Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce The Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Act of 1995 and express my appreciation to Senators Mack and Bryan for their cosponsorship of this important bill. This legislation would provide a 5-year extension for a much needed Federal Housing Administration [FHA] mortgage insurance program which is of great benefit to elderly homeowners. The Home Equity Conversion Mortgage [HECM] Insurance Demonstration Program offers elderly homeowners the opportunity to borrow against the equity in their homes. This effective program is designed to assist our Nation's elderly who have substantial equity in their property but have incomes too low to meet ordinary or extraordinary living expenses. A senior citizen can receive cash through this reverse mortgage in the following four ways: A lump sum; a lifetime guaranteed monthly payment; a line of credit to be accessed by personal checks; or a combination of monthly payment and line of credit options. These mortgages are originated by FHA-approved lenders, insured by the FHA and purchased by the secondary mortgage market. The HECM program represents an ideal public/private partnership in which needy citizens are aided without cost to the Federal Government. The HECM program allows our Nation's elderly to draw an income from their home investment. It offers seniors aged 62 and older the opportunity to support themselves without having to leave the homes they love. Without this program, elderly homeowners with insufficient incomes might be forced to sell their homes and spend their golden years elsewhere. Since the program's inception, over 14,000 loans have been closed or are pending. The median age of program participants is 76 years old. Borrowers are generally low-income and dependent on Social Security benefits. The Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Insurance Demonstration Program was authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987. The Federal Housing Administration's authority to insure reverse mortgages lapsed on October 1 of this year. The legislation which I am introducing today would reauthorize this successful program and allow it to continue for an additional 5 years, until September 30, 2000. In addition, it would broaden the definition to include one- to four- family homes in which the owner resides and expand insurance authority to cover 50,000 reverse mortgages. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Yitzhak Rabin who served his people in war and in peace and did both with great bravery. The Government of Israel and the people of Israel have suffered a deep wound that will take a great deal of time to heal. Just 2 weeks ago, I along with many of my colleagues, stood with him in the rotunda of the Capitol to present to him, a copy of the bill which would move the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the Holy City. I was most proud then and most proud now to have been there. One could not, of course, guess that only 2 weeks later, this horrible, cowardly act would occur. The Prime Minister's goal of peace for Israel, after so very many years of blood and tears, is one that cannot be abandoned. I am sure that Israel will find the strength to move forward. Peace, like Israel's security, is of vital importance to Israel and the United States alike. Yet, one cannot argue the point that Israel will not be the same without him. He was a hero and a towering figure of his time. My heart goes out to the Rabin family at this most unfortunate time. They can take solace in the fact that Yitzhak Rabin will forever be remembered as a peacemaker for his people--a peacemaker for Israel.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on Iranian behavior and the continued need for sanctions to be placed upon this barbarous regime. The Iranian regime's stubborn insistence on actions which only serve to isolate that nation and its people, threaten to cast Iran into total deprivation. The sponsorship of international terrorism, continued efforts to build weapons of mass destruction, and human rights violations against innocent Iranians, threaten to throw the country back into medieval times, where all the technology of the West and the ease of our daily life will be absent from the Iranian nation, due directly to the abusive rule of this primitive regime. Iran is isolated and universally viewed as a pariah state. Its actions are abhorrent to the civilized world. As long as this warped, terroristic regime continues to punish the Iranian people with its misrule, this condition will continue. The tyrants in Tehran must understand their aggression and abuse of the good people of Iran will not last, and one day they will be brought to task for their actions. While the tyrants continue to rule in Tehran, sanctions are a clear way to keep up the pressure on Iran and to deny them the ability to carry out their aggression on the outside world as well as against their own people. We do not take these issues lightly. It is a pity that the regime cannot act like a civilized country and not be so abusive. If only Iran would not conduct these brutal actions, we would not have to place sanctions on it.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will close a [[Page S 16625]] loophole which has proven to be a bonus to counterfeiters and a detriment to law enforcement. Simply stated, this legislation allows equipment used to counterfeit access devices to be treated like any other contraband and forfeited. Currently under law, certain items are designated as contraband. Narcotics, illegal firearms, and counterfeit currency often come to mind when the issue of contraband is raised. Contraband also includes property designed or intended as the means of committing a criminal offense. Since narcotics are contraband, illegal drugs can be seized from a suspected drug dealer, as well as the vehicle in which the drug transaction occurred. This bill would allow counterfeit access devices to be treated as contraband. Access devices are the means in which the account owner can access his or her own account, including credit cards and cellular phones. Counterfeiters can gain entry to this account and, in a matter of minutes, reach the owner's cash or use the owner's service. Criminals who perpetuate credit card fraud use equipment, such as an embosser and encoder, to imprint new numbers onto a piece of plastic. They are then able to use the credit cards to the limit for cash withdrawal using a valid credit card number. In telecommunications fraud, the offender can use an electronic serial number reader [ESN] to attract cellular phone numbers and store them for unauthorized use. By using a computer and a device called an E-chip, the offender can reprogram any cellular phone to call on another person's bill. Once the legitimate owner of the stolen cellular phone number realizes that their phone has been used by a criminal, the criminal is using another innocent owner's cellular number. Law enforcement agencies do all they can to catch the offenders. The New York Times reported on an imaginative operation devised by the U.S. Secret Service to find perpetrators of cellular phone fraud, through the use of a computer bulletin board. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this article be included in the Record, Mr. President, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Secret Service for working to end fraud on this and other fronts. The problem, however, is that when the perpetrators of credit card and cellular phone fraud are apprehended, and even convicted, the equipment used by the offenders is often returned to them after their sentence is served! Although this process seems preposterous, it is real. A credit card counterfeiter frequently receives his or her embosser and encoder once released from custody. The apparatus used to commit the cellular phone theft of services is also frequently remitted to the user, even if he or she was convicted. With their equipment intact, they are ready to commit fraud again if they so desire. The problem of counterfeit access devices costs the cellular phone companies and the banks billions of dollars every year. These costs get passed on to the customer. Remittance of equipment used in counterfeiting access devices is certainly not the intent of law enforcement or prosecutors. These dedicated officials work tirelessly to do the right thing. Why is it that the devices are not forfeited? It is simply because the law has not been updated to keep up with technology. The process is already in place for other contraband, such as narcotics, counterfeit currency and illegal firearms. It should not be too much of a stretch to extend the same procedures and safeguards that are available for these contrabands to counterfeit credit cards and cloned cellular phones. This legislation will not end the counterfeiting of access devices but it will end the practice of returning tools to those who may use it for illicit purposes. Any hurdle that we can create for the repeat offender should be clearly established in law. The message from this Congress must be: for every ingenious way that criminals can commit their crimes, Congress is prepared to stop them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will close a [[Page S 16625]] loophole which has proven to be a bonus to counterfeiters and a detriment to law enforcement. Simply stated, this legislation allows equipment used to counterfeit access devices to be treated like any other contraband and forfeited. Currently under law, certain items are designated as contraband. Narcotics, illegal firearms, and counterfeit currency often come to mind when the issue of contraband is raised. Contraband also includes property designed or intended as the means of committing a criminal offense. Since narcotics are contraband, illegal drugs can be seized from a suspected drug dealer, as well as the vehicle in which the drug transaction occurred. This bill would allow counterfeit access devices to be treated as contraband. Access devices are the means in which the account owner can access his or her own account, including credit cards and cellular phones. Counterfeiters can gain entry to this account and, in a matter of minutes, reach the owner's cash or use the owner's service. Criminals who perpetuate credit card fraud use equipment, such as an embosser and encoder, to imprint new numbers onto a piece of plastic. They are then able to use the credit cards to the limit for cash withdrawal using a valid credit card number. In telecommunications fraud, the offender can use an electronic serial number reader [ESN] to attract cellular phone numbers and store them for unauthorized use. By using a computer and a device called an E-chip, the offender can reprogram any cellular phone to call on another person's bill. Once the legitimate owner of the stolen cellular phone number realizes that their phone has been used by a criminal, the criminal is using another innocent owner's cellular number. Law enforcement agencies do all they can to catch the offenders. The New York Times reported on an imaginative operation devised by the U.S. Secret Service to find perpetrators of cellular phone fraud, through the use of a computer bulletin board. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this article be included in the Record, Mr. President, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Secret Service for working to end fraud on this and other fronts. The problem, however, is that when the perpetrators of credit card and cellular phone fraud are apprehended, and even convicted, the equipment used by the offenders is often returned to them after their sentence is served! Although this process seems preposterous, it is real. A credit card counterfeiter frequently receives his or her embosser and encoder once released from custody. The apparatus used to commit the cellular phone theft of services is also frequently remitted to the user, even if he or she was convicted. With their equipment intact, they are ready to commit fraud again if they so desire. The problem of counterfeit access devices costs the cellular phone companies and the banks billions of dollars every year. These costs get passed on to the customer. Remittance of equipment used in counterfeiting access devices is certainly not the intent of law enforcement or prosecutors. These dedicated officials work tirelessly to do the right thing. Why is it that the devices are not forfeited? It is simply because the law has not been updated to keep up with technology. The process is already in place for other contraband, such as narcotics, counterfeit currency and illegal firearms. It should not be too much of a stretch to extend the same procedures and safeguards that are available for these contrabands to counterfeit credit cards and cloned cellular phones. This legislation will not end the counterfeiting of access devices but it will end the practice of returning tools to those who may use it for illicit purposes. Any hurdle that we can create for the repeat offender should be clearly established in law. The message from this Congress must be: for every ingenious way that criminals can commit their crimes, Congress is prepared to stop them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a brief explanation of article 21 of the GATT, otherwise known as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, especially as it relates to the imposition of secondary economic sanctions against Iran. This is particularly pertinent because of my bill, S. 1228, the Iran Foreign Oil Sanctions Act. Briefly, the provisions of article 21, are so broadly written, that legislation such as S. 1228 is possible, and in fact, [[Page S 16517]] sustainable under the GATT. Furthermore, the concept has been tested before, in relative terms as it relates to economic sanctions imposed upon Cuba in the 1960's, Nicaragua, and even against Czechoslovakia in the 1940's. I want to add that even when President Reagan imposed similar sanctions against the Soviet Union in the 1980's, in retaliation to the imposition of martial law in Poland, a Federal court upheld sanctions against Dresser France. I feel that this point must be made clear for those who feel that there would be a challenge to this once it became law, or that it would cause legal disputes. In light of this, I ask unanimous consent that the following documents be printed in the Record, explaining the legality of secondary boycotts under the GATT: First, a memo dated June 28, 1983, from Sherman Unger, then legal counsel for the Department of Commerce, on the subject of the legality of import sanctions under GATT; an article from the New York Times from August 25, 1982, entitled ``Judge Backs U.S. Bid to Penalize Company on Soviet Pipeline Sale,'' that details an attempt by Dresser France to defy President Reagan's secondary boycott against foreign companies supplying oil pipeline equipment to the Soviet Union; and finally, an analytical index Guide to GATT Law and Practice, explaining article 21 in GATT, the national security exception. In their totality, these documents will help to explain the legality and I hope that they will go some way toward settling any doubts about S. 1228.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, without any fanfare, late this past Friday afternoon, the Clinton administration quietly gave the Government of Mexico an extension on their loan payments owed to the United States taxpayers. This delay contrasts sharply with the much publicized partial prepayment Mexico made on the same loan just a few weeks ago. Yesterday, the Mexican Government was supposed to pay the remaining $1.3 billion of their $2 billion payment to the United States. This money is only a part of the $12.5 billion in loans given to Mexico by the Clinton administration this year. On October 6, as part of the public relations campaign for Mexican President Zedillo's visit, Mexico paid back $700 million. At that time the Clinton administration hailed this partial prepayment saying, ``The American taxpayer is being repaid ahead of schedule.'' But what that amounted to, Mr. President, was nothing more than a publicity stunt. This so-called prepayment turned out to be a sham. What about the $1.3 billion still owed to the American taxpayers that was due yesterday? On Friday, the real story came out. Without the fanfare, the photo opportunities, and the state dinner at the White House, the Clinton administration quietly announced that it was their plan all along to allow Mexico to postpone paying back its loan. Mr. President, I am outraged. It appears to this Senator that the loans to Mexico may never be repaid, and the Clinton administration knows it. I have serious doubts that the American taxpayer will ever be repaid all of the $12.5 billion that this administration sent to Mexico. It is time to stop playing politics and tell the truth to the American public. Make no mistake about what and who is bankrolling the Clinton administration loans to the Mexican Government. It is the U.S. taxpayer, the American citizen. And the reality stands in sharp contrast to what the administration said just weeks ago. The American taxpayers are not being paid back on time. The Clinton administration's claims that the Mexican bailout is a success rings hollow. The Mexican bailout is a failure for the American taxpayers and the Mexican economy. The history of the Clinton administration's bailout is a failed one. On December 9, 1994, President Clinton lauded Mexico as an economic success story. And just 10 days later the Mexican Government ineptly devalued their peso by 20 percent. The peso's value subsequently went into a free fall and capital fled Mexico. Ironically, we have recently learned that Mexican investors have been pulling their money out of Mexico before the peso's crash. They were tipped off, Mr. President. They got their money out long before the rest of the world found out what was happening. The question again emerges, why are American taxpayers forced by the Clinton administration to bail out a foreign economy that was first abandoned by its own wealthy citizens? I have said all along that American tax dollars are being sent to Mexico to bail out wealthy global speculators. That is wrong. So where are we now? The Mexican Government, with the approval and consent of the Clinton administration, has used American taxpayer dollars to pay off investors, but the Mexican economy remains in shambles. Global speculators have reaped huge profits while U.S. taxpayers are left holding the bag. Last Thursday, the Mexican peso dropped to a 7-month low, trading at 7.23 pesos to the dollar, almost matching its low point of 7.5 pesos to the dollar in early March. The Mexican Central Bank frantically intervened to support the peso but despite these efforts, the peso closed at 6.925 to the dollar yesterday. Banks in Mexico may have to raise short-term interest rates even higher to help the peso recover its value. These high interest rates are already crippling Mexican families and small businesses. And, Mr. President, do you know who they hold responsible for this? The United States of America. The Clinton and Zedillo administrations' assertions that the Mexican economy is recovering simply does not hold water. It is not true. The American people and the United States Congress deserve all the facts on the Mexican economic situation. This summer, I released a report on the Mexican economic crisis that detailed a disturbing pattern of deception and misrepresentation of the true state of the Mexican economy. News reports indicate an internal study commissioned by the International Monetary Fund [IMF], sheds new light on the subject and confirms this disturbing pattern. Now the Clinton administration has classified the report--the Whittome report-- and is resisting efforts to make it available to the public. The public has a right to know the whole truth. Why is the Treasury Department hiding this information from the American public? I have written to the Director of the IMF and copied the Secretary of the Treasury to request that this report be made public. We have sent $12.5 billion worth of taxpayer money directly from the United States and $9.8 billion from the IMF. Another $1.6 billion will be sent from the IMF to Mexico next month. And do you know who is the single largest contributor to the IMF--the United States. According to news reports, the Whittome report provides valuable insight into the handling of the Mexican economic crisis by the administration and the IMF. Yet neither of them wants to share this report with the American public. On October 18, I wrote to the Director of the IMF asking him to make it available. The public has a right to know the whole truth but so far the Treasury Department and the IMF have not responded to my request. We were told several weeks ago that Mexico was recovering wonderfully, that it was repaying its debt of $700 million earlier than required, but the administration knew 2 weeks ago that Mexico would be unable to pay the full debt, which was $2 billion. So they put up $700 million, when they still owe us $1.3 billion and call it a success. It is disingenuous to say the least. Mr. President, let me make a prediction before I close. I predict that there will be a time in the not-too-distant future when we will see Mexico come quietly to the Treasury, the United States Treasury, and make a deal for more money, and this administration will once again go along with it. The American people will be the losers. We should be prepared the next time they come to say no. There is an old saying, ``You don't put good money after bad.'' But I guess we have an administration that figures if it is not their money, that it only belongs to the American taxpayers, that wise old saying is not valid. I believe this Congress has a responsibility to demand that report, and I intend to submit a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that report be made available so that the American people can see that we have a Government that operates in accordance with the rules and they can judge the situation for themselves. They can decide whether or not they are ever going to get that $12.5 billion back. The American public can decide whether or not the administration has dealt with them fairly and candidly. Mr. President, I thank you for your courtesies and I yield the floor. Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. MR. President, this sense-of-the-Senate resolution would express the will of the Senate that Congress should eliminate a significant disincentive in the current law which prevents thrift institutions from changing their charters. It also prevents thrifts from diversifying into other lending opportunities. Given developments in financial institutions and the debate in Congress over the future of the thrift industry, it is desirable for Congress to seriously examine this aspect of the tax law that applies only to thrifts.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I want to commend the manager and all those who have helped us come so far on this historic occasion. Senator Domenici and Senator Roth have done an incredible job. I believe some of us have done a rather poor job of letting the American people know exactly what is in this package. If you listen to some of the demagoguery that we hear about ``greed'' and ``special interests,'' and ``tax breaks for the wealthy,'' you would not really know what is in this package. When I hear this business that ``they are weakening nursing home standards,'' that is nonsense. Bull. I want to know how we can weaken nursing home standards when you must meet the Federal levels that you have today. You must have at least that or better. If that is not demagoguery, I do not know what is. It is out and out fear and deception that is being practiced. When 90 percent of the tax cuts go to families earning under $100,000, I defy you to tell me that that is going to the wealthy. Let me be a little more particular: $141 billion in tax cuts goes to families that have children. Those families have to earn under $110,000. The bulk of that goes to families in the $50,000 to $60,000 range. Now, let us stop the nonsense about greed and wealthy people. That is working middle-class families.

Mr. D'AMATO. We are attempting to keep the promise that was broken by the President of the United States when he said, ``We are going to give tax cuts to the middle class.'' Then he went and raised those taxes. And now [[Page S 16042]] he says, ``Well, maybe I made a mistake.'' Well, he did make a mistake. We are returning IRA's to working middle-class families. And we are doing something about the marriage penalty. We always complained about that. There has not been anybody here on the floor who has run and did not say we need to do something about the marriage penalty. That is $12 billion in relief--a move in the right direction. And in student loans, a billion dollars to help pay for the interest. Mr. President, this is a good bill, and it deserves our support.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss Senator Olympia Snowe's amendment that I and my colleagues sponsored and the Senate passed last night as part of the Budget Reconciliation bill. With prostate cancer striking 1 out of every 11 American men and breast cancer attacking 1 out of every 8 American women, we have an obligation to do everything we can to ensure that the best, most effective treatments are available to as many patients as possible. The amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that Medicare should cover oral hormonal cancer drugs. Oral hormonal drug therapy is critical in treating cancers that have spread beyond the prostate and in treating estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer tumors. These drugs can play a vital role in the postsurgical treatment of this type of breast and prostate cancer because they help prevent the recurrence of these tumors and improve the quality of life for thousands of cancer patients each year. In the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993, we directed Medicare to cover some oral cancer drugs. However, the statute requires that those drugs be chemotherapeutic in nature and have been available in injectable or intravenous form. Oral hormonal cancer drugs do not fall within this category. I believe this is an unintended result of a well- intentioned provision. The result is that Medicare currently discriminates against half of all women afflicted with breast cancer by denying coverage for postsurgical drug treatments to those with estrogen receptor positive tumors. Because estrogen-sensitive tumors are more likely to strike post-menopausal women, this type of cancer disproportionately afflicts Medicare beneficiaries. Denying Medicare coverage for orally administered hormonal therapy is an obvious case of being penny-wise and pound-foolish. Hormonal therapy is a less expensive treatment option when measured against the risk of treating new tumors which can result in the absence of such therapy. This relatively simple and straight-forward amendment puts the Senate on record in support of correcting this oversight from the 1993 reconciliation bill. I believe that the conference report on the 1995 reconciliation bill should include a provision to cover oral cancer drugs used in hormonal therapy. I am glad that the Senate passed this amendment, and I am glad to have been an original cosponsor.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to express to my colleagues my deep concern regarding the House Ways and Means Committee's proposal to sunset the low-income housing tax credit in 1997, pending a GAO review of the management of the program. The low-income housing tax credit is the Federal Government's principal rental housing production program that results in significant private capital for the development of affordable rental housing. Since its inception, as part of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the low-income housing tax credit has enjoyed broad bi-partisan support in both the House and the Senate. In fact, that support became very clear when 75 percent of the House and nearly 90 percent of the Senate went on record as recently as 1992 in support of legislation to make the credit permanent. It was made permanent in 1993. Since 1986 the credit has mobilized private capital for public benefit, attracting more than $12 billion in private investment. Nearly 800,000 units of rental housing for lower income working families and the elderly have been constructed or rehabilitated with the low-income housing tax credit. This has lead to the creation of 90,000 jobs each year and resulted in $2.8 billion in wages and $1.3 billion in additional tax revenues. According to the New York State Housing Finance Agency, in 1994, in our home State, over 6,100 units of rental housing were made possible because of the credit. Over 77 percent of those units, 4,700, were for low-income families, and the production of those units directly resulted in an estimated $520 million of housing investment in the State of New York. That being said, does the Senator from New York find it as puzzling as I do that the Way and Means Committee would propose to terminate the low-income housing tax credit without benefit of hearings; without any authoritative evidence that the program is not working in an effective manner, and, especially before any review or study?

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to express to Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan my hope that when we go into Conference on this matter, that the Senate will be firm in its resolve not to recede to the House on any proposal that would sunset the low-income housing tax credit.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I share the views of the majority leader and the Senator from Utah with respect to the urgent need to provide long-overdue improvements to our international tax system, especially when existing law hampers our industries as they expand their operations in the global marketplace. The need for simplification and reform is illustrated by section 956 of the Internal Revenue Code--a section introduced in the 1960's and designed to prevent taxpayers from avoiding taxation on the repatriation of foreign earnings through disguised dividends in the form, for example, of loans to affiliates. In general, ordinary course of business financing transactions appropriately were exempted from this provision. Since section 956 first was introduced, however, the scope and complexity of international business have expanded rapidly, but the ordinary course of business exceptions to section 956 have not been updated. For example, U.S.-based securities firms typically had negligible foreign earnings at the time section 956 was introduced, and therefore the ordinary course of business exceptions to that provision did not reflect standard commercial practices in that industry. In recent years, however, many U.S.-based securities firms have transformed themselves into global institutions by developing substantial international operations (just as many foreign-based institutions now compete in the United States). Section 956 has never been updated to reflect this surge in the international activities of the U.S. securities industry, thus forcing the industry into complex uneconomic transactions. This is just one example of how U.S. taxation has not kept up with the political, economic and technical changes that have created new opportunities and broken down old barriers as national markets are replaced with global markets. Our tax laws should reflect and support these changes in a similar fashion, or they will force undue complexity on U.S.-based companies. I join with the Senators from Kansas and Utah in supporting the principal of tax reform in the international area and the inclusion of international simplification and reform in the conference report.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to urge you to stand with me against the blight of terrorism that is growing throughout the world. We need legislation to toughen our antiterrorism laws in response to the growth of this scourge. During the tenth anniversary of the hijacking of the Achille Lauro and the killing of one of its passengers Leon Klinghoffer, I ask you to take the time to support my request for such legislation before the United States bears the brunt of another terrorist act. Americans are the focus for many terrorist acts overseas. Now, we are becoming targets at home. Americans are increasingly exposed to the deadly realities of terrorism. Ten years ago Leon Klinghoffer was singled out by terrorists for execution and summarily dumped over the side of the cruise ship Achille Lauro. The mastermind behind this act, Abul Abbas, continues to elude international authorities to this day. We need to be able to run these criminal masterminds to ground wherever they hide. In 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center murdering six innocent people and injuring over 1,000 more. We were lucky the structure withstood the blast and did not collapse. We could have faced thousands of murdered people. We need to be able to block the actions and designs of international terrorists. Earlier this year, Oklahoma City was targeted by domestic terrorists. This time, Americans were graphically confronted with the specter of hundreds of mangled bodies. Our children were viciously mauled by the passions of an unstable youth and his accomplices. We need to be able to thwart the evil ambitions of such internal fringe groups. Just weeks ago, ten Islamic extremists were found guilty of conspiring to carry out a campaign of terrorism and assassination against New York City landmarks and officials. These incidents highlight the growing threat of terrorism and the need for improved United States' antiterrorism measures. Final passage of comprehensive antiterrorist legislation will represent a concrete step toward extinguishing the threat of terrorism by increasing the difficulty and cost in perpetrating heinous acts such as these. We have seen terrorism become a way of life for many other nations. We cannot allow this complacency to occur in the United States. If anyone such as Abul Abbas or his conspirators can be discovered in our country, perhaps other destructive attacks may be averted. Mr. President, on this, the tenth anniversary of the Achille Lauro tragedy, the threat of terrorism is undiminished. It is our responsibility to act collectively to thwart forces pursuing these acts and to block the financiers condoning international terrorist activity. We need action and we need it now. Our people cannot continue to endure the depridations of these extremist murderers. Thank you Mr. President.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I thought it was interesting that they have over $300 million in Treasury bills that they have invested.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, will the Senator comment on--how much? I think the Senator previously talked about, how much does the AARP have in investments?

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee. He has done a magnificent job in attempting to combat the demagoguery that comes from nothing but partisan politics. And I have to tell you something. If it is not the drumbeat of the AARP, which is bad enough, scaring seniors, you cannot make a call into my office because they have got these poor people absolutely frightened. And I wish to apologize to the senior citizens for all of the fright that they have gone through. I think it is a shame. I think it is a shame that maybe we have not done a better job of getting the message through. I think it is a shame that some people who call themselves champions of the underprivileged have engaged in demagoguery that has hit new heights. Only in Washington can you spend $110 billion more for a program, which we will be doing in Medicare over the next 7 years, $110 billion more, increasing expenditures at twice the rate of inflation, and call that a cut. Only in Washington can you be taking the average recipient who gets about $4,800 a year in benefits and almost increasing it by $2,000 so they will be getting $6,700 a year and call that a cut. Only in Washington can my colleagues on the other side demagog it and get up there with the big voice: Oh, we are going to cut; we are going to kill, totally negate, forget what is going to take place and come forth with not one constructive suggestion as it relates to how you are going to keep Medicare from going bankrupt. They do not come forth and say anything. No, just spend it and spend it and bankrupt us in less than 7 years. There will not be any Medicare. Then what happens to the seniors? What do they say? They say you are cutting so you can give taxes to the wealthy. Nonsense. Mr. President, 70 percent of any tax advantages are going to go to working families in America; $141 billion out of the $224 billion that will be coming in cuts go just for the $500 per child tax credit-- $141 billion. That is about 60 percent. We hear yelling and screaming about the families, when we do something for adoption, when we do something to take care of the marriage penalty, when we do something to equalize and strengthen the family and give people IRAs, working families, middle class families, not millionaires, not businesses, when we say, by the way, that those people who have incomes of $150,000 should pay for their own health insurance. A retired person with $150,000, by gosh, should pay for it, not working middle-class families subsidizing the wealthy. That is what we do here. We hear nothing but demagoguery. I cannot believe it. I wish to tell you something. You do a great disservice to the American people with that kind of rhetoric. I think we will demonstrate quite clearly that we are the party that is responsible. Here is the President's status of Social Security and Medicare Program, a summary. This comes out by the President, his commission. Three of his Cabinet officials are there. And I read the first page. It says, ``The Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be able to pay benefits for only about 7 years and is severely out of financial balance long range.'' What do our friends on the other side say about correcting that? Nothing. And we come forth with a program. They have had months and months to work with us. Do they offer any constructive suggestions? No. They demagog the issue. They say to people, they are going to cut your benefits. That is not true. They say, they are going to cut your benefits and give tax breaks to the wealthy. That is not true. They say, they are going to give you less. And, indeed, we are increasing that program again by $110 billion more. Somehow we have to do a better job to get the message out. But that does not negate the negativism, the demagoguery, the sheer hypocrisy that comes from the other side. I have to tell you something. I make no apologies for branding their brand of legislative acumen in that manner because that is what it amounts to--sheer demagoguery. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. The bill calls for completion of the Embassy in May 1999, to ensure that such a move occurs no later than when the agreements on permanent status take effect and the transition period has ended, according to the Declaration of Principles signed by Israel and the Palestinians in September 1993. Jerusalem is and will remain the permanent and undivided capital of Israel. I am not going to let the State Department bureaucrats forget that. The Clinton administration must recognize this and begin the process of moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. It is shameful that the United States continues to bend to pressure to keep its Embassy outside of Jerusalem. While I understand that the present Middle East peace negotiations are both complicated and delicate, I do not want this administration to be under the impression that Jerusalem will belong to anyone other than Israel. Further delay in moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem will only embolden the Palestinians who believe that they have a justified claim to the city. While some worry that such a move will damage the peace process, delay can only hurt it. If the future of Jerusalem remains unclear in the minds of the Palestinians then they will increase their demands and this will further complicate the already tense negotiations. Let the message be clear: A united Jerusalem is off limits to negotiation. Jerusalem belongs to Israel and our Embassy belongs in Jerusalem.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1322, as an original cosponsor, an author, along with my colleague Senator Moynihan of a letter to the Secretary of State along with 91 of our colleagues proposing this very idea, and finally as a true believer in the principle of this legislation. I want to make it very clear: Jerusalem is and shall remain the undivided capital of the State of Israel. Jerusalem belongs to Israel and our Embassy belongs in Jerusalem. Relocation of our Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem should begin as soon as possible. Under this bill, it will. It is outrageous that we have diplomatic relations with 184 countries throughout the world and in every one, except Israel, our Embassy is in the functioning capital. Israel has endured much throughout her history and for her to have to suffer the indignity of her main ally refusing to place its embassy in her capital is an insult. We would never allow another country to tell us where to locate our capital. Why are we dictating this to Israel? In a time when the Palestinians are placing more and more demands on Israel and when the United States is providing $500 million to the PLO, only to find Yasir Arafat unable to deliver on his end of the peace agreement, we must make it clear that some things are not negotiable. Jerusalem for one is not a topic for negotiation. Jerusalem belongs to Israel. If we delay moving our Embassy any longer, we will be raising unrealistic hopes about the future of this holy city. It was for this reason that I along with Senator Moynihan and 91 other Senators sent a letter to Secretary of State Warren Christopher urging him to begin planning now for the relocation of the Embassy to Jerusalem by no later than May 1999. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce legislation with my friend and colleague, Senator Moynihan, which would correct a technical error that has prevented certain residents of my State from participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. Specifically, this bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to make technical corrections in the current maps of the Coastal Barrier Resources System [COBRA]. A companion to this bill, H.R. 2005, was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Michael Forbes on July 11, 1995 and was approved by the House Committee on Resources on September 27, 1995. This necessary legislation is supported by the administration. In 1990, the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service made a technical error when it designated part of the Point O'Woods community on Fire Island in New York as part of an otherwise protected area [OPA]. As a result of this technical error, homeowners in this part of the country are restricted from protecting their properties through the purchase of Federal flood insurance. Mr. President, the Fish and Wildlife Service concedes that the designation of these residences as part of an OPA was erroneous. The administration testified in support of the House version of this legislation before the Oceans, Fisheries, and Wildlife Subcommittee of the House Committee on Resources. The inadvertent error in the COBRA map has greatly complicated community efforts to relocate houses away from high erosion zones and otherwise practice effective coastal barrier management. This legislation would allow the Point O'Woods community the opportunity, which other American homeowners in similar areas currently have, to participate in the Federal Flood Insurance Program. The Federal Government actively encourages participation in this important program in order to minimize taxpayer costs in the event of a natural disaster. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter written to me by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in support of this correction and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce legislation with my friend and colleague, Senator Moynihan, which would correct a technical error that has prevented certain residents of my State from participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. Specifically, this bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to make technical corrections in the current maps of the Coastal Barrier Resources System [COBRA]. A companion to this bill, H.R. 2005, was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Michael Forbes on July 11, 1995 and was approved by the House Committee on Resources on September 27, 1995. This necessary legislation is supported by the administration. In 1990, the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service made a technical error when it designated part of the Point O'Woods community on Fire Island in New York as part of an otherwise protected area [OPA]. As a result of this technical error, homeowners in this part of the country are restricted from protecting their properties through the purchase of Federal flood insurance. Mr. President, the Fish and Wildlife Service concedes that the designation of these residences as part of an OPA was erroneous. The administration testified in support of the House version of this legislation before the Oceans, Fisheries, and Wildlife Subcommittee of the House Committee on Resources. The inadvertent error in the COBRA map has greatly complicated community efforts to relocate houses away from high erosion zones and otherwise practice effective coastal barrier management. This legislation would allow the Point O'Woods community the opportunity, which other American homeowners in similar areas currently have, to participate in the Federal Flood Insurance Program. The Federal Government actively encourages participation in this important program in order to minimize taxpayer costs in the event of a natural disaster. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter written to me by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in support of this correction and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I introduce the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1995. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues on the Banking Committee, Senators Shelby, Mack, Faircloth, and Dodd; the chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee, Senators Murkowski and Johnston respectively; and Senate Majority Leader Dole and Majority Whip Lott as sponsors of the bill. Mr. President, this bill would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (``the 1935 Act'') and transfer certain regulatory functions from the Securities and Exchange Commission to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Public Service Commissions of various States. The bill is supported by the SEC, the energy industry, and Senators on both sides of the aisle. In June, the SEC published a comprehensive report on the 1935 Act. In that report, ``The Regulation of Public- [[Page S 15128]] Utility Holding Companies,'' the division of investment management stated that: The 1935 Act had accomplished its basic purpose and that its remaining provisions . . . either duplicated other State or Federal regulation or otherwise were no longer necessary to prevent recurrence of the abuses that led to its enactment. The SEC Division of Investment Management reviewed the history of the 1935 act and the energy industry along with other subsequent administrative and legislative changes. The report's recommendation suggests that Congress conditionally repeal the act since the current regulatory system imposes significant costs, in direct administrative charges and foregone economies of scale and scope, that often cannot be justified in terms of benefits to utility investors. In recommending a conditional repeal, the SEC noted that unconditional repeal of the 1935 act could expose consumers to some of the same abuses that it was enacted to prevent. As SEC Chairman, Arthur Levitt, cautions: [A]s long as electric and gas utilities continue to function as monopolies, the need to protect against the cross-subsidization of nonutility operations will continue to exist . . . the best means of guarding against cross- subsidization is likely to be thorough audits of books and records and federal oversight of affiliate transactions. Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today, the Public Utility Company Act of 1995, would maintain the provisions of the 1935 act essential to consumer protection. This bill would eliminate many of these burdensome and duplicative regulations while maintaining protection for energy consumers and ratepayers. For example, this legislation would allow holding companies to diversify into new business ventures. Diversification into utility or non utility business will increase competition and increase the flow of capital as non utility companies are able to enter into joint ventures with holding companies. Also, the integration requirements of the 1935 act, which prohibit any registered holding company from owning utility companies in more than one State, would be eliminated. Permitting ownership of utility companies in more than one state would allow holding companies to achieve greater efficiencies and lower administrative costs. The resulting savings can be passed on to consumers in lower energy rates. The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1995 provides State and Federal regulators with the necessary authority to examine books and records and conduct audits of public utility companies. It is important that the States be given the authority to examine the books and records of public utilities and be given the authority to examine the books and records of public utilities and their affiliates, to make sure that retail electricity rates are set fairly and that the cost of other ventures are not passed on to the captive utility rate payer. To be certain that this burden does not fall on the States alone, the FERC will share this function. Transferring ratemaking functions to the States and the FERC also eliminates the regulatory gap created by the Supreme Court's Ohio Power decision, which effectively stripped the FERC of its authority to regulate holding company wholesale rate increases. Mr. President, this bill puts in place the proper consumer safeguards to protect electric and gas utility ratepayers and stockholders from bearing the costs of diversification by registered holding companies. Mr. President, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 has achieved the original congressional purpose--it broke up the mammoth holding company structures that existed more than half a century ago. The registration and disclosure requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 have become effective tools for the SEC to protect investors and ensure the integrity of the market for public utility holding company securities. Further, State Public Service Commissions have become effective retail energy regulators, who can protect their ratepayers. Presently, only 11 electric utility companies and 9 gas companies are subject to the 1935 act; approximately 100 companies are exempt. The 20 registered utility companies are also regulated by States and the FERC. The same provisions that were originally enacted to protect consumers and investors have become unnecessary impediments to business. For example, to ensure that holding companies do not further abuse power, the 1935 act requires that the SEC give prior approval to all utility acquisitions. However, these acquisitions are subject to FERC and State approval, as well as that of the SEC, and are reviewed to comply with antitrust laws. This duplicative approval system often delays the acquisition of a new company for months or years, while providing no added protection to consumers. Mr. President, the Banking Committee has consulted the Energy Committee, the SEC and the FERC as well as industry and consumer representatives in crafting this legislation to make sure appropriate regulatory authority is maintained in a new legal framework that allows holding companies to participate in new ventures and diversify without negative consequences to utility customers. The Banking Committee intends to hold hearings on this legislation in the near future. Although some would like to tie Public Utility Holding Company Act reform to other more controversial energy-related issues, the time for this legislation is now. The repeal of the 1935 act will increase competition in the public utility industry without compromising investor and consumer protection. I urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I introduce the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1995. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues on the Banking Committee, Senators Shelby, Mack, Faircloth, and Dodd; the chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee, Senators Murkowski and Johnston respectively; and Senate Majority Leader Dole and Majority Whip Lott as sponsors of the bill. Mr. President, this bill would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (``the 1935 Act'') and transfer certain regulatory functions from the Securities and Exchange Commission to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Public Service Commissions of various States. The bill is supported by the SEC, the energy industry, and Senators on both sides of the aisle. In June, the SEC published a comprehensive report on the 1935 Act. In that report, ``The Regulation of Public- [[Page S 15128]] Utility Holding Companies,'' the division of investment management stated that: The 1935 Act had accomplished its basic purpose and that its remaining provisions . . . either duplicated other State or Federal regulation or otherwise were no longer necessary to prevent recurrence of the abuses that led to its enactment. The SEC Division of Investment Management reviewed the history of the 1935 act and the energy industry along with other subsequent administrative and legislative changes. The report's recommendation suggests that Congress conditionally repeal the act since the current regulatory system imposes significant costs, in direct administrative charges and foregone economies of scale and scope, that often cannot be justified in terms of benefits to utility investors. In recommending a conditional repeal, the SEC noted that unconditional repeal of the 1935 act could expose consumers to some of the same abuses that it was enacted to prevent. As SEC Chairman, Arthur Levitt, cautions: [A]s long as electric and gas utilities continue to function as monopolies, the need to protect against the cross-subsidization of nonutility operations will continue to exist . . . the best means of guarding against cross- subsidization is likely to be thorough audits of books and records and federal oversight of affiliate transactions. Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today, the Public Utility Company Act of 1995, would maintain the provisions of the 1935 act essential to consumer protection. This bill would eliminate many of these burdensome and duplicative regulations while maintaining protection for energy consumers and ratepayers. For example, this legislation would allow holding companies to diversify into new business ventures. Diversification into utility or non utility business will increase competition and increase the flow of capital as non utility companies are able to enter into joint ventures with holding companies. Also, the integration requirements of the 1935 act, which prohibit any registered holding company from owning utility companies in more than one State, would be eliminated. Permitting ownership of utility companies in more than one state would allow holding companies to achieve greater efficiencies and lower administrative costs. The resulting savings can be passed on to consumers in lower energy rates. The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1995 provides State and Federal regulators with the necessary authority to examine books and records and conduct audits of public utility companies. It is important that the States be given the authority to examine the books and records of public utilities and be given the authority to examine the books and records of public utilities and their affiliates, to make sure that retail electricity rates are set fairly and that the cost of other ventures are not passed on to the captive utility rate payer. To be certain that this burden does not fall on the States alone, the FERC will share this function. Transferring ratemaking functions to the States and the FERC also eliminates the regulatory gap created by the Supreme Court's Ohio Power decision, which effectively stripped the FERC of its authority to regulate holding company wholesale rate increases. Mr. President, this bill puts in place the proper consumer safeguards to protect electric and gas utility ratepayers and stockholders from bearing the costs of diversification by registered holding companies. Mr. President, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 has achieved the original congressional purpose--it broke up the mammoth holding company structures that existed more than half a century ago. The registration and disclosure requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 have become effective tools for the SEC to protect investors and ensure the integrity of the market for public utility holding company securities. Further, State Public Service Commissions have become effective retail energy regulators, who can protect their ratepayers. Presently, only 11 electric utility companies and 9 gas companies are subject to the 1935 act; approximately 100 companies are exempt. The 20 registered utility companies are also regulated by States and the FERC. The same provisions that were originally enacted to protect consumers and investors have become unnecessary impediments to business. For example, to ensure that holding companies do not further abuse power, the 1935 act requires that the SEC give prior approval to all utility acquisitions. However, these acquisitions are subject to FERC and State approval, as well as that of the SEC, and are reviewed to comply with antitrust laws. This duplicative approval system often delays the acquisition of a new company for months or years, while providing no added protection to consumers. Mr. President, the Banking Committee has consulted the Energy Committee, the SEC and the FERC as well as industry and consumer representatives in crafting this legislation to make sure appropriate regulatory authority is maintained in a new legal framework that allows holding companies to participate in new ventures and diversify without negative consequences to utility customers. The Banking Committee intends to hold hearings on this legislation in the near future. Although some would like to tie Public Utility Holding Company Act reform to other more controversial energy-related issues, the time for this legislation is now. The repeal of the 1935 act will increase competition in the public utility industry without compromising investor and consumer protection. I urge my colleagues' support.