calls for President Slobodan Milosevic of the rump Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to be indicted publicly by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (the War Crimes Tribunal), under its jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia on or after January 1, 1991. This step is long overdue. As early as December 1992, then-Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger publicly identified Milosevic as one of several individuals who could and should be held personally accountable for war crimes. I am confident that Secretary Eagleburger, in making this serious charge, was fully informed of the underlying facts that would form the basis of a prima facie case against Milosevic and which could be used to support his indictment. Still, there are some who have questioned whether a case against Milosevic can really be established. This issue was addressed in testimony before the Helsinki Commission in 1995 by Cherrif M. Bassiouni, who headed the U.N.'s Commission of Experts, the body first tasked with examining war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. Professor Bassiouni's work set the stage for the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Professor Bassiouni's Commission had exhumed numerous mass grave sites, interviewed thousands of victims of rape and torture, and examined overwhelming quantities of other evidentiary materials. Based on this far-reaching study of the first two years of the Yugoslav conflict, Professor Bassiouni stated: At first, many thought that this was a sort of haphazard type of situation. We subsequently found that this was not haphazard, particularly in Bosnia, as you know, but also throughout most of the territory of the former Yugoslavia . . . there is no doubt that, in a large territorial expanse, over a significant period of time, the same patterns of behavior occurred, and the same administrative organization characterized the acts of ethnic cleansing--who did it, and how it was done . . . Particularly interesting is the way ethnic cleansing was done. It was done with plausible deniability in mind. When Professor Bassiouni was explicitly questioned about the possibility of indicting Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic--Karadzic was also named by Eagleburger and has since been publicly indicted, not once but twice--Professor Bassiouni said ``It is unlikely that a number of similar incidents occurring over long periods of time, which were so well-publicized, could not have been known to the senior political leadership as well.'' Since then, the evidence against Milosevic has only mounted, particularly as cases have proceeded before the Tribunal in The Hague. In spite of the overwhelming evidence of war crimes in this conflict and the clear command responsibility of Milosvic for his agents, no public indictment against him has yet been issued. In fact, it has been suggested by some that Milosevic has been granted de facto immunity based on a misguided belief that he is necessary for the implementation of the Dayton Accords. Nothing could be further than the truth. Under Milosevic's leadership, the situation in Kosovo has deteriorated dramatically, demonstrating the same fact pattern that we have already seen in Bosnia: systematic attacks against civilians, reported that rape is once again being used as a form of warfare, and mass displacement of men, women and children. Milosevic is not part of the solution, he is part of the problem. Significantly, the War Crimes Tribunal has made it clear that, under its statute, it also has responsibility for the war crimes in Kosovo. Mr. President, we know that the War Crimes Tribunal has issued an unknown number of sealed indictments; in a few instances, the existence of these indictments have become public when the indictee has been arrested. Certainly, there are cases where it may facilitate the arrest of an individual if his indictment remains sealed. In the case of Milosevic, however, I can see no such benefits. Indeed, the failure to indict him publicly may have emboldened him in Kosovo. The time has come to indict Slobodan Milosevic for the atrocities that have been committed--and continue to be committed in Kosovo--under his leadership as head of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and to issue that indictment publicly. Accordingly, the resolution I am submitting today calls on the United States to collect and supply to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, on a priority basis, evidence to support an indictment and trial of Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide; calls on the United States to provide a fair share of any additional financial or personnel resources that may be required by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague, the Netherlands, in order to enable the Tribunal to adequately address preparation for, indictment of, prosecution of, and adjudication of allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity posed against Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic and any other person arising from the conflict in the Former Yugoslavia, including in Kosovo; calls on the United States to engage with our NATO allies and others in a discussion of measures to be taken to apprehend indicated war criminals and persons indicated for crimes against humanity with the objective of concluding a plan of action that will result in these indictees' prompt delivery into the custody of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague, the Netherlands; calls on the United States to urge the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague, the Netherlands, to promptly review all information relating to Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's possible criminal culpability for conceiving, directing, and sustaining a variety of actions in the Former Yugoslavia, including Kosovo, that have had the effect of genocide, of other crimes against humanity, or of war crimes, with a view toward prompt issuance of a public indictment of Milosevic; and calls upon the United States to adopt a policy of having no dealings with Milosevic at any level in any context other than as a defendant before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague, the Netherlands and to make every effort to support his immediate apprehension. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in this sense of the Senate resolution, to demonstrate once again that we are not blind to the suffering that Milosevic continues to inflict on innocent people in the Balkans, for no reason other than to secure his own political power. By supporting and seeking prompt enactment of this resolution, we will show that Milosevic cannot act with impunity, that the world will hold him accountable, and that the United States is prepared to take a leadership role in obtaining justice for those killed, maimed, or injured as this man pursues his political ambitions.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to reinstate, and make permanent, the employee exclusion for amounts received under qualified employer-provided group legal services plans. This bill amends section 120 of the Internal Revenue Code and becomes effective for tax years beginning after June 30, 1998. It provides that an employee does not have to pay income and social security taxes for a qualified employer-provided group legal services plan. The annual premium is limited to $70 per person. In order to qualify, a plan must fulfill certain requirements, one of which states that benefits may not discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees. The tax exclusion of group legal services is not a new provision. In fact, prior to its expiration in June of 1992, employees had been allowed to exclude such benefits from their gross income since 1976, albeit through seven extensions from Congress. I believe it is time to reinstate this measure on a permanent basis. Employer-provided group legal plans have time and again proven their value in extending low-cost legal advice to working Americans. The reality for middle class wage earners is that they cannot afford the services of an attorney and thus cannot afford to obtain advice for issues relating to child support enforcement, adoptions, wills, landlord/tenant situations and consumer debt problems. Because it provides access to legal advice, this employer-provided benefit assists working Americans in avoiding the family disintegration and job disruption that can result from neglected legal issues. In New York, these plans affect hundreds of thousands of employees and members of their families. These New Yorkers are employed as school teachers, municipal workers, hotel and hospital employees, law enforcement personnel and thousands working in our many service industries. Many of our citizens, though employed, are earning enough only for basic necessities. A working mother seeking to enforce an order of child support gains access to the assistance of a lawyer through these legal benefit plans and avoids the need to rely on public assistance. A consumer debt problem can lead to a garnished salary, and eviction, the loss of a job, and dependency on public assistance. The relatively minor cost of providing this favorable tax treatment is repaid innumerable times by keeping the wage earner focused on his/her job, keeping a family in housing and intact, and removing the threat to moderate income workers to remaining self-sufficient. Employer-provided legal benefit packages produce economies in both the purchase of legal services for a large group and in the delivery of those services at a reduced price. Because they provide a cost- effective approach, these employer-sponsored legal benefit plans are in the best American tradition of pragmatic, voluntary group action to meet common needs. Restoring equity to the tax treatment of this benefit by placing it on equal footing with other statutory fringe benefits is a goal worth achieving. As an aspect of middle class tax relief, a high return on the cost of this benefit is realized for the estimated 2.5 million working Americans who gain access to critical legal advice through its operation. Mr. President, there is no reason why we should not reinstate and make permanent this tax exclusion. In the past, the Senate repeatedly affirmed its commitment to assuring the availability of legal services. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to restore fair tax treatment of employer-provided group legal services. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to reinstate, and make permanent, the employee exclusion for amounts received under qualified employer-provided group legal services plans. This bill amends section 120 of the Internal Revenue Code and becomes effective for tax years beginning after June 30, 1998. It provides that an employee does not have to pay income and social security taxes for a qualified employer-provided group legal services plan. The annual premium is limited to $70 per person. In order to qualify, a plan must fulfill certain requirements, one of which states that benefits may not discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees. The tax exclusion of group legal services is not a new provision. In fact, prior to its expiration in June of 1992, employees had been allowed to exclude such benefits from their gross income since 1976, albeit through seven extensions from Congress. I believe it is time to reinstate this measure on a permanent basis. Employer-provided group legal plans have time and again proven their value in extending low-cost legal advice to working Americans. The reality for middle class wage earners is that they cannot afford the services of an attorney and thus cannot afford to obtain advice for issues relating to child support enforcement, adoptions, wills, landlord/tenant situations and consumer debt problems. Because it provides access to legal advice, this employer-provided benefit assists working Americans in avoiding the family disintegration and job disruption that can result from neglected legal issues. In New York, these plans affect hundreds of thousands of employees and members of their families. These New Yorkers are employed as school teachers, municipal workers, hotel and hospital employees, law enforcement personnel and thousands working in our many service industries. Many of our citizens, though employed, are earning enough only for basic necessities. A working mother seeking to enforce an order of child support gains access to the assistance of a lawyer through these legal benefit plans and avoids the need to rely on public assistance. A consumer debt problem can lead to a garnished salary, and eviction, the loss of a job, and dependency on public assistance. The relatively minor cost of providing this favorable tax treatment is repaid innumerable times by keeping the wage earner focused on his/her job, keeping a family in housing and intact, and removing the threat to moderate income workers to remaining self-sufficient. Employer-provided legal benefit packages produce economies in both the purchase of legal services for a large group and in the delivery of those services at a reduced price. Because they provide a cost- effective approach, these employer-sponsored legal benefit plans are in the best American tradition of pragmatic, voluntary group action to meet common needs. Restoring equity to the tax treatment of this benefit by placing it on equal footing with other statutory fringe benefits is a goal worth achieving. As an aspect of middle class tax relief, a high return on the cost of this benefit is realized for the estimated 2.5 million working Americans who gain access to critical legal advice through its operation. Mr. President, there is no reason why we should not reinstate and make permanent this tax exclusion. In the past, the Senate repeatedly affirmed its commitment to assuring the availability of legal services. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to restore fair tax treatment of employer-provided group legal services. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am very appreciative of the problems which Senator Coats has alluded to as they relate to those States which are the recipients of large amounts of refuse, solid waste that comes from other States. Indeed, if I were a Senator from one of those States in which local communities, sometimes private landfill operations, enter into agreements and take large quantities, millions of tons of solid waste coming in, I would certainly understand why it is the Governor and/or the local officials would like to have some control with respect to the amount that comes in. Having said that, I am appreciative of the Senator's recognition of our concern, notwithstanding that we are a State, New York, that exports millions of tons annually because we simply do not have the ability to keep it, and are now closing down the largest landfill in the world, which will be closed in the year 2001. This is a concern to us, a very important and valid concern to the City of New York and to the State as well. If a law, and/or an agreement is entered into which would preclude us from using those areas for which we have negotiated long-term contracts, and indeed would restrict us, particularly at a time when landfills are closing down in New York and the problem will become more acute, we recognize we have to deal with those problems. Indeed, there are a number of contingencies which are being examined to dispose of this waste in the most environmentally sound and cost- effective manner. Plans are being developed, facilities are being built, land sites, new land sites within the State, are being utilized. There are a number and variety of communities that have entered into programs to recycle and to cut down on the volume. However, this is a monumental problem. Therefore, I appreciate the recognition by my colleague and friend of this problem, and I am going to ask that we have an opportunity--and I recognize people want to move on with this bill--to examine it carefully. I tell you, I respect, again, the candor of my colleague, Senator Coats, when the fact is the threshold, the ratcheting down threshold has been reduced from when last this legislation was accepted. We passed this overwhelmingly and we worked together cooperatively, and I think it passed by something like 94 to 6. It was an overwhelming vote. But that was in 1995. Since then, while the Senator is pointing out that his State is getting more garbage, we are producing more that does not go into landfills within our State, and therefore ratcheting down is something we could not feel comfortable with. This Senator could not say we will be ready to accept limitations that are further eroded and reduced. That is a very real problem. Second, the legislation is tied to a date, as my colleague indicates, that says, ``those landfills that were receiving material, solid waste from out of State, as of 1993.'' There have been, I am sure, a number of landfills that have opened up since 1993. So what this legislation would do, if passed in its present form, it would effectively deny New York or other States that export garbage the opportunity to continue that relationship they have with landfills or operations that have opened subsequent to 1993. I have to tell you, I do not know at this point how many tons of waste we would then not be able to dispose of, but it could be significant. If we were to have had a dozen additional sites nationwide opened up, we would find ourselves in a situation where we could no longer use them to dispose of any of the waste. So I would have to ask my friend to consider updating the 1993 date as a date to determine how you would ratchet this down. It would certainly have to be something closer to--and, indeed, in 1995 we used 1993. It would seem to me as we are into 1998, we would expect at least that same kind of consideration. Without even studying it, it would seem to me we would have to put in that date, if we are going to maintain some kind of symmetry. Those landfills that were in operation as of 1996, that that would be appropriate if we are going to maintain symmetry. Again, I haven't had a chance to check this with our State and ascertain whether in this short time they could tell us how many landfill sites have been opened, even between 1996 and today. But that is a concern, and I share that with my colleague. We have not had an opportunity to really discuss this. Yet, I am deeply appreciative of his concerns and his offer to try to work this out. So I hope that before attempting to move to vote on this, that we could see if we cannot get some cooperative agreement. I do not know what other colleagues in some of the exporting States would feel, but I am still of a mind that if we can be accommodating and meet our needs, I want to do that. But these are two very real concerns. No. 1, we cannot ratchet down an amount when we are producing more garbage than ever before, one that we had agreed to back in 1995. And, second, we would have to do something with the date of grandfathering those landfills. We would have to bring them up to a more current position so as to determine those which we may be using today which we were not using heretofore. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me say this: First of all, I appreciate the Senator's recognition of the fact that the ratchet figure has to be the same, or should be, and moving to do that. I understand he brings these requests at the request of his Governor. I do have a very serious concern, and that is, if one reads the legislation, it says: In 1999 a State may ban 95 percent of the amount exported to a State in 1993. That is a serious concern, understanding that, again, we are now 3 years further down the road. I don't know what the impact will be today. It is one thing to say, ``Well, we agreed to that 3 years ago.'' I am concerned, and, again, if we are going to talk about symmetry, at the very least it seems to me that that figure will have to read ``exported to a State in 1996,'' so that we maintain the same 2 years, the 2-year differential. I feel much more comfortable in saying let's move the process. And, indeed, if there are other things that have to be done, hopefully in conference we can work that out with the assurance of the chairman and the ranking member that we can deal with other areas. But these are issues of very significant proportions as they relate to our local governments. While I can understand the concern when an area is being inundated and people feel there is nothing they can do--the local legislatures--I understand that. I ask my colleague to understand what our concerns are if we have no place and valid contracts have been entered into subsequent to 1993 and we find now, as a result of moving along with this, they no longer have a place to dispose of it. Even moving it to 1996, I say, may not be sufficient, because we may have--and not in the State of Indiana, but in other jurisdictions-- opened up facilities or are presently using facilities that have been opened maybe last year, and here I am in a position that I will be agreeing that these facilities will no longer be possibly available to us. That is why I am concerned, absent that information. If we go along with the year 1996, I hope my friend will recognize that is a very real accommodation, as opposed to 1993, and then take it on good faith that we will examine this, so that even if it goes to conference, we might have to lodge some kind of objection if we found that subsequent to 1996 there were facilities that were open that were substantial and necessary for us to accommodate the disposal of this waste. I want to be accommodating, but I have to state it in this manner so that we can both protect the interests of our States and our citizens. I think that is about as far as I can go on this. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. D'AMATO. If there are any other--yes.

Mr. D'AMATO. Let me again suggest that with those two changes, the change of the 750,000 tons, which the Senator has already made in his amendment, and that of changing the 1999 agreement to reflect the amount exported in 1996, if the Senator would make that amendment, I am willing then to accept the amendment with the proviso and understanding and the gentlemen's agreement being that any other difficulties we will see if we can work out. And then we would rely on the committee chairman and the ranking member to help us and aid us in any further legislative language that might be needed.

Mr. D'AMATO. Well, if the Senator would yield just for an observation, and I observe--and I am looking at the summary of the amendment. When I look at the summary of the amendment, as drawn, it says, in 1999, greater than 1.4 million tons or 90 percent of the amount exported in 1993. Now, what we would be agreeing to is that within less than 6 months--within 5\1/2\ months--that we would agree that the following amounts could not be greater than 1.4 million tons or 90 percent of the amount exported in 1993. What I am saying is, I am willing to go along with the 1.4 million tons or 90 percent of that exported in 1996. OK. Now, let me also say that in 1 year and 5\1/2\ months--if you go to the next year--it says in 2000, greater than 1.3 million tons. You go down to 1.3 million or 90 percent of the amount exported in 1999. So what I am suggesting is that I cannot in good conscience support an agreement when I do not know what we have done between 1993 and to date. But I am willing to take it up to 1996. And we are talking about 5 months. And then within a year you get the second figure that triggers off. So I am just talking about 1 year. You cannot ask us to put ourselves in the position to have us sign off on this. I think even taking 1996 is Russian roulette to the extent--I hate to say it is Russian roulette--but at least there is a symmetry between what we did before. And I only do this on the basis that when we go to conference, if indeed we have some severe problems, I will notify the committee. And if the Governor's office advises us there is no way they can possibly do it, I will notify the committee. And I think they would act responsibly to make the necessary changes or to drop the legislation. I have to be candid with you on this, so I suggest that is about as far as I could possibly go at this time. And I do it in the spirit of accommodation.

Mr. D'AMATO. Yes.

Mr. D'AMATO. No.

Mr. D'AMATO. That is right.

Mr. D'AMATO. Sure. That is correct. And what I am suggesting--in other words, in 1999, 1.4 million or 90 percent of the amount exported in 1996; and I hope we can get that amount. Hopefully, the State will be able to give us those numbers, and hopefully all States would be able to give us those numbers. And thereafter I would say we have an agreement, because we are then holding to--if you read in 2000, it says greater than 1.3 million tons or 90 percent of the amount exported in 1999. So we are, then, at least, taking it on a rational basis as it relates to how much was actually exported.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I cosponsor the Children's Development Commission Act of 1998. I commend my friend and respected colleague, Senator Herb Kohl for introducing this critical piece of legislation which addresses a serious problem facing American families today--the shortage of affordable, quality child care. America is facing a shortage of quality child care which is approaching crisis levels. This shortage bears most heavily on working families, including young working single mothers. Every day more than 5 million children under age 13 are left unattended after school. The parents of these children deserve meaningful, affordable child care options. The high cost of child care impacts directly on families, affecting their ability to pay the rent or mortgage, to put food on the table or to save for their children's education. The lack of decent, high quality child care also impedes the development of critical learning skills these children will need in order to succeed later in life. Social and medical research continues to stress the importance of the first three years of development on a child's well-being and ability to learn. In New York, the average cost of day care is over $6,000 per year-- and many families end up paying nearly $10,000 per year. Many families are unable to locate quality child care at all, as evidenced by the long waiting lists at existing centers. In New York City, approximately 28,000 families are on waiting lists for assistance under the Child Care Development Block Grant Program. Mr. President, as more families make the difficult transition from welfare to work, waiting lists for affordable care and assistance will likely increase significantly. As a result of welfare reform, by the year 2002, there may be as many as 135,000 additional infants and toddlers in New York who will need affordable quality child care. These high costs and the overall shortage of quality care are found in all areas of my home State--cutting across urban and rural boundaries. The New York Human Services Administration estimates that more than two-thirds of children in the Morrisania section of the Bronx and more than seventy percent of children in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn are in need of child care. This shortage extends to rural areas of New York as well--for example, in Allegany, Hamilton, Washington and Yates counties there are no registered programs for school age children. Twenty of my State's sixty two counties have three or fewer registered school-age programs. The Child Care Development Commission Act will employ a number of cost-effective strategies to increase the availability and affordability of child care throughout the nation. First, the legislation would reduce lender risk by creating a new insurance authority within the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Using this new authority, FHA will provide loan guarantees for child care facilities. This will in turn spur the provision of private capital for the construction of new child care centers, the improvement of existing facilities and the cost of purchasing and installing fire safety equipment. Second, the Act will create a new streamlined Commission--known informally as ``Kiddie Mac.'' The Commission will provide reasonable low-cost ``micro-loans'' for the renovation and improvement of existing facilities. In addition, the Commission will certify that facilities receiving FHA insurance meet state and local standards, such as licensing and child safety requirements. Mr. President, The Children's Development Commission Act is an important step in ensuring that child care facilities can gain access to private market credit. Representatives Carolyn Maloney and Richard Baker have introduced companion legislation (H.R. 3637) in the House of Representatives. They deserve our praise for their diligence in addressing this issue. The Children's Development Commission Act makes an investment in our children, an investment in our families and an investment in our future. I look forward to working with my Senate and House colleagues for its enactment.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I cosponsor the Children's Development Commission Act of 1998. I commend my friend and respected colleague, Senator Herb Kohl for introducing this critical piece of legislation which addresses a serious problem facing American families today--the shortage of affordable, quality child care. America is facing a shortage of quality child care which is approaching crisis levels. This shortage bears most heavily on working families, including young working single mothers. Every day more than 5 million children under age 13 are left unattended after school. The parents of these children deserve meaningful, affordable child care options. The high cost of child care impacts directly on families, affecting their ability to pay the rent or mortgage, to put food on the table or to save for their children's education. The lack of decent, high quality child care also impedes the development of critical learning skills these children will need in order to succeed later in life. Social and medical research continues to stress the importance of the first three years of development on a child's well-being and ability to learn. In New York, the average cost of day care is over $6,000 per year-- and many families end up paying nearly $10,000 per year. Many families are unable to locate quality child care at all, as evidenced by the long waiting lists at existing centers. In New York City, approximately 28,000 families are on waiting lists for assistance under the Child Care Development Block Grant Program. Mr. President, as more families make the difficult transition from welfare to work, waiting lists for affordable care and assistance will likely increase significantly. As a result of welfare reform, by the year 2002, there may be as many as 135,000 additional infants and toddlers in New York who will need affordable quality child care. These high costs and the overall shortage of quality care are found in all areas of my home State--cutting across urban and rural boundaries. The New York Human Services Administration estimates that more than two-thirds of children in the Morrisania section of the Bronx and more than seventy percent of children in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn are in need of child care. This shortage extends to rural areas of New York as well--for example, in Allegany, Hamilton, Washington and Yates counties there are no registered programs for school age children. Twenty of my State's sixty two counties have three or fewer registered school-age programs. The Child Care Development Commission Act will employ a number of cost-effective strategies to increase the availability and affordability of child care throughout the nation. First, the legislation would reduce lender risk by creating a new insurance authority within the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Using this new authority, FHA will provide loan guarantees for child care facilities. This will in turn spur the provision of private capital for the construction of new child care centers, the improvement of existing facilities and the cost of purchasing and installing fire safety equipment. Second, the Act will create a new streamlined Commission--known informally as ``Kiddie Mac.'' The Commission will provide reasonable low-cost ``micro-loans'' for the renovation and improvement of existing facilities. In addition, the Commission will certify that facilities receiving FHA insurance meet state and local standards, such as licensing and child safety requirements. Mr. President, The Children's Development Commission Act is an important step in ensuring that child care facilities can gain access to private market credit. Representatives Carolyn Maloney and Richard Baker have introduced companion legislation (H.R. 3637) in the House of Representatives. They deserve our praise for their diligence in addressing this issue. The Children's Development Commission Act makes an investment in our children, an investment in our families and an investment in our future. I look forward to working with my Senate and House colleagues for its enactment.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor Captain Michael J. Landers, United States Navy, as he retires upon completion of over 30 years of honorable and faithful service to our Nation. A native of Utica, NY, Captain Landers was enlisted into the Regular Navy in November 1968 as a Seaman Recruit. After 5 years of enlisted submarine service, he was commissioned an Ensign upon graduation from the University of Missouri in December 1973. Captain Landers, a Submarine Warfare Officer, has performed in a consistently outstanding manner under the most challenging of circumstances. From 1973 to 1985 Captain Landers served with the surface and submarine fleets of the Atlantic and pacific Oceans. He gained extensive experience aboard USS ALEXANDER HAMILTON (SSBN) 617) USS VON STEUBEN (SSBN 632), and USS PIGEON (ASR 21). After serving on the staff of the Director of Strategic Systems Programs, Washington, DC, Captain Landers commanded the USS ORTOLAN (ASR 22) from 1987 to 1990. He subsequently became the Executive Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Naval Personnel. Captain Landers left the Navy Annex in 1994 and reported for duty at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces at Fort McNair where he received a Master of Science Degree in National Resource Strategy. From 1995 to 1997, Captain Landers commanded the naval Submarine Base, Bangor, WA. He returned to the Pentagon in November 1997, where he served as the Deputy Chief of Legislative Affairs. In this capacity he has been a major asset to the Navy, Marine Corps and Congress. He is considered a valued advisor to the very top echelons of the Navy and Congress. His consummate leadership, energy and integrity ensured that the morale and effectiveness of the Navy-Marine Corps team reached heights otherwise thought to be impossible to achieve in such an austere budget climate. During a period of significant change and restructuring of naval forces, Captain Landers helped to obtain Congressional support for a strong and balanced navy and marine Corps. Through his brilliant insight, he has directly contributed to their future readiness and success. Captain Landers' distinguished awards include the legion of Merit with three gold stars, the meritorious Service medal with one gold star, the navy Commendation Medal with two gold stars and the navy Achievement Medal with one gold star. The Department of the navy, the Congress, and the American people have been defended and well served by this dedicated naval officer for over 30 years. Captain Mike Landers will long be remembered for his leadership, service and dedication. He will be missed. We wish Mike, and his lovely wife Kris, our very best as they begin a new chapter in their life together.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask that a letter to the majority and minority leaders on statewide planning provisions contained in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century be printed in the Record. The letter describes an integral component of the legislative package pertaining to statewide planning provisions that was agreed to by the chairmen and ranking members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. The letter follows: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, June 2, 1998. Hon. Trent Lott, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Thomas A. Daschle, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Lott and Senator Daschle: The Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs share jurisdiction over Section 135 of Title 23, United States Code. This title provides for the development of transportation plans and programs, including highways and mass transportation, that serve all areas of a State efficiently and effectively. We are writing to request unanimous consent for sequential referral of any legislation that amends, modifies or deletes any statewide planning provision contained within this title. Although jurisdiction is shared, our respective committees have reached agreement that these joint planning provisions appear only in Title 23. Therefore, it is requested that you propound an unanimous consent agreement that: (1) If and when the Committee on Environment and Public Works reports legislation that amends, modifies, deletes, or in any way affects transit provisions contained within section 135 of title 23, United States Code, it be referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs for a period not to exceed 20 session days of the Senate; and that if not reported by the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs by that time it be discharged and placed on the Senate Calendar. (2) If and when the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs reports legislation that amends, modifies, deletes, or in any way affects highway transportation provisions contained within section 135 of title 23, United States Code, it be referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works for a period not to exceed 20 session days of the Senate; and that if not reported by the Committee on Environment and Public Works by that time, it be discharged and placed on the Senate Calendar. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please let us know. Alfonse M. D'Amato, Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Paul S. Sarbanes, Ranking Member, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. John H. Chafee, Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works. Max S. Baucus, Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I agree with the distinguished Senator from New Jersey that the Urban Core is an important mass transit project that serves millions of people every day and demonstrates every day the importance of mass transit to our national transportation system. I also believe that the Secretary should work with the State of New Jersey during the next few years to provide assistance to those elements of the Urban Core that will move ahead in the next six years.

Mr. D'AMATO. I concur with my colleague's understanding that the line item he described is intended to make available Federal Transit Administration funds for initial costs of a high speed maglev system in Pennsylvania. It is my understanding that these funds will be applied for by an existing transit system or state agency in accordance with traditional requirements for FTA grants.

Mr. D'AMATO. Yes, in addition, I understand the federal share of the Full Funding Grant Agreement executed by the Department of Transportation for this project shall be $33 million.