Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I agree. It seems to me that if we were going to use taxpayer dollars, a much better case could be made as it relates to guaranteeing and giving a loan guarantee, for example, to Orange County, so they could repay these dollars over a period of time. They have taxpayers. These are the citizens of Orange County that are being hurt. These are our constituents, U.S. citizens. That, to me, would be much more understandable.

Mr. D'AMATO. I agree.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, my friend is so right. If you ask, are we second guessing; sure we are. Our duty is to have oversight, not just to ship $20 billion and say we cannot micromanage. I am not looking to micromanage, but when you are reclaiming billions of dollars in securities, why would we not want to know who the people were? Why would we not send a representative down, as we do where you have financial collapses, and arrange to stretch out the repayment and to say to some of these people: Here is my million dollars; I want my million-dollar bond honored. I want you to pay a million dollars plus 20-percent interest. You say: Wait a minute, Mr. Smith or Mr. Jones or Mr. Chou, because some of these come from abroad, we cannot. But I will tell you what we will do. We will pay you over a 10-year period. We are not going to pay you 20 percent interest. We will pay 3 percent interest, or maybe we will give you 60 cents on the dollar or 30 cents. To simply allow them--them being the Mexican Government and authorities--to repurchase, not even knowing who the people are, and how many are American citizens and how many are the investing bank houses of Germany, Japan, and other nations? We are told everything is going to collapse. I tell you that the only thing collapsing is our dollar. By the way, why should we not use some of that money to reduce the deficit here in the United States? We can do away with the rescission bill. Why do we not take the money right here and say that we are going to use this money for deficit reduction? We do not need a rescission bill. That is rather absurd, but it makes more sense than sending it down to a group of people who have demonstrated to the Mexican Government that they do not have the capacity to be entrusted with billions of dollars, particularly when it is not even their money.

Mr. D'AMATO. Yes.

Mr. D'AMATO. There is no doubt that those dollars are being taken out. We have seen huge outflows of money by the currency speculators, by the people who are reclaiming their bonds. Not all of this $20 billion is being used for bonds. But a substantial portion is even going to refinance Mexico's public debt. Now, if that is not a loan or foreign aid in contravention to what the Treasury Department's own general counsel said--if I might, in an opinion by Robert Rubin, the general counsel, in a letter which I would like to have my staff get so I can put it in the Record, said: 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.

Mr. D'AMATO. They are taking the ``dough,'' as they say, and running. And if anybody thinks that they are going to reinvest, the only time they are going to reinvest is if they know we are going to guarantee repayment.

Mr. D'AMATO. It has already been sent down there.

Mr. D'AMATO. There is very little difference. Except that in this case, we, the U.S. Government, participated in repurchasing billions of dollars' worth of these instruments that people invested in and we have literally guaranteed that they would suffer no loss. Indeed, not only did they suffer no loss but, to add insult to injury, instead of--by the way, if, in the free market, you had the free market working, they would have gone down, just like the IBM stock and, in most of those cases, that Government could have repurchased them when they came in for 20 cents on the dollar, 30 cents on the dollar. No, we did not allow the free market to work. We went in and said, ``Don't worry. The United States, Big Brother, the working middle-class families of America, we are going to provide you with $20 billion.'' So those currency speculators, sophisticated investors, they got every dollar back they put in and, in some cases, a 20-percent increase. So instead goes down--Lou Gerstner would not like to hear that--but if you bought the stock and it went down, you would think you lost. Can you imagine? Why should not the American people have us guaranteeing, whenever they--and I think that is the Senator's point--whenever they make an investment, whether it is in bond market or whether it is in the stock market, that if it goes down enough, we will come in and guarantee that they will be paid, plus get whatever the interest that they were promised on that bond, in this case 20 percent. It is the most fallacious--by the way, how did that help the Mexican economy? It did make some very sophisticated investors whole, made them happy. And I am sure that prior to this agreement being worked out, they understood they were going to take really substantial losses. So we took American taxpayers' money to bail out investors and speculators in this situation. I have to tell you, we are preparing to do more. That is right. In the next several weeks, if we do not do something like adopt this legislation, we will be shipping down to Mexico billions of dollars more. It is not enough that we gave them $5 billion. We are ready to give them more. Now I find that incredible. And we do not even know who these people are.

Mr. D'AMATO. Absolutely.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I have proposed hundreds of amendments. On very few occasions have I not asked that the clerk dispense with the reading of the amendment. But this time I wanted the clerk to read the entire amendment because it is rather concise. It says that we shall not permit more than $5 billion of our taxpayers' funds to be utilized for a loan program or to be given or made available to any foreign country without the approval of the Congress of the United States, without the approval of the people of the United States. What we have taking place is one of the most incredible, most dismaying abdications of our constitutional responsibility as Members of the Congress. As well-intentioned as the Mexican bailout may be--and I do not question the motivations of those in the administration--as much as we might want to help a neighbor, we have a system of laws in this country that requires the authorization and the appropriation and the expenditure of money be approved by the Congress of the United States. Now we have a fiction. A fiction has been created as it relates to the establishment of the Exchange Stabilization Fund which came into being when the United States moved from the gold standard. So as to be able to protect our currency against currency fluctuations, this fund was established and great authority was given to the Secretary of the Treasury. As a matter of fact, he could not be second-guessed as it related to the utilization of this fund to protect the American dollar. Congress could not intrude. Congress could not second-guess. He was given that authority, and that is as it should be. However, even in the Treasury Department, its memorandum as it relates to the utilization of these funds states quite clearly that these funds cannot be used for loan or aid programs--page 6. And I will ask permission to be able to submit that letter from the general counsel of the Treasury to the Secretary of the Treasury and call particular attention to page 6, the paragraph which says it cannot be used for a loan or foreign aid. Let me tell you, Mr. President, when you send $5 billion and have plans to send up to $15 additional billion to a country and that country can utilize these dollars for up to 7 to 10 years, that is a foreign aid program. That is not currency stabilization. The fact is, if they did not get the foreign aid, maybe their currency would devalue. But by any stretch of the imagination, I defy any Member to really buy into this fiction and say that this is not foreign aid or this is not an emergency loan program, an emergency loan program that will take anywhere from 1 to 7 to 10 years to repay. It has been difficult to get adequate information from the administration as it relates to the administration of this program, the conditions of repayment, for what these dollars are being used. I think it is rather ironic that at this point in time when we have a rescission bill and we are talking about rescinding anywhere from $14 to $17 billion--and let me tell you some of the programs we are looking at, nobody can argue as to their merit. It is not a question whether we can afford it. It is a question of whether or not we are ironic that when we have the Nation's Capital, right here, with a $1 billion deficit, we are sending $20 billion to Mexico--taxpayers' money. Incredible. What about an aid program here in the District of Columbia? I find it ironic when my State of New York is at a $4 billion deficit, when the Governor and the legislature are facing hard choices, cutting back on Medicaid programs, cutting back on other worthy programs because we just do not have the money and you cannot continue to tax and tax and spend and spend, and we are cutting back, State after State, making the tough choices, here we are talking about a balanced budget 7 years out. My State has a $4 billion deficit. Why not a loan guarantee program to help bail them out? What about Orange County, $2.2 billion, laying off people--policemen, firemen, teachers. How about some foreign aid right here at home? Twenty billion dollars, to where? To a democracy? No way. To a corrupt government, narco dealers, an agricultural Secretary who served for 25 years as a billionaire, whose sons are involved in narco trafficking. We are bailing out currency speculators. How much of the $5 billion that we have already sent down there went to pay off currency speculators? And they got every single dollar back and, in some cases, 20 percent. Mr. President, I have had colleagues say to me, ``Well, you know something, if you don't go forward with this and the Mexican market collapses, they are going to blame you.'' Well, let me tell you, we have a constitutional responsibility. And if we are going to make aid available to them, then let us make the aid available to them under conditions necessary, let us understand where the money is going. Let us control, not one of the these secret back- room things with the administration, secrecy we do not know, giving it to them in tranches. Now I understand a very significant amount, up to $5 billion, is going to go out within the next couple of weeks. We are told, ``Don't worry. You don't have to worry. There will be repayment.'' When they first told us about this program, the administration came forward and they said, ``If we have to use any money, any money whatsoever, then the program is a failure. Don't worry, because when they see the guarantees that are there, it is just like the United States, we are banking this, the world community is banking this. You don't have to worry.'' Well, we have already sent $5 billion down. And, by the way, some of that money, they say they are going to repay us over the next 5 to 7 years. Do you believe a government down in Mexico can guarantee we are going to get the money back? They say, ``Don't worry. We are funding with the oil revenues.'' Well, I see my friend, Senator Murkowski, here. Maybe he will talk to you about the possibility of a repayment as it relates to the oil revenues; very, very, tenuous. How are you going to get the money? Are we going to send troops in to seize the collateral, the oil? Let me tell you something, if they wanted to do something, if they wanted to really have privatization, that is one thing. Let the free market determine. Why is the United States attempting to do what the free market should be doing? If they collapse because they were overspending, if they collapse because there was no value there, then let the market determine. Why should we rush in artificially to, so- called, prop up their dollar, to pay their foreign debts, to pay off their obligations? It does not make sense. Mr. President, the Mexican bailout is a failure. What this legislation says is, before you send down more money, you come to the Congress the way you should. You get the authority from the Congress of the United States. And for my friends in the Congress to say, ``Oh, no, don't do anything; don't do anything,'' is wrong. If you think that the program is a good program, being administered the right way, then we should say ``Fine, vote against my amendment. Vote against it.'' But let me tell you something. If you think you know all of the facts and you are comfortable, you know all the facts, you know how that money is being administered, who is getting it, how we will be repaid, then I have respect for people who would then say, ``Alfonse, this is a bad amendment. I can't support it.'' But, if, on the other hand, we do not know how the money is being spent, we have doubts as to its being used in this manner, we have doubts as to the ability of the Mexican Government to deal with the problem, we have doubts that the free market system should be employed in this system, we have doubts about prepaying speculators who make vast fortunes, billions of dollars as we are bailing them out--they are getting their money, by the way, they are not putting their money back--I say this has been a failure. Yesterday, the Mexican market went down. It has already collapsed. Now they are talking about it went up 10 percent. Ten percent from what, when some of the stocks in the fund had a value of $5-plus and they are down now to 38 cents. And they say it went up 10 percent, 10 percent on 38 cents. I think the administration is being a little bit disingenuous with us when they give us those kind of numbers. Look behind the numbers. Look to see whether revenue is coming back into Mexico. Do you really think the private sector is going to invest in there? The only time they are going to invest is if they are going to buy securities that are backed up by our money, because we say that we are going to see to it that we will pay off those debts and obligations. That is what has been taking place. It has collapsed.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce the State Medicaid Savings Incentive Act of 1995. This bill will reward States that act decisively to contain Medicaid spending by allowing such States to keep 20 percent of the resulting savings to the Federal Government. This legislation is based on an idea put forward by New York's Governor, George Pataki, when he testified recently before the House Ways and Means Committee. New York is one of several States moving to trim the cost of their Medicaid programs through greater use of managed care. As a result of New York's efforts, the Federal Government stands to save nearly $2 billion. Governor Pataki is right in suggesting that if States like New York can save the Federal Government money through cost-saving initiatives such as Medicaid managed care, then the States should be allowed to share in that savings as a reward. This creates a strong incentive for States to put in place programs that can both improve the care of Medicaid beneficiaries and lower the bill for American taxpayers. Federal Medicaid spending will cost American taxpayers an estimated $90 billion in 1995. Over the past 5 years it has grown at a rate of over 18 percent a year. And since 1984 it has grown from 18 percent of all Federal health spending to over 28 percent in 1993. The Congressional Budget Office's current estimates are that the cost of Medicaid will nearly double by the year 2000. That should serve as a wake up call to all of us. With Medicaid representing the largest portion of many State budgets, our Nation's Governors are increasingly beginning to employ strategies such as increased use of managed care in an effort to keep rising Medicaid costs in check. Forty-four States already use Medicaid population. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, about 23 percent of the nearly 34 million people enrolled in Medicaid now receive their medical care through managed care delivery systems--up from 14 percent in 1993. These efforts not only hold the potential to lower costs, they also provide an opportunity to improve the quality of care for many Medicaid beneficiaries. This is a point on which there is bipartisan agreement. It is a view shared by HCFA Administrator Bruce Vladeck, who has said that managed care programs can, in his view, meet the needs of Medicaid recipients especially well, particularly because they emphasize preventive and primary care. That means better health care for Medicaid recipients, and a reduction in the inappropriate use of hospital emergency rooms as a source of primary care services. We need to do more to encourage States to make their Medicaid programs more efficient. That is what our bill would do. Our proposal would give States a strong incentive to restrain their Medicaid spending by allowing them to keep a share of any Federal savings that are achieved as a result. Under our bill, the Secretary of HHS would establish a spending baseline for each State. States that are successful in holding Medicaid below the baseline would receive a payment equal to 20 percent of the resulting savings to the Federal Government. No State would be penalized for spending above the baseline, but those that spend below the baseline would be rewarded. And rewarding States that save the Federal Government money makes sense. Containing the growth of Medicaid can only be accomplished with the help and cooperation of our Nation's Governors. This bill sends the message that the Federal Government stands ready to work in partnership with those States that have the determination to do what must be done to bring Medicaid costs under control. I am pleased that this bill has the support of the majority leader; I believe it deserves the strong support of each of my colleagues, and should be enacted without delay to encourage our Nation's Governors to carry out the important and difficult work of reforming Medicaid. 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 am introducing the Iran Foreign Sanctions Act of 1995. Two months ago when I introduced S. 277, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act of 1995, many stated that while a total trade embargo between the United States and Iran, as called for in S. 277, could have a real effect on Iran, the effects on foreign corporations would be negligible. This bill is designed to address this issue. My legislation will place procurement and export sanctions on any foreign person or corporation that has engaged in any trade with Iran in any goods or technology, as defined in the Export Administration Act of 1979. Simply put, a foreign corporation or person will have to choose between trade with the United States or trade with Iran. As long as Iran continues to support terrorism, seeks to obtain weapons of mass destruction, and continues its abysmal human rights practices, foreign companies and persons will be proscribed, with only a few exceptions, from trading with the United States. There is great precedence for this approach and I will list some of these instances: The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, which authorizes the President to limit the importation into the United States of any product or service of a foreign country to the extent to which that country benefits from the sanctions imposed on South Africa by this act; The Foreign Relations Act of 1994, which incorporated the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act, providing for a ban on U.S. Government procurement from any third country company which assists another country to acquire nuclear weapons; Missile Technology Control Regime sanctions attached to the Arms Export Control Act [AECA] and the Export Administration Act [EAA] that denies U.S. Government procurement; licenses for the transfer of any item on the U.S. munitions list [AECA] or the dual-use technologies list [EAA]; and the importation into the United States of any product of the foreign company; and The AECA also has similar sanctions for chemical and biological weapons proliferation, as does the Iran-Iraq Non-Proliferation Act of 1992, as well as various anti-Arab boycott pieces of legislation. Mr. President, my legislation has precedent, and as such, I feel is a useful tool to counter those who state that any ban on U.S. companies will only hurt U.S. companies. I want to send the message that when you deal with Iran, you are making a mistake. We cannot afford to provide this brutal regime with the hard currency so vital to its existence. As long as companies trade with Iran, we will have a regime that is capable of supporting terrorism and aggression. If there is anything that we can learn from last week's revelations of the positioning of Iranian chemical weapons in the Straits of Hormuz, it is that Iran is a dangerous and aggressive nation with which appeasement will not work. We cannot sit back and wish this entire problem away, we have to take action and send the message to the world that Iran's actions can no longer be tolerated. Until the regime stops these offensive and violent actions, the world will not trade with it or deal with it at all. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill because it is important for the United States and our allies. 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 to express my continued support for the nation of Belarus and its citizens on the upcoming 77th anniversary of the creation of their great country. On March 25, 1918, in the final months of World War I, the nation of Belarus was founded. Shortly after the war ended, the Red Army of the Soviet Union seized Belarus, beginning Belarus' long hard battle against Soviet communism. During World War II 25 percent of Belarus' population was obliterated while fighting the Axis Powers of Germany and Italy. Untold numbers died at the hands of the Soviets as well. For over 70 years the Belarusan people were forced to live under the iron fist of Communist rule. The Communist-led Soviet Union held no regard for the lives of any of its citizens, and the brutal Soviet dictators routinely incarcerated or shot anyone not conforming to their rule. Then in 1990 the years of enslavement for Belarus came to an end as Belarusan freedom fighters issued a declaration of sovereignty, detailing their goal to become a neutral, nonnuclear state. On December 25, 1991, the United States recognized independent Belarus as a sovereign nation, allowing the people of Belarus to hold their heads high once again. The end of one exhausting journey signifies the beginning of another. The people of Belarus must now fight to maintain their right to liberty and territorial sovereignty. Extremists within the current Russian regime are once again attempting to control Belarus through unfair economic and military treaties. This attempt to destroy the natural rights of the people of Belarus, a people who fought and overcame one of the most oppressive regimes in the history of man, must not be allowed to occur. Mr. President, I want the Belarusan people, both in Belarus and here in the United States of America to know that I stand with them in their fight to maintain the right to freedom and self-determination that was denied them for so long.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to briefly discuss Iran. As we have all read, Iran has placed chemical weapons on disputed islands in the Strait of Hormuz. They have also placed at least 6,000 troops on these islands. It is becoming very clear that Iran is not content with projecting its twisted criminal acts of terrorism through third parties. They are now, like with the case of the placement of Hawk missiles a few weeks ago, issuing a direct challenge to the West in the waterway so vital to the flow of oil: the Persian Gulf. As I have spoken on other occasions regarding Iran, we face a dangerous situation there. To compound this, we are forced to admit that Iran's military and terrorist operations are being subsidized by the purchase of Iranian oil by overseas subsidiaries of American oil companies, with the oil being resold overseas. This practice, stemming from a loophole in the regulations governing our embargo with Iran, is perfectly legal. This, however, does not make it morally right. It is precisely for this reason that I introduced S. 277, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act of 1995. We need a total United States trade embargo against Iran. We can no longer subsidize vast military buildups and terrorist operations sponsored by Iran against United States interests and United States allies. In this regard, I ask that a statement by Prof. Patrick Clawson of the Institute for National Strategic Studies of the National Defense University, be printed in the Record, following the text of my remarks. In this, ``Policy Watch'' statement of the Washington Institute, Professor Clawson details effects of a total trade ban on Iran. I urge my colleagues to read it to help them determine how we might best deal with this burgeoning threat from Iran. The statement follows: Estimating the Effects of Comprehensive United States Sanctions on Iran (By Patrick Clawson) Secretary of Defense Perry's statements in Bahrain today highlighting the ``potential threat'' of Iran's deployment of ``8,000 military personnel * * * anti-ship missiles, air- defense missiles and chemical weapons'' on disputed Persian Gulf islands will renew debate over imposing comprehensive economic sanctions on Iran. A key element of that debate is the argument that sanctions would have no effect on Tehran but would impose a considerable burden on the United States. This claim is not accurate: unilateral U.S. sanctions would cost Iran money. Lost revenue could affect Iranian actions, and the forgone business would be no great loss to the U.S. economy. how sanctions would cost iran money Comprehensive U.S. sanctions on Iran would reduce Iran's foreign exchange receipts several ways: Oil Trade. Iran sells about one-fourth of its exported oil to U.S.-owned firms. In the event of sanctions, Iran would have to sell this oil to other oil companies. Iran would have no difficulty finding other buyers for the oil, but the loss of access to U.S. firms will have a price for Iran. U.S. firms are prepared to offer slightly better terms than firms from other countries, which is exactly the reason why Iran has been selling to the U.S. companies. When it can no longer sell to the U.S. firms, Iran will lose that extra margin. The exact size of its margin is unclear, but most probably less than $50 million per year--admittedly small relative to Iran's oil income ($12-15 billion, depending on oil prices). Planned Oil Swaps Involving Iran and Former Soviet States. The U.S.-led consortiums producing oil in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are planning to ship oil to Iran across the Caspian Sea. Iran would use that oil in its northern cities, especially Tehran, while increasing the export of Iranian oil from the Gulf. This swap arrangement, which could start in a matter of months, is supposed to be temporary. But nothing lasts as long as a temporary deal. Iran will earn several tens of millions of dollars a year in profits and cost- savings from this arrangement. These swaps have all the earmarkings of being another Conoco case--the U.S. government signals the U.S. oil firms that the deal is permissible, but when the public announcement is made, the political reaction is such that the U.S. government has to feign shocked indignation. Oil Field Renovation and Expansion. Iran's oil fields are old; production will decline unless Iran develops more difficult-to-reach offshore areas and/or uses sophisticated techniques to recover more oil from aging fields. European oil technology is about as good as the United States, but Iran has found that U.S. firms offer good terms for oil equipment, as testified by Iran's desire to use Conoco over the French firm Total for developing the fields off Sirri Island. Now that President Clinton has ordered U.S. firms not to invest, European firms will step in, at somewhat higher cost to Iran. Investor Confidence. Comprehensive U.S. sanctions will add to the impression that Iran is a politically risky place to do business. European investors and bankers are already hesitant about Iran because of its heavy indebtedness, and Iranian businessmen are worried about increasing government restrictions. It is possible that comprehensive U.S. sanctions would trigger a further run on Iranian currency, which has already lost a third of its value in the last three months. In short, sanctions would cost Iran tens of millions, if not a hundred million or more dollars a year in export revenues and in capital invested in the country. and the effect on the islamic republic's behavior Because comprehensive U.S. sanctions could reduce Iran's income by several tens of millions of dollars each year, the pressure on the Iranian budget, already under tight constraints, would be even greater. This could force Iran to decrease its military spending, given the difficulties of making adjustments elsewhere, e.g., on food supports and social welfare projects. Indeed, one of the unsung accomplishments of the current U.S. policy towards Iran is its success in forcing Iran to curtail its ambitious 1989 plan for acquiring a large-scale modern military. Iran planned to buy $10 billion in arms in 1989-1993, primarily from the Soviet Union. The arms purchases had to be cut in half when Iran was locked out of world capital markets, thanks to both its own incompetent economic practices and to U.S. pressure not to make politically-motivated loans to Iran. The difference in military potential is highly significant. Today Iran is a threat in certain areas, mostly terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Had Iran carried out its 1989 plan, its conventional forces would pose an even more urgent and worrisome threat than they currently do. The impact of comprehensive U.S. sanctions should not be oversold, however. While they may reduce Iranian military spending some, there is no prospect that the Islamic Republic would fall because of sanctions. The fate of the Islamic Republic will be decided largely by internal factors, over which the U.S. has little or no influence. Iran's shrinking economic relevance Some argue that the U.S. should woo Iran because it is the strategic prize in the Persian Gulf region. As far as economics are concerned, this view is outdated: Iran is no longer a country with great economic significance. Iran is not an oil superpower. Iran produces less oil today than it did in 1970. While production has soared in other parts of the world, it has steadily declined in Iran. In 1970, Iran produced almost 9 percent of the world's oil; today, it produces only about 5 percent. Moreover, it has to invest several billion dollars a year just to maintain its present output. Iran is not a lucrative market. Iran's imports in 1994 were little more than $12 billion, which was less than it imported in 1977. Iran's imports in 1994 were less than one-half of one percent of world imports, whereas in 1977, its imports were 1.5 percent of the world total. The simple fact is that Iran's economic importance faded along with its oil wealth. No one action itself will bring about the change Washington wishes to see in Iran and in Iranian behavior. But the best chances of success, especially over the long term, come from a firm stance in defense of U.S. principles. The bitter lesson of the last 15 years, learned from experiences like the Iran- cannot expect moderation in Iranian foreign policy if it extends a hand of friendship.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the subject of drugs. The Office of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP] has now released its annual National Drug Control Strategy, dated February 1995. I regret that this strategy continues in the direction established in the 1994 strategy, a direction I strongly criticized at the time. The administration has produced another deeply flawed document that will not advance the war against drugs. In this document the administration outlines its priorities for dealing with illicit drugs. the document extols treatment and prevention as the primary tools in combating the drug problem. The strategy never addresses interdiction. It stresses policy changes to enhance the administration's demand side approach to dealing with the flood of foreign illegal drugs entering the United States, rather than enforcement efforts. The document is 150 pages long, with a 45 page long lost of consultants. The strategy frequently contradicts itself from one chapter to the next in its interpretation of its findings, whether the findings were based on surveys or medical reports. This strategy provides an overinflated justification for expanded treatment and prevention efforts, without ever dealing with the underlying problem of the ease with which illegal drugs can be obtained. Furthermore, this document attempts to distinguish between the drug user and the drug dealer, claiming one is a public health problem while the other is a criminal. The truth of the matter is that both using and dealing are criminal violations and the dealer could not exist, much less profit, without the user. Drug dealers can only be arrested by working through drug users. Therefore, enforcement efforts against users should not be curtailed, but instead reinforced. Some of the contradictions contained within the report are serious. The report begins with a strategy overview which would lend the impression that enforcement was going to be a major theme in the strategy. This does not turn out to be the case. Under the section entitled ``Principles for Responding to Illicit Drug Use'', on page 10, the report states: ``To ensure the safety of our communities, certainty of punishment must be promoted for all drug offenders--particularly young offenders. All offenders must receive appropriate punishment when they first encounter the criminal justice system.'' This theme is further advanced on page 12, section entitled ``Action Plans for Responding to America's Drug Problem'' where it states ``Use the authority of offenders to stop taking drugs; Punish the criminal activities of drug users and sellers.'' This theme is immediately contradicted by a subsequent passage that states: ``This Strategy recognizes that Americans make a distinction between drug dealers and drug users when stating how policies should be developed and carried out. Recent public opinion polls indicate that Americans believe that drug dealers deserve tough criminal sanctions and that drug users should have the opportunity for intensive treatment to break their dependence on drugs.'' This directly contradicts the previous message of punishment for both users and dealers. This section further contradicts the need for strong enforcement action when it states: ``The Action Plan for Reducing the Demand for Illicit Drugs emphasized drug prevention as the ultimate key to ensuring [sic] the future of the Nation's children.'' While demand reduction is the ultimate key to victory in the war on drugs, this approach completely disregards the immediate problems of the availability of illicit drugs, the monetary rewards for dealing illegal drugs, and the constant flow of illegal drugs into the United States. furthermore, most drug dealers are also drug users. How are the courts to differentiate between the classes of criminals as described within this strategy? Law enforcement efforts and the criminal penalties for illegal drug activities directly affect drug availability, financial incentives for drug trafficking, and the flow of these illegal drugs. Once the supply is reduced, then treatment can be effective to further reduce demand. This section of the strategy closes with 14 listed goals to be used as the measure of success for the strategy. The top eight goals are all treatment or prevention measures. Once again this strategy of targeting treatment without addressing illegal drug availability and drug law enforcement concerns is akin to the old problem of putting the cart before the horse. Section II, ``Drug Use in America,'' details the number of casual and chronic drug users in the United States. This section states on page 17, ``First, rates of illicit drug use are rising among the Nation's youth and second, rates of heroin use are increasing, particularly because existing drug users are adding heroin to the list of drugs they consume. In addition, there are new users of heroin, many of them youth.'' This statement is immediately contradicted on page 24 of the same section, where it states: ``The strongest sign of an epidemic is the entry of a large number of new users (new initiates) into illicit drug use. There is no systematic evidence that this is the case with heroin.'' The report denies that there is a significant increase in heroin use. Yet in January 1995, 1 month prior to the release of this report, ONDCP stated in its monthly newsletter, ``more potent forms of marijuana are becoming increasingly popular among people under 30 and that heroin and marijuana use are rising.'' The newsletter further states, ``The Department of Health and Human Services also released the Drug Abuse Warning Network [DAWN] survey, showing in 1993 a 31-percent increase in heroin-related emergency room visits,''. These contradictory statements leave us with a very basic question--how can an effective strategy be devised and implemented when the underlying causes and extent of the problem are in dispute? In December 1994, ONDCP released a newsletter entitled ``Pulse Check, National Trends in Drug Abuse.'' This newsletter concluded that illegal drug use is on the rise, directly contradicting the strategy released 2 months after this publication. On page 17 of the newsletter, under section headed ``Conclusion,'' it states: ``This Pulse Check found a continuing presence of high-purity, low-priced heroin in many urban areas. In addition to the traditional addict in his 30s who injects the drug, nontradional groups are forming and growing larger that include persons in their teens and twenties, females, and middle-income persons. New and young users usually smoke or inhale heroin to avoid the stigma associated with the needle-using addict, but some of these users are quickly switching to injection.'' This section continues: ``Some ethnographic sources report that they are now convinced that the new user group represents a new epidemic of use, particularly since heroin appears to be moving out of traditional user groups and involves alternative methods of use such as snorting and smoking.'' The conclusions stated in this publication directly contradict the National Drug Control Strategy--yet both were prepared by the ONDCP. Section III, ``Drug Use and Its Consequences,'' clearly shows the nexus between drugs and violent crimes. Although the nexus between drugs and violence is acknowledged, the elevation of treatment over enforcement again takes center stage. Page 38 states: ``Numerous studies confirm the fact that treatment of chronic, hardcore addicts, both within the correctional setting and in community-based programs, is the most cost-effective response and the course of action that makes the most practical sense.'' This blanket statement can be contradicted by any number of additional studies that show that treatment by itself without effective law enforcement efforts will never eradicate the drug problem. This section attempts to justify ONDCP's position by the following statement: ``The most compelling demonstration of the cost- effectiveness of treatment is from a recent California study assessing drug and alcoholism treatment effectiveness. This study found that in 1992 alone, the cost of treating approximately 150,000 drug users in California was $209 million. Approximately $1.5 billion was saved while these individuals were in treatment and in the first year after their treatment. Most of these savings were in the form of reductions in drug-related crime (a two-thirds decline in the level of criminal activity among these drug users was observed from pretreatment to posttreatment).'' This is a very misleading assertion for several reasons: First, if these defendants were incarcerated for drug violations, the same savings due to reduced criminal activity would apply. Second, these individuals were under supervision for this study, making criminal activity difficult. Third, if criminal activity were to take place, how can the possible losses be accurately cacluated? The figure would be the product of pure conjecture. This section goes on to state: ``Locking up drug users and drug addicts does not go far enough to protect communities from the problems created by drug use.'' This statement is true to the extent that mere incarceration will not eradicate continued drug use, but incarceration is the first step in identifying and eventually treating chronic drug abusers. All too often, bleeding heart liberals forget that drugs are addictive and that most addicts will not voluntarily change their addictive behavior. Further, incarceration of casual drug users sends a clear and convincing message that illegal drug use will not be tolerated by our society. The real threat of criminal penalties acts as a deterrent to the casual drug user, and increased law enforcement efforts in turn increase this deterring effect. In my remarks on the drug problem in prior years, I emphasized the importance of social delegitimization of illegal drug use. I believe that the crop of new users reported by ONDCP is, in important part, the product of a relegitimization of illegal drug use, flowing from messages of tolerance implicit in the administration's statements and actions on this subject, taken as a whole. Mr. President, it is not premature to issue a serious assessment of this administration's performance in the war on drugs. It has been dismal, and will only get worse. The problem is that the full penalty for this administration's failures--in analyzing and understanding the problem, in crafting a policy and budgetary response to it, and in implementing its decisions--will be paid by future generations of Americans. The current occupants of the White House will be long departed from any official responsibility for U.S. policy before the full impact of their mistakes is felt. I pledge to continue my fight for the people of New York and the citizens of America, who deserve the domestic tranquility they were promised in the Preamble to the Constitution, but who are denied civil peace by the twin use. This year, we will revise last year's crime bill to make it more effective and more responsive to the concerns of the American people. Moreover, the coming national election will give us a chance to present to the people of the United States this administration's record and ask for their judgment at the polls on its performance in this critical area. I believe the American people will understand as we do the abject and serious failure of this administration's policies, and will vote to change them.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 75th anniversary of the passage of our Nation's 19th amendment. As my colleagues know, this important amendment placed in law the right for women in the United States to vote and is now a cause to celebrate the contributions and achievements of women. The right to vote is indeed a precious right that we as Americans sometimes do not appreciate. Until 75 years ago, our forefathers did not recognize that this right also applied to women. Women fought hard to secure this right. The 19th amendment has since become a turning point symbolizing the remarkable contributions of women to our Nation's past, present, and future. It is not an understatement that this amendment was the impetus for women to actively participate in politics, science, education, and commerce. Once opportunities were presented, women have, through hard work, excelled in their chosen professions. This anniversary, therefore, marks the rise of women into positions of leadership. Women's History Month recognizes the achievements and the contributions of these prominent members of our past such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. This becomes especially important as we look to our future. Mr. President, it is in New York that Women's History Month has special meaning given that the formal beginning of the suffrage movement began with a convention in Seneca Falls, NY. Today, Seneca Falls is the home of the Women's Rights National Historical Park and its history serves as an inspiration to all. I am pleased to lend my voice to celebrate this anniversary.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, generations of immigrants have surmounted incredible obstacles to reach our shores and experience true American freedom. Our Nation's flag has welcomed these weary travelers for hundreds of years. For these people, the U.S. flag is more than just a simple patchwork of cloth, it is the patchwork of our values, our beliefs, and our freedoms. It is our history. During this history, many brave Americans sacrificed their lives for the flag. At Malmedy, Khe Sanh, Inchon, Iwo Jima, Kuwait City, and in numerous other places, Americans fought and flag represents these virtues. It would be an insult to their memory if we allowed the continued desecretion of our flag. This practice must end, and end now.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will help restore credibility to our foreign assistance program by ensuring that one of the largest recipients of United States aid, the Republic of Turkey, adheres to internationally accepted standards for human rights and humanitarian practices. The time has come, after years of fruitless quiet diplomacy, for the Congress to take the lead in addressing a broad range of issues dealing with Turkey, including its worsening human rights record, its continued blockade of humanitarian supplies to Armenia, its refusal to work toward a lasting and equitable settlement in Cyprus, its denial of basic rights to its Kurdish minority, and its continued persecution of Christian communities in Turkey. The hundreds of millions of dollars that the United States sends to Turkey each year provides us with the necessary leverage to bring about positive change in each of these five areas. In each of these areas, Turkey has consistently violated international treaties and agreements to which it is a signatory. Among these are the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the final act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Congress, in the fiscal year 1995 foreign aid bill, withheld 10 percent of the principal amount of direct loans for Turkey based on its human rights record and the situation in Cyprus. The Turkish Government has spoken clearly on this issue--they will reject any United States aid tied to its human rights record. While the de-linking of United States assistance and human rights may be in the interests of the Turkish Government, it is surely not in the interest of the United States or the international community. It is clear, given the Turkish Government's response, that we must move beyond symbolism and fundamentally reassess our relationship with Turkey. On the question of human rights, we need only to look at the State Department's recently released 1995 country reports on human rights, to see that years and even decades of behind the scenes efforts by the State Department have not produced any improvement in the human rights situation in Turkey. This report concludes, in fact, that ``the human rights situation in Turkey worsened significantly in 1994.'' Mr. President, the full spectrum of human rights monitoring organizations have condemned Turkey for its systematic and widespread abuse of human rights, including the use of torture. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the U.N. Committee Against Torture, the European Parliament, the International Human Rights Law Group, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Physicians Without Frontiers, Freedom House, the humanitarian law project, the Turkish Human Rights Association, and other organizations have documented the deteriorating human rights situation in Turkey. My legislation would link the level of United States assistance to Turkey's willingness to allow free and unfettered monitoring of the human rights environment within its territory by domestic and international human rights monitoring organizations. Among the groups which have been denied full access in the past are the Turkish Human Rights Association, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. I would like to address Kurdish rights, or lack thereof. Nowhere is the case for cutting aid to Turkey more compelling than on the question of the Kurds. To this day, Turkey continues to deny the very existence of its 15 million Kurdish citizens. The Turkish military has systematically emptied over 2,000 Kurdish villages and uprooted over a million Kurdish citizens from their homes. The Turkish Government's systematic and deliberate eradication of the Kurdish identity within its borders is, in many ways, a high-technology version of the massacres and deportations of the Armenian genocide earlier this century. If Turkey is to continue benefiting from the generosity of the American taxpayer, it must take demonstrable steps toward the full recognition of the civil, cultural, and human rights of its Kurdish civilians and demonstrate that it will resolve the Kurdish question peacefully. Important too is the question of Cyprus which remains unresolved more than 20 years after Turkey's illegal 1974 invasion of the island nation. Despite countless U.N. resolutions and international agreements, Turkey continues its illegal military occupation and has obstructed efforts toward a peaceful settlement. The division of the island and the massive uprooting of Greek Cypriots caused by the 1974 invasion remain a constant reminder of the failure of the international community to enforce a lasting and equitable resolution to the conflict. The Turkish Government must take demonstrable steps toward the total withdrawal of its military forces from Cyprus. In addition, Turkey must demonstrate its support for a settlement recognizing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus with a constitutional democracy based on majority rule, the rule of law and the protection of minority rights. Mr. President, I must state that the failure of quiet diplomacy on the part of the State Department is nowhere more apparent than in its failure to lift the Turkish blockade of humanitarian aid to Armenia. In violation of international law and in defiance of the United Nations, Turkey continues to blockade its border with Armenia. For close to 2 years, the Turkish Government has refused to allow desperately needed United States and other international assistance reach the people of its airspace, relief supplies have been re-rerouted through Georgia, where due to widespread instability, large portions of the aid has been either lost or stolen. The United States simply can not tolerate the obstruction of its humanitarian relief efforts by another recipient of its foreign aid. Until the blockade is lifted, the provisions in this bill cutting the level of United States assistance to Turkey would be in force. The Turkish Government continues to place prohibitive restrictions on the Christian communities within Turkey. Among the communities which have suffered from official persecution are the Armenians, Greeks, Syrian Orthodox, and the Assyrians. The religious leaderships of these communities, in particular, have been subject to official restrictions which significantly limit their ability to serve their people. In addition, the Turkish Government has failed to adequately protect them from acts of violence and vandalism. The United States must ensure that Turkey lifts any official restrictions on Christian churches and schools and offers sufficient protection against acts of violence and harassment against the clergy and vandalism against church and school property. The Turkish Government must understand that the United States will not continue to subsidize its illegal and irresponsible conduct. By withholding $500,000 a day in our assistance until they have taken steps toward resolving each of the five issues I have just addressed, we will send the Turkish leadership a clear signal that our foreign assistance programs will not extend aid to those nations which regularly violate human rights and international law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an article be printed in the Record. There being no objections, the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Thank you, Mr. President

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might proceed for 5 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I was shocked to learn that Sam Donaldson, who happens to be one of the most highly paid journalists in the United States, earning millions of dollars, is collecting welfare-- $100,000 in welfare payments--from the U.S. Government. That is right. It is called the Wool and Mohair Subsidy Program. It is supposed to help farmers. Sam Donaldson has received almost $100,000 for a ranch in New Mexico while he lives right outside the Capitol here in suburban Washington, in Virginia. I think it is an outrage. It is wrong. It is wrong and it must be stopped. Does anyone really believe that Sam Donaldson is a real sheep farmer? Really? I see him on TV all the time. Sam, do the right thing. You know what that is. Give the money back. Now, there are plenty of other examples of absentee landlords receiving these farm subsidies, but it is particularly glaring that millionaire Sam Donaldson is getting this taxpayers' money. Sam Donaldson, give that money back. It is my understanding that Mr. Donaldson is the third largest recipient of wool and mohair payments in Lincoln County, NM--not Virginia, or New Mexico. According to the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Donaldson received $97,000 in subsidy checks over the last 2 years. And under another Government agricultural program--this time for conservation sharing--Mr. Donaldson got $3,500 to defray the costs of watering facilities for his livestock. And here we have Sam Donaldson, the self-appointed conscience of America, who was said to be unavailable for comment. Can you imagine, Mr. President, if you were unavailable for comment? I can imagine why. Sam Donaldson, come out of hiding and give back to the American people--the taxpayers--that $97,000. There is one other question I would like to pose. This program is going to be phased out over the next 2 years. I want to know whether Mr. Donaldson is going to continue to receive those subsidies, or is he going to stop it? Americans have a right to know. I hope, Sam, you give that money back. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I read a rather interesting article--a rather shocking article--in the Wall Street Journal yesterday about affluent urban farmers getting crop subsidies. Lo and behold, I was absolutely shocked, as I think most Americans will be when they learn, and those that did learn, about Sam. Now I am talking about Sam Donaldson. Let me say right now, Sam, wherever you are, come out of hiding. Sam, come out of hiding and give the money back. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this Wall Street Journal article be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Will the distinguished chairman also agree that, until the Congress has had a full opportunity to evaluate the results of this study, any proposal to eliminate EF-111 SIP funds and to retire the entire EF-111 fleet is extremely premature?

Mr. D'AMATO. Is my colleague willing to work with me and do what he can to prevail over the House in the upcoming joint conference on the supplemental?

Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I would like to commend my good friends, the distinguished chairman and ranking minority member of the Defense Subcommittee, for not including EF-111A System Improvement Program [SIP] funds in the defense rescission package of the supplemental funding measure now before the Senate. I believe the House Committee on Appropriations acted prematurely by including EF-111A SIP funds in its version of the supplemental. As my colleagues know, the EF-111A SIP has been under siege since fiscal year 1993 when some in Congress suggested that the program duplicated the Navy's EA-6B Advanced Capability [ADVCAP] Program. At the time, the Pentagon sharply challenged the notion that the EF- 111 and EA-6B were duplicative. Then-Air Force Secretary Don Rice was quoted as saying: ``The F-111 does escort jamming as well as local area jamming; it has the capability to keep up with the F-15E's and F-111F's and F-16's when they're doing interdiction missions. The EA-6B does not.'' The Pentagon appeal to the fiscal year 1993 Defense Appropriations Conference was even more detailed: The elimination of the EF-111 would significantly compromise the U.S. ability to provide standoff jamming in support of tactical air operations for two reasons. First, the EF-111 and the EA-6B each have capabilities not possessed by the other. Although the two jamming systems will be roughly comparable following modernization, the EF-111 is, and will continue to be, more capable than the EA-6B in supporting deep strike missions. This is due to the EF-111's significant advantage over the EA-6B in speed, range, and time on station. Second, even if the two platforms were comparable in all respects, there is an insufficient number of EA-6B's in the Navy inventory to support the mission requirements of both Services. To procure additional EA-6B's to compensate for the loss of the EF-111's would be much more expensive than to retain and modernize the existing EF-111 inventory. In the end, the Department of Defense was successful in reversing the proposed elimination of EF-111A funding. Soon thereafter, in February 1993, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff report on the roles, missions, and functions of the Armed Forces of the United States endorsed the retention and modernization of both the EA-6B and the EF- 111A. In retrospect, the roles and missions report was the high water mark of Pentagon support for the EF-111A. As my distinguished colleagues know, the fiscal year 1996 defense budget request calls for the termination of the EF-111A SIP program in fiscal year 1996 and retirement of the EF-111A fleet in fiscal year 1997. Navy EA-6B's, according to the Air Force, will fill the gap This plan is fatally flawed. The EA-6B ADVCAP program was canceled in February, 1994, and the future of Navy electronic warfare has been in turmoil ever since. In the wake of this cancellation, the Pentagon commissioned the Joint Tactical Air Electronic Warfare Study to examine the relationship between the EA-6B and EF-111A and to review overall electronic combat requirements. I would like to ask the distinguished Defense Subcommittee chairman whether the results of the joint tactical air electronic warfare study have been delivered to the Congress.