Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. So I gave you a low figure of $6 billion. I am happy to yield to my colleague and friend but, again, let me simply say what is taking place is that the noblest of purposes--as a result of the culture that has developed in terms of our present welfare system, it is doing exactly what our great President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said. He said it would act as a narcotic to the spirit of those who received these benefits for a prolonged period of time, undermine their humanity. There is nothing more noble than taking care of the elderly, taking care of one's parents and grandparents and sending for them. That was why we have this legislation. I think we demonstrate how quickly that becomes undermined when we now have a system that encourages the abuse. I commend my colleagues on the Democratic side for saying, and recognizing, that this is something that has to be dealt with. Madam President, I strongly urge we get done with the business of rhetoric as it relates to talking about the need for welfare reform and enact this legislation substantially in the form that it is, do the business of the people, and particularly the business of future generations, of giving them an opportunity to really live the American dream, to feel free, to feel that spirit of independence that is a right of every one of our citizens. I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO. I do not know about the----

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing a bill that will combat a plague on our citizens and communities: methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is an addictive synthetic drug, used by an increasing number of students and young professionals. Methamphetamine abuse is now the fourth cause of emergency room visits in this country. Clearly, an epidemic has arisen in the United States. In the early 1990's, emergency room episodes caused by methamphetamine use rose 350 percent, while deaths nearly tripled, according to the DEA. While methamphetamine use has increased dramatically in the Southwest and Midwest regions of this country, officials have recognized a trend showing that the methamphetamine trade is moving eastward. The whole country is at risk. The growing methamphetamine trade demands immediate and tough action, especially against the traffickers that are selling this poison to our children. This bill is a sound response to the emerging epidemic. As methamphetamine abuse has experienced a massive growth, the purity of the drug has increased to the highest potency in 12 years. And not only has the methamphetamine itself changed in the past few years, but so has the traffickers. Mexico-based criminal organizations have mostly replaced the outlaw motorcycle gangs who had monopolized the methamphetamine production and distribution. These Mexican drug traffickers are self-sufficient in all aspects of the methamphetamine production and trade. They are able to purchase the precursor drugs internationally, produce the drug, and transport the methamphetamine across the border into the U.S. It differs from the cocaine trade in that the Mexican criminal groups can operate this trade without sharing profits with the Colombian cartels. According to a Justice report, the seizure of methamphetamine from Mexico to the U.S. rose dramatically from 6.5 kilograms in 1992 to 306 kilograms in 1993 to a whopping 653 kilograms in 1995. That is an increase of 1,000 percent in just 3 years. In response to the sudden and dramatic increase in the trafficking of methamphetamine across the southern border, this bill will impose penalties of up to 10 years for the manufacturing of precursor drugs with the intent of importing it into this country. The salient points of this bill include: One, enhanced penalties for the manufacture and possession of the equipment used to make the controlled substances; two, seizure and forfeiture of trafficking in precursor chemicals; and three, provides the Attorney General with the authority to shut down the production and sale of the precursor chemicals if the individual or company knowingly sell the precursor in order to produce methamphetamine. Most importantly, the penalties associated with trafficking methamphetamine will be raised to make it comparable with crack cocaine. A 5-year mandatory minimum will be imposed for every 5 grams trafficked and 10 years to life for a conviction involving the trafficking of 50 grams. The statistics do not reveal the effects the drug has on the addicts who use it. The effects are appalling. The methamphetamine user will experience an irritable and paranoid effect and then begin the downward spiral of a crippling depression. As with any drug addict, the family suffers tremendously through the entire occurrence. But it is not only those close to the methamphetamine user who bears the burden. An article in the magazine Police Chief last March describes the perspective of law enforcement that encounters the altered behavior of the addict. ``Simply put, when methamphetamine production and abuse become prevalent in any geographic area, the ancillary criminal behavior in that area will grow as well.'' It is clear that this epidemic must be addressed here and now. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and urge its immediate passage.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I am pleased to join as co-sponsor of the Korea Visa Waiver Pilot Program, S. 1616. This bill authorizes the United States to allow tourists from South Korea to enter the United States without a visa. This Korea visa waiver will create a new and easier system for Korean citizens that want to visit the United States. The usual delays that presently accompany a request for a U.S. visa from the U.S. Embassy in Seoul will now be avoided. The Visa Waiver Pilot Program was first established in 1986 in order to encourage growth in the tourism industry. Since its inception, citizens from certain countries are able to enjoy travel to the United States for short visits without the hassles of waiting for a visa. This legislation will extend this treatment to the Republic of Korea, in addition to the three countries in the Asia-Pacific region. The bill would allow certain travel agencies in Korea to issue temporary travel permits to tour groups, of stays no longer than 15 days. The visitor must possess a round-trip ticket and certain other requirements are imposed to insure that these visitors return home. These requirements should satisfy the critics who are fearful of the overstayers. Overseas tourism must be encouraged, for our culture and for our economy. The boost by travelers to the United States will benefit everyone. South Korean travelers will have this positive impact on the travel industry in this country. When Canada and New Zealand relaxed their visas for South Korean citizens, those nations saw a massive increase in tourism. According to 1994 estimates cited by the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea, Koreans ranked 10th out of all nations in terms of the number of visitors to the United States. This visa-free travel from South Korea will only serve this country's interest. Korea is important to the United States: Korea has been the 6th largest United States trading partner and has the 11th largest economy in the world. The Chamber of Commerce in Korea expects that demand for travel to the United States by Koreans may increase. This should be encouraged, rather than discouraged, especially when other countries are offering Korean travelers visa-free travel. I encourage my colleagues to look into the merits of this legislation and support its ultimate passage. Commander John J. Jaskot

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing a bill that will combat a plague on our citizens and communities: methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is an addictive synthetic drug, used by an increasing number of students and young professionals. Methamphetamine abuse is now the fourth cause of emergency room visits in this country. Clearly, an epidemic has arisen in the United States. In the early 1990's, emergency room episodes caused by methamphetamine use rose 350 percent, while deaths nearly tripled, according to the DEA. While methamphetamine use has increased dramatically in the Southwest and Midwest regions of this country, officials have recognized a trend showing that the methamphetamine trade is moving eastward. The whole country is at risk. The growing methamphetamine trade demands immediate and tough action, especially against the traffickers that are selling this poison to our children. This bill is a sound response to the emerging epidemic. As methamphetamine abuse has experienced a massive growth, the purity of the drug has increased to the highest potency in 12 years. And not only has the methamphetamine itself changed in the past few years, but so has the traffickers. Mexico-based criminal organizations have mostly replaced the outlaw motorcycle gangs who had monopolized the methamphetamine production and distribution. These Mexican drug traffickers are self-sufficient in all aspects of the methamphetamine production and trade. They are able to purchase the precursor drugs internationally, produce the drug, and transport the methamphetamine across the border into the U.S. It differs from the cocaine trade in that the Mexican criminal groups can operate this trade without sharing profits with the Colombian cartels. According to a Justice report, the seizure of methamphetamine from Mexico to the U.S. rose dramatically from 6.5 kilograms in 1992 to 306 kilograms in 1993 to a whopping 653 kilograms in 1995. That is an increase of 1,000 percent in just 3 years. In response to the sudden and dramatic increase in the trafficking of methamphetamine across the southern border, this bill will impose penalties of up to 10 years for the manufacturing of precursor drugs with the intent of importing it into this country. The salient points of this bill include: One, enhanced penalties for the manufacture and possession of the equipment used to make the controlled substances; two, seizure and forfeiture of trafficking in precursor chemicals; and three, provides the Attorney General with the authority to shut down the production and sale of the precursor chemicals if the individual or company knowingly sell the precursor in order to produce methamphetamine. Most importantly, the penalties associated with trafficking methamphetamine will be raised to make it comparable with crack cocaine. A 5-year mandatory minimum will be imposed for every 5 grams trafficked and 10 years to life for a conviction involving the trafficking of 50 grams. The statistics do not reveal the effects the drug has on the addicts who use it. The effects are appalling. The methamphetamine user will experience an irritable and paranoid effect and then begin the downward spiral of a crippling depression. As with any drug addict, the family suffers tremendously through the entire occurrence. But it is not only those close to the methamphetamine user who bears the burden. An article in the magazine Police Chief last March describes the perspective of law enforcement that encounters the altered behavior of the addict. ``Simply put, when methamphetamine production and abuse become prevalent in any geographic area, the ancillary criminal behavior in that area will grow as well.'' It is clear that this epidemic must be addressed here and now. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and urge its immediate passage.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am concerned with a project under the Defense Production Act which is currently caught up in the Department of Defense. On October 5, 1995, the President notified Congress that DOD intended to utilize title III of the Defense Production Act (DPA) to address industrial resource shortfalls for the production of Aluminum Metal Matrix Composites (AL MMC). Funding in the amount of $15,000,000 was to be made available for this effort. It is my understanding that staff in the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition & Technology) office are attempting to divert these funds to other title III programs. According to Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition) Gilbert F. Decker, ``the Army has valid requirements for components manufactured with Al MMC to support its armored combat vehicle fleet.'' In fact, Mr. Decker wrote to Under Secretary Kaminski asking that he continue to reserve the funding for its original purpose, adding that ``use of Al MMC material will result in both a significant weight reduction and increase in the durability of manufactured parts. It also promises a significant weight reduction and increase in the durability of manufactured parts. It also promises a significant cost savings over current materials.'' Under Secretary of Defense Kaminski approved the project as well stating that ``Aluminum Metal Matrix Composites (Al MMC) is an enabling technology that will increase combat performance and reduce life cycle costs for a variety of defense systems, e.g., missiles, where reduced weight will reduce time to kill and/or increase range.'' The funds necessary for this project are already appropriated monies and need no further authorization or appropriation to be spent. Based upon my understanding, it is the desire of the Army to proceed expeditiously on the procurement of Aluminum Metal Matrix Composites with title III funds. Unfortunately, DOD personnel on the staff level have decided to step in the way of this project, Mr. Chairman, that is unacceptable.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I offer a bill, originally sponsored in the House by my colleague from New York, Representative Slaughter. The bill will allow local district attorneys the option to federally prosecute repeat sexual offenders. Authorizing local district attorneys the opportunity to pursue Federal prosecution of habitual sexual offenders ensures that the toughest penalties will be imposed on these predators. They deserve nothing less. It is horrendous that a rapist's average sentence is only 10\1/2\ years, with even less time being served. The sentence for child sex offenders is no better. Too often, these monsters are on the street ready to prey on their next victim. In addition, repeat offenders convicted under this section of the bill will be sentenced to life for their second offense. Criminals repeatedly convicted of rape and serious sexual assaults must be taken off our streets and removed from our communities forever. I urge my colleagues to review the merits of this bill, join as cosponsors and urge its immediate passage.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I offer a bill, originally sponsored in the House by my colleague from New York, Representative Slaughter. The bill will allow local district attorneys the option to federally prosecute repeat sexual offenders. Authorizing local district attorneys the opportunity to pursue Federal prosecution of habitual sexual offenders ensures that the toughest penalties will be imposed on these predators. They deserve nothing less. It is horrendous that a rapist's average sentence is only 10\1/2\ years, with even less time being served. The sentence for child sex offenders is no better. Too often, these monsters are on the street ready to prey on their next victim. In addition, repeat offenders convicted under this section of the bill will be sentenced to life for their second offense. Criminals repeatedly convicted of rape and serious sexual assaults must be taken off our streets and removed from our communities forever. I urge my colleagues to review the merits of this bill, join as cosponsors and urge its immediate passage.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Let me assure my colleague from Nevada that it would not be my intent to have this deal just with New York. Indeed, all of those utilities that would be impaired and the ratepayers should not suffer regardless of what State they are in. Indeed, if your utilities have used tax-exempt bonds--and I imagine they have--they would find themselves in a similar position we find ourselves in.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to speak on another issue. Yesterday, the Senate gave overwhelming passage to H.R. 3448. Among other things, H.R. 3448 contained the Small Business Job Protection Act. That bill did a lot of good things for many Americans. For example, it extended the employer-provided education expenses for undergraduates and graduate students, something that had been allowed to run out. It helped provide volunteer firefighters with their service awards-- hundreds of thousands throughout this Nation. It brought about spousal IRA's for nonworking spouses, which is long overdue. Both Republicans and Democrats talked about this. And the tax provisions were provisions which were unanimously supported by the Finance Committee. Indeed, the distinguished senior Senator from New York, my colleague and ranking member of the committee, and I both supported this bill. But, Mr. President, we supported it with a caveat, as it came up for markup--before the markup. We pointed out to the committee and to the chairman and to the staff that there was a provision that would bring about very severe economic consequences to the State of New York and to the ratepayers, the utility ratepayers, because in this bill there was a provision that would require those utility companies, namely Brooklyn Union Gas, Long Island Lighting Co., and Con Edison to redeem their tax-exempt bonds within a period of 6 months. Let me tell you what that would mean, and let me tell you how much in the way of bonds that we have. We have outstanding $3.3 billion worth of tax-exempt bonds. Con Edison has $1.7 billion; LILCO, $950 million; Brooklyn Union Gas, $650 million. If these utilities were required to redeem their tax-exempt bonds with ordinary bonds, it would mean that the taxpayers and ratepayers of Long Island, Westchester, and New York City would pay an additional $65 million a year over the life of those bonds. We are talking about $1.6 billion--more than $1.6 billion. Let me say, we already pay the highest electric rates in the Nation. This would cost Long Islanders alone more than $35 million a year. That is just unconscionable. Let me say here and now, we are not going to stand still for this. This Senator is not going to agree to conferees being appointed until or unless this onerous, ridiculous, confiscatory provision is dropped from the bill. Now, we were assured that it would be dropped from the bill, it would be dealt with, that technically they would take care of it. ``Don't worry,'' in between the time of the markup and bringing this bill to the floor and passage, ``don't worry about it. It will be taken care of.'' We are not looking to disadvantage anybody. If my State and the taxpayers of my State have to pay $65 million a year more in order to save $80 million over a 10-year period of time, somebody's arithmetic does not add up, and it does not make sense. I am not going to stand by and have our ratepayers get hit with this unconscionable kind of nonsensical--nonsensical --legal gymnastics. It does not make sense. Understand, the Treasury will pick up $80 million--approximately $80 million--over a 10-year period of time, but it will wind up costing the New York ratepayers and taxpayers and those who pay their utility bills, because those costs will be passed on from the utility to the ratepayers, $65 million a year more. Over a 25-year life--and it is a minimum of 25 years--it is $1.6 billion. Let me tell you, Long Island already has the highest energy cost in the Nation. We are going to add another $30 to $35 million a year to that? We have jobs that are fleeing, industries that cannot compete, people who cannot use their air-conditioning in the summer because the rates are so high, the highest rates in the Nation. So it was not an idle threat when this Senator and my distinguished colleague, Senator Moynihan, indicated to the committee and to the chairman that this provision was not one that was acceptable. As a matter of fact, I assumed, given the promises that were made to us that it was taken care of, that it was dealt with in a way that would not create that burden, and that is what we were promised. That is not the case.

Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.

Mr. D'AMATO. That is correct.

Mr. D'AMATO. I agree with my colleague and friend, the distinguished senior Senator and ranking member of the committee. That is why I have a great deal of confidence in the Senator's suggestion that this would be a way in which we could work it out. I am sorry that we had to come to the floor. Let me say, this matter is now one that has been outstanding for approximately a week--more than a week--in which we have been attempting at the staff level to work it out. Then when we find that it has not been done, it gives me great cause for concern, because unless we can get that agreement prior to going to conference, I think we would be foolish to move to conference. So I hope we can get this agreement worked out. But, failing that, notwithstanding there are some magnificent provisions in this bill-- just take a look: giving to employers the educational expenses that my colleague and I have worked to restore, and I am very proud of the fact we worked to restore that. Our graduate students, our nurses who are required to get additional education, right now if the hospitals reimburse them, they have to pay income tax on their tuition. That is silly. We want to encourage education. The spousal IRA is a wonderful thing. We want nonworking spouses to be able to contribute to an IRA. Having said that, I do not believe that it is fair to the ratepayers of New York to be stuck with this onerous provision that does little in the way of raising revenue but creates a $1.6 billion hit on our ratepayers. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague for joining with me, and I certainly hope we can resolve this matter, because I think the legislation is good, it is important, I want to see it passed, and I certainly hope we can work this out before this matter goes to conference. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. D'AMATO. That is correct.

Mr. D'AMATO. I believe that would be the only way in which we could handle this matter.

Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, first, let me commend my colleague from Utah. I think he made a very able, very cogent presentation with respect to the merits of reimbursing someone who found himself in a situation, through no fault of his own, having to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars. I certainly think we should move with speed to deal with that.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I certainly do. The Senator is correct. That has been the intent of this Senator, and I know it to have been the intent of my colleague, the chairman of the securities Subcommittee, Mr. Gramm, as well as that of all of the sponsors of the bill and of the members of the Banking Committee. We expressly provided language in the bill to preserve State authority to collect revenues so that there would be no revenue loss at all faced by the States from the enactment of this bill. I do understand that some States have expressed a concern that in spite of the clear language of the bill, some of the provisions of their own State laws may make it difficult in some cases to collect fees. If that is indeed the case, and we have begun discussions to identify the problems precisely, then I see no obstacle to making adjustments in the legislation during our conference with the House of Representatives to ensure that no State loses any revenue authority as a result of enactment of this bill.

Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, in the spirit of how quickly we have been able to proceed to the floor consideration of S. 1815, the Securities Investment Promotion Act of 1996, I will keep my remarks brief and to the point. S. 1815 is a balanced, bipartisan bill that will benefit the market and the investors in the market--American consumers. S. 1815 will make it easier to raise capital in the securities market. It will simplify and streamline many areas of the securities laws that haven't been updated in years. S. 1815 will tighten up regulation by giving the States and the Securities and Exchange Commission distinctly separate regulatory roles. I thank my colleagues for their hard work and diligence on working to move this bill expeditiously through the Senate. I especially thank the chairman and ranking member of the Securities Subcommittee, Senators Gramm and Dodd as well as Senators Bryan and Moseley-Braun. This bill is truly a bipartisan effort. They have shown outstanding leadership and dedication to this process. Senators Gramm and Dodd, along with Senator Sarbanes, also have been indispensable to improving the bill during consideration by the Banking Committee. The year 1815 is memorable for the battle at Waterloo--but the bill S. 1815 will be memorable as the watershed in improving our capital markets. The U.S. securities market is the pre-eminent market in the world. It has the most capital and the most investors. Over 160 million Americans own stocks. Last year, the U.S. stock market had $7.98 trillion in capital--close to half the amount of capital in the entire world market. The legislation will make it easier to raise capital in the securities market. The bill will create a new category of unregistered private investment companies that will help venture capitalists fulfill their critical role of providing capital markets to fund new, start-up companies. S. 1815 will make it easier for companies that invest in small business to raise money--encouraging more capital flow to small business. S. 1815 recognizes that mutual funds have become a household commodity in the last several years, turning the mutual fund market into a national market. In fact, almost one-third of U.S. households, about 30 million households, own more than $3 trillion in mutual funds. Everyone seems to agree that it no longer makes sense for all 50 States to have a say in what goes into a mutual fund prospectus. S. 1815 will eliminate the States' role in reviewing mutual fund prospectuses, but the States will continue to play a critical role in policing fraud and illegal conduct. S. 1815 will also make sure investors and consumers are not confused about what's in a mutual fund by giving the SEC authority to set standards on mutual fund names. The legislation dusts the cobwebs off laws that now have only antique value. S. 1815 will make the securities laws reflect the reality of today's marketplace. It will simplify procedures for paying fees and making disclosures. It will give the SEC flexibility to adapt to the changing financial market by letting the SEC say the securities laws don't apply where they don't make sense. S. 1815 will tighten up regulation by giving the States and the SEC distinctly separate regulatory roles. It will divide between the SEC and the States regulation of the 22,500 registered investment advisers who are entrusted with over $10 trillion in customer funds, much of which represents savings and retirement money. As a result, investment advisers will be better regulated and consumers and investors better protected. The Securities Investment Promotion Act of 1996 is a significant piece of legislation that will ensure that the U.S. securities market remains the pre-eminent securities market in the world. It is not a controversial bill, it enjoys support on both sides of the aisle. I commend my colleagues and their staff for their excellent work in drafting this legislation, particularly the Banking Committee staff and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Levitt and his staff. The Securities Investment Promotion Act of 1996 is a significant piece of legislation that should be enacted this Congress. Madam President, once again, I thank my colleagues for their continued bipartisan support and cooperation.

Mr. D'AMATO. But, eventually through a floor amendment and conference negotiations, the SEC's budget was brought back up at least to a freeze at fiscal year 1995 levels.

Mr. D'AMATO. I would say to the Senator from South Carolina that there probably isn't another Member of the Senate who understands more the importance of the financial markets to the economy, or the economy of his State. This Senator understands the need to maintain fair and open securities markets. The SEC needs to be funded adequately so it can do its job and ensure its regulation of the market. That is simply in everyone's interest. The Senator from South Carolina's arguments make good sense. I know he has been a good friend to the SEC and the securities industry. I would have to agree that we should try to work towards a funding position that we can agree on to fund the SEC in a fairer way so that section 6(b) fees pay for the cost of regulation and not general deficit reduction. I am concerned about the general taxpayer, of course, but these fees should not be a tax on capital formation. Last year, the SEC brought in more than $750 million to fund a budget of less than $300 million. That isn't right either. The bill the Senate is being asked to approve today is deficit neutral. The important reforms proposed in this legislation should be accomplished without adding one penny to the deficit. Similarly, any final agreement reached with the other body regarding this legislation must not contribute to the Federal budget deficit. At a time when there is wide bipartisan agreement on the need to balance the budget, it is critical that this legislation not make this goal more difficult to achieve. I will do everything I can to keep this conference focused on securities regulation reforms and will continue to work with my colleagues on a long-term solution to the SEC funding problem. Let me note that unless there is bipartisan agreement among the appropriators, the administration, and the SEC, we will separate that issue from the bill and put it aside for another day. We do not intend to jettison all the good things in this bill, and the bipartisan spirit in which it was engendered, over this difficult issue. As a friend from Connecticut notes, we are serious about this bill--we intended to get it enacted into law.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and colleague, Senator Moseley-Braun, in introducing legislation that will provide a new tax incentive to encourage the private sector to clean up thousands of contaminated, abandoned sites known as ``brownfields.'' Brownfield sites are abandoned or vacant commercial and industrial properties suspected of being environmentally contaminated. Under current law, the IRS has determined that costs incurred to clean up land and ground water are deductible as business expenses, as long as the costs are incurred by the same taxpayer that contaminated the land, and that taxpayer plans to use the land after the cleanup for the same purposes used prior to the cleanup. That means that new owners who wish to use land suspected of environmental contamination for a new purpose, would be precluded from deducting the costs of cleanup in the year incurred. They would only be allowed to capitalize the costs and depreciate them over time. Therefore, it is time for us to recognize the need for aggressive economic development policies for the future economic health of communities around the country, and to recognize the inequity of current tax law. Senator Moseley-Braun and I believe that our legislation is the type of initiative the Federal Government needs to encourage development of once-abandoned, unproductive sites that will bring real economic benefits to urban distressed and rural areas across the United States. By encouraging redevelopment, jobs will be created, economic growth will continue, property values will increase, as well as local tax revenues. Mr. President, I am proud to say that in my State of New York, the city of Elmira has been selected as a fourth round finalist for the EPA's Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative Demonstration Pilot Program. The city of Elmira has primed an unsightly and unsafe urban brownfield and is now in the final stages of turning it into a revenue and jobs producing venture. The city of Elmira initiated this important project with no guarantees of public or private funding and has done this at very minimal cost to taxpayers. Can you imagine what could and would be done if the public and private sector had the encouragement to also become involved? Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join Senator Moseley-Braun and me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, we have just witnessed one of the worst terrorist incidents against the United States since the Beirut bombing in 1983. To date, we have lost 19 young Americans in this cowardly attack that has taken place in Saudi Arabia. One of those killed was a constituent from Long Island, Capt. Christopher J. Adams, of Massapequa Park. With this as a background, Mr. President, I implore my colleagues to move as expeditiously as we can in seeing to it that the Iranian-Libyan sanctions bill, which passed the Senate unanimously and passed the House of Representatives, 415-0, last week--a similar bill--be taken up, that we appoint conferees, and that we act on it now, because it sends a clear message to Iran and Libya. It provides our President with the tools necessary to see to it that sanctions are imposed. We are not saying who, nor do we know who has sponsored this particular act of terrorism. But both Iran and Libya have been the chief sponsors of state-sponsored terrorism--war--against the United States, and that is the most cowardly kind of war. I think it is important for us to move now and not to hold this legislation up, because our version might be slightly different from that in the House of Representatives. We can work out those differences. I may not get all that I want. I am for tough sanctions. I am actually for sanctions that would say, if you are going to deal with Iran and Libya and you are going to buy their oil, you are going to invest with them, then we are not going to do business with you. Other colleagues may have a difference of opinion, but we can work that out. Let us pass this bill. Let us send a bill now that says we are going to take you on, and that we are going to give our President the ability to deal with these terrorist nations and invoke strong action. Not all of our actions should be military, but we have the ability to take on the Iranians and Libyans and to punish them for their continuous support of terrorist activities. I hope we can pass this bill today. There is no reason for us not to do it. It passed in December unanimously here. I hope that we will act on this. I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I wish to warn my colleagues of continuing developments in Iran which I believe to be very dangerous to the national interests of the United States. As many are aware, I have spoken before to express my concerns about the continuing threat which I believe the leadership of Iran offers to the Middle East. Today, I would like to focus again on Iran's procurement of missiles which threaten the free passage through the Persian Gulf of oil and other goods vital to the United States. Early this year Pentagon officials acknowledged that Iran had test- fired a Chinese-built C-802 antiship cruise missile. The test firing of this missile occurred near the approaches of the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic waterway at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. The C-802 antiship cruise missile can achieve speeds up to mach 0.9 and can be fired from over 50 miles from the target ship. It is powered by a turbojet with a rocket booster and attacks the target vessel at a height of only 15 feet above the ocean. The Pentagon said that five Chinese fast-attack craft are equipped to carry the missiles, with another five of the missile patrol boats expected to be delivered to Iran soon. Additionally, 10 Kaman-class fast attack boats are now being modified by Iran to carry the C-802. In response to this development, Senators Larry Pressler, Arlen Specter, Connie Mack, and I asked President Clinton to verify that China had sold this missile to Iran in violation of the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act of 1992. I regret to say that the response of the administration was unsatisfactory. A less publicized acquisition of Iran has been the procurement of the SS-N-22 (SUNBURN) anti-ship cruise missile from a Former Soviet Union State. This missile is much more capable and dangerous than the Chinese C-802. The SUNBURN missile can travel at speeds up to mach 2.5, almost 3 times as fast as the Chinese C-802 missile. It can perform ``S'' turns during flight and carries sophisticated electronic sensors. This missile, as I will discuss in more detail, poses a significant threat to our naval vessels and the free flow of oil in the Persian Gulf. Mr. President, let me talk briefly and in very general terms about the systems which our naval vessels use to defend themselves. At the outset, I should say that the Navy has begun to improve its ship self- defense systems, as they are called, following the tragic incident in which the U.S.S. Stark was hit and badly damaged by an Iraqi-launched Exocet missile. The ship self-defense systems fall into two general categories. The first are sensors, missiles and guns which are designed to locate and shoot down the attacking missile. The idea is to hit a bullet with a bullet. I believe that there can be no disagreement that this is a difficult task. Because of the size of the Persian Gulf, ships are always relatively close to shore. When an antiship missile is fired from a land-based site as it could be in Iran, ground clutter can conceal the missile from ship or aircraft radar until it reaches open water, which reduces the reaction time of our ships and makes the interception much more difficult. With an anti-ship missile like the SUNBURN, traveling at mach 2.5, the time from its appearance over the horizon until it impacts on its target is only approximately 30 seconds. Further, sophisticated missiles which engage in corkscrew and serpentine maneuvers as they enter their final phase make them very difficult to engage. The second general category of ship self-defense systems are decoys. Navy vessels are equipped to fire chaff into the air when their sensors detect an incoming anti-ship missile. The chaff can confuse the sensors carried by the less sophisticated anti-ship missiles. This is simply an improvement of the technology used by aircraft early in World War II. A much more promising technology is the NULKA Decoy System. It is an all- weather self-protection missile that is especially designed to protect combatant amphibious ships operating in littoral waters against anti- ship missiles. This decoy draws the anti-ship missile away from its target and shows great promise against the most sophisticated threats when integrated with the ship's sensors and weapons systems. I urge the Pentagon and my colleagues on the Defense committees to take the necessary measures to expedite fielding of this system as quickly as possible. Mr. President, I now ask what purpose the Government of Iran has for its actions? Its recent procurement of nuclear technology can be explained away, however lamely, with claims of non-military applications. An apologist could argue that Iran's procurement of submarines is defensive in its nature. However, there is no argument which can explain the procurement of anti-ship missiles of the type I have described. They are clearly for offensive purposes. They can only be used to attack ships in the Persian Gulf or threaten to do so. Imagine yourself as a sailor on one of our ships that has just detected the approach of such a missile. Thirty seconds is very little time to react in a meaningful way. I need not remind my colleagues that we fought in Iraq, in large part, to continue to guarantee free passage of oil from the Persian Gulf. If Iran cannot be persuaded to abandon its current course, I am afraid we may be forced to do so again.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and colleague, Senator Moseley-Braun, in introducing legislation that will provide a new tax incentive to encourage the private sector to clean up thousands of contaminated, abandoned sites known as ``brownfields.'' Brownfield sites are abandoned or vacant commercial and industrial properties suspected of being environmentally contaminated. Under current law, the IRS has determined that costs incurred to clean up land and ground water are deductible as business expenses, as long as the costs are incurred by the same taxpayer that contaminated the land, and that taxpayer plans to use the land after the cleanup for the same purposes used prior to the cleanup. That means that new owners who wish to use land suspected of environmental contamination for a new purpose, would be precluded from deducting the costs of cleanup in the year incurred. They would only be allowed to capitalize the costs and depreciate them over time. Therefore, it is time for us to recognize the need for aggressive economic development policies for the future economic health of communities around the country, and to recognize the inequity of current tax law. Senator Moseley-Braun and I believe that our legislation is the type of initiative the Federal Government needs to encourage development of once-abandoned, unproductive sites that will bring real economic benefits to urban distressed and rural areas across the United States. By encouraging redevelopment, jobs will be created, economic growth will continue, property values will increase, as well as local tax revenues. Mr. President, I am proud to say that in my State of New York, the city of Elmira has been selected as a fourth round finalist for the EPA's Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative Demonstration Pilot Program. The city of Elmira has primed an unsightly and unsafe urban brownfield and is now in the final stages of turning it into a revenue and jobs producing venture. The city of Elmira initiated this important project with no guarantees of public or private funding and has done this at very minimal cost to taxpayers. Can you imagine what could and would be done if the public and private sector had the encouragement to also become involved? Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join Senator Moseley-Braun and me in cosponsoring this important legislation.