Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, most of us have heard the stories of how the great wave of immigrants of generations ago entered our Nation, but few really know what happened to them after Ellis Island. At the Lower East Side Tenement Museum at 97 Orchard Street in New York City, one is able to follow the lives of the immigrants beyond the first hours on our shores. The museum tells their history, displays their courage and showcases their values in an interpretive setting that brings the visitor back to an era from which many of us came. The museum presents to many of us an awareness of our ancestral roots that we may never have known existed. Through the legislation being introduced by my friend Senator Moynihan and I, the museum will be declared a national historic site and able to affiliate itself with the National Park Service. Enactment of this legislation will bestow national recognition on the humble beginnings of millions of our ancestors. The Tenement Museum is unique in that it not only traces the quality of life inside the tenement, but presents a picture of the immigrant's outside world as well. Due to the cramped and dingy nature of the tenement, as much time as possible was spent outside. Thus, in order to fully explore their lives, it is essential to look toward their work, their houses of worship, their organizations, and their entertainment. The museum incorporates the experiences of yesteryear's immigrants and interprets them for today's generations. Besides on-site programs, the museum utilizes the surrounding neighborhood; an area which continues to this day in its role as a receiver of immigrants. Throughout our Nation we have preserved, remembered and cherished places of national significance and beauty. We have put enormous energy in maintaining homes of noted Americans and protecting vast areas of wilderness. What we do not have, though, is a monument to the socalled ``ordinary citizen.'' The Tenement Museum will fill that role. It is unlikely that many of those who lived in buildings like the one at 97 Orchard Street felt that they were special. Rather, they were probably grateful for the chance to come to America to try to make a better life for themselves and their families. Given the living and working conditions that we now take for granted, the language and cultural obstacles they had to overcome, we should be in awe of their ability to take hold of an opportunity and not only survive, but thrive. It is their contributions to society in the face of overwhelming obstacles that defined an era and established an ethic that survives to this day. It is their spirit that we admire, and that, in retrospect, makes these otherwise ordinary individuals special. The Tenement Museum is their monument, and as their descendants, it is ours as well. Congress has an opportunity to recognize the pioneer spirit of our ancestors and deliver it to future generations of Americans. The museum reminds us all of an important and often forgotten chapter in our immigrant heritage, mainly, that millions of families made their first stand in our Nation not in a log cabin or farm house or mansion, but in a city tenement. Designating the Lower East Side Tenement Museum a National Historic Site and granting it affiliated area status within the National Park Service will shed light on that chapter in our history while linking it to the chain of the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Islands and Castle Clinton in the story of our urban immigrant heritage. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Moynihan and me in cosponsoring this bill, and I urge its speedy consideration by the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, most of us have heard the stories of how the great wave of immigrants of generations ago entered our Nation, but few really know what happened to them after Ellis Island. At the Lower East Side Tenement Museum at 97 Orchard Street in New York City, one is able to follow the lives of the immigrants beyond the first hours on our shores. The museum tells their history, displays their courage and showcases their values in an interpretive setting that brings the visitor back to an era from which many of us came. The museum presents to many of us an awareness of our ancestral roots that we may never have known existed. Through the legislation being introduced by my friend Senator Moynihan and I, the museum will be declared a national historic site and able to affiliate itself with the National Park Service. Enactment of this legislation will bestow national recognition on the humble beginnings of millions of our ancestors. The Tenement Museum is unique in that it not only traces the quality of life inside the tenement, but presents a picture of the immigrant's outside world as well. Due to the cramped and dingy nature of the tenement, as much time as possible was spent outside. Thus, in order to fully explore their lives, it is essential to look toward their work, their houses of worship, their organizations, and their entertainment. The museum incorporates the experiences of yesteryear's immigrants and interprets them for today's generations. Besides on-site programs, the museum utilizes the surrounding neighborhood; an area which continues to this day in its role as a receiver of immigrants. Throughout our Nation we have preserved, remembered and cherished places of national significance and beauty. We have put enormous energy in maintaining homes of noted Americans and protecting vast areas of wilderness. What we do not have, though, is a monument to the socalled ``ordinary citizen.'' The Tenement Museum will fill that role. It is unlikely that many of those who lived in buildings like the one at 97 Orchard Street felt that they were special. Rather, they were probably grateful for the chance to come to America to try to make a better life for themselves and their families. Given the living and working conditions that we now take for granted, the language and cultural obstacles they had to overcome, we should be in awe of their ability to take hold of an opportunity and not only survive, but thrive. It is their contributions to society in the face of overwhelming obstacles that defined an era and established an ethic that survives to this day. It is their spirit that we admire, and that, in retrospect, makes these otherwise ordinary individuals special. The Tenement Museum is their monument, and as their descendants, it is ours as well. Congress has an opportunity to recognize the pioneer spirit of our ancestors and deliver it to future generations of Americans. The museum reminds us all of an important and often forgotten chapter in our immigrant heritage, mainly, that millions of families made their first stand in our Nation not in a log cabin or farm house or mansion, but in a city tenement. Designating the Lower East Side Tenement Museum a National Historic Site and granting it affiliated area status within the National Park Service will shed light on that chapter in our history while linking it to the chain of the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Islands and Castle Clinton in the story of our urban immigrant heritage. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Moynihan and me in cosponsoring this bill, and I urge its speedy consideration by the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. D'AMATO

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

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 20, 1996, at 10 a.m. to conduct a joint hearing with the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on title VII, American Indian Housing Assistance, of H.R. 2406, the U.S. Housing Act of 1996. The hearing will be held in room 538 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 20, 1996, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on White House access to FBI background summaries.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 20, 1996, at 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. to hold hearings.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Thursday, June 20, 1996, session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting a hearing on broadcast spectrum reform.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environmental and Public Works be granted permission to continue consideration of pending business in the President's Room, S- 216, the Capitol, Thursday, June 20, at approximately 2:30 p.m., immediately following the vote on the confirmation of the nomination of Alice Rivlin to be a member of the Federal Reserve Board.

Mr. D'AMATO

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

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

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, what has happened recently in this country is abominable and we have all heard the reports: yet another church, attended by black parishioners, was torched in the South. The recent rash of arson attacks on black churches should put this country in fear; it has to this Senator. These cases of arson are more than the destruction of a structure; it is the destruction of the congregation and the communities themselves. This is the time for this body, and for all this Nation, to lend their support to these communities and these congregations for they have suffered a tremendous loss. If we allow this to continue with impunity in America, what protection do any of us have? The reporting of over 30 church burning in 18 months indicates the need for a swift and just response. The responsible parties must be caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. These malicious burnings must end and end now.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, what has happened recently in this country is abominable and we have all heard the reports: yet another church, attended by black parishioners, was torched in the South. The recent rash of arson attacks on black churches should put this country in fear; it has to this Senator. These cases of arson are more than the destruction of a structure; it is the destruction of the congregation and the communities themselves. This is the time for this body, and for all this Nation, to lend their support to these communities and these congregations for they have suffered a tremendous loss. If we allow this to continue with impunity in America, what protection do any of us have? The reporting of over 30 church burning in 18 months indicates the need for a swift and just response. The responsible parties must be caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. These malicious burnings must end and end now.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. As one can see, the amount of gold, estimated by this report is said to be $398 million, $148 million more than the treaty amount. A possible reason for the difference can be laid upon the Swiss because they would not agree to give up more than $250 million. I would like to know what happened to the other $148 million, or more, that apparently was kept by the Swiss. I am quite sure that the other nations of Europe who had their gold looted from them by the Nazis and sent to Switzerland, not to mention the individual citizens who had gold taken from them, would like to know where that gold is today. Only the Swiss know and they aren't talking.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the role of Swiss banks and their handling of gold looted by the Nazis. On May 25, 1946, the Allies and Switzerland agreed to a treaty liquidating German property in Switzerland. In section II, paragraph 2 of the treaty, Switzerland agreed to pay the Allies $250 million in Swiss francs payable on demand, in gold in New York. This treaty was the culmination of a very difficult negotiation with the Swiss, who long refused to deal with the problem of their banks, essentially, laundering gold looted from all over Europe by the Nazis. Yet, while the Swiss agreed to pay this sum, there was clearly more gold deposited in Switzerland by the Nazis during the war. As a February 5, 1946 State Department document clearly states, the amount agreed to in this treaty was far lower than the true amount. At this time, I ask that this document be printed in the Record. The document follows: Allied Claim Against Swiss for Return of Looted Gold 1. It has been determined from available ledgers of the German Reichsbank that a total of at least 398 million dollars worth of gold was shipped to Switzerland by the German Reichsbank during the war. This figure does not include the following which, when verified and amounts definitely determined, should also be taken up with the Swiss: (a) One additional shipment known to have taken place after these books were closed and evacuated from Berlin. (b) Other shipments believed to have taken place early in the war and to have been recorded in earlier ledgers of the German Reichsbank which are not now available; (c) An amount approximately 12 million dollars worth of gold which the Germans seized when they looted the Italian gold but delivered directly to the Swiss. 2. It is perfectly possible that the entire amount of 398 million dollars (or more) worth of gold received by the Swiss from the German Reichsbank was looted gold because of the following facts: (a) The large amounts of gold known to have been looted by the Germans from the countries which they occupied in Europe before and during the course of the war. It is known that at least 579 million dollars worth of gold was looted by the Germans and made available to the German Reichsbank. This figure represents a conservative tabulation based upon the estimates of the countries from which gold was looted and upon a careful examination of the records of the Germans. (b) The relatively small amounts of legitimate gold available to them. (c) The very small proportion of the looted gold which appears to have remained in Germany at the end of the war or to have been disposed of in countries other than Switzerland. The amount of such looted gold now identified as being in Germany at the end of the war or disposed of to foreign countries other than Switzerland is only 169 million dollars. These figures have been derived for a complete inventory of the gold found in Germany at the end of the war and a thorough examination of the records of the Reichsbank, including a detailed tracing of the processing and disposition of more than half of the gold originally looted. Subtraction of the loot thus traced to German war-end stocks and to third countries (169) from the total loot (579) leaves 410 million dollars worth of loot or more than the entire amount of the known shipments to Switzerland still to be accounted for. 3. Even if one makes the assumption, which is quite unrealistic but presents the most favorable possible case for the Swiss, that the shipments which they received included all of the non-looted gold available to the Germans during the war, there still remains an absolute minimum of 185 million dollars of the gold taken by the Swiss from the German Reichsbank which must have been looted. (a) A thorough examination of the records of the German Reichsbank and intensive interrogations in Germany of high Reichsbank officials in a position to know the true facts have determined the amount of hidden reserves of gold held by the Reichsbank before and during the war in addition to the published reserves which were known to the world. (b) For the purpose at hand June 30, 1940 has been chosen as the base date in order to make the case as favorable as possible to the Swiss and eliminate any uncertainty as to legitimate acquisitions of gold by the Germans prior to their attack on the low countries. The Reichsbank's total gold holdings on that date were 232 million dollars. (c) From the holdings shown above (232 million dollars), there must be subtracted an amount of 49 million dollars worth of loot accumulated by the Reichsbank in the preceding year, which gives a total of 183 million dollars worth of non-looted gold stocks held on June 30, 1940. (d) The only significant source of legitimate gold still open to the Germans after June 1940 was Russia. German records show that the total amount of gold received from Russia between the outbreak of war with Poland and the attack on Russia was 23 million dollars. Although it is clear that much of the gold was received prior to June 30, 1940 and, therefore, is undoubtedly included in the German gold reserve figure for that date (183 million dollars), we are making the assumption most favorable to the Swiss and assuming that all 23 million was acquired after June 30, 1940 and is, therefore, to be added to the gold reserve shown on that date as additional legitimate gold. The resultant total of 206 million dollars is the maximum possible amount of non-looted gold available to the German Reichsbank at any time after June 1940. (e) Subtracting from the total known shipments to Switzerland (398) the portion of those shipments which took place prior to the end of June 1940 (7 million) leaves an amount of at least 391 million dollars worth of gold received by the Swiss thereafter, and the difference between this amount and the maximum possible amount of non-loot available to the Germans in the same period (206) is 185 million dollars. 4. On the fairest assumptions the amount of loot taken by the Swiss from Germany can be estimated at 289 million dollars. (a) It is unreal to assume, as was done above, in calculating the absolute minimum figure of looted gold received by the Swiss from Germany that every ounce of non- looted gold available to the Germans was sent to Switzerland. (b) It is more realistic to assume that the ratio of loot to total gold available to the Germans was reflected in all German gold shipments including those to Switzerland. The total amount of gold available to the Germans after June 30, 1940, as shown above, was 785 million dollars of which 579 million dollars or 74 percent was loot. Applying this percentage to the total amounts received by the Swiss it would appear likely that at least 289 million thereof was loot. allied policies for negotiations of looted gold question It is definitely known that the Swiss received at least 398 million dollars worth of gold from Germany during the course of the war. Of this amount the absolute minimum which is to be classified as loot is 185 million dollars. In arriving at this calculation every doubt has been resolved in favor of the Swiss. A more realistic approach indicates that the amount of looted gold taken by the Swiss is closer to 289 million dollars, and there is a possibility that all gold received by the Swiss from Germany was looted. With these facts in mind, the Allied Governments should insist that the Swiss hand over immediately 185 million dollars worth of gold. Any bargaining between the Allies and Switzerland should only be with respect to the difference between 185 million and 398 million. As to this, the Allies should take the position that such difference should be turned over unless the Swiss are able to prove that such gold was either included in Germany's non-looted pre-war stocks or legitimatedly acquired after the beginning of the war. It is possible that Switzerland will ask to see the data upon which the figure representing the minimum loot was based. If so, the Allied negotiators should agree to this concession upon the condition that the Swiss make available to Allied experts books, records and other documents in their possession relating to their gold stocks acquired from Germany and the disposition of such gold. However to avoid delays, such concessions should only be made after the Swiss have agreed to turn over the initial 185 million dollars worth of gold. In taking the above position the Allied negotiators should make it clear to the Swiss officials that the fact that specific looted gold is no longer in Swiss possession does not operate to defeat the Allied claim or hinder or impede the handing over of an equivalent amount of gold. The Swiss should be advised that in cases where the original looted gold has passed from Switzerland to another country and the Swiss Government has made the equivalent amount of such gold available to the three named Allied powers, those powers will, insofar as is feasible, lend their assistance to the Swiss in obtaining the return of the specific gold or an equivalent. However, such offer of assistance is not to be understood or construed as a guarantee on the part of the three governments named. In the event that the Swiss Government should indicate its preference to settle the gold question by paying over a flat sum rather than assume the burden of proof as is indicated herein above, any compromise figure between 185 and 398 million which is agreed to by all of the Allied negotiators could be accepted. It would seem that 289 million would represent a reasonable settlement. German gold movements (estimate) [From April 1938 to May 1945] Income Million Germany started the war with estimated gold reserves of (Published gold reserves were only 29.)..........................................$100 Taken over from: Austria..........................................................46.0 Czechoslovakia...................................................16.0 Danzig............................................................4.0 Poland...........................................................12.0 Holland.........................................................168.0 Belgium.........................................................223.0 Yugoslavia.......................................................25.0 Luxembourg........................................................5.0 France...........................................................53.0 Italy............................................................64.0 Hungary..........................................................32.0

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise for a final, heartfelt tribute to Senator Dole. In another unselfish act on behalf of his country, Senator Dole will leave the Senate where he has so well served the people of Kansas in order to better serve the American people as our next President. Mr. President, by any definition, Bob Dole is a great man--a man whose entire life has been dedicated to serving his country with honor, with courage, and with integrity. Bob Dole is an American hero. He fought to defend this country during times of war. And throughout his career he has fought for policies to ensure prosperity and security at home and peace around the world. Mr. President, Bob Dole has remained dedicated to the same causes and principles that led him into public service over 40 years ago. He is a man certain of his core values, and anchored to his unwavering principles of service to country, honoring individual freedom, and bettering the lives of every American. Mr. President, Bob Dole represents what's right about America: integrity, courage, compassion, and patriotism. Mr. President, it will be difficult to imagine the Senate without Bob Dole's strong presence and skillful leadership. Bob Dole's monumental legislative achievements--first as a legislator and now as leader--are the direct result of his strongly held convictions, his forceful advocacy, his skill at debate, and his respect and tolerance for other Senators' views, perspectives, and experiences. His native State of Kansas and the many noble causes he has championed over the years have benefited from his legislative skills. As his colleagues, we know--and history will record--that he has had an indelible influence on this body, our Government, our people, and our times that will be felt well into the next century. He will leave an imprint deeper and stronger than few Senators in history can rival. Mr. President, some personal comments on Senator Dole are unavoidable at this moment. How could a Midwestern-Kansas conservative from a rural and agricultural State become friends and have so much in common with an ethnic second-generation Italian from Long Island? In Bob Dole's own words: Al D'Amato and Bob Dole--at first glance it seems like an unlikely friendship. One was raised on his mother's pasta in the heart of America's largest city. And the other was raised on his mother's fried chicken on the plains of rural Kansas. But when New Yorkers sent Al to the United States Senate in 1980, it didn't take me long to discover that we had a great deal in common. Both of us call them like we see them. Both of us believe in the neighborhood values that made America great--values like hard work and personal responsibility. Both of us don't give up without a fight. And both of us have never forgotten from where we came. Mr. President, these insightful words are from Bob Dole's introduction to my book. They reveal Bob Dole's basic decency, his solid foundations, and his strong character. These are the qualities that attract people to Bob Dole and the reasons he is so admired. Mr. President, as my dear friend, colleague, and leader, Bob Dole, departs the Senate to pursue the Presidency; he leaves with my continued admiration and support. His unique and historic journey has taken an unexpected but necessary turn. With his beloved Elizabeth beside him in his quest for the Presidency, I know my friend has made the right choice. Mr. President, the Senate will miss Bob Dole and I will certainly miss my friend.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague and Securities Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Gramm, in sponsoring legislation to fully and fairly fund the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Securities and Exchange Commission Fee Reduction Act of 1996 provides a long-term solution to the SEC's current funding problems. The Securities and Exchange Commission is funded through offsetting collections to increases in its section 6(b) fees. Section 6(b) fees are paid by issuers who register their securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In the last several years, the section 6(b) fees assessed on issuers has resulted in fees collected by the agency that far exceeds the cost of regulation. Any fees raised over and above the Securities and Exchange Commission's budget are deposited into the General Treasury for deficit reduction. Last year, the SEC raised approximately $750 million in fees to pay for a budget of less than $300 million. The section 6(b) fees have become a tax on capital formation. These user fees now raise enough money to fund the SEC three times. The proposed 1997 budget continues this trend by raising the statutory fee level and expanding the fee base. The 1997 budget proposal raises $776 million in fees to fund the SEC's $307 million budget. The Securities and Exchange Commission Fee Reduction Act will stabilize the SEC's fee structure by reducing fees and increasing appropriations over a 5-year period. It will return the section 6(b) registration fees closer to the statutory level of one-fiftieth of 1 percent and it will create a more equitable fee structure by expanding current section 31 trading fees now paid only for transactions executed on securities exchanges to include transactions on the over-the-counter market. As fees are reduced over the 5-year period, direct appropriations will be used to fund the SEC. Mr. President, the bill Senator Gramm and I introduce today will create a permanent funding structure for the SEC that enables the agency to pay for itself. At one point several years ago, Congress considered making the SEC a self-funded agency. The fee structure in H.R. 2972 allows the SEC to be virtually self-funded, yet gives Congress greater control over the agency. It is critical for Congress to ensure that a stable and fair funding structure exists for the agency responsible for safeguarding our preeminent capital markets. Further, fees paid by participants in the securities markets--particularly for capital formation--should bear a rational relationship to the cost of regulation. In the words of Securities and Exchange Commission Levitt when testifying before the Commerce, State, Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee: ``In order to continue the Commission's excellent record of effective law enforcement, market oversight, and investor protection the SEC will need a long-term funding mechanism.'' Mr. President, the bill we introduce today resolves the long-debated problem of how to provide the Securities and Exchange Commission with a permanent funding structure that allows the SEC to pay for itself. I commend my colleague from Texas for his leadership on this legislation and look forward to working with him to enact the Securities and Exchange Commission Fee Reduction Act of 1996.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague and Securities Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Gramm, in sponsoring legislation to fully and fairly fund the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Securities and Exchange Commission Fee Reduction Act of 1996 provides a long-term solution to the SEC's current funding problems. The Securities and Exchange Commission is funded through offsetting collections to increases in its section 6(b) fees. Section 6(b) fees are paid by issuers who register their securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In the last several years, the section 6(b) fees assessed on issuers has resulted in fees collected by the agency that far exceeds the cost of regulation. Any fees raised over and above the Securities and Exchange Commission's budget are deposited into the General Treasury for deficit reduction. Last year, the SEC raised approximately $750 million in fees to pay for a budget of less than $300 million. The section 6(b) fees have become a tax on capital formation. These user fees now raise enough money to fund the SEC three times. The proposed 1997 budget continues this trend by raising the statutory fee level and expanding the fee base. The 1997 budget proposal raises $776 million in fees to fund the SEC's $307 million budget. The Securities and Exchange Commission Fee Reduction Act will stabilize the SEC's fee structure by reducing fees and increasing appropriations over a 5-year period. It will return the section 6(b) registration fees closer to the statutory level of one-fiftieth of 1 percent and it will create a more equitable fee structure by expanding current section 31 trading fees now paid only for transactions executed on securities exchanges to include transactions on the over-the-counter market. As fees are reduced over the 5-year period, direct appropriations will be used to fund the SEC. Mr. President, the bill Senator Gramm and I introduce today will create a permanent funding structure for the SEC that enables the agency to pay for itself. At one point several years ago, Congress considered making the SEC a self-funded agency. The fee structure in H.R. 2972 allows the SEC to be virtually self-funded, yet gives Congress greater control over the agency. It is critical for Congress to ensure that a stable and fair funding structure exists for the agency responsible for safeguarding our preeminent capital markets. Further, fees paid by participants in the securities markets--particularly for capital formation--should bear a rational relationship to the cost of regulation. In the words of Securities and Exchange Commission Levitt when testifying before the Commerce, State, Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee: ``In order to continue the Commission's excellent record of effective law enforcement, market oversight, and investor protection the SEC will need a long-term funding mechanism.'' Mr. President, the bill we introduce today resolves the long-debated problem of how to provide the Securities and Exchange Commission with a permanent funding structure that allows the SEC to pay for itself. I commend my colleague from Texas for his leadership on this legislation and look forward to working with him to enact the Securities and Exchange Commission Fee Reduction Act of 1996.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr President, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to the 100th anniversary of the birth of Imre Nagy, the Prime Minister of Hungary during the Hungarian revolt against Soviet Communist domination. Born on June 7, 1896, Nagy was executed after a secret trial for his role in leading the revolt. His contribution to the Hungarian people and to the cause of freedom did not end with his execution on June 16, 1958. Thirty-one years later, after his secretly interred remains were exhumed, on June 16, 1989, over 100,000 people took part in public funeral services. This was a significant step in the fall of the Soviet Empire, lending impetus to Hungary's internal liberalization. Over the summer of 1989, Hungary began to dismantle its part of the Iron Curtain on its western border. In September 1989, Hungary opened the border for East German refugees to travel to the Federal Republic of Germany. This action sparked the exodus of East Germans to the West, and ignited a revolution in East Germany that later spread to Czechoslovakia. It led directly to the fall of the Wall, an event most Americans never expected to see in their lifetimes, and the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union, an even more improbable event. Imre Nagy was a dedicated Communist, but he was also a patriotic Hungarian, and original thinker, a leader, and a very brave man. He fought for the Bolshevik forces during the Russian Revolution of 1917, and participated in the Bela Kun Communist regime in Hungary in March 1919. After the fall of that regime, he spent the inter-war years in the Soviet Union, studying and making propaganda broadcasts back to Hungary. After the Red Army drove Nazi forces out of Hungary at the end of World War II, Nagy returned and participated in the newly established Government, eventually becoming Prime Minister on July 4, 1953. His rise to power in Hungary coincided with the death of Josef Stalin. He attempted to liberalize the Stalinist system that had been imposed on Hungary. His program of National Communism, however, posed a grave threat to Soviet domination. He was removed from government and expelled from the Hungarian Communist Party in 1955. However, as the only communist who had the trust of the Hungarian people, he was recalled to be Prime Minister on October 24, 1956, after the Hungarian revolt had begun. He held that position until November 4, 1956, when the Soviet Red Army crushed the revolt in bloody combat. Nagy sought asylum in the Yugoslav Embassy in Budapest, where he remained until November 22, 1956. Then, apparently believing the promises of safe conduct issued by the Janos Kadar government, he left the safety of the Embassy only to be arrested by Soviet forces. He was turned over to Hungarian authorities, who tried him in secret and sentenced him to death. He refused an offer of clemency and was executed on June 16, 1958. He had made the error of taking the promises of communism at face value, when they were false and fundamentally corrupt. He paid with his life for that mistake. The selflessness, fearless valor, dedication to the cause of freedom, and love for his country Imre Nagy displayed throughout the Hungarian revolt of 1956 helped highlight the hypocrisy and reveal the basic evil nature of Soviet-style communism. It started a fire in the hearts of Hungarians that Soviet tanks and secret police were never able to extinguish. Imre Nagy gave his life for eternal ideals: freedom, liberty, human dignity, and selfless love of his people. He saw that evil, in the form of Soviet-style communism, triumphed because too many good people, including political leaders, did nothing. Imre Nagy dreamed of change for the better for all Hungarians. He acted upon his dreams, showing true leadership, courage, and determination. He paid the ultimate price for his convictions, but his sacrifice was not in vain. Hungary, along with other Eastern European nations, regained its independence in 1990, and the Soviet Union itself collapsed in 1991. His executioners killed Imre Nagy's physical body, but they could not kill his spirit. In the end, freedom triumphed, and I am confident that future generations will draw inspiration and courage from his example. For his contributions to his country and the cause of freedom, Imre Nagy deserves to be remembered, not just by all those of Hungarian descent, but by all who love freedom.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, as one can read, the Kadisch's attorney requested help for them from Congressman Rodgers, who then wrote to the State Department on their behalf. Their attorney also wrote on their behalf to the bank in question. The Kadisch's were checking on the status of their account, of which unlike other claimants, they had the account number. As we have found to be the case after the war, the Swiss bank denied them any information about the account. As of yet, we do not know what was the fate of this account. This is, however, disturbing, especially since the Kadisch's had the bank's name as well as the account number. This document only brings up more questions for the Swiss banks to answer. I hope that we will be able to obtain answers to these and other questions in the coming months. Right now, however, I am very disappointed in the lack of cooperation by the Swiss Bankers Association and their continued denial of knowledge regarding these accounts as well as the fate of plundered Jewish assets.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak again on the role of Swiss banks during the war in relation to their continued retention of Jewish assets as well as looted Jewish assets. During the course of our ongoing inquiry into these important subjects, we continue to find documents which detail the alleged use of Swiss banks by the Nazis for illicit purposes. One such declassified intelligence document, dated June 12, 1945, from the U.S. Legation in Bern, Switzerland, entitled ``Interim Report on Johann Wehrli & Co., Zurich,'' details the use of a special account set up at what was then called the Wehrli Bank in Zurich under the name of the ``Trustee Account Gustloff Stiftung.'' I want to quote the relevant section of this document to further explain this point. The payments to the Germans of the Hirtenbergerwerke ([Fritz] Mandl's munitions factory in Austria) assets, which were under Mandl's control in 1938, were effected through the Wehrli Bank to an account known as Trustee Account Gustloff Stiftung. The examiner, who has a personal knowledge concerning the background of this trust as a result of his many years residence in Germany before the war, described the Gustloff Stiftung as a ``fund'' in which were placed the assets and titles of property taken by the Nazis from Jewish businessmen in Germany and the occupied countries. Gustloff, the head of the Nazi party in Switzerland, was murdered in 1935 by one Frankfurter. In accordance with the prevailing practice at the time, Gustloff was selected by the Nazis as one of their ``martyrs'' and many statues were erected to perpetuate his name. The name of the trust, therefore, seems to have no further significance. The only record of Gustloff Stiftung on the books of Wehrli is in connection with the sale of the Hirtenbergerwerke properties. This revelation, if true, seems very disturbing, in that a Swiss bank had a specific account set up to hold plundered assets of European Jews. From other documents, we have information that leads us to believe that the Wehrli Bank was also used to transfer assets of Germans to Argentina, near the end of World War II and after. This begs the question, were assets from the Gustloff Stiftung also transferred to South America or other locations. Of particular concern is the further question of whether there were other accounts like the Gustloff Stiftung in other Swiss banks. While we cannot yet verify this, it is entirely possible that if one such account existed, others did also. On the topic of Jewish assets in Swiss banks, I would like to comment that the answers that we are receiving to questions we are asking the Swiss Bankers Association are wholly insufficient. They are evasive and they continue to deny any knowledge of impropriety. They continue to dodge questions as to where these assets might be, or if they even existed. We have very clear information that suggests that Swiss banks have continued to maintain this myth now for over one-half of a century. In this vein, I would like to submit for the record, evidence of this claim. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, at this point, three documents detailing a request for information on their account in the Swiss Bank Corporation, from July 1939, made on behalf of an Austrian Jewish couple by the names of Anny and Kurt Kadisch. One is a letter to the State Department from Congressman Robert L. Rodgers regarding this request, the second is a letter to the Swiss Bank Corporation from the Kadisch's attorney to the bank, and the third is the answer from the Swiss Bank Corporation to the Kadisch's attorney.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation--along with my colleagues Senators Dodd and Frist--to control the growing problem of dangerous herbal stimulants that are marketed and sold as alternatives to powerful and illegal street drugs. This carefully-drafted bill will make these herbal street drugs subject to pre-market safety reviews and allow the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, to take prompt and decisive action against this narrow class of products. I strongly support the right of the American people to have access to legitimate dietary supplements, and I want to clearly state that this bill will not limit that access. However, herbal street drugs are not legitimate dietary supplements. They are quite simply dangerous products masquerading as dietary supplements to evade Government review and sanctions. Mr. President, on March 7, 1996, one of these products, called Ultimate Xphoria, killed 20-year-old Peter Schlendorf of Northport, NY. Peter, a junior at the State University of New York at Albany, died from a lethal combination of herbal stimulants found in this product. A statement issued by the medical examiner's office in Panama City, FL, where Peter died, specifically states that Peter's death ``was a result of the use of Ultimate Xphoria, an herbal product containing Ma Huang.'' Ma Huang--also known as Ephedra--is a botanical source of the powerful stimulant ephedrine. The medical examiner's statement lists Peter's cause of death as the ``synergistic effect of ephedrine'' and several other herbal stimulants contained in this product. The statement further explains that these stimulants ``can have an adverse effect on the heart and central nervous system.'' Mr. President, I am committed to doing everything that I can to ensure that no more young people die from these dangerous herbal street drugs. And let me be perfectly clear: if Congress fails to act, it will just be a matter of time before these products kill more young people. This is a battle to protect our children. The slick peddlers of these herbal street drugs have specifically targeted young people. They sell their products in novelty shops, using flashy signs and posters that appeal to and attract adolescents. They give their products names like Cloud 9, Herbal Ecstacy, Ultimate Xphoria, Magic Mushrooms and E-Ludes. Using the Internet and showy brochures, they hawk their dangerous wares with promises of ``euphoric stimulation, highly increased energy levels, tingly skin sensations, increased sexual sensations, enhanced sensory processing and mood elevations.'' One product, called Herbal Ecstacy, even claims that it is ``a carefully formulated and thoroughly tested organic alternative to actual MDMA or Ecstacy''--a dangerous, illegal street drug. The marketing brochure for this product further states that it ``acts on the same basis as MDMA, triggering similar, but not identical, physical reactions in the body.'' This is just outrageous. In addition, many of these products falsely claim to be safe and tested. Some are even advertised as ``100 percent and FDA approved'' and as ``100 percent natural . . . with no side effects''. As Peter's death clearly demonstrates, however, these products can be deadly, and none are FDA-approved. How can the producers of these herbal street drugs claim that they are safe and tested when they can produce such tragic results? This is wrong and must be stopped. The manner in which these products are marketed invites misuse by unsuspecting young people. These products are advertised as alternatives to street drugs. They are intended to get young people high. And what happens when the recommended dosage doesn't achieve the desired high? Then, the claims that these products are safe, natural and thoroughly tested lure young people into taking larger dosages. Indeed, some sellers are telling people to take two, three and four times the recommended dosage to achieve the desired high. Mr. President, the legislation that I am introducing today will help to ensure that no more young people die from these dangerous products. The bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to clarify that a dietary supplement shall be considered a drug if its label or labeling claims or implies that the dietary supplement produces euphoria, heightened awareness or similar mental or psychological effects. As a result, this narrow class of dangerous products will be subject to the same premarket safety reviews as other drugs, and the FDA will have enhanced authority to take prompt and decisive action against them. Now, the FDA will be able to quickly pull these herbal street drugs, like the one that killed Peter Schlendorf, from stores before they kill again. This legislation is necessary to protect the health of the American public, particularly its youth, who are obviously the target of these dangerous herbal street drugs. Again, let me clearly state that this bill has been carefully drafted to maintain the public's continued access to legitimate dietary supplements. For example, it will not limit access to either over-the- counter drugs, such as Sudafed, or legitimate dietary supplements, such as herbal teas, that contain ephedra or its related products. I am certain that no Member of Congress envisioned that the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994--the Dietary Supplement Act--would protect dangerous products like these herbal street drugs, but these products are currently covered by the literal language of that act. Since these products are considered dietary supplements under current law, the FDA's authority to regulate them is significantly limited. For example, these products are not currently subject to premarket safety reviews. In addition, the FDA cannot regulate herbal street drugs as a class, but instead must take action against each product individually. Indeed, the FDA must prove that a particular formulation of an herbal street drug ``presents a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury'' before it can take any action against the product. This is a lengthy process that can take years. Moreover, under current law, an herbal street drug manufacturer can easily evade an FDA enforcement action simply by changing the composition of its product, while continuing to make the same labeling claims for drug-like mental and psychological effects. Each time the product formula changes, the FDA must evaluate the new formula and build its case from the beginning. The product formula thus becomes a moving target that the FDA must chase. The FDA should not have to chase herbal street drugs. Some will argue that this legislation is unnecessary and that the FDA already has the authority to take action against herbal street drugs, but the clever producers and marketers of these herbal street drugs have been careful to take advantage of the protections afforded legitimate dietary supplements under the Dietary Supplement Act. For example, under that act, a dietary supplement is not subject to regulation as a drug simply because its label or labeling bears a truthful, nonmisleading claim regarding its effect on the body. This provision significantly limits the FDA's ability to take action against the peddlers of herbal street drugs who use carefully worded labels to evade FDA review and control. Other options available to the FDA would also be ineffective against herbal street drugs. For example, the Dietary Supplement Act gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to declare that a dietary supplement poses an imminent hazard to public health or safety. Once such a declaration is made, the dietary supplement can be banned. A formal imminent hazard declaration requires lengthy formal rulemaking procedures, however, including a trial-type hearing before an administrative law judge. In addition, because what sells an herbal street drug is its claims rather than its ingredients, the imminent hazard declaration can easily be defeated by a formulation change without any label change. One can easily imagine the slick peddlers of these products switching a single ingredient--for example, from ephedra to kava-kava, another powerful herbal stimulant--just as the FDA is knocking on their door. Mr. President, the marketing of herbal street drugs as dietary supplements, rather than as drugs, does not promote any of the goals identified by Congress in the Dietary Supplement Act. That act was intended to promote the public health. Congressional findings in section 2 of the act cite the role of a healthy diet, including safe dietary supplements in disease prevention, long-term good health, and reducing health care costs. Far from promoting the public health, herbal street drugs endanger the health and safety of consumers and give rise to unnecessary medical costs. These dangerous products are not taken for nutritional purposes or to otherwise improve health and thus are not within the intended coverage of the Dietary Supplement Act. The manufacturers of herbal street drugs should not be permitted to abuse the Dietary Supplement Act by using it to legitimize the marketing of dangerous products. A narrowly drafted statutory amendment to correct the inclusion of herbal street drugs in the language of the act would achieve the intent of Congress by closing a loophole that Congress never intended to create. Herbal street drugs killed young Peter Schlendorf. We have to make sure that this does not happen again. We have carefully drafted this legislation to target the narrow class of products that killed Peter-- products that are being marketed and sold to young people as safe and legal alternatives to dangerous, illegal street drugs. We must take action quickly. I urge my fellow Senators to support this effort and quickly pass this legislation. If we wait, herbal street drugs will end more promising, young lives.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kerry and Murray as my primary cosponsor to introduce legislation to protect consumers from excessive and redundant fees imposed by automated teller machine (ATM) operators. I am also pleased that Senators Boxer, Bryan, and Moseley-Braun have joined in cosponsoring this important initiative. Traditionally, a bank or financial institution, let's call it Integrity Bank, agrees to provide a consumer with a package of services in exchange for the use of the consumer's money. These services typically include access to an ATM network, such as MOST, CIRRUS, or PLUS, which consists of any Integrity Bank ATM's as well as ATM's operated by other banks or financial institutions. Integrity Bank and the consumer have an agreement about whether Integrity Bank will charge the consumer for using ATM's not owned by Integrity Bank. Integrity Bank, in turn, is responsible for paying the network a fee for transactions completed by its consumers on ATM's not owned by Integrity Bank. Changes which took effect in April of this year may force the consumer to pay new fees. Until April 1, the major electronic banking networks prohibited the assessment of ATM user fees by the bank which owned the ATM. The networks have revoked this policy, opening the door to a new and outrageous practice beyond the control of Integrity Bank and its customer. Now, despite the fact that Integrity Bank pays fees to the ATM network, ATM owners and operators can now charge non- customers who use their ATM's--a service that consumers thought was included in any charges imposed by Integrity Bank--their bank. Now many ATM users may be caught in the middle. Their own banks can continue to impose fees while the operators of the ATM's they use are entitled to ransack consumers' accounts. What is next, explicit and redundant fees for deposit envelopes? A nighttime ATM surcharge? I will refrain from offering banks any further suggestions on how to pick the pockets of American consumers. Mr. President, this double-dipping is unfair and unconscionable. Consumers should not be charged twice for a single ATM transaction and should certainly not be charged a fee which has nothing to do with the relationship between the consumer and his or her financial institution. Banks and other financial service providers argue that these surcharges are necessary to cover the costs of ATM operation. In-branch ATM's present minimal expense to financial institutions. How can banks argue with straight faces that surcharges are necessary to cover costs of operation? Mr. President, the rules change which permits this extra fee was enacted only recently. While some banks have already imposed the surcharge, many others are testing the waters before they take advantage of the rule change. Congress should act before this unfair practice spreads like a wildfire. It is hard to believe that banks are so strapped when industry profits have never been higher. For the fourth straight year in 1995, commercial banks reported record earnings. Last year, commercial banks reported profits of $48.8 billion, exceeding the previous year's record of $44.6 billion by 9.4 percent. These skyrocketing earnings are primarily the result of increased interest and fee income. On top of this, commercial banks now pay nearly nothing to receive deposit insurance. Are banks really losing money on ATM operations or is this new fee just an easy way to gouge the consumer? The U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the Center for the Responsive Law recently reported that ATM's generated $3.1 billion in transaction fees for banks in 1995. Though ATM transactions cost banks $3.2 billion, the report said, profits increased by $2.2 billion as a result of the labor savings. This new ATM surcharge is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to artificially inflate profits at the consumer's expense. Banks have spent the past 20 years enticing consumers to use ATMs to reduce the need for branch offices. Banks have told regulators and the Congress that branch closings save money without decreasing service because ATM's fill the role once served by branch offices. Now it appears providing that service comes only with an added cost to the consumer and more profit for the provider. Let me just say a few words about the impact of this fee on community banks. These banks have already agreed to pay fees to ATM networks in order to ensure that their customers have access to funds at convenient locations. Now community banks face the threat of losing customers to large banks with large ATM networks. Since community bank customers depend on other institutions' ATM's, large banks can use ATM user fees to steal community bank customers. This moves comes at a time when some banks are charging their customers a premium for teller service. These banks justify this teller fee with claims that teller service is more expensive to provide than ATM service. Now, some banks are squeezing consumers even harder with new ATM user fees. Consumers are getting nickel-and-dimed to death and it has got to stop. Mr. President, the bill I introduce today would prohibit user fees imposed by ATM operators. Under this bill, for example, banks would remain free to charge their own customers for using the ATM's of other banks. Other ATM owners and operators, however, would be prohibited from taking a second bite out of the consumer. There is congressional precedent for this type of legislation. Congress originally passed legislation banning surcharges in the credit card industry in 1976 and renewed the ban twice in 1978 and 1981. In that instance, Congress prohibited retail institutions from charging consumers surcharges on their credit card purchases. To allow additional charges and fees for card use after the consumer had paid for the use of the credit card would have forced customers to pay twice and permitted some unscrupulous merchant to engage in deceptive advertising and other harmful practices. This is analogous to our current ATM situation. I understand that some businesses that rely on retail sales through credit and ATM cards may be concerned about this bill. They need not worry. The sole purpose of this legislation is to prohibit excessive fees to ATM users. I recognize that there may be some off-site ATM's that are costly to maintain and have historically charged fees. I am willing to consider necessary accommodations to this bill. However, I will draw the line in cases where it is clear the consumer is being fleeced.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, it is with great enthusiasm that I rise today with my colleagues, the chairman and ranking member of the Securities Subcommittee, Senator Gramm and Senator Dodd, and Senators Bryan and Moseley-Braun to introduce the Securities Investment Promotion Act of 1996. The U.S. securities market is the preeminent market in the world. It is a fair, efficient and orderly market. In 1995, the U.S. equity market capitalization of $7.98 trillion represented nearly half of the $16.48 worldwide equity market. The market is at an all time high, having increased in trading volume 168 percent in the last decade from 77.3 billion to 207.4 billion. Clearly our securities market is a national treasure. This bill my colleagues and I introduce today represents a bi- partisan effort to improve regulation of the securities market. The legislation seeks to maintain our preeminent securities market by making it even more efficient and more accessible to those individuals and entities who seek entry in order to raise capital. The legislation streamlines securities regulation by peeling back layers of duplicative, unnecessary and burdensome regulation--opening up the capital markets and promoting capital formation. It makes more efficient use of precious State and Federal resources by dividing rather duplicating regulatory responsibility. These changes will also strengthen consumer and investor protection. investment advisers The Securities Investment Promotion Act fills a significant regulatory gap in the area of investment advisers. As low interest rates have caused individuals to flock to the securities markets with their savings and retirement money--often seeking advice from an investment adviser--it becomes increasingly critical for Congress to ensure that investment advisers are adequately regulated. The increase in mutual fund investments, which are usually managed by investment advisers, has also contributed to the growing number of investment advisers. Right now, 22,000 investment advisers manage approximately $10.6 trillion in assets. The SEC does not have sufficient resources to maintain an adequate inspection program for investment advisers. According to some SEC estimates, they are only able to inspect some of the smaller investment advisers once every 30 years. The bill creates a rational system of regulation for investment advisers by dividing between the SEC and the States responsibility for regulating investment advisers. States will regulate the smaller investment advisers who operate in their State and manage $25 million or less in assets. The SEC will regulate the larger advisers. This system will enable the States and the SEC to share regulatory responsibility--better protecting investors. mutual funds The Securities Investment Promotion Act of 1996 facilitates the registration, operation and certain disclosures made by mutual funds. Over 30 million U.S. households, or about 31 percent now own mutual funds. In part because of low interest rates, by the end of last year mutual fund assets hit the $2.7 trillion mark--exceeding bank deposits for the first time. This bill allows the mutual fund market to operate as a national market, comprehensively regulated by the SEC. Right now, when a mutual fund registers its shares it must register with the SEC and the States. As a result, mutual funds must comply with a crazy quilt of regulation imposed by the laws of each of the 50 States. This bill facilitates mutual fund registration by eliminating the requirement that mutual funds register with the States. The bill makes it easier for mutual funds to provide current information in advertisements; calculate their registration fees and invest in other mutual funds in their family of funds. It also provides additional consumer and investor protection by giving the SEC authority to prohibit mutual funds from naming their funds in a manner that could mislead or confuse investors. capital formation The bill promotes capital formation by eliminating overlapping State and Federal requirements for registering certain types of securities, such as securities sold to ``qualified purchasers'' or securities that are listed on a national securities exchange or market system. It also gives the SEC flexibility to identify other exchanges or systems that should qualify for the exemption from registration. The bill promotes investment in small projects and business by making it easier for economic, business, and industrial development companies to raise money without having to register with the SEC. These companies will not have to register their securities if 80 percent or more of the securities are sold to accredited investors within the State the company operates. This bill provides further relied for companies operating within one State. The SEC may now exempt from the securities laws a company with $100,000 in assets that is operating within a State. The Securities Investment Promotion Act of 1996 raises this level to $10 million. The bill provides liquidity and investment opportunities to business development companies--enabling these companies to invest more capital in small businesses. It also helps venture capitalists tap the capital markets to fund business endeavors by allowing individuals and entities to pool a certain amount of investment funds without having to register with the SEC. regulatory modernization The legislation updates the securities laws to reflect the reality of today's marketplace. It simplifies certain procedures for paying fees and making disclosures. It gives the SEC flexibility to adapt to the changing financial market by giving the SEC authority to exempt transactions, individuals or entities from the Federal securities laws. The bill fosters awareness of the cost of regulation by requiring the SEC to publish an economic analysis of a proposed regulation before it becomes effective. It also reduces the costs associated with revolving door compliance examinations, where one regulator completes its examination only to be replaced by the next. The legislation requires the regulators to coordinate examinations. The Securities Investment Promotion Act of 1996 is a significant piece of legislation that will ensure that the U.S. securities market remains number one in the world. It is not a controversial bill, it enjoys support on both sides of the aisle. This bill thoughtfully and carefully tightens the laws governing the securities market. I commend my colleagues and their staff for their excellent work in drafting this legislation and plan to move it quickly through the Banking Committee.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3988