Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me first say that I think it is obvious over the years that the senior Senator from New Mexico has demonstrated repeatedly that he is one of the most discerning, knowledgeable, and thoughtful of all of our Members on both sides, and as the record indicates--not the rhetoric of Senator Domenici; the record--there has been no greater friend to the people of Mexico, no greater friend. As a matter of fact, I attempted to get his support on some legislation that I have proposed that would take tough action for the inaction of the Mexican authorities in a number of cases, and the Senator felt it went too far, it was too harsh, that, indeed, these are our allies, these are our friends, these are our neighbors, the Mexican people in particular. There is no one who has greater empathy for the plight of those Mexicans who are attempting to earn a living, and he has been supportive in terms of making moneys and resources available to help the Mexican economy. So I think it means that there is a point at which even the strongest of friends, the greatest of supporters must say to their friends and to their allies, ``You are not doing enough,'' and that is what Senator Domenici's amendment says. It does not act in a manner in which it could in terms of being much more punitive, but it sends a signal--and it is an important signal, and it is about time that we say it to our friends, because we are talking about friends--of one country recognizing the sovereignty of another country and recognizing our responsibility as good neighbors and being there. This Congress of the United States was there, the President was there, Republicans and Democrats were there in Mexico's time of need. I myself had great reservations, but my colleague said, no, it is important that we give to the Mexican Government and more importantly to the people an opportunity to be able to pay their debts, to meet their obligation, to work their way out. There they were. There was Senator Domenici, a supportive friend and ally. But there comes a point in time when you have to say, how is it that you can protect drug smugglers, criminals, people involved in killings, in murders, in the distribution of billions of dollars worth of cocaine and crack that is creating havoc in the streets of America? How can you as an ally protect these people? Mr. President, we have 99 warrants outstanding and 110 people identified over a period of 4 years, since 1992, and only one Mexican national has been extradited. There are some who we could go into detail about who prance around, who live openly without fear of apprehension because the police and the Mexican Government in control of the various provinces, indeed, are part and parcel of the cartel-- only one attempt to extradite, only one attempt. And when they do go through some of the process, it is rigged. No successful extradition of a Mexican national except one, when they heard of a hearing of the Banking Committee in March of this year. We say wonderful for that one. That was a child abuser. Talking about abuse of children, what is creating more havoc with our young people than the menace of drugs entrapping people? The State Department by its own report says--this is not Senator Domenici or Senator D'Amato. This is the U.S. Department of State, Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, March 1996. Senator Domenici referred to part of that--page 140: No country in the world possesses a more immediate narcotics threat to the United States than Mexico. I am not going to read the rest, because then it goes into detail and talks about the tons and tons of drugs and we cannot get one of these Mexican traffickers extradited. We have indicted them--killers, murderers. Let me give you the testimony of a border agent just this March, testimony of a brave person, because there are some people who did not want him to testify before our committee. Senator Feinstein and I had a hearing on proposals that would, yes, impact on Mexico because we do not think our friend and ally is doing nearly enough. It is really giving aid and comfort to killers, to terrorists, to people who are terrorizing our communities, to the drug lords. This is the testimony of T.V. Bonner. He is the National President of the Border Patrol Council, those people who are out there, the agents out there. Let me just read to you this little part of his testimony because this is real. This is what is going on. T.V. Bonner says: On January 19, 1996, Border Patrol Agent Jefferson Barr was shot and killed while intercepting a group of drug smugglers in Eagle Pass, Texas. One of his assailants was wounded in the exchange of gunfire. The individual fled to Mexico where he was captured. They captured him. The FBI interviewed the suspect in a hospital in Mexico, and the United States subsequently charged him with murder and sought his extradition. The Government of Mexico has refused to extradite the accused. Even though the United States has an extradition treaty with Mexico . . ., not a single Mexican national has been extradited to date, despite numerous requests. That is not totally accurate because when Senator Feinstein and I had a hearing before the Banking Committee, the same day or the day before, they announced: ``We are going to extradite someone,'' an unnamed person. They would not even tell us who it was. We said, ``Who is it?'' ``We don't know, but we are going to extradite someone.'' Now, what does it take to get the Mexican Government--and this is the Mexican Government. This individual who shot and killed a U.S. border agent was arrested and yet we have not been able to get him extradited. How outrageous. I think this amendment of the Senator is so thoughtful. I believe we have to go further. But at some point in time we have to say we are not going to continue to do business as usual. We have an obligation to provide for domestic tranquility. Our country is failing miserably, Republicans and Democrats, for years. Oh, during every campaign we get more border agents, more this, more that: Show business. After the campaign--I saw it happen in the last administration and the administration before that--after the election is over everything is forgotten, the agents do not get the support, they do not get the equipment, and it just dwindles down. It has happened with this administration. We went from 100-plus people in the White House working on international drugs and domestic drugs down to nothing. Election time comes, they see on the scope that this is an important issue, that drug use is up, so they bring in a respected leader, General McCaffrey, terrific and respected, and I do not want to demean him and his efforts, but we should not be part-time warriors, fighting for domestic tranquility in our communities, to keep our streets safe. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves for allowing the plight of Americans, to be held captive in so many communities where they are afraid to go out, to take a walk in the park, to go to church in the morning, to use mass transportation in off-peak hours because they may become a victim. And so much of it, 70 percent of it the FBI Director estimates, is powered by illegal drugs: 50 percent of the violent crime. And here our ally is giving aid and comfort to drug dealers and killers. We could go into example after example. Because I think it is so poignant, although Senator Domenici referred to it I am going to take the liberty of referring to it again, that is the article that appeared yesterday--yesterday. How prophetic. This amendment, by the way, was prepared long before this article, long before this article. How prophetic that it appeared in the Washington Post yesterday. Let me just read part of it. Listen to these words: It's a joke for the people of Mexico and for the people of the United States who think Mexico is fighting drugs. Do you know who makes that statement? The former agent in charge, Ricardo Cordero Ontiveros. He was the former head of the National Institute for Drug Combat branch in the border city of Tijuana. Do you know what he said, the former head, because, you see, he would not succumb to the payments that they offered him, he refused to turn his head another way? This article goes on to report that at one point he was told by his superiors: Why don't you keep quiet. Do you know how many people want this job? Somebody is willing to pay as much as $3 million for this job that you have--$3 million. Then he was told you could make $100,000 a month. Just keep quiet. Let me go on. He says: The only thing they are fighting for is to make them disappear from the newspapers. Brandishing official memos and tape recordings that . . . proved his points, Cordero said that [the attorney general] cut him off when he tried to present evidence. He says: Lozano told me that people would pay $3 million to have my job. . .. He was so angry I thought he would hit me. Here is what the attorney general's office says. Mr. Cordero Ontiveros is obliged to prove the seriousness of his allegations, not just to go to the news media. . .. What do you think somebody does when the attorney general tells him to keep quiet, when the record demonstrates clearly we cannot get proven killers and murderers extradited when they actually have them in custody of the Mexican Government? Our own border agents are wondering about our commitment to this war when they see our U.S. agents being shot and killed and a total failure of our Government to be able to get our friends and our allies to cooperate and have the murderers and have the drug dealers turned over. I compliment Senator Domenici for his thoughtful amendment. I think it should serve as a harbinger of things we are prepared to do with our friend and ally, unless they begin to treat us as friends; unless they begin to respect us and our rights and the rights of our citizens and our youngsters who are being victimized every day as a result of their failure to even enforce basic, fundamental law. I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I think maybe it is appropriate, when we speak about those countries that are responsible in large measure--and it is not countries, it is governments, corrupt governments, corrupt officials who give aid and comfort to drug dealers, traffickers, growers, money launderers, the whole cartel--probably no case cries out for this country taking action more than the nation of Burma on behalf of the people of Burma and on behalf of the citizens of my State and the citizens of this country. When we look at the record as it relates to drugs, in 1994, Burma was responsible for 94 percent of the opium produced worldwide. It is estimated that 60 percent of the heroin that comes into the United States originated in Burma. When we look at the record of not only the question of narcotics and the dismal record in terms of counternarcotics efforts, there is only one thing that is even worse, and that is its record with respect to human rights. It kills those who are in opposition; it slaughters them. It imprisons those who speak out against them. Their record on human rights and counternarcotics and its refusal to let the democratically elected National League for Democracy assume office should be immoral, and, more important, it is immoral, but it should be unacceptable to our Nation. We need to send a strong message. Somehow we have become so imbued with economics and what company is going to benefit and make more money that we have lost the moral fiber to stand up for our citizens. I believe this. And I do not believe it is just the case as it relates to the legislation we discussed sponsored by Senator Domenici with respect to Mexico. I don't think it is just Burma, but certainly this is a case that cries out. In 1988, the SLORC--SLORC--that stands for the State Law and Order Restoration Council. What a name; what a name. Talk about a fascist name. The State Law and Order Restoration Council, SLORC, has one of the most dismal records in human rights. They were responsible for killing more than 3,000 prodemocracy demonstrators--3,000--and thousands more have been jailed, thousands more driven from their homes, thousands more hiding. That is this SLORC group. Their record in counternarcotics is one of total complicity with the drug lords and the generals--total complicity. That is where they earn a lot of their money. But now we are supposed to be doing business with them, helping them, helping their economy, helping their people. We are supposed to totally ignore the fact that they don't help their people, that they enslave their people, that they kill their people, that they deny them free and fair elections and say, ``If we can allow projects to go there, it will foster democracy.'' That was not fostering democracy when we took on the Soviet Union for their failure to address the human rights and human needs and considerations of its people. We did not say ``Let's give them most- favored-nation status.'' We did not say, ``Oh, no, you can continue to discriminate against Jews and Catholics and Pentecostalists'' when the Soviet Union was engaged in that barbaric treatment of their citizens. We said if a country doesn't respect its citizens, how do we ever expect it to respect the rights of others, the rights of our citizens. How quickly we forget. Incredible. This country has lost the moral fiber that we don't even have the ability to stand up to those countries who are sheltering known terrorists and killers who are responsible for killing U.S. citizens. Why? The same reason: economics, greed, avarice. ``So and so is developing a big project there. It's an American corporation. If they don't do it, somebody else is going to do it.'' How often we hear that. Then, when we are able to unite the people of this country, we have to worry about our allies. We passed a bill, the Iranian-Libyan sanctions bill, that said, ``Listen, if you're going to help support their petroleum fields and they are going to continue to export terrorism''--and they have two people who we have indicted, two Libyan agents responsible for blowing a plane out of the air, Pan Am 103, we indicted them with specificity, Libyan agents, hiding in Libya. We cannot get them to turn them over here. Yet, since 1988, when that tragedy took place, we didn't even have the courage to stop the importation of Libyan oil. We said, ``We can't buy Libyan oil, can't buy it,'' and we went around and pounded our chest. Well, we didn't do through the front door what we allowed the oil man to deliver on the side or the back, because while we said U.S. companies can't do it, domestic companies, their foreign subsidiaries did. They did that with both the Iranians and Libyans. What a mockery. What a sham. How do you expect our allies to pay attention to us when we say, ``We want you to join with us''? It all comes down to the same thing, and maybe it takes a little longer to get to the point, and the point is, it is nothing more than greed, money and avarice, and, consequently, we have really allowed those states, whether they are smuggling drugs in here, whether they are bringing terrorists with bombs in here, whether they are killing our citizens in planes or in bases, to feel that they can operate with impunity, and we are not even going to take economic sanctions against them. Our allies: ``You will not allow our companies who do business with the Libyans to do business here?'' Let me tell you, if we do not have the moral fiber to stand up and protect the rights of our citizens, it is no wonder why the people are angry and frustrated with all of us-- with some of us even more--because they think it is all politics and we are not serious. In many cases, I think they are absolutely right. I really do. I think they are right. Business is important. Providing economic growth and opportunity is important. But freedom and liberty is more important. The human dignity of each and every individual and their rights to live without being terrorized, both in this country and abroad, are more important. We should not be providing succor and comfort to those who deprive millions and millions of people an opportunity to live free, an opportunity to be able to have their vote count and not just have some group, thugs by the name of SLORC, come in and take over whenever they want. We have a right to say to those countries who are involved in exporting terrorism, whether it be by way of bomb or whether it be by way of drugs, that we are not going to countenance doing business with you as usual, and we are certainly not going to give you aid and comfort, and we are certainly not going to permit you to have access to the international money markets where U.S. citizens are participating in the international banks and say you can do business as if you are a good and decent citizen, when you are not. I support the moves that we are taking and that this bill calls for in dealing with the SLORC in Burma. I just think it is symptomatic of the kinds of things that we have to do if we are really going to stand up and say that this Nation does make a difference, it does respect the rights of citizens, its citizens and others, to live in dignity and in freedom. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. Some of these go back 3 and 4 years with these extraditions?

Mr. D'AMATO. In some cases they have paid many times the value.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I rise to support the amendment sponsored by the gentlelady from Kansas which would reform the Department of Agriculture's section 515 Rural Rental Loan Program. I salute Senator Frahm for her dedication and commitment to reforming and improving this program which serves as the only source of affordable rental housing in much of our Nation's rural areas. As chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs I would like to personally commend our newest Member for her quick action in proposing bipartisan reform measures which should become law this year. I would also like to express appreciation to Senator Cochran and Senator Bumpers for their consideration of this amendment at the request of the Banking Committee. The Banking Committee will consider more comprehensive reforms to the section 515 program in the context of an overall examination of housing programs within the Rural Housing Service of the Department of Agriculture. However, Senator Frahm's amendment includes changes to section 515 which are overdue and should be made in advance of a thorough analysis of this important program. This amendment would respond to a February, 1996 evaluation report entitled ``Legislative Proposals to Strengthen the Rural Housing Services' Rural Rental Housing Program'' issued by the Department of Agriculture's Office of Inspector General. Specifically, the amendment would include the inspector general's No. 1 legislative objective--the enactment of civil and criminal penalties for participants in the program that misuse rural rental housing project assets or income. It is absolutely imperative that those in criminal violation be swiftly and severely punished. Specifically, any owner, agent or manager of section 515 or section 414 farm labor housing projects that willfully uses or authorizes the use of any part of the rents, assets, proceeds, income or other funds derived from the property for an unauthorized purpose may be fined up to $250,000 or imprisoned for up to 5 years. In addition, the amendment would make reforms to the section 515 program which include: the prohibition of transfer of ownership of a project unless the Secretary of Agriculture--Secretary--determines that such transfer would further the provision of low-income housing and be in the best interests of residents and the Federal Government; the elimination of the occupancy surcharge charged to residents to fund equity loans; and the requirement that an equity loan may not be made unless the Secretary determines that available incentives are not adequate to provide a fair return on the investment, prevent prepayment, and prevent resident displacement. Finally, the amendment would extend the section 515 program for 1 year, from its current expiration date of September 30, 1996 to September 30, 1997. A permanent extension will be considered during comprehensive reform of the program. The need for affordable housing in rural areas is severe. The 1990 census estimated that 2.7 million rural Americans live in substandard housing. The section 515 program is one of the few resources available to respond to this critical unmet housing need. Since its inception in 1962, the section 515 program has financed the development of over 450,000 affordable rental units in over 18,000 apartment projects. The program assists elderly, disabled, and low-income rural families with an average income of $7,300. I thank Senator Frahm for her recognition of the great need for this program and her steadfast commitment to ensuring that every Federal dollar appropriated serves the greatest number of rural poor. I look forward to working with her to further improve this much needed program in the future and I support immediate passage of this amendment. Thank you.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, this amendment will really strengthen the work requirements in this bill. It says very clearly if we want to change welfare as we know it, this is the way to do it, because it will require that those able-bodied recipients be required to report for a job. If there is no job in the private sector available, if they are not into job training, then community service. There are parks to be cleaned and roads to be repaired and there is work in hospitals. It was no less than Franklin Delano Roosevelt who said it best. He said if people stay on welfare for prolonged periods of time, it administers a narcotic to their spirit. This dependence on welfare undermines their humanity, makes them wards of the State. That is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He cared about people, working people. He wanted to see to it that people had help when they truly needed it, but he understood welfare could become entrapping and a narcotic. Community service is something that will give pride to people who need assistance. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and 24 other colleagues, 24 Senators, who join with me in saying we should really end welfare as we know it. That is something that President Clinton has spoken about and has been a concern of the American people, a bona fide concern. It is a concern of even welfare recipients themselves, who tell us time and time again in a unifying voice, ``Reform this system, change this system; the system entraps us; it does not give us hope; it does not give us opportunities.'' What this amendment does, it goes right to the core of one of the great problems. That is, seeing to it that able-bodied recipients who have, in some cases, become trapped in the welfare syndrome be given an opportunity for work experience, to become self-sustaining, so they can feel part of this great country, that they can experience pride in work, so that even those, Mr. President, who do not have a job, under this amendment will have the opportunity to participate and to feel they are earning their way in their community. What this amendment does, it says a State can require able-bodied recipients to take community service in lieu of a job, where there is no job, where they are not involved in a job-training program. Why should we have to wait 2 years, have a recipient on welfare for 2 years, before we say to them, ``You should report to a community service project, work at a hospital, work in the park, work helping to clean the highways''? We are talking about able-bodied recipients. Let me make clear this in no way will impinge upon that single parent who is the custodian of a child. Understand that. Indeed, there is a specific exemption which indicates that if there is a custodial parent caring for a child under the age of 11, that adult can demonstrate an inability to obtain needed child care, then they are relieved of this burden. Let me also point out that many, many middle-class Americans, working middle-class families, have single-parent moms who are working. They begin to see, by the way, ``Am I a second-class citizen? I go to work. I support one, two, three children.'' We have millions of Americans today, moms and dads, who leave the house every day, they have children. They go to work. What we are saying here is really very, very modest. We are saying, ``Look, you are on welfare. You are receiving benefits. At the end of 2 months, you take community service. You can participate.'' If there is no job available in the private sector, let that person help his or her community. Everybody gains self-respect, dignity. I am tired of hearing we want to change the welfare system as we know it and then not do much about it. Yesterday I spoke about a great American who had more empathy for poor people, immigrants, for people who needed help and opportunity and training, and who did more in establishing hope and opportunities. I speak to my parents, and my dad tells me during the Depression days, what the WPA, the Works Progress Administration, what it meant and how it gave people an opportunity for dignity. Young people had a job and could report to work and help build the highways and schools, et cetera. It was a form of community service. It really was. It gave people that self-fulfillment. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt, one of the great architects of trying to give people the ability to lift themselves out of poverty, certainly a figure that working poor people looked to for hope during the most terrible times, when he gave us an admonition and warned of the evils of entrapping people in a welfare system, his words should take on meaning. Forget about someone running for office today, a Democrat or Republican, someone in the Congress or someone who wants to get here. Look at someone who said, ``If people stay on welfare for a prolonged period of time, it administers a narcotic to their spirit.'' That is President Roosevelt. ``If people stay on welfare for a prolonged period of time,'' he said, ``it administers a narcotic to their spirit.'' He went on to say that ``this dependence on welfare''--listen to this--``this dependence on welfare undermines their humanity, makes them wards of the State, and takes away their chance at America.'' How prophetic. How prophetic, because here we are 50 years later, and what have we seen? We have seen the decline of the human spirit--the decline of it. Now we have a system where people figure out how they can beat the system, bring people here, put them on the welfare rolls, and how they feel good about beating the system. By the way, if a State does not want to do this, it can opt out. By gosh, it is about time we said, hey, after 2 months on welfare, if you are able-bodied and if you do not have a job, you are not in job training, you report for community service. If you do not want to do that, you are off the rolls. If you do not want to help yourself and be part of this process of earning one's way and contributing either to your benefit or to the benefit of a community that is helping you because you do not have a job, why, then, that community has no longer a responsibility and obligation. Indeed, we are doing something that President Roosevelt warned us about. We are entrapping those people; we are destroying their dignity, destroying the human spirit, destroying their opportunity of understanding the greatness of a free capital system where people work and are rewarded on the basis of their ability. This amendment was adopted unanimously last year. It was offered by Senator Dole. I proudly offer it on behalf of Senator Dole again, in the spirit of overcoming adversity and giving people hope and opportunity and ending that dependency that acts as a narcotic and seduces the best in people. That is what it has done for far too long. So I hope that we can pass this unanimously. Again, I say Senator Dole offered this last year. I am proud to offer it on behalf of my 24 colleagues. I daresay that this should pass unanimously this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. D'AMATO. Fifteen minutes, twenty minutes.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I yield back any remaining time on my amendment.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce the Northern Ireland Free Trade, Development and Security Act. The resurgence of sectarian unrest that we have witnessed in the last weeks in Northern Ireland has seriously jeopardized the chances of a lasting peace in that province. The current uncertainty brought about by the recent confrontation between the Catholic and Protestant communities does not augur well for the prospect of a prosperous and progressive Northern Ireland adhering to the principles of democracy, restraint and mutual respect. Throughout the six counties the ancient drums of a harsh and unbending history have been once again been replaced by the fierce and acrimonious sounds of cross community hatred. Shattering glass and car bombs have once more become part and parcel of daily life in parts of Northern Ireland. Mr. President, voices throughout Ireland continually echo the need for restraint and reconciliation. These are the voices of Northern Ireland's future. Voices which for so long have fallen on deaf ears. These voices Mr. President must be heard. It is in everyones self- interest to go forward. It is in no ones self-interest to slow down the peace process. Sadly this process may have come to a grinding halt, sadly too, the good and honest people of Northern Ireland will once again be the victims of a tyranny of violence and intransigence. The legislation that I introduce today is a marker that says that the men and women of Ulster are not alone in this period of instability and hour of need. We must verify hope, not concede to dispair. Mr. President, the Northern Ireland and Border Counties Free Trade, Development and Security Act, that I introduce today, is modeled on the Gaza/ West Bank Free Trade Act pending in this body. Both bills are based on the premise that a country or region that has a vibrant, growing and exporting economy requires underlying economic and social cohesion and cooperation. The legislation that I am introducing promises an open, liberalizing trade arrangement between Northern Ireland, the border counties of the Irish Republic and the United States. It will act as a primary inducement and incentive for indigenous Irish business to trade and flourish. This program will mean real jobs for the people of Northern Ireland, jobs that will prove to be crucial if the improvement of social and economic life in the North of Ireland is to be realized. In doing so, it will not only assist in revitalizing Northern Ireland's economy but it will help to rid Ulster of the religious and racial hatred which has plagued its people for more than 300 years. Mr. President, the paradox of Northern Ireland is that she has given so much to other cultures and lands but has been incapable of fully reaping the rewards of her own peoples skills and strengths at home. The unfortunate reality is that as in the Republic of Ireland, a large majority of the North's highly educated and skilled younger generation has been forced to emigrate due to high unemployment levels which are as high as 70 percent in some areas. These disadvantaged areas are the ones which this legislation has been especially designed to target. Joint cooperation and joint economic development between the United States, Northern Ireland, and the European Union will integrate the most distressed parts of Northern Ireland and the border counties into a dynamic economy that--while firmly rooted in the European Union-- continues to expand and cement new trading relatonships beneficial to all trading partners. Mr. President the coming days in Northern Ireland will mean that serious risks will have to be taken. The way forward is not entirerly clear. Great strains have been placed between our good friends Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. A close and harmonious relationship between these two nations is a necessary prerequisite to future progress in Northern Ireland. I would ask both of these close friends to join this effort to help forge a new and innovative way forward for their own citizens. Indeed current events call for new approaches, new modalities, and reinvigorated efforts. To the men and women of Northern Ireland and the border counties, I say that your best days are in front of you. Stand steadfastly. Both communities can work together to create a future that will outshine Northern Ireland's dark but proud past and will significantly increase the prospects for the youth of Northern Ireland who hold the key to the success of this project. Take from your past the virtues of your forefathers--industry, faith, and imagination but leave behind the quarrels of other centuries. Just like the unity of Catholic and Protestant at the Somme, I ask that those heroic deeds be emanated. This time ahead will take courage, strength, and determination on all sides. I remind you once more you are not alone. As this country stood by you at the Somme this country stands by you now. Northern Ireland's peace process must move forward and the aspirations and goodwill of the vast majority of its citizens must be accompanied by hard work and endeavour. The proposed establishment of a free trade area in these designated areas must be passed into legislation if the predicted 3,000 to 10,000 jobs are to be created. A more prosperous economy with more evenly spread and meaningful job opportunities can only serve to bridge the social and economic disparities that exist in this region. In conclusion this opportunity cannot be overlooked, after 25 years since the outbreak of the ``troubles,'' the people of Northern Ireland have suffered enough violence and depravity. Now it is time to embark on a rebuilding process that will give no chance to the terrorist but every chance to peace and reconciliation.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce the Northern Ireland Free Trade, Development and Security Act. The resurgence of sectarian unrest that we have witnessed in the last weeks in Northern Ireland has seriously jeopardized the chances of a lasting peace in that province. The current uncertainty brought about by the recent confrontation between the Catholic and Protestant communities does not augur well for the prospect of a prosperous and progressive Northern Ireland adhering to the principles of democracy, restraint and mutual respect. Throughout the six counties the ancient drums of a harsh and unbending history have been once again been replaced by the fierce and acrimonious sounds of cross community hatred. Shattering glass and car bombs have once more become part and parcel of daily life in parts of Northern Ireland. Mr. President, voices throughout Ireland continually echo the need for restraint and reconciliation. These are the voices of Northern Ireland's future. Voices which for so long have fallen on deaf ears. These voices Mr. President must be heard. It is in everyones self- interest to go forward. It is in no ones self-interest to slow down the peace process. Sadly this process may have come to a grinding halt, sadly too, the good and honest people of Northern Ireland will once again be the victims of a tyranny of violence and intransigence. The legislation that I introduce today is a marker that says that the men and women of Ulster are not alone in this period of instability and hour of need. We must verify hope, not concede to dispair. Mr. President, the Northern Ireland and Border Counties Free Trade, Development and Security Act, that I introduce today, is modeled on the Gaza/ West Bank Free Trade Act pending in this body. Both bills are based on the premise that a country or region that has a vibrant, growing and exporting economy requires underlying economic and social cohesion and cooperation. The legislation that I am introducing promises an open, liberalizing trade arrangement between Northern Ireland, the border counties of the Irish Republic and the United States. It will act as a primary inducement and incentive for indigenous Irish business to trade and flourish. This program will mean real jobs for the people of Northern Ireland, jobs that will prove to be crucial if the improvement of social and economic life in the North of Ireland is to be realized. In doing so, it will not only assist in revitalizing Northern Ireland's economy but it will help to rid Ulster of the religious and racial hatred which has plagued its people for more than 300 years. Mr. President, the paradox of Northern Ireland is that she has given so much to other cultures and lands but has been incapable of fully reaping the rewards of her own peoples skills and strengths at home. The unfortunate reality is that as in the Republic of Ireland, a large majority of the North's highly educated and skilled younger generation has been forced to emigrate due to high unemployment levels which are as high as 70 percent in some areas. These disadvantaged areas are the ones which this legislation has been especially designed to target. Joint cooperation and joint economic development between the United States, Northern Ireland, and the European Union will integrate the most distressed parts of Northern Ireland and the border counties into a dynamic economy that--while firmly rooted in the European Union-- continues to expand and cement new trading relatonships beneficial to all trading partners. Mr. President the coming days in Northern Ireland will mean that serious risks will have to be taken. The way forward is not entirerly clear. Great strains have been placed between our good friends Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. A close and harmonious relationship between these two nations is a necessary prerequisite to future progress in Northern Ireland. I would ask both of these close friends to join this effort to help forge a new and innovative way forward for their own citizens. Indeed current events call for new approaches, new modalities, and reinvigorated efforts. To the men and women of Northern Ireland and the border counties, I say that your best days are in front of you. Stand steadfastly. Both communities can work together to create a future that will outshine Northern Ireland's dark but proud past and will significantly increase the prospects for the youth of Northern Ireland who hold the key to the success of this project. Take from your past the virtues of your forefathers--industry, faith, and imagination but leave behind the quarrels of other centuries. Just like the unity of Catholic and Protestant at the Somme, I ask that those heroic deeds be emanated. This time ahead will take courage, strength, and determination on all sides. I remind you once more you are not alone. As this country stood by you at the Somme this country stands by you now. Northern Ireland's peace process must move forward and the aspirations and goodwill of the vast majority of its citizens must be accompanied by hard work and endeavour. The proposed establishment of a free trade area in these designated areas must be passed into legislation if the predicted 3,000 to 10,000 jobs are to be created. A more prosperous economy with more evenly spread and meaningful job opportunities can only serve to bridge the social and economic disparities that exist in this region. In conclusion this opportunity cannot be overlooked, after 25 years since the outbreak of the ``troubles,'' the people of Northern Ireland have suffered enough violence and depravity. Now it is time to embark on a rebuilding process that will give no chance to the terrorist but every chance to peace and reconciliation.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3161, a bill to extend permanent most-favored-nation trade status to Romania. I believe it is premature to surrender leverage over developments in Romania less than 4 months before their national elections. Adoption of this measure now will weaken our ability to extend support to democratic forces in Romania. I spoke in opposition to the Senate version of this measure, S. 1644, when the Finance Committee held a hearing on it on June 4, 1996. Before that, as Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I joined with our Chairman, the distinguished Representative Christopher H. Smith, in a letter to the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the House, urging postponement of action on this initiative until after Romania's elections. On Wednesday, the House passed H.R. 3161, after a spirited debate on the previous day. Their action, and the likely passage of this bill by this Chamber, surrenders leverage over developments in Romania which is uniquely ours. The semi-annual review process for Romania's most- favored-nation gives Congress the ability to express itself if the slow but steady progress with democratization and privatization that has been occurring in Romania should suffer a reverse after this fall's election. I do not need to recite the horrors that occurred in the former Yugoslavia, just over the border from Romania when extremists seized control of the political process. Genocide in Bosnia has not yet been redressed, and thousands of American troops are deployed there on the ground to help the Dayton Accords succeed. Romania has a substantial ethnic minority population. Approximately 9 percent of Romania's population of 23 million is ethnically Hungarian. Relations between ethnic Hungarians and Romanians have not always been easy. The current Romanian Government is a coalition government. It contained three extremist minority parties for 3 of its 4 years in office, with two leaving the government only this past December. All of the experts I have spoken with, and all knowledgeable Romanian officials believe that the next government will be a coalition government, too. I think it is very important for those who support democratic progress and privatization in Romania to keep a close eye on these national elections and the government they produce. The opposition did very well in this spring's local elections. This bodes well for their chances in the fall, but it appears that no single party has the strength or public support to form a government on its own. Even if the opposition wins, this does not resolve the question of who will be included in the coalition government. Romania has made clear that its first priority in its foreign relations is NATO integration. They view passage of this measure and receipt of unconditional MFN status as a step in this direction, a credential that they have made progress. I have no trouble saying that they have made progress. Measured since Ceaucescu's fall, the progress has been serious. Over a shorter time- frame, it sometimes appears to be one step forward and two steps back, but it is progress nonetheless. Having said that, there are also problems. I think these problems are serious enough for Congress to want to keep the leverage it has through the semi-annual MFN report and review process until after this fall's national elections. Then, once we see how the elections have turned out, who is in the coalition government, and what their policies will be, we can make a well-considered judgment on whether to terminate the review process and make their MFN trade status unconditional. Action now is premature. I know that the Romanian Assembly and Senate both passed resolutions stating that all parties agreed that MFN would not be a political issue in the fall campaign. I ask you to imagine what would happen if both our House and Senate passed a resolution stating, for instance, that NAFTA would not be a campaign issue. In a nation with a free press, passage of such a resolution would have the immediate effect of moving the issue to the top of the political agenda, and focusing hard questions on the leadership of both parties. It would not take the issue off of the agenda. I received a copy of a May 27, 1996 letter from the president of the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania, the DAHR, which states, ``In the opinion of the DAHR, the entire population of Romania has great need of Most Favored Nation status, but we believe that the best method for the American government would be to continue to link this benefit to respect for human rights and minority rights until such time as practical results are achieved in these areas.'' Mr. President, it does not sound to me as if there is unanimous support within Romania for pressing ahead with unconditional MFN. In fact, the ethnic minority most vulnerable to oppression and discrimination, and the one that has suffered serious human rights violations in the past, is the very one that asks the United States to retain the MFN review process. I received another letter from the Ad Hoc Committee for the Organization of Romanian Democracy, Inc. That letter, dated July 15, 1996, points out shortcomings in the property restitution and compensation process in Romania, and talks about developments in a human rights case. In that regard, it states, ``To further emphasize the injustices of the present Romanian regime, we wish also to inform you that we have just received a fax from Romania informing us about two newspapermen, Radu Mazare, Chief Editor and Constantin Cumpana, Chief of Section, of the Telegraph, from the city of Constanta, who have just been sentenced for slander to 7 months in prison and a fine of 25 million lei (approx. $8000).'' Their letter continues, ``In view of the above injustices, the Committee appeals to you, Senator D'Amato, to consent to urging the postponement, until after the Romanian Presidential- Parliamentary elections in September-October 1996, of debates and voting in respect to the granting of permanent MFN status to Romania.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania's letter and the Ad Hoc Commmittee's letter be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. D'AMATO. Let me continue by pointing out some other problems in Romania. Rights of national minorities to receive an education in their native languages have been restricted by the Romanian education law of July 24, 1995, and the government has not supported the opening of an independent Hungarian university. An ethnic Hungarian, Pal Cseresznyes, remains in jail on questionable charges, an imprisonment that has lasted for 6 years and during which he allegedly suffered frequent beatings. I am concerned by reports that the local elections revealed serious inaccuracies in voter lists, a problem that had been identified by international observers in previous elections and that the government has had time to repair. Those same inaccurate lists appear to be going to be used this fall. Use of those lists could call into question public trust in the results of the national election. Mr. President, I regret that this measure has moved forward with such speed. I note that it was not referred to committee. Its consideration now coincides with the visit to the United States of the Romanian Foreign Minister, Mr. Teodor Melescanu. It appears that part of the rush to judgment this effort reflects is to produce a victory on this issue for the President of Romania, Ion Iliescu. Regardless of the protestations of parliamentarians and Romanian officials to the contrary, I firmly expect that passage of this measure will immediately be touted as a great victory for Romania. I hope that it will not, in fact, be a defeat for human rights, democracy, and free enterprise in Romania. I will watch the results of this election closely, and I join with those who support this bill in hoping that their results will justify the faith passage of this measures represents. I have, however, found that hope, when dealing with entrenched Balkan issues, is seldom well rewarded. I will be watching to see who is in the resulting coalition government and what policies they adopt. While passage of this bill will end the MFN review process, inclusion of Romania in NATO will require additional steps. Without the MFN review process leverage, if the elections produce negative results, the consequences in terms of U.S. policy will have to be more severe. Exhibit 1 Ad Hoc Committee for the Organization of Romanian Democracy, Inc., Mount Vernon, NY, July 15, 1996. Hon. Alfonse D'Amato, U.S. Senate, HSOB, Washington, DC. Dear Senator D'Amato: At the request of the owners of the properties nationalized-confiscated by decrees in 1949, we are forwarding to you the English translation of the memorandum addressed to President Iliescu of Romania and submitted and registered at the office of the President. The signatory is Mrs. Alexandrina Ionescu, Strada Franceza No. 56, Bucharest 3. The gist of the memorandum, condensed in a few sentences, is as follows: By sentence of Lower Courts of Justice, Mrs. Ionescu and other owners obtained the restitution of property. They complied with all the prescribed legal requirements by paying the taxes and registering the legal deeds of property with the appropriate authority. Nevertheless, the Attorney General has started proceedings to annul the decisions of the Lower Courts. The attached memorandum, translated into English and French, has also been submitted to the United Nations and the Council of Europe. To further emphasize the injustices of the present Romanian regime, we wish to also inform you that we have just received a fax from Romania informing us about two newspaper men, Radu Mazare, Chief Editor and Constantin Cumpana, Chief of Section, of the Telegraph, from the city of Constanta, who have just been sentenced for slander to seven months in prison and a fine of 25 million lei (approx. $8000). In view of the above injustices, the Committee appeals to you, Senator D'Amato, to consent to urging the postponement, until after the Romanian presidential-Parliamentary elections in September-October 1996, of debates and voting in respect to the granting of permanent MFN status to Romania. We thank you, Senator D'Amato, for your consideration and understanding of the Romanian people who desire true democracy in their country. Very truly yours, Stefan Issarescu, M.D., Chairman. Simone M. Vrabiescu Kleckner, J.D., Co-Chairman.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. That is correct.

Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the welfare bill that is before us. Let's put it simply: Our current welfare system is broken. It is broken. We have recognized that. This Chamber passed a welfare reform bill 87 to 12. I want to raise the question, did my colleagues who overwhelmingly support this bill vote for that because it was a bill that was going to punish people or did they recognize that the system is broken and is in need of repair--87 to 12? Let me say something. The welfare system was never intended to become a way of life. It was meant as a temporary haven for rough times to assist people, and after 30 years, it has expended $5 trillion, and the welfare system still does not work. It entraps people, and the results have been a horror. The fact of the matter is that we have to do better than sloganeering. We have to do better than saying ``ending welfare as we know it'' is a priority. The President has said that. But we need action, we need real action, and the one thing we do not need to do is to empower the bureaucracy here in Washington, because some of my colleagues are advocating that we give and make the czarina of HHS, the czarina who will have absolute authority as it relates to the administration of welfare programs in our States. All of a sudden, we have adopted an attitude that somehow the Governors of our States, Democrats and Republicans, and the legislatures of our States are inhuman, that they do not have the capacity to do what is right, that they would threaten our children, threaten our seniors, threaten the elderly. Madam President, that is not correct; that is not true. But I will tell you what I do believe. I believe that most of the Governors and most of the State legislatures are saying, ``Set us free. Let us help our people help themselves. Help us help encourage a work ethic.'' The fact of the matter is, this bill is very similar to last year's bill which passed overwhelmingly. There are some myths that say we will hurt children. That happens not to be the case. I am going to touch on some of these things, but let me say something. No less than a great President known for his compassion for immigrants, for poor people, for working people, for the downtrodden than Franklin Delano Roosevelt said it best when he talked about welfare. He said: If people stay on welfare for prolonged periods of time, it administers a narcotic to their spirit, and this dependence on welfare undermines their humanity, makes them wards of the state and takes away their chance at America. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I do not believe any of us can say it better. I am not going to attempt to say it better. I refer to a great American, a great President, the man who had every bit as much compassion for those in need as anybody who warned us and gave us the admonition of watching about entrapping people and killing their spirit, the American spirit. Madam President, the current system has created a culture of dependence that has doomed an entire generation of children, and it has consigned them to poverty. Some people do not like to lose control. They are more worried about their power and their control in terms of what has taken place. They seem to be blind to that. Somehow we are going to make it worse. How can we make it worse? Look at the statistics. Look at the out-of-wedlock births that continue to rise. Look at the cycle of dependency. The current system provides a basis for, if not encouragement of, irresponsible behavior, particularly in the area of out-of-wedlock births. This is a strong bill. Is it a perfect bill? Of course not, but it is an attempt to strike a balance between giving power to the States and to local communities to set expectations for work and responsibility, limiting benefits as it relates to time and maintaining a safety net for children and hardship cases. This bill maintains that safety net. Let's take a look at the record. A great Governor in our State, Al Smith, said that sometimes people do not like to look at the record because it can prove to be embarrassing. There are facts in these records. If we look over the last 15 years, we will see an increase in welfare spending that is absolutely startling. Our expenditures have risen from $27 billion in 1980--$27 billion when I came here to the Senate--to $128 billion. Have we improved the lot of those on welfare? I do not think so. While the bill converts the AFDC Program, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program, to a block grant that we have heard so much about--``No, don't give a block grant, you're going to be giving it to the Governors.'' We are not giving it to the Governors. What we are doing is turning over responsibility to those closest to the people who have seen how badly the system has been administered, how flawed it is, how it does not give flexibility to deal with the human needs of our citizens. While it makes a block grant, it provides $4 billion in extra money, not less. Four billion dollars in extra funds will be available to help welfare clients hold a job, and it provides up to 20 percent of the caseload will be exempt from time limits, so that if there are those people with special needs who cannot hold a job, who cannot work, who are going to have to stay on welfare beyond 2 years or beyond 5 years, it does exactly that, it gives to the States flexibility. The bill addresses a small but very growing problem of immigrants' use of welfare. I, being the grandson of immigrants, understand the great culture that we have in this country due to our immigration and to our diversity of cultures, and it has contributed to the strength of America. I do not want to stop immigration to this country, but I have to tell you, we have seen lately a situation that has developed where we have 3 percent of the population, and that is what the foreign-born population is; the immigrant population over the age of 65 now constitutes over 30 percent--30 percent--of the elderly receiving SSI benefits. Something is terribly wrong, and we have found, through hearings, what is taking place. There are those people who are gaming the system. They sign up to bring elderly people in and say they are going to be responsible for them, and they put them right on welfare. That is not right. That is not what this system is about. We did not design the system to say, ``Come here and get welfare benefits, and John Q. Public, hard-working middle-class families, are going to pay for it.'' There is a question of, are we going to hurt the children? Let me tell you something. We guarantee that school lunch programs will be continued for the children of those who are born here and for immigrant children as well. We understand our responsibility. I thank the Agriculture Committee for continuing this important program. Let me touch on one other area. For years we have had a gaming of the system. We have had what you call welfare shopping where people from one jurisdiction will move in to an adjoining State so that they can get higher benefits. We have seen the statistics. I saw one county, when I offered this provision 4-years ago to stop welfare shopping, to eliminate it, to cut down on it, they had this relatively small county, and more than 600 families moved in, people moved in to Niagara County to get benefits. They were receiving welfare benefits in other States, adjoining States. Since the benefit level in New York was much higher, they found the system, and the word spread. People moved in simply to get on welfare. That is not what this is about. What does this bill do? It stops welfare shopping. It says, if you move into a jurisdiction and you were previously on welfare, you come into a system and go right to the welfare commissioner to get your increased maintenance, you will receive payments at the same level for a year that you were receiving from the adjoining State. So that is going to stop that practice. Again, President Roosevelt talked about the narcotic. It seems to me that this is what has taken place. We have really been saying over generations and generations, it is OK, it is OK; you can game the system. This bill includes $4 billion in additional child care funding that is not available now. It is not available now. That is a good bill. It makes sense. In fact, this bill has more money for child care, a larger contingency fund, greater financial incentives for States to meet the work requirements, a higher hardship exemption from the 5-year limit, and a better maintenance of effort than the bill that we passed 87-12. It is a superior bill. It has more safety for children. It provides more revenue, more flexibility for States. To what? To hurt people? No. To move them off the cycle of dependency, to move them into real work. The bill has a 5-year limit on benefits. It is necessary. It is an adequate length of time for recipients to raise their infants, straighten out their lives, and get a job and make a better life for themselves and their children. Madam President, we have to be honest with ourselves. May there be some imperfections? Of course. Are we going to say, though, if there is an imperfection that a State will duck out on their legitimate responsibility to feed the poor, to take care of the children, to take care of those who are truly in need? Are we really saying that somehow those of us here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives have a higher standard of helping those who are most in need than our local representatives, than our Democratic legislatures, than our Republican legislatures and our Democratic Governors and our Republican Governors? Is that what we are really saying? The system has been gamed. The system has grown from $27 billion to over $128 billion in the past 15 years--billions and billions more--no additional freedom, no additional opportunity for those it has entrapped. If one were to look at the statistics, it is staggering. Only 1 out of 20 who have dependent children--only 1 out of 20--go to work. Is that the legacy we are sowing? Is that what Franklin Delano Roosevelt meant when he said, again: If people stay on welfare for prolonged periods of time, it administers a narcotic to their spirit. This dependency on welfare undermines their humanity. Think about that. How prophetic. I think it has undermined their spirit, their humanity. It makes them wards of the state. Who wants to be a ward of the state? Who wants to feel like a second- or third-class citizen? Who wants to feel like they are not carrying their weight? Give our people an opportunity. Free them. Let us create the incentive to move them into work. Do not hold them in bondage. Let us not get involved in the ridiculous politics of one-upmanship. Let us give to our States and local administrators the ability to help bring about this kind of change. It is going to be tough. It is not going to be easy. It is going to be very tough. Some people may not make it. We may not be totally successful. I daresay, we will not be. But for every individual, for every citizen that we help, who gains that spirit of independence and freedom, freedom to do for themselves, economic freedom, freedom to stand up and say, ``I participate to the best of my ability,'' that is what we have to be seeking. I think it is about time that all of us, Democrats, Republicans--this bill passed overwhelmingly, 87 to 12. My colleagues on the other side supported it. Was it perfect then? No. Is it perfect now? No. But it is better than doing business as usual. The time for sloganeering has passed, Madam President. Future generations need our help. Some parents may not be happy about what we are going to be doing, but to those who are born and those who are yet to be born, we have an obligation to do what is right and to provide a way and to provide an opportunity for economic freedom. I urge that we come together and pass this bill. It is a good bill. It is not perfect. It certainly will be helping people--people--in this country and its spirit.

Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.

Mr. D'AMATO. Would my colleague know how many billions of dollars a year that is costing the taxpayers?

Mr. D'AMATO. It is banned in the underlying bill.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. D'AMATO. Improperly.

Mr. D'AMATO. If we multiplied 2.7 million times $3,000 per recipient--and that is a modest figure, because as they are more elderly the cost even goes up higher--we would find that is a shocking figure. It seems to me that approaches over $6 billion a year--$6 billion a year. That is a round number.

Mr. D'AMATO. Fifteen minutes.