Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment from the Senator from California. The reason I oppose this amendment is because it does nothing to help us meet our real goal in this debate, which is the fundamental reform of a failed welfare system. Instead it reopens a funding formula debate that pits State against State, and puts the whole endeavor of welfare reform in dire jeopardy. Let me be clear that my State is one that would benefit from the adoption of the Feinstein amendment. There are elements of the Senator from California's amendment that I believe have merit, and I believe she has made some important points in the debate on her amendment. Nevertheless, the practical effect of her amendment will be to reopen a battle that can only stand in the way of the enactment of this important welfare reform bill. I intend to vote against this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to exclude Length of Service Award Programs [LOSAP's] for volunteers performing firefighting or prevention services, emergency medical services, or ambulance services from section 457 of the [[Page S 13474]] Internal Revenue Code. In addition, the legislation would exempt LOSAP's from FICA and Medicare taxation. This corrective legislation would support the vital role that volunteer firefighters and rescue personnel play in small towns and rural areas across America. I am very proud to say that I am a volunteer firefighter, and have been for about 30 years. And I was never more proud than to witness the efforts of the 1,500 or so volunteers who vigorously fought the recent fire we had on Long Island. There are approximately 150,000 volunteer firefighters in about 37 States who receive nominal awards, averaging $250 per year, under LOSAP's from their governmental or tax-exempt fire districts. Volunteers earn awards under a LOSAP, on the basis of years of service, while performing volunteer services. However, not until after retiring from volunteer service are volunteers actually disbursed cash from the LOSAP's. There are similar award programs for volunteers performing other emergency medical services, such as rescue personnel and ambulance drivers. These nonqualified plans are covered under Internal Revenue Code section 457. Participants in these plans normally report for tax purposes any compensation deferred and any income attributable to the amounts when it is actually received, similar to qualified pension plans. Under section 457, one requirement to delay taxation is to limit such deferred amounts to a percentage of compensation paid. Generally, most volunteer firefighters and rescue personnel receive no regular pay, or only nominal amounts to cover expenses. Section 457 is in the code to prevent governmental and tax-exempt entities from setting aside excessive amounts of tax-deferred income for highly compensated employees, while at the same time being able to avoid the nondiscrimination rules that are applicable to qualified plans. Volunteers are far from being highly compensated, so the legislation does not undermine this policy. However, applying the current limitations, on the amounts set aside as LOSAP's for retirement, may result in a tax liability for volunteers with zero or minimal pay at the time the amounts vest with the volunteer. This could result even though it may be years before the volunteer will actually receive any funds. This proposal would provide that the LOSAP's are excluded from the provisions of section 457. The result would be deferral of taxation until the LOSAP awards are paid. It would also exempt the amounts awarded under LOSAP's from FICA and Medicare payroll taxes. The latter provision is similar to other payroll tax exclusions permitted in the tax law, such as exempting Peace Corps allowances paid to volunteers, as well as other plans established by the Government for deferral of compensation. Mr. President, the proposal would foster volunteerism in the United States. This is especially important because in many parts of the country it is not economically or geographically feasible to provide fire protection and emergency medical services through paid career personnel. I urge my colleagues to support this sensible legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Sure. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this amendment. I rise to oppose it on a number of grounds and bases. First of all, Mr. President, I support welfare reform. We need welfare reform. We need sweeping reform. We need workfare. But reform cannot come solely at the expense of New York, or New York and California, or at the expense of New York, California, and Pennsylvania, or at the expense of any of those to whom this amendment does grievous harm. We are not just talking about States; we are talking about harm to the families, to the children that this amendment will devastate. This amendment is not about reform. It is not about welfare formulas that make sense. It is about taking money from poor children in certain States. In many cases, these are the States that have done the most to help poor people. And now to penalize them as a result of that and to shift those dollars, without regard to the level of resources the States are willing to commit on their own, but simply to say that we are going to grab more money, we are going to enrich certain States. That's wrong and unacceptable. I am going to point out specifically some of those areas that cause concern. We have tried to be fair in accommodating the concerns of the Senator from Florida. This bill contains an $877 million supplemental growth formula that will benefit Florida and 18 other States anticipating population growth over the life of this bill. And that is fair and that is reasonable. They are going to have additional growth. Let us take care of that. Under the Dole-Hutchison formula, the State of Florida will receive $150 million more, over the next 5 years, than they would have received under the Finance Committee's initial proposal. But let me tell you, the amendment that is before us now, the amendment of the Senator from Florida, is fundamentally unfair. Let me tell you what the real impact of this amendment would be. No. 1, the amendment would reallocate more than $2 billion from 14 States; 14 States would lose $2 billion, causing a half-million families to lose welfare benefits. That is not welfare reform. If we want to kill any chance of welfare reform, then adopt this amendment. Indeed maybe that is the basis and the genesis of this amendment--to kill reform. New York would lose $749 million in fiscal year 1996 alone. Let me tell you what it would be over 5 years, Mr. President: $4.5 billion. That is just simply wrong. It is mean spirited, and we have not even accounted for the State of California. They have people. They have children. They have needs. They have been meeting those needs. The loss there would be well over $5 billion. Those two States alone, 20 million people in New York and 30 million in California--50 million people--would account for three-quarters of the funds that were redistributed. That is not what welfare reform should be about. Fairness, yes. But not this kind of attempt to enrich oneself at the expense of others. That is not what this country is about. When there is a disaster, we all pitch in. We do not say, ``What is the population of your State?'' We are there. If there is an earthquake, a fire, floods, devastation, we are there. If it costs $6 billion, $8 billion, $9 billion to help the State of California, we do it. If it cost $4 billion or $5 billion to help a State, and the State was Florida, we were there. The Senators from New York did not say, ``Well we did not get that portion. We did not get that kind of disaster relief.'' That is what Federalism is about. I did not think it was about looking at how we can enrich certain states, and then throwing in a bunch of additional States so that we can get votes. That is what this bill is about. There are more than a dozen States, 15 I believe, that are rewarded arbitrarily--nothing to do with need per se; just worked into the formula so we can get more money to get more votes. Supposedly this way we will get 30 votes because we have given each of these 15 States more money. Is that the way we will run this country? Is that what this legislative body has become? By the way, I have seen these kinds of amendments in the past. They are wrong. I do not care whether they come from the Republican side or the Democratic side. Today, there was an amendment offered by one of my colleagues. It could have given New York more money. I voted against it. It would have disadvantaged other States. This is not about trying to be one up on somebody else. That may not be what is intended, but that is what this amendment is. It is one- upmanship. We can play that role. It does not take a great genius to figure out a formula, and we could come up with such a formula, that would enrich maybe 33 States and disadvantage some others. I do not think that is what we want to be about--arbitrarily rewarding some States. Let me just make several points, and I am not going to take a great deal more time, but I am going to say if one were to look at this chart which comes from the incredible work of the Northeast-Midwest Coalition, under the stewardship of the senior Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, who for years and years and years has been a leader in talking about inequities affecting our region. Want to see some inequities? I will show you an inequity. If we want to look at what tax efforts are and take a look at the Northeast and Midwest from 1981 to 1994 over a 14-year period of time, you will see there is a $690 billion inequity relating to Federal allocable dollars spent in our region. If we want to change things around, if we want to get into who gets more money, then look at the tax efforts, look at the taxes paid by our respective citizens and our respective States and the amount of money that we get back. We would be pretty well enriched. Let me tell you again, in this work, Senator Moynihan has been a pioneer in this effort. He has talked about this issue over the years, but it bears repetition right here. If we are going to get into the business of crafting formulas to enrich our particular State, fine. But it is a nasty business, and it destroys what Federalism is about. Why, then, we think we have an argument. Between fiscal year 1981 and 1994 on a cumulative basis, if New York's percentage of fair, allocable Federal spending is equal to the Federal share of taxes paid, the State of New York would have received an additional $142 billion. Where is our money? We want $142 billion. I did not know we were going to get into this business of saying, ``Oh, no, we sent $142 billion down, more than what we got back.'' That is what this kind of amendment is doing. It is mischief-making. Take a look at the State of Florida. On the other hand, if we had said, ``You get as much as you put in,'' the State of Florida would have received $38.5 billion less. In other words, it has done better. It got $38.5 billion more than it sent down to Washington. Not bad. But now we are going to find a way to get more money for the State of Florida. Where do we take it from? We take it from New York, its taxpayers and, more importantly, the poor kids, the poor children, the poor families. That is absolutely wrong. It is not acceptable. [[Page S 13363]] Now, as I have said, we want meaningful welfare reform. And, by the way, reasonable people can disagree on the basis of reform. My distinguished colleague and I agree that there has to be welfare reform. We may not agree on every part of this, but I tell you one thing: We all recognize when formulas or propositions--whether they come from the Republican side or the Democratic side--are basically not fair. You do not just enrich States so that you can get Senators from those States, so you can say, ``Look, under my formula I will get the $20 million a year more with no rational basis.'' By the way, that is another concern, and I will speak to that when I get 2 minutes tomorrow morning, whereby if you have an 80 percent maintenance of effort, and if the Graham amendment were enacted, New York would be forced to contribute $500 million in welfare spending than would get in its grant from the Federal Government. Incredible. We had better protect our citizens. If there are areas where the formulas are inequitable and we can make them work better, we should attempt to do that, and we have attempted to do that. But we should not get into the business of advancing one's own interest for one's own State at the expense of another. I do not think that is what we should be about. I do not think that is what this debate should be about. I have to say there is a tremendous imbalance here, $690 billion over 14 years, if we look at how much our region paid and how much it got back. I want to thank my senior colleague and Senator, the distinguished Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, who has made possible the gathering of so much of this information that we could present tonight.

Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.

Mr. D'AMATO. Exactly. I thank my colleague. Under this amendment, if this amendment were adopted--the irony would be that it would wind up that we would have to spend $1.84 billion and we would only be getting $1.32 billion from the Federal side. In other words, New York would have to contribute roughly $500 million more it would receive from the Federal Government if Senator Graham's amendment were to pass. It would be devastating. We are not talking about devastating to a State, or to some organization, some institution. We are talking about over 300,000 families that would be impacted--people, live human beings, who, in most cases, would have tremendous problems. We are trying to find out how to mainstream them. Mainstreaming is one thing. Workfare is one thing, and I support it wholeheartedly. But to impose a radical reallocation of dollars that will deny shelter or a meal to people in my state is not what welfare reform should be about. Again, I want to thank Senator Domenici for pointing out what this impact of this amendment would be, and I certainly want to add my support to the efforts of Senator Moynihan, my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from New York, in his opposition, to this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Inouye, Pressler, Faircloth, and Kohl to introduce the Iran Foreign Oil Sanctions Act of 1995. The purpose of this legislation is simple. It will place sanctions on any foreign company that supplies [[Page S 12964]] Iran with equipment to extract petroleum, natural gas, or other activities that would enable Iran to obtain hard currency with which to fund the acquisition of a nuclear bomb and to continue its funding of international terrorism. Any increase in Iranian oil revenues should be viewed as a threat to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. Several months ago, I commended President Clinton for his wisdom in implementing a total United States trade ban against Iran. I had been pushing for this ban for 2 years, because I felt that it was wrong for us to be subsidizing Iranian terrorism. Thankfully, the United States no longer is doing so. I wish, however, I could say the same for the rest of the world. While Iran is racing to obtain weapons of mass destruction, most of the other countries of the world are subsidizing them through their development of the Iranian oil fields. What they are forgetting is that by providing Iran with hard currency, they are providing Iran with the means with which to fulfill their dreams of obtaining nuclear weapons. This cannot be allowed to happen. While I know that this administration has tried to convince our allies of their mistake in subsidizing Iranian aggression, I feel that they can do more. I feel that they must have the proper tools with which to deal with the allies regarding Iran and this bill provides those tools. Our allies must understand that oil is Iran's lifeline. If we are going to persuade the Iranian regime that its efforts to achieve nuclear status, its support for international terrorism, and its horrendous human rights abuses against the Iranian people should all end, we must end the funding with which they are paying for it all. The rest of the world now must stop providing that funding. Our legislation provides a series of mandatory sanctions and discretionary sanctions that the President may place upon any foreign company, foreign person, successor entity to that company or person, parent, and subsidiary who engages in either trade with Iran in the above-mentioned sectors or has requisite knowledge thereof. Among the mandatory sanctions that the President can place upon the offending foreign company are the following: Procurement sanctions which state that the U.S. Government shall not procure, or enter into any contract for the procurement of, any goods or services from such sanctioned foreign persons or any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or successor entity thereof. Export sanctions which state that the U.S. Government shall not issue any license or grant any other permission or authority to export any goods or technology to a sanctioned foreign person or company. Inclusion onto the table of denial orders stating that sanctioned foreign persons shall be included within the table of denial orders for general and validated export licenses for a period of not less than three years. Denial of entry of persons into the United States meaning that senior executives of sanctioned companies, as well as sanctioned persons are ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into the United States. Additional to the mandatory sanctions, there is a menu of discretionary sanctions that the President can choose from to impose upon the offending foreign company. They include the following choices: Review of certain mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers, stating that the President may exercise his statutory authority to prohibit mergers, acquisitions, takeovers, and other similar investments in the United States by sanctioned companies and persons. Import sanctions, stating that the President may ban the importation into the United States of products produced by any sanctioned foreign person, including any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or successor entity. Prohibition against export-import bank assistance for exports to foreign persons, stating that there shall be no export-import guarantees, credit, or insurance for goods or services to sanctioned companies or persons. Loans from U.S. financial institutions, stating that the U.S. Government may prohibit U.S. financial institutions from making any loan or providing any credit to any sanctioned foreign person or company. Prohibitions on foreign financial institutions, stating that a sanctioned foreign financial institution will lose its designation as a primary dealer in the United States, a sanctioned foreign financial institution shall not serve as an agent of the U.S. Government or serve as a repository of U.S. Government funds and a sanctioned foreign financial institution shall not engage in any line of business or conduct any business from any location that it did not conduct before the determination by the President of becoming a sanctioned company or person. Mr. President, I want to make it clear that we are providing the President with a wide variety of options to deal with foreign companies that provide Iran with oil fields and affiliated equipment. We have provided ample waiver authority for the President, and in no way mean to tie his hands in his conduct of foreign affairs. We are, however, putting the countries of the world on notice that Iran is a dangerous country, with intentions inimical to our own, possessing aspirations that provide a real and sustained threat to the region and the world. Continued coddling and trading with Iran will only serve to build up a monster that we will have to deal with at some future time. It is better to deal with Iran now, in this manner, than a nuclear-armed Iran in the more dangerous future. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. 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 in honor of a great American, Thomas Stavalone. On September 14 of this year, Thomas Stavalone of Saratoga Ave., Rochester, NY, will be celebrating an event few others have been privileged to achieve; he will be 100 years old. Born in a suburb of Naples, Italy, in the village of Peturo in 1895, Tom emigrated to America in 1904 at the tender age of 9. Together with his family, he originally settled in the Scio Street area, later relocating to the old 9th Ward section of Rochester, which he still calls home. He attended No. 5 School, where he met the girl he would eventually marry. On June 30, 1917, Tom married his sweetheart, Immaculate LaMarca. She lived to the age of 90, passing away in 1987, after they had celebrated their 70th wedding anniversary. They had four children, Lawrence, Amelia, Margie and Thomas, Jr., who died in infancy. As a sports enthusiast during his youth, he preferred to be an active participant rather than an observer. Tom is also an avid outdoorsman, enjoying both hunting and fishing. He would always share his bountiful catch with neighbors and friends. Tom worked in several Rochester shoe factories over the years, but when he retired in 1962 it was from a position with the Rochester Transit Authority. Tom's chief activity today is gardening, but he also enjoys playing bocce and watching Yankee games. No matter what the weather, he walks daily to the Stardust Room at Edgerton Park to share in their senior citizen lunches. There he also enjoys the camaraderie of both neighbors and friends. Tom has witnessed 17 men rise to become the President of our country extending from Teddy Roosevelt to Bill Clinton. During his 100 years, Tom has seen the progress in transportation go from the horse and buggy age to man landing on the Moon; mass communication has evolved from just the printed word to radio, and even computers; entertainment has extended from vaudeville to video. Times have certainly changed and Tom Stavalone has been there to witness these many changes. His family and friends will honor him with a gala celebration on September 17, 1995, at the Mapledale Party House in Rochester, NY. I want to thank Tom for his many contributions to the betterment of our world and with him a very happy 100th birthday.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Richard A. Grasso, chairman and chief executive officer of the New York Stock Exchange on his selection as the recipient of the first annual Humanitarian of the Year Award presented by the Cooley's Anemia Foundation. The Cooley's Anemia Foundation is honoring Mr. Grasso for his support, friendship, and tireless efforts on behalf of the patients and families who are impacted by this devastating blood disease. As the father of young children himself, Mr. Grasso, I believe, has a keen understanding of the importance of supporting the efforts led by the Cooley's Anemia Foundation to find a cure for what the World Health Organization has identified as the most common inherited genetic blood disease in the world. Mr. Grasso has had a distinguished career over the last 26 years at the New York Stock Exchange. He is the first member of the New York Stock Exchange staff to be elected to the position of chairman and chief executive officer in the exchange's 200-year history. He has exhibited what is best about the American spirit--he has given back to his community by working on behalf of many good causes. Just consider the following. He is currently Chairman of the board of trustees of Junior Achievement of New York and he serves on the board of directors of the National Italian-American Foundation. Mr. Grasso is a trustee of the New York City Police Foundation, as well as a member of the board of directors of the Washington, DC-based police foundation. He also serves on the St. Vincent's Hospital Board of Trustees in New York City. He is the honorary chairman of the Friends of the Statue of Liberty National Monument-Ellis Island Foundation. He even finds time to serve his own local community, Old Brookville, NY, as police commissioner and village trustee. His receipt of the Cooley's Anemia Foundation's Humanitarian of the Year Award adds to the many awards and honors he has already received, including the Humanitarian of the Year Award from the Tomorrow's Children's Fund, the Special Achievement Award in Business from the National Italian-American Foundation, the Ellis Island Medal of Honor from the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations, the Good Scout Award from the Greater New York Councils for Boy Scouts of America, and the Brotherhood Award from the National Conference of Christians and Jews. Most recently, he was honored in 1994 as the Man of the Year by the Catholic Big Brothers organization. He is indeed a special person, having risen to the top ranks of his profession and still finding time to give back to these worthwhile causes. His efforts on behalf of the Cooley's Anemia Foundation are particularly important and special to me. I know many of the families and patients who must deal with treating this disease every day of their lives. Every 2 weeks, Cooley's anemia patients require transfusions of red blood cells. Every day they must wear a special pump that painfully infuses a drug for 12 hours. But, because of research over the last several decades, treatment has been developed which prolongs the life of Cooley's anemia patients. Twenty years ago, most patients rarely lived past the age of 10; today many are living into their twenties and trying to be productive citizens. Now, promising new research is being conducted into Cooley's anemia, giving us all great hope that some day it will be curable. That is why the efforts of people like Richard Grasso are so important. At a time when new research opportunities are before us, we must ensure that the resources of private philanthropic organizations, such as the Cooley's Anemia Foundation, are strengthened. Additionally, we must assure that the Federal commitment continues. [[Page S 12631]] Again, I congratulate Richard Grasso on his receipt of the Cooley's Anemia Foundation first annual Humanitarian of the Year Award. With his continued support and assistance, I am confident that we will indeed live to see a cure. He is an example for us all.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to offer my congratulations to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation as it celebrates its 25th anniversary. The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, known as Freddie Mac, has served as a vital source of mortgage capital for 2\1/ 2\ decades. Since its Congressional charter in 1970, Freddie Mac has purchased over $1.2 trillion in mortgage loans. After purchase, mortgage loans are packaged into securities and sold to investors. Freddie Mac has developed an efficient and liquid secondary mortgage market that has ensured a continuous and reliable flow of funds to the primary mortgage market. Freddie Mac steadfastly continues to fulfill its important mission to make a reality of the American dream of decent, safe and affordable housing. Since its creation, Freddie Mac has assisted 16 million hard working American families by financing one out of every six homes in the United States. This is a tremendous accomplishment which deserves our commendation. Freddie Mac is working to enhance the existing mortgage finance delivery system through efforts to ensure fair lending, revitalize neighborhoods and expand affordable housing opportunities. These efforts should enable Freddie Mac to continue to serve Americans for generations to come. It is with pleasure that I recognize the success story of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. I applaud Freddie Mac for a job well done and wish them a happy anniversary.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I stand in opposition to the confirmation of Lawrence Summers to the Office of Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. It is fair to say that most people are aware of my strong feelings in opposition to the Mexican bailout. We should not be using $20 billion in American taxpayer money to bail out a mismanaged Mexican Government and global speculators, and it was wrong for the administration to bypass Congress. Mr. Summers is the chief architect of the administration's bailout of Mexico. Mr. President, several weeks ago I released a chronology as well as internal Treasury Department documents revealing that key administration officials, including Under Secretary Summers, were not candid and forthcoming about the true condition of Mexico's economy during 1994. These documents make clear that Mr. Summers knew about Mexico's deteriorating economic condition as early as February 1994. But Mr. Summers did not warn Congress or the American public. Instead, he and other key administration officials repeatedly painted a rosy public picture of the Mexican economy. Mr. Summers has had a distinguished career, and he is a decent man. But I have a difficult time reconciling the private and public statements by Mr. Summers and other top administration officials--who were advised by Mr. Summers--regarding Mexico during 1994. Let me cite a few highlights from my chronology. As early as February 15, 1994, an internal Treasury Department report warned that ``Mexico's balance of payments situation may be fragile because of its large dependence on portfolio investments which are potentially volatile.'' However, on February 17, 1994--2 days later-- Secretary Bentsen stated that Mexico ``has become an example for all of Latin America'' because of its economic policies. On March 24, 1994, Mr. Summers was informed that the Mexican Government ``is looking for some comforting Treasury words to soothe the press.'' Then, despite Mexico's falling international reserves and growing current account deficit, Secretary Bentsen issued a statement saying: ``We have every confidence that Mexico is on the right economic path.'' On April 26, 1994, Mr. Summers sent Secretary Bentsen a memo stating: ``Mexico's dependency on the financing of its large current account deficit from largely volatile foreign portfolio investments remains a serious problem.'' Once again, however, on that very same day Mr. Summers told CNBC that ``Mexico is fundamentally sound and has a fundamentally sound currency. We are very encouraged about the situation in Mexico.'' Finally, on November 21, 1994--despite the administration's growing concerns about Mexico's economy--Mr. Summers informed Secretary Bentsen that ``the Mexicans would very much like for you to make a statement today.'' Mr. Summers informed the Secretary that he had worked out a statement with the Mexican Government which not only failed to disclose any of the administration's concerns, but instead hailed ``Mexico's strong economic fundamentals.'' Less than a month later, Mr. President, Mexico was forced to devalue its currency. Mr. President, I agree with A.M. Rosenthal of the New York Times, who wrote on April 4, 1995, in a column entitled ``Cover-Up Chronology'': ``Real concern for Mexico would have meant public warnings from Washington as soon as trouble was discovered. Legitimate confidentiality does not include deceiving the world.'' Mr. President, at his confirmation hearing before the Finance Committee, Mr. Summers conceded that mistakes had been made in the handling of the Mexican crisis. He admitted that he and other officials should have used more care in choosing the words for their public statements. He agreed to improve communications between Congress and the administration and endorsed my recommendation for private consultations with key congressional committees when future financial threats begin to emerge. Nevertheless, Mr. President, these admissions cannot erase the serious errors made by Mr. Summers in his handling of the Mexican economic crisis. Therefore, I must vote against his confirmation.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to seek the guidance of my friend, the Senator from Washington, with respect to undertaking a management plan for Oriskany Battlefield. Oriskany Battlefield is a national historic landmark that designates the site of a major American Revolutionary War battle. On that site, American patriots fought British regulars, loyalists, and certain nations of the Iroquois Confederation. Of particular interest is the involvement of four of the six nations of the Confederation on the side of the British. The Oneida and Tuscarora Nations within the Iroquois Confederation chose to support the Americans over the British, leading, as is believed, to the dissolution of the 200 year-old Confederation. The significance of the battlefield, its proximity to another historic and integrally linked national site, Fort Stanwix National Monument, and the circumstances surrounding the involvement of the combatants make Oriskany Battlefield an ideal candidate for possible inclusion in the National Park System. There is demonstrated interest on the part of citizens of the local community, New York State, and the Oneida Nation of New York to explore the option of a larger Federal role in the site. However, in order to do this, a general planning study must be undertaken.

Mr. D'AMATO. I thank my friend. Ellis Island is a place that is of special interest to all Americans. Therefore, I believe that it is very important that any interested Member of Congress be notified before the National Park Service undergoes any attempt to redevelop the southern end of Ellis Island.

Mr. D'AMATO. I thank my friend. intertribal bison cooperative

Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the chairman for that clarification. federal appliance energy standards

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to discuss with the chairman of the subcommittee an issue of importance to millions of Americans. I hope to clarify the intent of the subcommittee and keep intact the integrity of what, to many, is a solemn place. Mr. President, over a period of 62 years, more than 12 million immigrants sailed into the gateway to the United States, Ellis Island, NY. They arrived from the four corners of the Earth with only a handful of possessions, uncertain of what they would find. From Ellis Island, these individuals spread into every part of our land, eager to explore the opportunities that our dynamic Nation presented. Many Americans, including a number of our colleagues, can trace their heritage to Ellis Island. To those who passed through the great hall and to their descendants, Ellis Island is considered a hallowed place. It is not a place to be treated insignificantly, it is a place to be respected. That is why, Mr. President, I am weary of anything relating to Ellis Island that could somehow cheapen its meaning. That is why I have repeatedly opposed constructing a permanent bridge linking the mainland to Ellis Island. Our ancestors did not arrive at Ellis Island by foot, by horse, by cart, or by automobile. Every one of them arrived by boat. A permanent bridge would violate the cultural and historical context of Ellis Island, and would only serve to trivialize and detract from the experience of how our ancestors came to pass through Ellis Island. Therefore, I am sure that my colleague from Washington can understand my concern with language included in the bill before us that prevents the demolition of the current, temporary bridge that runs to Ellis Island. In addition, as I understand, the language makes this temporary structure available to pedestrians provided that proper safety measures are enacted and enforced.

Mr. D'AMATO. I thank my friend and colleague for that clarification. As I stated, I become concerned when I feel the integrity of Ellis Island is put into question. Fortunately, the chairman's leadership has given me confidence that this provision will be given the utmost scrutiny. I look forward to working closely with him on this issue. Mr. President, I would like to receive further clarification from the chairman of the subcommittee on another matter in relation to Ellis Island. As I understand, the present bill language places a 30-day hold on implementing any plan to develop the southern end of Ellis Island until the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate have been notified and given a full and comprehensive report on such development.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution commemorating the anti-Greek pogrom that took place in Istanbul and Izmir, Turkey, on the night of September 6-7, 1955. With the coming 40th anniversary of this horrible event, this resolution is meant to commemorate the tragic losses and horrific destruction of these riots and to honor its victims. In September 1955, the Greek minority population in Istanbul numbered over 100,000 people. Today, slightly over 2,000 remain. This pogrom marked the beginning of the end of the Greek community's presence in Istanbul and became ``* * * one of the wildest eruptions of mob fury and hysteria in modern times * * *'' as the journalist Frederick Sondern, Jr., writing at the time in the Readers Digest, described. Rioters killed 16 Greeks, and wounded 32 more. And it is reported that as many as 200 Greek women were raped on this one night. Moreover, anti-Greek rioters wantonly attacked, pillaged, gutted, and destroyed more than 2,000 Greek homes, 4,200 Greek shops and stores, 73 Greek Orthodox churches, 52 Greek schools, 8 Greek cemeteries, all 3 major Greek newspaper plants, and dozens of Greek factories, hotels, restaurants, and warehouses in Istanbul. At the time, the World Council of Churches placed the damages at $150 million. Other sources reported the damage to be double that amount. Similar attacks occurred in Izmir, Turkey at the same time when rioters attacked and burned down the Greek Consulate and the Greek Pavilion at the Izmir International Fair, as well as attacking the homes of several Greek officers stationed at the NATO headquarters there. During this time, the U.S. State Department reported extensively on the pogrom, and described the destruction as ``extremely widespread,'' adding ``* * * only a very small percentage of community property appears to have escaped molestation.'' Mr. President, I am submitting this resolution so that the victims of this pogrom are not forgotten and the perpetrators know that their vicious attacks will not pass into history without condemnation and hopefully redress, to the extent that this could be done. Just as pogroms in the former Russian empire, during and after the Russian revolution ended the lives of thousands of Jews, these pogroms cannot be forgotten or denied. History must remember. Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that dispatches from the U.S. State Department concerning the pogrom, as well as a listing of the deaths during the riots, be made a part of the Record. These documents were reprinted in the 1992 Helsinki report, ``Denying Human Rights & Ethnic Identity: The Greeks of Turkey.'' I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution and honor the victims of this despicable act.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, this amendment deals with the utilization of the Exchange Stabilization Fund. This amendment does not deal with Mexico specifically. It is the result of what we have learned from the Mexican crisis and the manner in which those funds have been used. This amendment attempts to deal with what I believe is Congress' absolute responsibility. That is to say, if we are going to make American taxpayers' funds available, there should be a process which gives to the Congress the ability to be involved in that decision. Let me give you the four main provisions. First, before using ESF, the President must certify that there was no cost to the U.S. taxpayers and that repayment of the ESF funds is guaranteed. Second, congressional approval is required before using more than $1 billion of ESF funds for more than 6 months in any 1 year to a single foreign country. Third, in extreme circumstances, the President may exceed these limits if he certifies that there is a threat to vital U.S. economic interests or the stability of the international financial system. Fourth, Congress may disapprove of the emergency certification on an expedited basis. Mr. President, I have conferred with Senator Dodd and others and we are all in agreement with this amendment. Mr. President, since February, I have repeatedly expressed my concern about the President's decision to circumvent Congress to bail out Mexico. Billions of taxpayer dollars were wasted, put in jeopardy, and may ultimately be lost, because the President used the Exchange Stabilization Fund--the ESF--in an unprecedented action to bail out global speculators. We must make sure that this never happens again. This amendment is designed to protect the American taxpayers and reassert congressional control and responsibility over the ESF. I am very pleased that Majority Leader Dole, and Senators Helms, Hollings, Faircloth, Murkowski, Domenici, and Grams, are cosponsors of this amendment. Mr. President, let me briefly explain my amendment. First, when using ESF funds, the President would be required to certify that there is no cost to the U.S. taxpayers from the proposed transaction and that repayment of the ESF funds is guaranteed. Earlier this year, Congress approved this same certification requirement for ESF funds sent to Mexico. Second, this amendment would impose a $1 billion 6-month cap on the Secretary's unrestricted ability to use ESF funds. When the Secretary wants to provide more than $1 billion to a single foreign country for longer than 6 months, Congress will be forced to take action. Mr. President, I want to make clear that this amendment does not overturn the President's bailout of Mexico. Instead, this amendment restores the proper role of Congress in future economic crises in foreign countries. We must learn from the Mexican crisis. Although reasonable people may disagree about the wisdom of the President's Mexican bailout, there can be no doubt that the ESF should not be used to provide foreign aid. Mr. President, the time has come to make sure that Presidents cannot circumvent Congress through the ESF to provide foreign aid. This amendment is the first step. The Constitution expressly provides that Congress must approve appropriations, including foreign aid. It is spelled out in article 1, section 9: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of Appropriations made by Law.'' The Treasury Department has acknowledged that the ESF can't be used for foreign aid. I quote from a recent opinion to Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, from the Treasury Department's general counsel: ``Although loans and credits are clearly permitted under the ESF, their purpose must be to maintain orderly exchange arrangements and a stable system of exchange rates, and not to serve as foreign aid.'' This is clear. The ESF can't be used by the administration as a foreign aid piggy bank. Mr. President, the administration's use of the ESF to bail out Mexico was completely unprecedented and went well beyond any previous use of the ESF. The ESF was established over 60 years ago, and until this bailout, it operated without controversy and in compliance with its original purpose--supporting the dollar and maintaining orderly exchange arrangements. But this small fund, which was rarely mentioned and relatively unknown, quietly grew into a $40 billion slush fund that is beyond congressional control. Mr. President, in the Mexican bailout, the administration ignored all precedent and recognized use of the ESF. Prior to the Mexican bailout, the largest loan to a foreign country from the ESF was $1 billion to Mexico in 1982--and that loan was for just 10 days. Another loan to Mexico in 1982, for 6 months, was the longest loan in the history of the ESF. But this year, the administration committed $20 billion of American taxpayer dollars to Mexico for loans and securities guarantees extending up to 10 years. And the administration took this unprecedented action without a single vote of Congress. I want to emphasize again: $20 billion to a foreign country for 10 years without a single vote of Congress. That was not the purpose of the ESF--that was foreign aid, pure and simple. Mr. President, my amendment would reassert Congress' rights and responsibilities over the ESF. And this amendment would restore the ESF to its original purpose--short-term stabilization of the dollar. American taxpayers' money in the ESF should not, and must not, be used as foreign aid. I would also like to address the apparent lack of cooperation by the administration with the House leadership. I refer my colleagues to the abundant correspondence between Speaker Gingrich and the White House that details the problems with, and the potential violations of, the Mexican Debt Disclosure Act. This correspondence is available from my office. The recent vote in the House on Congressman Sanders' ESF amendment clearly illustrates the frustration and outrage felt by Congress and the American people toward the Mexican bailout and the President's use of the ESF. Mr. President, I fully recognize that the ESF is an important tool in these times of rapidly changing and turbulent financial markets. This amendment would not limit, in any way, the Secretary's ability to use the ESF to stabilize the dollar. The ESF was designed to protect the dollar, not the Mexican peso or any other foreign currency. This amendment will simply reassert Congress' control over the ESF while restraining the Secretary's unchecked ability to spend taxpayer dollars. We must not allow ESF to be used to circumvent Congress' constitutional authority to appropriate funds and provide foreign aid. Congress is the peoples' voice and the administration must not turn its back on the people ever again.

Mr. D'AMATO. I thank Senator Dodd. I thank my colleagues from Utah and New Mexico for their kind words, also. I do believe that Congress, by not becoming part of the process, shares the responsibility and onus in not doing so. Congressional involvement is part of our oversight, and it should be. Hopefully, this legislation will lead to a permanent manner in which to bring us into the process, and if we choose not to, so be it. But I think we should be part of that process. I thank all of my colleagues for the suggestion and their help in bringing us to this point.

Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2230 (Purpose: To provide funding for the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, and for other purposes)

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

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

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today my distinguished colleague, Senator Moynihan, and I are introducing legislation to amend Section 832(e) of the Internal Revenue Code to extend the scope of its provisions to general financial guaranty insurance. Financial guaranty insurance, commonly called bond insurance, is an insurance contract that guarantees timely payment of principal and interest when due. The bond insurance contract generally provides that, in the event of a default by an insured issuer, principal and interest will be paid to the bond holder as originally scheduled. Originally enacted in 1967, currently, section 832(e) applies to underwriters of mortgage guaranty insurance, lease guaranty insurance, and state and local tax-exempt bond insurance. Congress enacted section 832(e) to alleviate the significant drain on insurance providers' working capital that State financial regulations place on those firms. Under section 832(e), a company writing mortgage guaranty insurance, lease guaranty insurance and tax-exempt bond insurance may deduct, for Federal income tax purposes, amounts required by state law to be set aside in a reserve for losses resulting from adverse economic cycles. The deduction cannot exceed the lesser of, first, the company's taxable income or, second, 50 percent of the premiums earned on such guaranty contracts during the taxable year. Further, the deduction is available only to the extent that the taxpayer purchases non-interest-bearing tax and loss bonds equal to the tax savings attributable to the deduction. The taxpayer insurance company may redeem such bonds only as and when it restores to income the associated deduction for reserves. Reserves are restored to income as and when they are applied, according to state regulations, to cover losses, or to the extent that the company has a net operating loss in some subsequent year. In addition, the reserve deduction taken in any particular year must be fully restored to income by the end of the 10th subsequent year. For the tax-exempt bond insurance, this period is increased to 20 years. Mr. President, our proposed legislation would expand the scope of section 832(e) to include general financial guaranty insurance. This reflects the fact that the guaranty industry has expanded, and now provides other insurance guaranty instruments not offered at the time section 832(e) was enacted. These new guaranties are regulated by the same State financial regulations that apply to insurance guaranties currently covered by section 832(e); producing the same extraordinary tax burden that existed for earlier guaranty insurance instruments. Thus, the proposed legislation constitutes a sensible modification of the code to reflect new forms of bond insurance, and does so in a way which both Congress and Treasury have previously found acceptable. This bill would allow those insurance companies which are writing lease guarantee insurance and insurance guaranteeing the debt service of municipal bond issues, for example, obligations the interest on which is excludable from gross income under section 103 of the Code, to deduct additions to contingency reserves in accordance with the current treatment of such additions for mortgage guaranty insurance under section 832(e). Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce the Hamas Exclusion Act of 1995. This bill was introduced in 1993, in conjunction with Representative Peter Deutsch in the House. I am introducing it again this year because of Hamas' continued role in disruption of the peace process as well as the recent detention of Mousa Mohamed Abu Marzook at JFK Airport in New York. Hamas continues to use terrorism as a tool to disrupt the peace process. In doing so, it continues to kill innocent Israelis without concern for life. Between April 1994 and July 1995, Hamas has conducted at least 8 suicide bombings against Israeli targets, killing at least 52 people. This is murder plain and simple. When U.S. immigration officials detained Marzook at JFK last week, they detained a man who held a place on the U.S. terrorism watchlist and according to the INS, is an ``excludable alien based on his participation in terrorist activities.'' I applaud President Clinton's recent actions against terrorism, especially his Executive orders against terrorist fundraising in the United States and the total embargo on trade with Iran for which I pushed. This latest action signals that the United States can no longer act as a haven for those who belong to terrorist organizations whose only wish is to kill and maim. My bill is simple. It states that an alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of Hamas, is considered to be engaged in terrorist activity and therefore eligible to be excludable under the immigration statutes. There can be no toleration of the actions of Hamas and groups like it, nor can we allow these groups to operate in the United States. While this bill is not the panacea, it will act to keep one group out. I urge my colleagues to join me in sending this strong message by cosponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.