Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I move to table the motion. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution, as amended, be considered and agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of calendar number 129, Senate Resolution 97.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the securities bill tomorrow at 9:30. Under the previous order the Senate will vote on or in relation to the Shelby amendment regarding proportional liability at 10:55 a.m.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to offer congratulations to a young man from New York City who is being honored this coming weekend in Washington, DC. This fine young man, Nicholas Kalikow, will receive the coveted silver medal award in the annual Scholastic Art and Writing Awards given by the Alliance for Young Artists and Writers. The ceremony will be held at the Corcoran Gallery of Art on Saturday, June 17, 1995. I have had the privilege of knowing the parents of Nicholas Kalikow, Peter and Mary Kalikow, for many years. Peter is an accomplished businessman, philanthropist, and public servant. Recently, the Governor of New York appointed him to the board of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Mary, in addition to being a caring mother, is deeply involved in the education of the learning disabled, serving on several board's dealing with this critical matter. I have watched Nicholas grow to his early manhood and have been impressed with his talent and character. In addition to his other fine traits, he is a fine gifted writer, as evidenced by this award. The Scholastic Art and Writing Awards, administered by the Alliance for Young Artists and Writers, Inc., has recognized young artists and writers for their achievements in the arts since 1923. It is the largest and longest running program of its kind in the Nation. The awards program attracts entries from all 50 States. Some of our country's most important artists and writers, including Truman Capote and Joyce Carol Oates, received their first recognition from this program. Nicholas will receive the silver medal in the short story category. Many entries were received in this category and I am proud to say the Nicholas' story was selected as a winner. Mr. President, I want to congratulate Nicholas, his parents, sister Kathryn, his grandmother Juliet, and her husband Steve Levene, all of whom will be present at the awards ceremony. I also want to congratulate the sponsors of this event, many of whom are New York based corporations and foundations, who recognize the achievements of our Nation's youth.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I thank my colleague and friend. Let me commend Senator Mack and Senator Bradley for their extraordinary efforts in this area of education, of bringing about public awareness of not only the disease but the horrible impact it has not only on women but the families of America. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation for sponsoring the sixth annual national Race for the Cure, which will take place this coming Saturday, June 17, here in our Nation's Capital. This annual event raises critically needed funds to combat breast cancer--a horrible disease that, unthinkably, has become the most common form of cancer in women, and the leading cause of cancer death for all women between the ages of 35 and 54. It is a disease that--with no known cure and no known cause--can only be understood, and eventually conquered, through increased research. In addition to raising funds for research, this race helps raise the level of public awareness of this disease, while bringing needed public attention to the importance of early detection. We must continue to seek new and creative ways to promote breast cancer awareness. I want to take a moment to recognize the efforts of one of my Long Island constituents, Diane Sackett Nannery, who has proposed the creation of a special pink ribbon postage stamp to help bolster breast cancer awareness in our Nation. Such a stamp would serve as a strong reminder of the magnitude of this disease, while reinforcing public health officials' efforts to promote the benefits of early detection. I believe this stamp deserves the strong and immediate support of the United States Postmaster General. Today I am forwarding a letter to the Postmaster General--signed by all 100 U.S. Senators--urging his support for the prompt approval of the important breast cancer awareness stamp. I am hopeful that the voice of our Nations' women will be heard through this unanimous statement by their elected officials, and that this stamp will soon become a reality. Just as I am heartened by the overwhelming support for this stamp, I am likewise encouraged by the tremendous public response the Race for the Cure has received over its short history. In just 6 years, the national Race for the Cure has grown to become the largest 5K race in the country, with close to 20,000 participants expected in 1995. True to its name, those who enter run not to win the race to the finish line, but to help our Nation win the race against the clock to discover a cure for this devastating disease. Mr. President, I want to commend all those involved in planning, organizing, supporting, and, not least of all, running in this important event. I hope that it will exceed all expectations, and that it will bring us closer to the day when the horrible ravages of breast cancer are a thing of the past. Madam President, this great race, Race for the Cure, which is going to take place Saturday here in our Nation's capital, is just a small part of what my colleagues are attempting to do, and I am proud to be associated with them in this endeavor. Let me also say that yesterday I was able to obtain the signature of every single Member of this body, 100 Senators, within a matter of several hours that would ask of the Postmaster General that a stamp be commemorated to bring about breast cancer awareness. One of my constituents, Diane Sackett Nannery, proposed that there be the creation of a special pink ribbon postage stamp to help bolster breast cancer awareness in our Nation. And as I said I am very proud of my colleagues for the manner in which all of them were so supportive of this attempt to create a greater awareness in our Nation so that we can do more in our efforts to find not only the cure but also to do more in detection and prevention. I can say to you that there has probably been no area in our Nation that has been harder hit than Long Island, my hometown, Nassau County, where we have the highest rate of breast cancer in the United States, a sad distinction to have. So I want to commend my colleagues for their leadership, and I want to say that I am tremendously encouraged by the tremendous public response for the Race for the Cure, not only here but I think nationwide. We have brought people together with this magnificent endeavor. I yield the floor and thank my colleagues. Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Middle East Peace Compliance Act of 1995. The fact of the matter is simple. The PLO is not complying with its responsibilities. It has failed to restrain the radicals in Gaza; it has failed to change the PLO Covenant; and it has failed to come clean with the amount of its assets. Most importantly, the PLO's overwhelming failure to restrain the radical elements within its areas of control is an insult to Israel and everyone who had placed hope in Yasir Arafat's ability to deliver the peace. In return for all of this is the fact that the United States will be sending $100 million to the PLO and Palestinian authorities over the next year, if the administration is allowed to have its way. Mr. President, while it is plain to see that the PLO has not lived up to its commitments, despite the State Department's protests to the contrary, one need only to look at the facts to understand the situation. Between September 13, 1993, the signing of the Declaration of Principles, and May 4, 1994, the beginning of Gaza-Jericho self- rule, there were 373 attacks, with 110 Israelis killed, 70 of them civilians. There are said to be thousands of illegal weapons in the Gaza-Jericho area, at least 26,000, according to the Israeli newspaper Maariv. Furthermore, reports by independent peace monitors, the Judge Advocate General of the Israel Defense Forces [IDF] and the Congressional Peace Accords Monitoring [PAM] Group point to an additional and consistently widening pattern of PLO non-compliance that include: Failure to preempt terrorism; Failure to control the flow of illegal weapons into and inside of Gaza; Failure to apprehend, prosecute and adequately punish individuals accused of criminal or terrorist acts against Israelis; Failure to prevent the illegal diversion of international assistance to PLO activities; Failure to restrict the growth of the Palestinian police force in Gaza which now is conservatively estimated to be 17,000 instead of the 9,000 permitted by agreement with Israel; and Failure to confine Palestinian administrative offices to Gaza, while allowing them to proliferate, illegally, in Jerusalem. It is said that there are networks of terrorist training camps in Gaza, and there is even film of recruits drilling chanting anti-Israeli slogans. Despite sweeping arrests in which the Palestinian authorities round up hundreds of Palestinians for questioning in relation to various bombings, attacks, and other violations, these demonstrations of supposed compliance with Israeli complaints amount to just public relations, in the words of Prime Minister Rabin, himself. Soon after, most of these mass arrests, the suspects are let go. Some system of justice. As far as the covenant is concerned, the PLO shows no interest in abrogating those sections calling for the destruction of Israel. Despite promises to do so, the PLO has not even convened the Palestine National Council in order to amend the covenant. All the State Department can say is that they ``hope that Arafat will do so, and [we] have encouraged him to follow through with this,'' in reference to changing the Covenant. This does not exactly exude confidence or the ability to influence a change. It is for this reason that I am introducing the Middle East Peace Compliance Act of 1995. This legislation places a series of requirements on the PLO before they can receive money from the United States. Briefly, the requirements are as follows: Require that U.S. assistance may only be used for humanitarian projects for the benefit of Palestinians living under the Palestinian authority. All assistance must be channeled only through U.S. Government agencies or private voluntary organizations [PVO's]; [[Page S8179]] Condition any U.S. assistance upon full financial and managerial accountability of the Palestinian authority; Require the President to certify that no aid will go to individuals suspected of having harmed American citizens, while requiring that the PLO assist in the apprehension of and extradition to the United States of all such individuals now, or previously under its control; Direct the President to provide specific counterterrorism technology and technical assistance to Israel; and Require that the PLO pay compensation to U.S. victims of terrorism committed with PLO support and under its direction. Mr. President, this bill is not the panacea. Nor is it the popular thing to do. It is however, the right thing to do. I want peace for Israel as much or more than anyone else does, but I don't want it on the wrong terms. Neville Chamberlain said that there would be peace ``in our time'' after Munich, and there wasn't. I want Israel to be safe and secure. I don't want Israel to become locked into an agreement with an organization that cannot deliver on its end of the bargain. I also do not want to have the U.S. taxpayers' money wasted. The issues are paramount. This peace agreement is like a contract. When one side abides by the contract's terms and the other does not, then the deal has been broken. Now, I know that there will be some who will say that this aid should continue regardless, and that the violations are really not violations. Let me tell you, the violations of the PLO are real and they cannot be ignored or forgiven. They must be dealt with. If this is done, then there should be no problems. The terms for aid in this bill are not odious, they are not overreaching and they are not unreasonable. They are consistent with the requirements that our Government places upon all recipients of U.S. foreign assistance. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I rise to speak about certain provisions in S. 652, the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995. This bill contains provisions that would significantly alter the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA). The PUHCA was originally enacted 60 years ago to simplify the utility holding company structure and ensure that consumers were protected from unfair rate increases. At that time, there were many industry abuses involving the pyramidal corporate structures of holding companies which greatly increased the speculative nature of securities issuances, led to market manipulation, and inflated the capital structure. The abuses in the industry made it nearly impossible for the States to adequately protect utility ratepayers. The PUHCA limited the types of businesses that holding companies could acquire to utility related services. As reported out of the Commerce Committee, Sections 102 and 206 of the ``Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act'' would permit diversification of registered holding companies into the telecommunications business-- without SEC approval or any other conditions. Allowing holding companies to diversify away from their traditional core utility operations is a departure from the basis principles underlying the 1935 Act. Mr. President, my primary concern with these sections of the ``Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act'' is that losses resulting from the subsidiaries telecommunications activities could be passed on to public utility customers in the form of higher utility rates. I would like to commend Senator Pressler and Senator Lott for including my provision--which addresses these concerns--in the manager's amendment. My provision puts in place the proper consumer safeguards to protect electric utility ratepayers and stockholders from bearing the costs of diversification by registered holding companies into telecommunications activities. It requires the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the State regulators to monitor the activities and practices of both the subsidiaries and the parent holding companies that engage in telecommunications activities in order to ensure that utility consumers pay only what they get. For example, my provision would ensure that telecommunications- related activities are conducted in a separate subsidiary of the holding company. It would also provide the States with the appropriate regulatory, investigatory, and enforcement authority to protect utility consumers. To this effect, it would require the States to approve any rate increases by those utility companies that have a telecommunications subsidiary. As a result, the States can examine the proposed rate increase to make sure it is justified and that utility customers are not subsidizing the holding company's telecommunications- related costs. The Banking Committee has consulted the SEC as well as industry and consumer representatives in crafting this provision to make sure appropriate safeguards will allow the holding companies to diversify without negative consequences to utility customers. We have struck a reasonable balance. As a conferee on the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995, I will be in a position to make certain that this balance is preserved. At the same time, I would add that the Banking Committee intends to examine the continuing need for the PUHCA once the Securities and Exchange Commission releases its report and recommendations on repeal or reform of the Act. I would like to thank Senator Pressler, Senator Lott, Senator Bumpers, Senator Sarbanes, and their staffs for their cooperation on this issue.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Kerrey. This amendment will correct what I believe to be an oversight in the authorization for Federal law enforcement. The current antiterrorism bill, S. 735, while providing substantial funding for some Federal law enforcement entities, overlooked the responsibilities and jurisdictions of the U.S. Secret Service. The U.S. Secret Service is responsible for the protection of the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, and their families. The U.S. Secret Service is also responsible for protecting Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates as well as any head of state visiting the United States. This vast cross protective realm of the U.S. Secret Service, continues to attract the interest of numerous terrorist and antigovernment organizations. Due to the recent bombings of the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City, the air intrusion of the White House, and the several shootings directed at the White House, additional security measures have been instituted by the Secret Service, while the funding levels have remained the same. One of the most publicized and controversial security measures that was instituted was the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue to vehicular traffic. This, while being the most visible security enhancement was merely one of dozens that have been effected by the Secret Service without any increase in their funding. The Secret Service is in need of increased resources to cover expenses in several areas: First, an increased presence of U.S. Secret Service Uniform Division officers. These officers will reinforce the current patrol capabilities and insure greater safety not only for the President, employees of the White House complex, and visiting dignitaries, but for the thousands of citizens who visit the White House and our monuments on a daily basis. The Secret Service also needs to increase their personnel levels within their intelligence branch as well as their protective details. And finally, several of the physical and technological security features of the White House need to be upgraded to deal with the increased and organized threats emanating from these terrorist entities. The U.S. Secret Service has been recognized as the preeminent law enforcement agency in the world for its protective expertise. This funding will help insure that these capabilities are not diminished, and their vital mission is not impeded due to a lack of funding.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I have always strongly supported credit unions. But I am disturbed by the increasingly risky activities of some of our Nation's largest credit unions. Speculative investments by these large credit unions have already caused millions of dollars of losses-- losses that have been passed on to smaller credit unions. Congress, the National Credit Union Administration [NCUA] and credit unions must work together to preserve the safety and soundness of the credit union industry--an industry primarily consisting of small, healthy credit unions that avoid such speculative investments. Therefore, with my distinguished ranking minority member--Senator Sarbanes--I am introducing today the Credit Union Reform and Enhancement Act. This bill would strengthen the credit union movement by protecting smaller credit unions and the taxpayer-backed National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (``Share Insurance Fund'') from losses caused by high risk activities. Mr. President, let me explain why I have been--and remain--one of the strongest supporters and defenders of the credit union movement. Credit unions have a special character. Unlike banks and thrifts, credit unions are cooperative not-for-profit associations in which members, who are the owners, a common bond, deposit funds, and obtain credit. Credit unions also have a unique mission. Credit unions were created in the early 20th century specifically to provide credit to people of smaller means and to promote thrift among their members and the early credit union philosophy was closely connected with moral and humanitarian goals. Today, many credit unions remain committed to these lofty goals. For example, the Residents Community Development Credit Union in Binghamton, NY provides vital financial services to the residents of three low-income housing communities. In Manhattan, the Lower East Side People's Federal Credit Union offers savings accounts and safety deposit boxes to the homeless, in addition to providing more traditional financial services to more than 2,000 lower income residents. Finally, credit unions generally have avoided high risk activities. As a result, the financial health of most credit unions is very good. Capital at the Nation's 12,000 federally insured credit unions is at a record high of 10.4 percent, and the Share Insurance Fund has reached a 1.30 equity level--the maximum possible under the Federal Credit Union Act. Mr. President, because of my commitment to the credit union movement, I am very disturbed by the increasingly risky activities of a few large credit unions. High risk investments recently caused the largest failure by a credit union in American history--the $1.5 billion failure of Capital Corporate Federal Credit Union [Cap Corp]. Cap Corp invested almost 70 percent of its total assets--over $1 billion--in highly interest rate sensitive derivatives, called collateralized mortgage obligations [OMOs]. As interest rates rose during 1994, the market value of these CMO's dropped steeply. When Cap Corp was finally taken over by the NCUA, the market value of its investments had dropped by over $100 million. The failure of Cap Corp is particularly disturbing because it was a corporate credit union--a special type of credit union that serves other credit unions, not individuals. Federally insured credit unions invest a significant portion of their assets in large corporate credit unions--over $24 billion as of December 31, 1994. The failure of a corporate credit union can result in the loss of these funds and the domino-like failure of many smaller credit unions. Due to Cap Corp's failure, for example, over 250 credit unions will lose almost $25 million. Mr. President, corporate credit unions were created to provide liquidity and sound investment advice to smaller credit unions. However, some corporate credit unions are increasingly investing taxpayer-backed credit union funds in high risk securities, and the potential losses are mounting. At the Senate Banking Committee's hearings on the Cap Corp failure, for example, we learned that: Corporate credit unions reported unrealized investment losses in 1994 totaling about $600 million. While some of those unrealized losses were quite small, others amounted to between 30 and 40 percent of total capital. One corporate credit union had unrealized losses that were 77 percent of its total capital. Like Cap Corp, some other corporate credit unions have invested heavily in CMO's that have declined in market value. As of December 31, 1994, 23 corporate credit unions reported aggregate CMO investments with a book value of over $8 billion. That is equal to about 24 percent of total corporate assets and 333 percent of total corporate capital. Some of these corporate credit unions have much higher than average concentrations of CMO's. For example, three corporate credit unions held more than 40 percent of their assets in CMO's and four others held between 20 and 32 percent of their assets in CMO's. It is also clear from testimony at the Banking Committee's hearings that the NCUA's supervision and regulation of corporate credit unions is seriously deficient. The NCUA should have recognized sooner that a problem existed at Cap Corp and should have taken prompt corrective action. However, the NCUA reviewed Cap Corp's records in September 1994--just 4 months prior to its failure--and did not discover any serious problems. Shockingly, after that review, Cap Corp's rating remained a ``1''--the highest rating possible for credit unions. Mr. President, these developments are very disturbing to Members of Congress, particularly given our recent experience with the savings and loan industry and Orange County. These developments endanger the health of the credit union industry and the taxpayer-backed Share Insurance Fund. These developments jeopardize the privileged status given to credit unions. To address the concerns raised by these developments, Senator Sarbanes and I are introducing the Credit Union Reform and Enhancement Act [CURE]. This bill would grant the NCUA limited powers to protect smaller credit unions, the Share Insurance Fund and, ultimately, our Nation's taxpayers from the increasingly risky investment practices of a few large credit unions. First, CURE would limit the ability of federally insured, State- chartered credit unions to engage in certain high-risk activities that are not permitted under Federal law. One important lesson of the savings and loan debacle was that federally insured, State-chartered institutions can, with broad and risky powers granted by State legislatures and regulators, present enormous risks to a Federal insurance fund. Forty-three States currently grant credit unions broader and potentially riskier powers than those granted to federally chartered credit unions. For example, California allows credit unions to invest in Mexican bonds, and Alabama has liberal requirements on credit union investments in real estate, with no set limits on such investments or purchases of real estate for rental income. CURE would grant the NCUA the authority to limit such powers unless it believes they pose no significant risk to the Share Insurance Fund or unless the power was authorized pursuant to the laws of the chartering State and being utilized by at least one credit union on May 1, 1995. CURE would put in place a tripwire against future high-risk activities. It would allow the NCUA to prevent losses from such activities--instead of reacting to those losses. [[Page S7779]] Second, CURE would prohibit federally insured credit unions from investing in nonfederally insured credit unions. Under current law, federally insured credit unions can, and do, invest in nonfederally insured credit unions that are not under the full authority of the NCUA. Five of the forty-five corporate credit unions--some of the largest credit unions in the Nation--are outside the full supervisory and regulatory authority of the NCUA because they are not federally chartered or insured. A federally insured credit union can escape full Federal regulation by investing in one of these nonfederally insured credit unions. CURE would bring all investments in corporate credit unions under the jurisdiction of the NCUA and, thus, would reduce the potential for inappropriately risky investing that may put the Share Insurance Fund at risk. Third, CURE would grant the NCUA the authority to close a federally insured, State-chartered credit union that is insolvent or bankrupt, after prior consultation with the State regulator. This bill would help protect the Share Insurance Fund, which would ultimately be responsible for any losses resulting from such a liquidation. Under current law, the NCUA must wait until the State regulator closes the credit union and appoints the NCUA as liquidating agent--an often time consuming process. But the need for regulators to act quickly to seize control of failed financial institutions is well documented. During the savings and loan crisis, for example, institutions attempted to avoid insolvency and bankruptcy by making increasingly risky investments as losses from previous high-risk investments mounted. Fourth, CURE would increase the NCUA's ability to institute a timely conservatorship. Currently, the NCUA can be forced to wait 30 days before placing a federally insured, State-chartered credit union into conservator- ship, if the State regulator does not approve of the conservatorship. This bill would eliminate the 30-day waiting period and simply require the NCUA to carry out prior consultation with the state regulator. Because the health of a credit union can deteriorate rapidly, the NCUA must have the power to act quickly to limit losses to the Share Insurance Fund. Even brief delays in the implementation of Cap Corp's conservator- ship, for example, could have resulted in millions of dollars of additional losses. This bill would help to limit such losses. Finally, CURE would update the terminology concerning corporate credit unions in the Federal Credit Union Act. It would remove outdated references to central credit unions, which once performed functions similar to corporate credit unions. CURE would also require the NCUA to establish limits on loans to a single borrower and to set minimum capital requirements. Since the NCUA has already set such standards by regulations, CURE would simply prevent the NCUA from eliminating those standards. Moreover, this legislation does not specify what these standards should be, so the NCUA would be free to adjust its current standards. In sum, CURE would grant the NCUA limited powers to protect smaller credit unions and the Share Insurance Fund from losses caused by high risk activities. The powers granted to the NCUA are not extraordinary. Indeed, they are much more limited than the powers already granted to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation [FDIC] over federally insured, State-chartered banks and thrifts. The FDIC, for example, can close federally insured, State-chartered thrifts and banks even prior to insolvency or bankruptcy--when their capital is less than 2 percent. Nevertheless, some will argue that this legislation gives too much authority to the NCUA at the expense of the States. It is important to remember, however, that State-chartered credit unions are only subject to this legislation if they voluntarily choose--or are required by their State legislatures--to have Federal insurance. If the States want broader powers for credit unions, they can establish their own insurance funds and allow State taxpayers to pay for State credit union excesses. Most recognize that this legislation is a step in the right direction. The NCUA and the Government Accounting Office [GAO] strongly support this legislation, as does the Credit Union National Association [CUNA] and the National Association of Federal Credit Unions [NAFCU]. Like Senator Sarbanes and I, they recognize that this legislation would strengthen the credit union movement. It would protect credit unions, the Share Insurance Fund and, ultimately, our Nation's taxpayers from the high risk activities of a few large credit unions. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the full text of the bill and the letters of support from the NCUA, the GAO, CUNA, and NAFCU be included in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise toady to pay tribute to our Nation's 1995 NCAA Men's Lacrosse Champions, the Orangemen of Syracuse University. I am particularly proud both as a New Yorker and as an alumnus of both the university and its law school. Last Monday, before a crowd of over 26,000, the Orange bested the Maryland Terrapins--who enjoyed a home field advantage--by a score of 13-9 to win the collegiate title. This victory was a fitting tribute to the memory of the late Roy Simmons, Sr.--the father of SU Coach Roy Simmons, Jr., and the legend of Syracuse lacrosse--to whom the Orangemen had dedicated their season. The victory for Syracuse marks the sixth time that the Orange have won the national championship and a record 13th straight trip to the final four. The young men of the Syracuse University lacrosse team have a lot to be proud of in this victory. It is the crowning achievement in this arduous sport demonstrating that a commitment to teamwork and excellence do pay off. This is especially true among the upperclassmen who could have rested on their 1993 championship laurels. By example, their hard work to get back on top will be carried on by SU teams for years to come. A tradition of winning has been maintained, and it is a tradition that I believe future Syracuse teams will sustain. We can all be proud of the accomplishment of these young men. They have risen to claim top honors in this demanding sport without sacrificing their academic standards. Mr. President, once again, I salute our Nation's NCAA Lacrosse Champions, the Syracuse University Orangemen.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, the sale of Russian submarines to Iran and the People's Republic of China have the potential to significantly jeopardize regional stability and pose a grave threat to international trade. The United States must take a firm stand on this issue. Iran, which borders the Straits of Hormuz, has obtained two and is expected to take delivery of a third Russian Kilo class submarine. These submarines, particularly when armed with the wake-homing torpedoes that the Iranian's have tested, are optimized to cut off the passage of merchant shipping through the straits. Roughly 50 percent of the oil in international trade passes through these straits. Any interruption of this supply would result in an international energy crisis, and a sustained interruption would have dramatic economic consequences. We must ask ourselves, ``why are the Iranian's developing this capability?'' Could the answer be that they wish to close the straits? Clearly, it is not in our national interest to allow a country which sponsors international terrorism to do this, holding the world's oil supply and the key to the global economy hostage. The People's Republic of China is also buying modern Russian submarines. For what purpose? Their lawless efforts to seize control of the Spratley Islands already indicate an intent to control the South China Sea. Are these submarines intended to bolster this effort or are they intended to threaten our friends in Taiwan? As an island nation, Taiwan is desperately dependent on the free passage of shipping. If this were to be threatened or cut off, the Taiwanese economy would flounder. Would we, should we, allow this to happen? I think not. Taiwan is our sixth largest trading partner and, unlike the People's Republic of China, a democratic state. Since 1776 the United States has supported the freedom of navigation and must continue to do so. Twice in this century a country with a relatively small submarine force caused havoc with the merchant shipping of free nations. This can not happen again. The United States does not build submarines for foreign nations and neither should the Russians. We must increase our efforts to discourage the Russians from proliferating this, as well as other, dangerous technology and we must vigorously maintain our supremacy in antisubmarine warfare capabilities. Furthermore, we must make it absolutely clear to Iran and the People's Republic of China that the United [[Page S7634]] States can not, and will not, tolerate any action which impacts regional stability by threatening the merchant trade of peaceful nations. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am proud to support this budget. Senator Domenici and the Budget Committee deserve to be commended. Senator Domenici's plan, for the first time, meets what the American people have been asking for--responsible and courageous leadership. It is not easy to balance the budget. It is not easy to cut those programs, yes, that the people want and get used to. It is not easy to tackle Medicare. But let me tell you something. We were not elected and sent here to do things the easy way. That program will be bankrupt. We owe it to today's seniors and those in the future to protect it, preserve it, to strengthen it. We owe it to our children in the future to give them the opportunities we have had. Unless we achieve a balanced budget and cut spending, that will not be the legacy we leave to them. There are those who preach fear and divisiveness. I have heard talk already about how this is going to help the wealthy. It seems to me, when we balance the budget and reduce interest costs that make it possible for people to have jobs and opportunity, we are helping America. I do not believe that the administration or my Democratic friends for the most part have given the kind of leadership that this Nation needs. Criticize, create fear, create doubt, turn their backs on their own reports, a report that this administration came down with, which indicated that Medicare would run out of funds within the next 6 or 7 years. We have an obligation to move boldly. We are. It is the right time, and it is about time, and I hope we can pass this budget overwhelmingly. I support it. I commend Senator Domenici and all who have worked with him to bring us to this point.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about National Missing Children's Day. This day focuses on what must be one of the most horrifying events in a parent's life: the abduction of their child. Nothing I say could ever ease their pain, but I would like to let them know that my thoughts are with them. I want to take this opportunity to applaud the efforts of programs that assist families in these situations. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) is a remarkable organization. NCMEC handles over 850,000 calls on its hotline, worked on 43,000 cases and, amazingly, played a role in the recovery of 28,000 children. Using advanced technology, this vital center disseminates information with the ultimate goal of rescuring as many children as possible. After personally viewing the need for these efforts, I helped to establish Project ALERT, which is housed within NCMEC. Hoping to tap into an extremely valuable resource, Project ALERT recruits retired law enforcment officers, provides training to them and then dispatches these officers to local police agencies. The officers are volunteers and are assigned to cases involving missing and exploited children. They have the experience, expertise, will and dedication to investigate cases and can readily available to provide these services free to local law enforcement agencies. In order to draw attention to the gravity of this National Missing Children's Day, some very dedicated New Yorkers have taken to their bicycles to ride from Herkimer County in New York to Washington, DC. Herkimer County has special significance. Sara Anne Wood, 12 years old at the time, was abducted from there on August 18, 1993. Her father, Reverend Robert Wood is one of the seven making the arduous trip to Washington, DC which will benefit the Sara Anne Wood Rescue Center. I would like to take a moment to congratulate them on completing their journey and bring national attention to their efforts. I also would like to speak briefly on the Morgan P. Hardiman Task Force on Missing and Exploited Children. The Task Force creates a team of active Federal agents who would work with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in assisting State and local law enforcement agents in their most difficult By supplementing our Nation's police departments with Task Force members and resources, we can effectively fight child victimization, a truly reprehensible crime, and help to reunite families disrupted by an abduction. [[Page S7575]] I only hope that one day, there will be no need for a National Missing Children's Day or a center to locate missing and exploited children. Until that day comes, I will continue to do whatever I can as a United States Senator to assist in the efforts to bring these children home and to impart the most severe punishment for any depraved person who harms a child. This issue is dear to my heart and I will remain close to the efforts to help children and their families. We will not stop until the problem has ceased.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to support and am pleased to join as a cosponsor of Senator Hatfield's amendment. We are talking about making cuts in order to balance our budget and provide a better future for coming generations. Yet I believe we have to be very careful about how we make those cuts and where. In the amendment that has been put forth, Senator Hatfield would restore $7 billion of the $7.7 billion that would otherwise come out of the National Institutes of Health. I have to say, representing as I do New York, and Long Island in particular, we are being ravaged by an epidemic of cancer, breast cancer in particular. Breast cancer rates in the Long Island counties of Nassau and Suffolk rank first and fourth highest respectively among the 116 largest U.S. counties. We cannot afford to reduce the funding for this vital research that provides at least a glimmer of hope for achieving the necessary breakthroughs to deal with the ravages of cancer, and breast cancer in particular. The amendment of Senator Hatfield will go a long way toward holding citizens harmless in this area. There would be a slight reduction of about 1 percent. Far better that 1 percent reduction than one that might reach as much as 15 to 16 percent. That, I believe, would not be the kind of investment in the future that we are attempting to bring about as we work to make a better future for all Americans, those whom we are protecting now and future generations. I believe that is why this amendment is important and why it makes sense. I strongly urge its support. I thank the Senator for raising this very important issue.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Radio Free Iran Act. This legislation is intended to create a Farsi-language service to be broadcast to Iran that will supplement, not supplant the current programming already beamed to Iran by the Voice of America. This service is intended to be made political in nature and as such, will bring to the Iranian people the real news that they are denied access to be the dictatorial regime in Tehran. It is vital to the people of Iran that they be exposed to the truth of what is happening inside Iran. More must be done to detail what the regime is doing to this proud people. The Iranian people must understand how the regime has created impossible living conditions through massive inflation and shortages, persecuted minorities, denied human rights, and forced international isolation upon this proud nation because of its abhorrent practices. The regime has robbed the Iranian people of its glorious history, replacing it with the status of a pariah state. The regime in Tehran is known as the chief sponsor of international terrorism, it is known as one of the worst abusers of human rights, and it is known for its unceasing determination to obtain weapons of mass destruction. This in itself is lowering the Iranian people's living standards with each passing day. This legislation is intended to expose the people of Iran to a more balanced approach to the conditions in Iran so that they can hopefully have a greater impact on their own future. If anything is clear it is that the Iranian people deserve better. They deserve a chance to live free of the abusive and dictatorial nature of their corrupt government. They deserve to shed the status that this regime has cast upon them, and they deserve the chance to regain their proper role in the world. Radio Free Iran will not be the panacea, but it will be the beginning. I want Radio Free Iran to be for the Iranian people what Radio Free Europe did for the people of Eastern Europe. The only goal for the Iranian people is freedom from oppression. I urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile project. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today in this era of bureaucrat bashing, to tell my colleagues about one particular civil servant who exemplifies all of the good qualities a Federal employee should embody. I speak of Ms. Beatrice Disman, the new Region II Commissioner of the U.S. Social Security Administration in New York. Bea Disman first came to my attention 12 years ago when she spent 6 months on my Senate staff, detailed by Social Security to learn how the legislative process worked. Bea was a hard worker, willing to start early and stay late--whatever it took to get the job done, and done well. Bea always was willing to pitch in to help others. Couple these qualities with a fine intellect and a genuine concern for people, and there is no wonder why Bea Disman has risen through the ranks to become one of the top officials at the Social Security Administration. With a Masters in Diplomatic History and a winning personality, Bea Disman joined Social Security as a district office claims representative in 1965. Assigned to the Midtown Manhattan office, she worked her way up the hierarchy until, in 1973, she was assigned to the New York Regional Office as a Program Evaluation Analyst. In 1979 Bea was selected as Executive Assistant to the Regional Commissioner. Programs and Integrity Reviews. Now she is Regional Commissioner. Region II of Social Security is in fine hands. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania 10 minutes.

Mr. D'AMATO. I do not think it was issued.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I did not mean to unduly delay acting on this resolution, because I think most things that have been said summarize where we are at, what we are attempting to do, and the scope of the investigation and the manner in which we hope to conduct it. I think is important to point out that what one of my colleagues, the Senator from North Carolina, Senator Faircloth, pointed out is a matter of public record. That is that Judge Starr is reexamining all matters reviewed by Special Counsel Fiske, including Vincent Foster's death. I think he alluded to that, and I think he did so in that context. That is not an area we intend to revisit unless there are some very special circumstances, which I certainly do not envision. However, I think we have to at least put it in that context. As it relates to what the committee did and did not find last year, I think it is important to note that the Republican minority did make findings on the three major areas where there were questions of misconduct and malfeasance. I will not attempt to enunciate all of them now, but that was a very strong finding. I would also like to point out that the majority made some findings and recommendations as it related to the need to indicate very clearly that before Congress, all executive branch members and others who testified are ``required to be fully candid and forthcoming,'' and testify ``truthfully, accurately, and completely.'' The committee recommends that the President issue an Executive order reinforcing this obligation and setting forth procedures requiring the prompt correction, amplification and/or supplementation of congressional testimony to ensure that it is accurate, thorough and completely responsive. Why did they do that? Without going through the entire history, it was because it was clear and evident--and, by the way, we have sent to Mr. Fiske and to his successor, Mr. Starr, those areas, we being the Republicans on the committee, the minority--that those areas of concern, that, at the very least, there was testimony that was disingenuous, if not outright false. And that is being reviewed. So, to say that there were no findings of any wrongdoing, that everything was OK, or to imply that there was nothing wrong, is simply an oversimplification and is not an accurate or fair representation of the situation. Now, I do not intend, nor is it my job and duty, to defend the work of the special counsel. The special counsel was appointed because the Attorney General concluded that it was necessary. It was not this Congress. I thought it was. I believe it was. There were leading Democrats who spoke to the necessity--Senator Moynihan, Senator Bradley, and others--as it relates to dealing with this. But as it relates to the expenditures of money, let us look at the record. This committee, I think, has been very judicious. The Democratic leadership working with Republicans last year authorized $400,000. We only spent $300,000. This year we have set $950,000. I hope we spend less than that. We have been very judicious in using taxpayers' money. So to date we have spent $300,000. Although that is not an inconsequential sum, we have been extremely judicious. With regard to the expenditures and what has taken place with the special counsel, let me just indicate, first, that David Hale pleaded guilty. He was a municipal judge and has made some extremely serious allegations. The special counsel is reviewing his allegations with respect to why he made certain loans that were illegal or inappropriate, who asked him to do so, and so forth. Webster Hubbell, the third ranking official in the Attorney General's office, pleaded guilty to charges that emanated, again, from this investigation. Neil Ainley, president of the Perry County Bank, where large sums of money, $180,000, were taken out to fund campaign activities, pleaded guilty. Chris Wade, a real estate agent who was the sales agent for Whitewater Development, pleaded guilty in a bankruptcy matter. Robert Palmer, last December, a Little Rock real estate appraiser, pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges relating to backdating and falsifying appraisals for Madison Guaranty. I make these remarks because I do not believe that it is fair to leave the impression that this has just been a big waste of time and that there was no wrongdoing. Five individuals, at this early and preliminary stage of these investigations, have already pleaded guilty, some in very high, responsible positions. That is the work of the special counsel. He has to defend the appropriateness of the expenditures which he makes. However, I think for the record it is fair to reflect that several individuals have pleaded guilty to various charges. As it relates to our work, I am going to reiterate that I believe this committee has properly set forth the venue, the scope and the way in which it intends to move forward in a bipartisan manner to find out the truth and get the facts. Was there an attempt to impede legitimate investigations undertaken at RTC? Why were certain people taken off the case? Why were certain RTC investigators disciplined? Why was information about confidential criminal referrals made public? Was there a failure to go forward? These are legitimate questions. There may be appropriate reasons. But, then again, we might discover inappropriate action. So these areas are within the scope. We are not going to attempt to dig up something that does not appear to be really connection to the matters that we have set forth. And it is our hope, depending upon the schedule of the special counsel as he goes through the materials, that we can wind this up sooner rather than later, and conduct the business of the people in a manner which reflects credibly on our constitutional obligations as Senators. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield the remainder of my time. My colleague may have something to do. I am prepared to vote on the resolution.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 1995, at 2 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Acquisition and Technology of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17, 1995, in open session, to receive testimony on dual use technology programs in review of S. 727, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, and the Future Years Defense Program.