Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I commend the Senator from Utah for his interest in this issue and thank him for refraining from offering this amendment. The Senator is quite correct when he states that his amendment would be unnecessary. The Banking Committee was very careful and direct in its instructions to the NCUA in Section 103 of the legislation, where the NCUA is instructed to define a ``well-defined local community, neighborhood, or rural district.'' Additionally, in the Committee's report, language was inserted to make this point especially clear. The Committee intends for the NCUA to limit federally-chartered community credit unions to be subject to well-defined, local, geographic expansion limits.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I am aware that the Senator from Montana has raised concerns regarding section 5 of the bill. Do the amendments considered by the Senate today satisfy your concerns?

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to call to my colleagues' attention an ominous and entirely predictable development-- Slobodan Milosevic is closing the independent media in Serbia. He is following the time-worn practice of dictators by trying to control Serbians' thinking--and therefore their politics--by controlling their access to information. The Senate and House have declared that we have reason to believe that Milosevic has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. While offenses like denying freedom of speech, assembly, and the press to his people don't rise to that capital criminal level, they further demonstrate his fine disdain for the rules and values of the rest of the world, and his iron determination to hold power at all costs. We are treated to the spectacle of Milosevic's killers conducting ethnic cleansing in Kosovo while he and his political allies use the Kosovo conflict as a tool to divide and suppress Serbian domestic political opposition. The mass public demonstrations aimed at the creation of democracy in Serbia have ceased. Factions joined together in opposition to Milosevic have been split apart, as he has appealed once again to extreme nationalist Serbian sentiment. Indeed, his excuse for closing these independent media outlets has been because they have been spreading ``fear, panic and defeatism'' and undermining ``the people's readiness to safeguard the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Serbia.'' He has been so happy with the results of this effort that his tame parliament, according to a report in the October 21, 1998 edition of the Washington Post, ``adopted a new information law today that critics say further restricts independent media and leads the country back toward dictatorship. The law bans broadcasts of Serbian-language programs by foreign media and calls for huge fines against media editors and owners who disobey the decree. It also gives broad powers to the authorities and places further restrictions on working permits for media organizations.'' This situation was thoroughly discussed in a Washington Post op-ed entitled ``Darkness Over Serbia,'' by Slobodan Pavlovic, printed in the Tuesday, October 20, 1998 edition on page A19. I commend this article to my colleagues. Milosevic has carefully calibrated his defiance of the rest of the world. He knows, or at least thinks he knows, what it would take to trigger a forceful response to his actions, and he stays just short of that threshold. The terrible consequences of his determination, and the world's forbearance, are clear to see in the faces of the refugees in Kosovo and hear in the silence left by the suppressed voices of his domestic opposition in Serbia. Just as in Bosnia, the international community, represented by Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, has gone to Milosevic in Belgrade, looking for peace in Kosovo. Once again, we have made Milosevic the indispensable man, and thereby encouraged him to remain difficult, at a level that requires our constant attention. In addition, in the process of seeking Milosevic's agreement to abide by the terms of a United Nations Security Council resolution, our visiting delegations have not met with the democratic opposition in Serbia. This has sent a regrettable message, one that we should not have sent. Mr. President, while we cannot save the independent media in Serbia from Milosevic's wrath, we must let them know that we care, that we have not forgotten them, that we support them, and that we understand that a democratic Serbia open to the West and the world is the solution to lasting peace in the Balkans. I also want to express my support for our efforts to sustain Serbian-language broadcasting into Serbia, which is even more important now that independent domestic voices are stifled by force. The people of Serbia are not enemies of the United States. The Milosevic regime is not just an enemy of the United States, it is an enemy of the world. The sooner those powers that extend, in some form, comfort and support to Milosevic realize this, the sooner we can move toward the establishment of peace in the Balkans. It is in no power's interest that there should be lasting war, political instability, and economic depression in the Balkans. Whatever advantage may be gained in the short term by diverting time, money, forces, and energy to coping with the results of Milosevic's unbridled political ambition can vanish quickly. If he should miscalculate or if any number of unpredictable events should take place, this conflict could spill across international borders with incalculable consequences. In conclusion, while expressions of our outrage cannot reopen newspapers or turn on radio or television transmitters, we can give hope and courage to those who believe in basic human rights. Freedom of speech, assembly, and the press are essential to the creation and function of civil society. Serbia and Montenegro have promised in the Helsinki Accords and elsewhere to respect and protect these rights, and Milosevic's regime is in clear and blatant violation of these commitments. I expect the United States and our allies to make clear to Milosevic that we know what he has done and is doing and will hold him responsible for these actions. I ask that an article entitled ``Milosevic Told He Hasn't Met NATO Demands'' be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Associated Press, October 21, 1998] Milosevic Told He Hasn't Met NATO Demands (By Tom Cohen) Pristina, Yugoslavia, Oct. 20.--NATO's military chief warned Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic today he still has not met terms of an agreement to avert airstrikes. U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark delivered the message to Milosevic in the capital Belgrade as a new surge of violence raised fears about the Oct. 12 agreement with U.S. envoy Richard C. Holbrooke aimed at ending the ethnic conflict in Kosovo province. Their meeting began around 6 p.m. today and ended late in the evening. Earlier, State Department spokesman James P. Rubin told reporters in Washington that Clark would talk to the Yugoslav leader ``about his failure to comply fully with the requirements of the international community. And he will be making very clear that NATO will use military force against the Serbs if he [Milosevic] doesn't comply,'' Rubin said. U.S. and NATO officials have complained that Milosevic still has not withdrawn all the special police units sent to Kosovo in February when he launched his crackdown against ethnic Albanian separatists of the Kosovo Liberation Army. The guerrillas have been fighting for independence for Kosovo, a province of Yugoslavia's main republic of Serbia. Ethnic Albanians comprise 90 percent of Kosovo's 2 million inhabitants. Under an agreement with Holbrooke, Milosevic pledged to meet a series of U.N. demands--including a withdrawal of special police and army units, halting the crackdown, allowing international agencies to aid refugees and resuming talks with ethnic Albanians on the future of the province. Meanwhile, recent violence has prompted Yugoslav army troops backed by Serbian police to maintain a presence. The official Yugoslav news agency Tanjug said today a Serbian policeman was wounded when ``terrorists'' attacked a police patrol near Klina, 30 miles southwest of Pristina, the capital. U.S. officials have also warned the Kosovo Liberation Army to halt such attacks. In Pristina, the rebels issued a statement detailing a series of demands, chief among them the withdrawal of all government forces from the province. In a statement to Albanian-language media, rebels also demanded a halt to arrests of suspected guerrillas, release of ``political prisoners'' and investigations of ``crimes against humanity.'' ``Failure to fulfill those demands will impose on [the Kosovo Liberation Army] the continuation of the war for freedom, independence and democracy,'' the rebels said. Meanwhile, the Serbian parliament adopted a new information law today that critics say further restricts independent media and leads the country back toward dictatorship. The law bans broadcasts of Serbian-language programs by foreign media and calls for huge fines against media editors and owners who disobey the decree. It also gives broad powers to the authorities and places further restrictions on working permits for media organizations.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President I rise today to applaud this body for passing perhaps one of the most critical pieces of legislation this Congress. Today, before the Senate, in the omnibus appropriations bill, is the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1998, or more appropriately, Janet's Law. Mr. President, I first began the fight to pass this critical legislation on January 30, 1997 when I introduced this legislation along with Senator Diane Feinstein, Senator Olympia Snowe, Senators Hollings, Moynihan, Domenici, Faircloth, Moseley-Braun, Biden, Inouye, Murkowski, Dodd, Kerrey, Hatch, Gregg, Smith, and Ford. We faced an uphill fight, but we were persistent. We never gave up. We couldn't--Mr. President, there was too much at stake. We took on this fight for the women of America--our mothers and daughters, sisters and wives, grandmothers and friends. We took on this fight because it was critical to the health of every woman in America. Today, there are 2.6 million women living with breast cancer. In 1998 alone, more than 184,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and, tragically, 44,000 women will die of this dreaded disease. Breast cancer is still the most common form of cancer in women; every 3 minutes another woman is diagnosed and every 11 minutes another woman dies of breast cancer. I want to tell you, Mr. President, about one of those women, because the battle against breast cancer is not about statistics--it's about real women who are in the fight of their lives. Janet Franquet, a young woman, just 31 years old, from my home state of New York was recently denied reconstructive surgery following a mastectomy. Janet Franquet was diagnosed with an extremely aggressive form of breast cancer on December 11, 1997. Mrs. Franquet required a mastectomy and a very intricate, involved reconstruction of the breast following her mastectomy. The wound site required her surgeon to perform a very extensive procedure, medically necessary due to the considerable wound site after the removal of her breast. Mrs. Franquet's insurance provider, the National Organization of Industrial Trade Unions (NOITU) Insurance Trust Fund refused to cover the reconstruction of Mrs. Franquet's breast. Imagine the shock and horror of being told by your HMO that surgery following the removal of your breast is cosmetic. That is outrageous. In fact, when the surgeon performing the reconstruction asked about coverage, the Medical Director of the insurance company told Mrs. Franquet's doctor that breast reconstruction was considered cosmetic surgery, and he would have to deny coverage. So, Mr. President, I decided that I would give Mrs. Franquet's insurance company a call. When I spoke with the Medical Director for the insurance company, he told me that ``replacement of a breast is not medically necessary and not covered under the plan. This is not a bodily function and therefore can not and should not be replaced.'' Mrs. Franquet and her family, were left to pay for the procedure out of their own pocket. The procedure cost approximately $16,500. Luckily, her doctor, Dr. Todd Wider, agreed to forgo payment for this life saving surgery. But recently, the insurance fund agreed to pay for the surgery--only after a lengthy appeal before the Board of Directors with lawyers and doctors testifying as to the medical necessity of the surgery. I ask you, Mr. President, how many other Janet Franquets are out there? Will they be lucky enough to have a Dr. Wider to take care of them, or will they be forced to forgo this lifesaving surgery so that insurance companies can cut costs and save money? That is why, Mr. President, I began this fight in the Senate and made it my crusade every day, at every opportunity. The D'Amato legislation which we will enact into law today makes critically important changes in how breast cancer patients receive medical care. This important reform legislation will significantly change the way insurance companies provide coverage for women diagnosed with breast cancer. This new law will ensure that breast cancer patients will have access to reconstructive surgery following mastectomies. Too many women have been denied reconstructive surgery following mastectomies because insurers have deemed the procedure cosmetic and not medically necessary. It is absolutely unacceptable and wrong that many insurers have decided that this essential surgery is ``cosmetic.'' I know that there are going to be those who say let the marketplace work, let free competition work. Well, that is simply naive. To say that by insisting on a minimum standard, insisting on basic commonsense minimums we are interfering with the free market system is preposterous. For the government to not live up to its most basic duty of protecting its citizenry, that is what is wrong. There exists a very basic relationship between a doctor and a patient that no Member of Congress and no insurance bean counter can ever understand. That bond is so basic and so sacred that it is only the physician who is treating their patient who can truly understand it. It is only that physician who can truly determine the best course of action for their patient and knows how to save their life. Congress has a duty to protect that bond and ensure that the physician is able to practice medicine. This legislation is crucial not only for the women of New York, where breast cancer ranks among the top in the Nation, but for the entire country as well. Our families have been ravaged by this horrible disease. Our grandmothers, mothers and daughters, sisters and wives, children and friends have been afflicted at rates that are unexplained and far too high. We must continue to work together, on a bipartisan basis, to find a cure for breast cancer. But until a cure is found, we must ensure that women receive the treatment they deserve. This legislation protects women and the families and friends of women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be recognized as Janet's Law, after Janet Franquet, the woman who was the inspiration for this bill and who in fact serves as a heroine to many women who were denied reconstructive surgery prior to her. Thanks largely to Mrs. Franquet's efforts and determination in this issue, no woman will ever be denied reconstructive surgery again. Janet's case has served as an inspiration for me to keep fighting in the war against breast cancer and should be an inspiration to every Member of Congress. I thank all my colleagues for helping me pass this critical legislation, and I thank the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, chairman Stevens and the majority leader, Senator Lott for their hard work in ensuring the protection of American women who have been afflicted with breast cancer. The Need to Track Former TANF Recipients

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am pleased that this Omnibus Appropriations Bill will include a delay of the implementation of Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The 1996 immigration law mandated the implementation of an exit-entry system at all U.S. borders by September 30, 1998. If implemented, the impact of this provision would be devastating, causing insufferable delays at the U.S.-Canadian border, particularly in my own state of New York. Trade, tourism and international relations would all suffer. Last year, I joined with Senator Spencer Abraham and other colleagues to introduce the Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1997 (S. 1360) which would maintain current cross-border traffic along the northern border and I testified at a Senate Subcommittee hearing on the repercussions of implementing Section 110 on New York. On April 23, 1998, the Senate Judiciary Committee considered and marked up the bill. The bill approved by the Committee allows land border and seaports to be exempt from the new system. The full Senate passed S. 1360 in July 1998 and also voted in support of a full repeal of Section 110. However, as the date of implementation grew closer, Congress enacted a two and a half year delay, which is included in the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 1999. While we have some ``breathing room'', rest assured that I will continue to press for a full repeal of Section 110. I thank my colleagues for working with Senator Abraham and I on this important provision.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I strongly supported Senate passage of the conference report on S. 1260, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998. This bill extends the efforts which we undertook in 1995 to curb abusive securities class action litigation when we passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). This bill makes the standard we adopted in the Reform Act the national standard for securities fraud lawsuits. In particular, the Reform Act adopted a heightened pleading requirement. That heightened uniform pleading standard is the standard applied by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. At the time we adopted the Reform Act, the Second Circuit pleading standard was the highest standard in the country. Neither the Managers of Reform Act nor the Managers of this bill (and I was a Manager of both) intended to raise the pleading standard above the Second Circuit standard, as some have suggested. The Statement of Managers for this bill makes this clear when it states: ``It was the intent of Congress, as was expressly stated during the legislative debate on the PSLRA, and particularly during the debate on overriding the President's veto, that the PSLRA establish a heightened uniform federal standard based upon the pleading standard applied by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.'' This language is substantially identical to language contained in the Report on S. 1260 by the Senate Banking Committee, which I chair. The references in the Statement of Managers to the ``legislative debate on the PSLRA, and particularly . . . the debate on overriding the President's veto,'' are statements clarifying Congress's intent to adopt the Second Circuit pleading standard. The President vetoed the Reform Act because he feared that the Reform Act adopted a pleading standard higher than the Second Circuit's. We overrode that veto because, as the post-veto legislative debate makes clear, the President was wrong. The Reform Act did not adopt a standard higher than the Second Circuit standard; it adopted the Second Circuit standard. And that is the standard that we have adopted for this bill as well. The Statement of Managers also makes explicit that nothing in the Reform Act or this bill alters the liability standards in securities fraud lawsuits. Prior to adoption of the Reform Act, every Federal court of appeals in the Nation to have considered the issue--ten in number--concluded that the scienter requirement could be met by proof of recklessness. It is clear then that under the national standard we create by this bill, investors can continue to recover for losses created by reckless misconduct.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the outstanding dedication and commitment of two New Yorkers and the staff of a statewide breast cancer hotline. Lorraine Pace, a breast cancer survivor, and Dr. Wende Logan-Young, a Rochester- area physician were awarded New York's ``Innovation in Breast Cancer Early Detection and Research Awards.'' Lorraine Pace, Breast Cancer Education Specialist at the University Hospital at Stony Brook, was recognized in the ``Consumer'' category as a compassionate and effective advocate for women with breast cancer. Dr. Logan-Young is the founder and director of the Elizabeth Wende Breast Clinic in Rochester. She was recognized in the ``Professional'' category for her outstanding work with the Women's Health Partnership and her contribution to the advances in mammography screening technology. I commend and admire the service of Lorraine Pace and Dr. Wende Logan-Young in helping New York's women lead healthier, longer, and more productive lives.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, that is precisely what I am suggesting, and I appreciate the cooperation of the Senator from Alaska and his understanding on this matter.

Mr. D'AMATO. Clearly, my friend has raised a valid concern. Certainly, no member in the Senate is in favor of needlessly denying the necessary financing to a U.S. company, and allowing them to compete internationally, especially in light of the disproportionate levels of financing, and in some cases subsidization provided by many foreign governments to their domestic businesses. I share the Senator's concerns that the Bank not give any other country an unfair advantage when it comes to competing for jobs abroad. However, I am also concerned that this issue has not been addressed properly by the Senate Banking Committee, the committee of jurisdiction with regard to this issue. When ever the Bank considers financing projects abroad, there certainly should be consideration given to the effects on the environment. And additionally, the U.S. should continue to participate in negotiations with the rest of the international community which seek to establish some set of standards for all countries.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I understand that my good friend and colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has recently introduced legislation which would amend the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to assure that the United States is consistent with other G-7 countries in evaluating environmental concerns whenever the Bank undertakes project financing. I understand the Senator's concerns. However, I feel that this issue would be much better addressed with a full hearing. Adding this provision onto the Omnibus Appropriations bill without fully discussing it and analyzing its implications with a hearing, may not be prudent.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I believe we are now ready to proceed to passage of the bill providing sufficient time for the House to act. Mr. President, this is an important tool for the counternarcotics effort. Drug traffickers and dealers are destroying our families, communities and the future of our children, and we must fight them with Every weapon at our disposal. This bill will attack drug traffickers by making it harder for these criminals to profit from their illegal windfalls. Mr. President, through money laundering, drug traffickers are able to take their blood money and launder it clean. Their ill gotten gains are then filtered throughout our economy. Money laundering sustains drug traffickers and arms dealers, as well as terrorists and other criminals searching for a way to prolong their illegal enterprises. That is why I joined with Senator Grassley and Congresswoman Velazquez to develop the Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act which the House passed on October 5, 1998. The bill will provide the means for federal, state and local crime fighters to pursue and prosecute the drug traffickers and those that finance their criminal trade. This bill will allow the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General to create a national money laundering strategy and designate high risk zones. State and local officials within these zones will be encouraged to form a task force and become eligible for enforcement and technical assistance and, most importantly, anti-money laundering grants. Mr. President, let me explain why this is especially important for New York, where money launderers have benefited from the financial, trade and transportation systems in the metropolitan area. New York is the largest financial center in this country--and one of the top three international money centers in the world. Unfortunately, money launderers have used this infrastructure to pursue their own criminal activities. Assistance by state and local officers in New York has been invaluable in stopping drug traffickers from sending money back to the cartels. In 1997, in the New York area, law enforcement officials determined that organized narcotics traffickers were using the services of unscrupulous money remitters and their agents to send the proceeds of drug sales back to the drug source countries. Utilizing a temporary Geographical Targeting Order (GTO) for the New York metropolitan area, remitters and agents were required to report detailed information about the remittances of cash to Colombia of more than $750. Within a week of the GTO's issuance, the local, state and federal agencies that made up the El Dorado Task Force found that money laundering activity in that area, Jackson Heights, dropped dramatically. The number of remittances to Colombia dropped 95 percent and the dollar amount dropped 97 percent (from $67 million to $2 million). The New York GTO resulted in the seizure of millions in currency that was diverted to bulk shipments through the air and seaports and most importantly, disrupted the profit back to the drug cartels. Mr. President, this operation was a huge success--thanks to the cooperative efforts of federal, state and local law enforcement. We should build on that cooperation with this legislation. Law enforcement efforts must follow the financial schemes and cash flows of the drug traffickers. As the drug cartels change their method of laundering their proceeds, law enforcement must respond. This bill provides law enforcement and prosecutors with the resources and flexibility to do just that. This monumental effort will cripple the drug traffickers where it hurts--in their pockets--and take an important step forward in our war on drugs. I am proud to have cosponsored the Senate measure with Senator Grassley and to have worked with Representative Velazquez to enact this important tool in antidrug efforts. I urge my colleagues to support this important anticrime bill. Exhibit 1 Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC, October 8, 1998. Hon. Alfonse D'Amato, Chairman, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: During the course of this year we have been following a bill introduced by Congresswoman Velazquez, the ``Money Laundering and Related Financial Crimes Strategy Act'' (H.R. 1756). On June 16, the Treasury Department provided testimony on H.R. 1756 indicating support for the bill's overall goals and objectives. We continue to support these goals. We appreciate that Congresswoman Velazquez's bill recognizes the scope of the money laundering problem, and attempts to develop a mechanism to address these challenges. Developing an anti-money laundering strategy could prove useful in setting priorities and communicating them to Congress and the public. Moreover, money laundering enforcement is complex and resource- intensive. Enforcement of money laundering laws could benefit from proper coordination among federal, state, and local law enforcement. We also appreciate the bill's goal of providing additional resources for state and local antimoney laundering activities. Financial crime investigations are complex and require specialized expertise, as well as resource commitments to follow leads that often take time to develop. Cases themselves may span years and are information- intensive. Because of this, state and local law enforcement could benefit from additional resources and expertise to fully join the fight against money laundering. We look forward to continuing to work with you and your Committee in combating money laundering and other financial crimes. Sincerely, James E. Johnson, Under Secretary (Enforcement).

Mr. D'AMATO. Today, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 1756, the Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act of 1997. I am glad that we have been able to reach this point. The House has sent over H.R. 1756, a strong antimoney laundering tool for law enforcement, and after some negotiation, we have amended the language slightly. The House has agreed to accept the compromise and I have a letter from James E. Johnson, Under Secretary for Enforcement at the Treasury Department supporting the goals of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. The Senator is correct.

Mr. D'AMATO. The Senator from Maryland is correct. The Joint Explanatory Statement of the committee of conference begins on page H10774 of the Congressional Record for October 13, 1998 and concludes on page H10775 where the names of the House and Senate Managers appear. The material on page H10775 that follows the names of the Managers, although printed in the same typeface, is not part of the Joint Explanatory Statement. It does not represent the views of the Managers.

Mr. D'AMATO. Yes, my colleague from Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Banking Committee is correct. Due to a clerical error, the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference on S. 1260, was printed without the final page. This page contained some essential explanatory information regarding the 1995 Securities Litigation Reform Act regarding scienter standards. Unfortunately, this same clerical error occurred in the version of the report language that appeared in the House Record at H10270. The official version of the joint explanatory statement was filed in the Senate on October 9th and did contain the page that was omitted by the GPO and the Congressional Record for October 9th. In order to clarify this situation, I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the explanatory statement be reprinted in its entirety.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, about a year ago, the distinguished Senator from Florida, Senator Graham, and I introduced legislation (S. 1252) to increase the amount of low-income housing tax credits allocated to each state to reflect inflation since 1986, and to index this amount to reflect future inflation. Today, we have 64 additional cosponsors. In this time when the conventional wisdom is that everything is supposed to be so partisan in Washington, it is a very good testament about the importance of the low-income housing tax credit that S. 1252 has garnered the bipartisan support of two-thirds of the Senate. I guess we should not be surprised about this support. The housing credit has become an extraordinarily effective mechanism to encourage construction of affordable housing. Since its creation in 1986, the low-income housing tax credit has successfully expanded the supply of affordable housing and helped revitalize economically distressed areas throughout the United States. The credit has been responsible for almost 900,000 units of housing in the past decade. Nearly all new affordable housing today (98%) is constructed with the help of the credit. Without the credit, these units simply would not be available. Credits are allocated to each of the states on a formula based on population: $1.25 multiplied by the number of people in the state. Each state must adopt an allocation plan based on housing needs in that particular state. Then private developers compete for allocation of the limited amount of tax credit. This creates an environment where each state can encourage the type and location of affordable housing it needs. And the competition for limited amounts of credit means that the Federal Government gets more and better housing for each credit dollar. Effectively, the low income housing tax credit is a block grant to each state, and each state uses market competition to maximize the amount and quality of the housing. In March, 1997, after an 18 month study of the program, the General Accounting Office reported on the many achievements of the program without finding any problems in need of legislative correction. In fact, the GAO study concluded that families living in housing built with the help of the credit had incomes that were lower than that required by statute. Unfortunately, the amount of credit that can be allocated each year has not been adjusted since the program was created in 1986. If the credit had been indexed for inflation since it was first enacted, the per capita credit amount would be $1.85 this year. Although building costs rise each year, as does the affordable housing needs of the nation, the federal government's most important and successful housing program is in effect being cut annually as a result of inflation. When the cap was first established, the credit would fund 115,000 units. Now it will fund between 75,000 and 80,000 units. Despite economic prosperity in recent years, the shortage in affordable housing has become more, not less, severe. According to HUD, the number of households with crisis-level rental housing needs exceeds 5 million. I had hoped that we would have been able to see the enactment of S. 1252 this year. Twelve years of erosion in value of the credit should be enough. Unfortunately, it appears that this meritorious legislation will have to wait until next year. It is not often that we can find a proposal that is supported by a bipartisan two-thirds of the Senate, a majority of Republican governors, and a Democratic President. Given the need for additional affordable housing, the effectiveness of the credit, and its broad bipartisan support among elected officials at all levels of government, I am very hopeful that we will be able to make this legislation a priority tax item early next year when the new Congress convenes.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill for myself and for Senator Moynihan that will provide compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) to Tommy Sansone, Jr. Tommy was injured by a DPT vaccine in June 1994 and continues to suffer seizures and brain damage to this day. Tommy is the unintended and helpless victim of a drug designed to help him. He needs our help because while the Vaccine Injury Program is meant to make reparations for these injuries, it is hampered by regulations that challenges the worthiest of claims. Let me be clear, I am not advocating against our national immunization program. Vaccines are an integral part of our preventive health program, and in no way should we stop vaccinating our kids. However, in rare instances, a child will receive a shot designed to keep him safe from whooping cough or measles or other illness but react violently to the serum and end up crippled or sometimes killed. The answer is not to stop inoculating our children. We must review the program to ensure we provide our children with the greatest protection possible against the tragic diseases that older generations of Americans knew all too well, and we must review the Vaccine Injury Act. Back in 1986, Congress passed the Vaccine Injury Act to take care of vaccine injuries because the shots that we required our children to get were not as safe as they could have been. Since the program was established, more than 1100 children have been compensated. Over the first ten years, a great percentage of those with seizures or brain damage or other symptoms were recognized to be DPT-injured, and, they were summarily compensated. But, by 1995, the Institutes of Medicine (IOM) and others concluded that because the symptoms had no unique clinical profile, they were not necessarily DPT injuries. So, HHS changed the definitions of encephalopathy (inflammation of the brain), and of vaccine injury. Those new definitions had unintended consequences. Now, the program that we set up to be expeditious and fair, uses criteria that are so strict that the fund from which these claims are paid pays fewer claims than before and the fund has ballooned to over $1.2 billion. As a result, families of children like Tommy find it nearly impossible to win a claim against the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Most importantly, the program is failing its mission. Today, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is seen as a Fort Knox of government funds that not even the worthiest claim can access without a high-priced lawyer to guide it through a labyrinth of bureaucratic regulations. It is no longer the ``no-fault compensation program under which awards can be made to vaccine-injured persons quickly, easily, and with certainty and generosity,'' as we originally intended in 1986. To be clear, VICP is not a medical insurance policy. The program is not designed to take care of those who cannot get or receive care. VICP is a compensation program, where the government makes amends for a failure in the system that it established. Claims are paid from a trust fund established from surcharged that are paid on each shot a child receives. The fund serves as an insurance policy against vaccine injuries. But, following the regulatory changes made in 1995, the government is not recognizing even the most legitimate of claims. We are failing the very children we are trying to protect. Senator Jeffords, the chairman of the Senate Labor Committee and I have commissioned the GAO to study the vaccine injury program. We asked them to examine the overall operation and effectiveness of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and the National Vaccine Program. They will look at how revenues in the compensation fund are being managed and dispersed and whether vaccine injury claims are reviewed and processed in a fair and timely manner. They will look for those barriers, if any, that petitioners face in proving vaccine-related injuries. We've asked them to look into how well information about vaccine safety and injuries is collected, maintained and distributed, and to recommend changes (legislative or regulatory) to improve the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and the National Vaccine Program. We want to fix VICP for children nationwide who needlessly suffer twice at the hands of the federal government; once with an adverse reaction to a vaccine they are required to receive and a second time when they cannot hold the federal government liable for their pain and suffering. But, there is something we can do now. We need to take care of this little guy, Tommy Sansone, Jr. Over the years after his DPT shot (the combined shot for diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus), Tommy suffers severe seizures and from brain damage that has hampered his mental development. When he wakes in the morning or from a nap, either his mother or father is at his side waiting for the inevitable. Tommy's eyes tear and his face cringes in agony as his entire body is wracked with a muscle-clenching seizure. His parents hold him helplessly until the seizure subsides, sometimes for as long as five minutes. Tommy will then look into his mother's loving eyes, and say, ``No more, mommy. Make them stop.'' At the very least, Tommy's parents know that the strain of vaccine used on Tommy is now being phased out because of the rash of adverse reactions it caused. But, this does nothing for Tommy or his parents who have been in and out of countless hospitals, and consulted with doctors and experts at the Centers for Disease Control and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Their claim for compensation was dismissed in the Federal Court of Claims, but they and Tommy's doctor feel (and I agree with them) that they should have known more about the potential dangers of the DPT vaccine that Tommy received on June 1, 1994. No one told them that there was a chance that the DPT vaccine could cause such trauma. No one told them about ``hot lots,'' an unofficial team for a batch of shots that has had an abundance of adverse reactions. The lot that Tommy received is known to have had 44 such reactions from March-November 1994, including 2 deaths. These are reactions beyond the short-lived fever and rashes that accompany many vaccines. Their doctor didn't know about the availability of the ``new'' acellular strain of pertussis vaccine that is replacing the whole cell version that has been used since the 1930s. Sure, it costs a couple of dollars more, but who wouldn't choose that for their child-- given the choice? Tommy's claim would have been covered before the 1995 changes, but that is not the case any longer. He's the victim of a bad DPT vaccine, yet his case continues to be denied because the first seizure didn't occur within 72 hours of the shot. It occurred 18 days later, and he suffers to this day. Tommy also has brain damage (encephalopathy) because of the DPT shot, but it doesn't fit that new definition either. He cried and moaned at a shrill pitch from the moment of the shot until his first seizure, but that doesn't matter either. For the first six months of his life, tommy was in all ways normal, but for 4 and a half years since the DPT vaccine he and his family have suffered. As a parent and grandparent, I would do anything to protect my family from such pain and suffering. Tom Senior has done everything he knows how to help his son. Now he has turned to me because he knows I am in a position to help and I will not relent in my pursuit of relief for the Sansone family. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program should take care of Tommy, but it doesn't. This bill will enable us to ensure that it does. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill for myself and for Senator Moynihan that will provide compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) to Tommy Sansone, Jr. Tommy was injured by a DPT vaccine in June 1994 and continues to suffer seizures and brain damage to this day. Tommy is the unintended and helpless victim of a drug designed to help him. He needs our help because while the Vaccine Injury Program is meant to make reparations for these injuries, it is hampered by regulations that challenges the worthiest of claims. Let me be clear, I am not advocating against our national immunization program. Vaccines are an integral part of our preventive health program, and in no way should we stop vaccinating our kids. However, in rare instances, a child will receive a shot designed to keep him safe from whooping cough or measles or other illness but react violently to the serum and end up crippled or sometimes killed. The answer is not to stop inoculating our children. We must review the program to ensure we provide our children with the greatest protection possible against the tragic diseases that older generations of Americans knew all too well, and we must review the Vaccine Injury Act. Back in 1986, Congress passed the Vaccine Injury Act to take care of vaccine injuries because the shots that we required our children to get were not as safe as they could have been. Since the program was established, more than 1100 children have been compensated. Over the first ten years, a great percentage of those with seizures or brain damage or other symptoms were recognized to be DPT-injured, and, they were summarily compensated. But, by 1995, the Institutes of Medicine (IOM) and others concluded that because the symptoms had no unique clinical profile, they were not necessarily DPT injuries. So, HHS changed the definitions of encephalopathy (inflammation of the brain), and of vaccine injury. Those new definitions had unintended consequences. Now, the program that we set up to be expeditious and fair, uses criteria that are so strict that the fund from which these claims are paid pays fewer claims than before and the fund has ballooned to over $1.2 billion. As a result, families of children like Tommy find it nearly impossible to win a claim against the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Most importantly, the program is failing its mission. Today, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is seen as a Fort Knox of government funds that not even the worthiest claim can access without a high-priced lawyer to guide it through a labyrinth of bureaucratic regulations. It is no longer the ``no-fault compensation program under which awards can be made to vaccine-injured persons quickly, easily, and with certainty and generosity,'' as we originally intended in 1986. To be clear, VICP is not a medical insurance policy. The program is not designed to take care of those who cannot get or receive care. VICP is a compensation program, where the government makes amends for a failure in the system that it established. Claims are paid from a trust fund established from surcharged that are paid on each shot a child receives. The fund serves as an insurance policy against vaccine injuries. But, following the regulatory changes made in 1995, the government is not recognizing even the most legitimate of claims. We are failing the very children we are trying to protect. Senator Jeffords, the chairman of the Senate Labor Committee and I have commissioned the GAO to study the vaccine injury program. We asked them to examine the overall operation and effectiveness of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and the National Vaccine Program. They will look at how revenues in the compensation fund are being managed and dispersed and whether vaccine injury claims are reviewed and processed in a fair and timely manner. They will look for those barriers, if any, that petitioners face in proving vaccine-related injuries. We've asked them to look into how well information about vaccine safety and injuries is collected, maintained and distributed, and to recommend changes (legislative or regulatory) to improve the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and the National Vaccine Program. We want to fix VICP for children nationwide who needlessly suffer twice at the hands of the federal government; once with an adverse reaction to a vaccine they are required to receive and a second time when they cannot hold the federal government liable for their pain and suffering. But, there is something we can do now. We need to take care of this little guy, Tommy Sansone, Jr. Over the years after his DPT shot (the combined shot for diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus), Tommy suffers severe seizures and from brain damage that has hampered his mental development. When he wakes in the morning or from a nap, either his mother or father is at his side waiting for the inevitable. Tommy's eyes tear and his face cringes in agony as his entire body is wracked with a muscle-clenching seizure. His parents hold him helplessly until the seizure subsides, sometimes for as long as five minutes. Tommy will then look into his mother's loving eyes, and say, ``No more, mommy. Make them stop.'' At the very least, Tommy's parents know that the strain of vaccine used on Tommy is now being phased out because of the rash of adverse reactions it caused. But, this does nothing for Tommy or his parents who have been in and out of countless hospitals, and consulted with doctors and experts at the Centers for Disease Control and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Their claim for compensation was dismissed in the Federal Court of Claims, but they and Tommy's doctor feel (and I agree with them) that they should have known more about the potential dangers of the DPT vaccine that Tommy received on June 1, 1994. No one told them that there was a chance that the DPT vaccine could cause such trauma. No one told them about ``hot lots,'' an unofficial team for a batch of shots that has had an abundance of adverse reactions. The lot that Tommy received is known to have had 44 such reactions from March-November 1994, including 2 deaths. These are reactions beyond the short-lived fever and rashes that accompany many vaccines. Their doctor didn't know about the availability of the ``new'' acellular strain of pertussis vaccine that is replacing the whole cell version that has been used since the 1930s. Sure, it costs a couple of dollars more, but who wouldn't choose that for their child-- given the choice? Tommy's claim would have been covered before the 1995 changes, but that is not the case any longer. He's the victim of a bad DPT vaccine, yet his case continues to be denied because the first seizure didn't occur within 72 hours of the shot. It occurred 18 days later, and he suffers to this day. Tommy also has brain damage (encephalopathy) because of the DPT shot, but it doesn't fit that new definition either. He cried and moaned at a shrill pitch from the moment of the shot until his first seizure, but that doesn't matter either. For the first six months of his life, tommy was in all ways normal, but for 4 and a half years since the DPT vaccine he and his family have suffered. As a parent and grandparent, I would do anything to protect my family from such pain and suffering. Tom Senior has done everything he knows how to help his son. Now he has turned to me because he knows I am in a position to help and I will not relent in my pursuit of relief for the Sansone family. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program should take care of Tommy, but it doesn't. This bill will enable us to ensure that it does. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I say to the Senator from Connecticut that I would be pleased to work with him to introduce such legislation under those circumstances. I agree that investors must be allowed a means to recover losses caused by reckless misconduct. Should the courts deprive investors of this important protection, such legislation would be in order.

Mr. D'AMATO. My friend from Connecticut is correct. The federal securities laws must include a scienter requirement that adequately protects investors. I was surprised and dismayed to learn that some district court decisions had not followed the clear language of the 1995 Reform Act, which is the basis upon which the uniform national standard in today's legislation will be created.

Mr. D'AMATO. I am sympathetic to the SEC's concerns. In acting now to establish uniform national standards, it is important that we make clear our understanding of the standards created by the '95 Reform Act because those are the standards that will apply if S. 1260 is enacted into law. My clear intent in 1995, and my understanding today, is that the PSLRA did not in any way alter the scienter standard in federal securities fraud lawsuits. The '95 Reform Act requires plaintiffs, and I quote, ``to state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.'' The '95 Reform Act makes no attempt to alter or define that state of mind. In addition, it was my intent in 1995, and it is my understanding today, that the 1995 Reform Act adopted the pleading standard applied in the second circuit.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, the broadbased support that this bill enjoys is a tribute to Senators Domenici, Gramm, and Dodd, the chief cosponsors of its legislation. This bill provides a case study on how to get legislation done. They focused on solving a specific serious problem, and built a wide base of support for the bill. The problem to which I referred is a loophole that strike lawyers have found in the 1995 private securities litigation reform bill. Mr. President, the 1995 act was enacted in the last Congress in response to a wave of harassment litigation that threatened the efficiency and integrity of our national stock markets, as well as the value of stock portfolios of individual investors. This threat was particularly debilitating to so-called high-tech companies who desperately need access to our capital markets for research, development and production of cutting-edge technology. These companies not only help to create jobs and drive our economic growth, they create substantial wealth for their shareholders. As one witness before the Securities Subcommittee testified: The continuing specter of frivolous strike suits poses still another threat to investors: the inordinate costs these suits impose on corporations--and ultimately on their shareholders. Mr. President, that is a statement that bears repeating: that ultimately the cost of strike suits are borne by shareholders, including ordinary people saving for their children's education or retirement. It is these people, the ordinary investor, who foot the bill for high-price settlements of harassment litigation. Now, let me make one thing clear--we are not talking about preventing legitimate litigation. Real plaintiffs with legitimate claims deserve their day in court. But we should not condone little more than a judicially sanctioned shakedown that only benefits strike lawyers. Companies that engage in fraudulent conduct should be held fully liable for their actions; however, companies should not be forced to settle cases that have no merit just to minimize their loses. Mr. President, I want to express my gratitude to our colleagues in the House, particularly Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley and Subcommittee Chairman Oxley, for their continued cooperation and good will in a truly bicameral partnership to protect investors.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to encourage my Senate colleagues to support the conference report on S. 1260, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998. The conference report is closely modeled on the bill that the Senate passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote this spring, and that the Banking Committee reported by a vote of 14 to 4. Mr. President, I believe that the conference report will also enjoy strong bipartisan support. The conference report is the result of a lot hard work and thoughtful consideration. The House and Senate committee staffs worked closely with the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission to ensure the Commission's continued support for the legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the S.E.C. be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO. I would be happy to.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, 1998 marks the 20th anniversary of RID-Remove Intoxicated Drivers. Formed in 1978 by Doris Aiken in New York, the organization has focused its efforts on educating the public on the impact of abusive alcohol use, offering support for the victims of drunk drivers and advocating for stricter laws on DWI. RID has lobbied for the enactment of laws that will eliminate plea bargains for repeat offenders and funds for anti-DWI enforcement. With all their hard work, RID is able to claim credit for high safety ratings experienced in New York State. RID has also advocated for the lowering of the blood alcohol content from .1% to .08% as well as enhanced penalties for drunk drivers whose passengers are minors. The National Highway Traffic Safety recognized the accomplishments of RID and awarded them the 1998 Public Service Award for their effective campaign to deter drunk driving. Their efforts contributed to New York being selected as having one of the safest records against drunk driving in the Nation for the fifth year. In 1996, over 17,000 people died in drunk driving accidents, accounting for 41% of the total traffic fatalities of that year. While there was a 29% reduction from the alcohol related fatalities in 1986, it is still high--17,126 people too high. The senseless death of these individuals, the pain and anguish experienced by the family and friends and the hundreds of thousands who were injured can never truly be expressed through statistics. RID's accomplishments are for these victims and for potential victims of alcohol-related accidents. I would like to add my congratulations to the many that RID has already received--on being recognized for their achievements in curbing drunk driving and on their 20 years of public service.