Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a topic of great concern to this country, as well as the world: Iran. In January, I introduced a bill, entitled ``The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act of 1995.'' The recent press regarding the aborted Conoco deal with the national Iranian oil company, has further brought the problem of the purchase of Iranian oil by overseas subsidiaries of American companies to light. These purchases help Iran fund their terrorism and keep their economy afloat. We can no longer subsidize Iran's violence and terrorism. For this reason, it is of paramount important that this bill becomes law. In regard to this, I ask that the following answers to a series of questions on Iran's economic status that I posed to Manouchehr Ganji, Secretary General of the Organization for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms for Iran, who is based in Paris, be printed in the Record. His answers are enlightening and provide the view of someone who knows with intimate detail, the threat that Iran poses to the world. The material follows: Organization for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms for Iran, Paris, France, March 14, 1995. Senator Alfonse D'Amato, Chairman, U.S. Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. Dear Senator D'Amato, In response to your letter of March 9, 1995, I herewith enclose my reflections to the questions posed. As you will note I have added a sixth question and provided my responses to it as well. I will be available for any further questions or clarifications. Please accept Sir, the assurances of my highest considerations. Sincerely, Manouchehr Ganji, Secretary-General.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. D'AMATO. In my opinion, the bottom line is that we are being asked by the House to lay waste to the Air Force's support jammer capability without sufficient analysis or debate. We know the Navy option is woefully inadequate. We should ask ourselves several critical questions before we even decide what to do about Air Force and Navy support jamming requirements. First, what are the alternatives to the EF-111A SIP? Second, if there are none, how will the termination of the SIP, and the retirement of the EF-111A's, affect the efficiency and survivability of our strike forces? Does the distinguished Defense Subcommittee chairman agree that, until we can answer these questions, any suggestion of rescinding EF- 111A SIP funds is fraught with too many risks for our national security.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, it is my intent, if not on this amendment--and I thought it would be appropriate to attempt to further enhance the amendment, let me tell you, by way of a reporting requirement. I have become aware--it has become painfully obvious to this Senator, and during the hearings we had a number of witnesses who testified to the absolute corruption of many of the officials in the Mexican Government at many levels--Governors, military police, whole sections of the Government that are dedicated to one thing--their own enrichment. It should become painfully obvious to the administration, and they know--they know, proof positive--that Mexico has become the leading transshipment country as it relates to illegal drugs and narcotics, particularly cocaine, into the United States of America. It has become so widespread, it has become so commonplace, that we can, indeed, even identify the planes that come in regularly from Colombia to the United States, carrying drugs and bringing back money. If you have a drug cartel operating from Colombia into Mexico with regular transshipment of drugs for money and then the drugs coming into the United States, it is rather obvious that we are choosing to look the other way. It is obvious the Mexican Government at most levels is looking the other way. If we are serious in terms of our fight against crime, let me suggest that close to 60 percent of violent crime comes directly as a result of drugs--60 percent. Take a look at your inner core cities. You see the problem there. You talk about all the social problems, but just keep pouring the drugs in and look the other way as our neighbors to the south, to whom we are making available up to $40 billion, do little, if anything. Indeed, many of their highest officials and people at various important levels in Government are involved in drug trafficking. This Senator will be seeking a report by June 1, 1995, by this administration, by the President, detailing and calling for him to make available to the people of the United States that information which our Government has as it relates to that drug dealing. Here we are sending $40-plus billion to Mexico. I think it is about time that we said, ``If we are going to help you with your currency, we want to know exactly what is taking place.'' And this administration and every administration has an obligation to do something about it. Let me be very clear and precise. I do not think the previous administration did much, if anything, except do everything they could to push through our agreements--such a wonderful thing, our trade, we have Salinas, he is a wonderful guy, the people on top are wonderful, great business opportunity, et cetera. The corruption, the deprivation of human rights, the sham of the democracy, all of that put to the side. The fact is that people in high places and high officials in high places are making billions of dollars, dealing in billions of dollars in illegal narcotics. We look the other way. ``Don't rock the boat. This is so important. They have made great strides. They have privatized.'' Who has made the money? The oligarchy. A handful of billionaires have become richer. When those dollars plunged, who do you think sold out at the high and who got stuck at the low when the peso fell? Do you think the billionaires who controlled the profits in Mexico were down here on this chart? I will tell you where they were. They were up here, up here--billions. We have American taxpayer dollars going down there. I have to tell you that at the least we should know what is taking place with that money. At least we should have the reports on a monthly basis so that we can report to the citizens so that they know how their tax dollars are being spent. I have never heard of a bailout program or a program designed to help one's country when the people do not have a right to know. People have a right to know how we spend their money here. Why should they not have the right to know how their money is being spent south of the border? I would like to know why they should not have a right to know. Do you mean to tell me that the Mexican track record in government is one that is so magnificent that we would be insulting them, we would be insulting their national sovereignty to ascertain exactly what this money is being used for? If that is the case, then we should suspend sending money down. I am tired of hearing that they are a sovereign nation. By the way, I think we are going to be mighty shocked when we get into just how we are backing up collateral for this loan. How much oil does the Mexican Government really have that they can make available to back up these loans? We have been told that the loan is going to be fully collateralized. On the other hand, I have gotten information that indicates to me that indeed there may be a significant shortfall between the amount of moneys the Mexican Government is drawing down and the collateral value of the oil and the oil reserves that they have. The two may not come close to matching. So, Mr. President, for all of these reasons I want to commend the Senator from Colorado for proposing this amendment. At the appropriate time I intend to ask that additional legislation be required or be considered which would require the reporting on the illegal drug activities as it relates to Mexico and this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I do not believe I have yielded the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I understand my amendment may not be in order. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to withdraw the amendment, because I understand there was an agreement I was not aware of. I certainly would not look to violate that agreement. ordered. The amendment (No. 341) was withdrawn. Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.

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

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

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I commend my colleague, Senator Brown, for his legislation. Indeed, he has warned the Congress, the American people, and the administration the danger of having a situation whereby we become the banker and where the people of Mexico as a result of the harsh conditions imposed look to the United States as the culprits as opposed to being the saviors, as opposed to being the helpers. Here we are, extending we do not know how much. That gets to the heart of the amendment of the Senator. I have had legislation in hearings in the Banking Committee where we considered whether we should put a cessation of dollars after a certain amount is expended in 1 year. We were thinking that after $5 billion was expended to any one country, that there should be a requirement to come to Congress to get the appropriate authority, authorization, and appropriations. After all, that is what the Constitution says. We are the body charged with the responsibility of appropriating these funds. Whether or not legally the administration could maintain the position that by use of the stabilization funds this is not an appropriation or would not require an appropriation of this Congress is something that reasonable people might debate. Indeed, in the Treasury report by the general counsel of the Treasury to the Secretary of the Treasury on page 6, that report indicates that the use of the stabilization funds is appropriate provided that--and I am paraphrasing--it does not become a loan. I suggest if this is not a loan, we are stretching the legal language to the point that it becomes pretty difficult to differentiate. It really did not say loan, it said ``foreign aid.'' If this $20-billion- plus package is not foreign aid, I do not know what we would call it. Some of these dollars, it has been testified before the Banking Committee, will be used by the Mexican Government to repurchase or to meet its, the Government's, obligations; not as it relates to currency, the Government's obligations, Government debt. I suggest that crosses the line, notwithstanding what the legislation of the Senator does, and I am proud to support it and cosponsor it. It says: Tell us what you are doing with the money. Tell us what you are doing. We have a right to know. The American people have a right to know and Congress should not abdicate this most basic responsibility. Let me tell you how shrouded this whole situation becomes. We do not know whether or not we have committed--the administration has committed us--to loaning $20, $30, $40 billion, and some people have suggested it may be, indeed, even closer to $50 billion that the United States of America, the people, the taxpayers of this country will be responsible for. We know we have heard $20 billion from the exchange fund. Is it true? Do we not have a right to know whether or not the United States has pledged $10 billion through IMF funds, which we know our allies were not happy with, some of our European allies? But on a promise, a supposed promise that we, the United States of America, would make available $10 billion to this fund? That is $20 billion plus $10 billion over and above. That puts us in for $30 billion. Question: World Bank? How much money is going to come from the World Bank and how much money have we put into the World Bank? So now we are over $30 billion and growing, as it relates to our commitments. Certainly, we have a right to know. That is what this legislation does. Amendment No. 341 to Amendment No. 340

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Paul D. Grannis and the New York State D-Zero collaboration members on the discovery of the Top Quark. Dr. Grannis is a physicist at the State University of New York at Stony Brook and is a leader of an international collaboration of scientists working at Fermi National Accelerator Lab in Batavia, IL. The D-Zero collaboration includes scientists from Brookhaven National Laboratory, Columbia University, New York University, and the University of Rochester as well as those from the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Scientists from Rockefeller University also participated in the discovery. The discovery of the Top Quark is one of the most important achievements in high energy physics this decade. The Top is the last of six Quarks to be discovered and is an integral part of the Standard Model of modern physics. This Standard Model not only serves as the basis for our understanding of physics but defines the fundamental building blocks of the Universe. Dr. Grannis has headed the D-Zero collaboration at Fermilab for over a decade. During this tenure he has commuted to Illinois nearly every week while never failing to meet his commitment to academics and teaching in New York. I commend him on his extraordinary commitment--which I believe exemplifies the high standard of dedication to both research and education in New York. It is a great credit to New York State institutions that their leadership has culminated in this exciting discovery. Again, I congratulate Dr. Grannis on this tremendous achievement and wish him continued success. Dr. Grannis lives in Stony Brook, NY with his wife Barbara and has four children: Jennifer, Eliza, Helena, and David. Mr. President, I ask that the March 3, 1995, New York Times article by Malcolm W. Browne describing this discovery be included in the Record following the text of these remarks. [From the New York Times, Mar. 2, 1995] Elusive Atomic Particle Found by Physicists (By Malcolm W. Browne) Batavia, Il., March 2--Culminating nearly a decade of intense effort, two rival groups of physicists announced today that they had found the elusive top quark--an ephemeral building block of matter that probably holds clues to some of the ultimate riddles of existence. The announcements brought sustained applause and a barrage of questions from an overflow audience of physicists at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, where the work was done. Fermilab has the world's most powerful particle accelerator. The two competing scientific teams, each with about 450 scientists and each using a separate detection system, reported that after a long chase in which there had been several false sightings of the top quark, this monstrously heavy but elusive particle has finally been cornered and measured. The results of the two groups' independent measurements differed somewhat, but when margins of error were taken into account, the scientists agreed that the results were consistent. One of the teams, the CDF Collaboration (standing for Collider Detector at Fermilab) reported last April that it had found evidence of the quark's existence. But at the time, the group lacked enough statistical evidence to claim discovery, and the competing group, the D0 (for D-Zero) Collaboration, which had even less evidence of its own, branded the CDF announcement as premature. The achievement claimed today by both teams leaves virtually no room for doubt, however, and the discovery was hailed as a landmark in science. Hazel O'Leary, who as Secretary of Energy heads the Federal agency providing most of the money for research at Fermilab, called the discovery a ``major contribution to human understanding of the fundamentals of the universe.'' The finding confirms a prediction based on a theory known as the Standard Model that nature has provided the universe with six types of quarks; the other five, the up, down, strange, charm and bottom quarks had all been known or discovered by 1977. Since the infancy of the universe shortly after the Big Bang--estimated at 10 billion to 20 billion years ago--only the up and down quarks have survived in nature, and the protons and neutrons that make up the nuclei of all atoms are built from combinations of these two quarks; the other quarks disappeared recreated by modern particle accelerators. Dr. Leon M. Lederman, a winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics and the former director of Fermilab, said at today's meeting that he doubted there could be any more quark types but that ``we know there's a lot of dark matter out in the universe that we can't identify.'' ``We're still in for a lot of surprises,'' he added. But more important than merely completing the table of quarks predicted by theory, the top quark may now begin to shed light on a deep philosophical question: everything in the universe, from the most distant galaxy to a rose petal, is made of quarks. Were the masses and other properties of these particles determined by random chance, or by some fundamental unifying plan? If so, what is that plan, and how might gravity, the least understood of the four forces of nature, be related to it? ``This monster, compared with all the other quarks, is like a big cowbird's egg in a nest of little sparrow eggs,'' said Dr. Paul D. Grannis, a leader of the DO group. ``It's so peculiar it must hold clues to some important new physics.'' ``The top quark has turned out to be so heavy,'' added Dr. John Peoples, director of Fermilab, ``that it's kind of a laboratory in itself, from which many new experiments will certainly yield important insights.'' It may be, scientists believe, that quarks (and the higher forms of matter they make up) are endowed with mass by interacting with an all-pervading universal ``field,'' with which they communicate through a hypothetical particle called the Higgs boson. To find and measure the Higgs boson would be as exciting for a physicist as the creation of life in a test tube would be for a biologist. One of the questions high-energy physicists regard as fundamental is whether there is a single type of Higgs boson, or several types. Theory predicts that if it is possible to accurately measure the masses of two known particles--the top quarks and the W particles that transmit the weak nuclear force--it will be possible to determine whether there are one or more than one Higgs bosons. ``We're so elated by the discovery of the top quark that we haven't yet begun to sift all the data,'' said Dr. Boaz Klima of Fermilab, one of the leaders of the successful search. ``But this particle is so astonishingly heavy that its decay may give us hints of a lot of other things, perhaps even of supersymmetric particles.'' The quest for supersymmetric particles by the world's most powerful accelerators during the last decade has failed to turn up any evidence that they exist, but according to some theories, they may be so heavy they are beyond reach of present-day accelerators. If supersymmetric particles could be shown to exist, they might offer scientists a tool for learning how gravity is related to the other forces of nature: the electromagnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Even when trillions of protons and antiprotons are made to collide in Fermilab's huge accelerator at combined energies of two trillion electron-volts, the creation of top quarks by the miniature fireballs remains a rare event. Dr. Grannis of the D0 collaboration said today that his group, which has been running its detector on and off since 1992, has found 17 collisions resulting in evidence of the creation of a top quark. The team was able to calculate the mass of the particle as 199 billion electron-volts, give or take about 30 billion electron-volts. (Particle physicists measure mass in terms of its energy equivalent, because the units are more practical. Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 defines the equivalency of mass and energy.) For their part, according to Dr. William Carithers Jr., a leader of the rival CDF Collaboration, two separate counting techniques using the CDF detector have turned up a total of about 21 top quark events. The group calculates the mass of the top quark as about 176 billion electron-volts, give or take about 13 billion. These results, the competing teams say, are in reasonably close agreement. At any rate, they agree that they have found the quark, and that there is only one chance in about one million that the results could have been caused by anything besides the decays of pairs of top and antitop quarks. One of the main difficulties in identifying the top quark is that it cannot be seen directly. When one is created from the immense pool of energy formed in the collisions of protons and antiprotons accelerated by Fermilab's Tevatron, its lifetime is so brief that no detector could sense it. But the top quark disintegrates into hundreds of daughter particles, which in turn decay into cascades of other particles. From the patterns of ``jets,'' particle types and other characteristics of these decays, theorists have learned to identify the parent particles like the top quark which cannot be detected directly. A jet is a spray of particles moving in the same general direction away from a collision. High-energy physics is expensive. The Fermilab Tevatron accelerator, a ring of superconducting magnets four miles in circumference, cost about $250 million to build, and each of the two detectors built into the accelerator cost about $60 million. An upgrade of the Tevatron called a main injector, costing $228 million, is scheduled for completion by 1999. The Superconducting Supercollider, a project that would have been Fermilab's successor, would have cost more than $8 billion if Congress had not canceled it last year. For the foreseeable future, Fermilab will remain America's most powerful particle accelerator, and scientists say that the machine has at least 15 more years of useful life. The stakes for the high-energy physics community are enormous, in terms of job security, the risks of failure and the promise of great prestige for leaders of successful experiments. Competition between physicists is often intense and sometimes bitter. The CDF and D0 detector collaborations have gone to great lengths to avoid even looking at each others' experiments--a policy that persisted even today minutes before their joint seminar began. ``We know that some of the younger physicists on both sides have been exchanging pirated copies of our reports, but we've tried to suppress such exchanges,'' one physicist said. ``Of course there is friction, but that's a healthy aspect of science. This way, we know that our results are in no way influenced by those of our competitors, and when both our versions of the top quark are published side by side, scientists will be able to judge for themselves.'' Despite a joking undertone of bickering between the two collaborations, which include scientists from a dozen nations, a holiday mood today eclipsed old rivalries and the collective anxiety about future financing of high-energy physics. ``We're ecstatic about this discovery,'' Dr. Peoples said. ``Non-scientists often ask me what the point of all this may be. I say it's important because it makes the universe knowable, in the same sense that our discovery of DNA has made the nature of life knowable. We have a long, long way to go, but it's one of the most intellectually satisfying pursuits there is.''

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I know this is a very contentious issue, and I do not question anybody's motivations on either side. I have a deep-rooted feeling and philosophy--and I have voted on this many times--that people have a fundamental right to withhold their labor--that is, to strike--if they feel it is the only way they can make their point. I do not know what other alternatives labor has in certain cases when the process breaks down. I support the right to strike. It is fundamental. I believe that all of my colleagues feel that way. Therefore, if one says that it is an inherent, innate right for the citizens of our country, then I have to ask the question: is it a myth, that, on the one hand we say you have the right to strike, but, on the other hand we say if you exercise that right, you will lose your job permanently? That appears to me to be an inconsistency. I can understand if we were to set up conditions. I can understand if we said that there would be a period of time in certain industries, and if there was a certain strike in an industry that in terms of the health and welfare of the people that this simply could not be tolerated. I understand there are laws in various States--in my State-- that say if you are a municipal employee and strike, you can lose your job, benefits and procedures. But that is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is taking people and just saying, ``If you strike, we will replace you permanently.'' I believe that flies in the face of what we are about as a nation. Therefore, Mr. President, I am going to, with great reluctance, make a motion to table the amendment that is before the Senate and ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, had I asked for the yeas and nays?

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Idaho and then have the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, it does not take a great economic wizard or professor to know that some deeply troubling things are taking place with the American economy. So I am going to address myself to a couple of points, because when we see a 10-percent drop in the value of the dollar against some foreign currencies, the dollar going from close to 100 yen per dollar to below 90, and now so-called stabilizing at or about 90, this should be very, very troubling to people. Mr. President, the time has come for Congress to stand up and fight for the American taxpayers--the men and women who must work harder and harder just to make ends meet. Last month, President Clinton ignored the will of the American people to bail out a mismanaged Mexican Government and global currency speculators. That was wrong. closely examine the administration's raid on our Exchange Stabilization Fund to bail out Mexico. That fund, known as ESF, is supposed to be used to strengthen the dollar. It was never intended to prop up either the Mexican peso or foreign currency. The American taxpayers and the American dollar have taken a double hit. First, the failure of the balanced budget amendment has sent a clear signal to the economic markets that we do not have the courage to cut the deficit and strengthen our economy. And then, add to that, the President of the United States out campaigning against the balanced budget amendment, telling the world's economic markets that we are not serious about reducing our deficit. If we do not get the Federal deficits under control, we are going to be Mexico II. It is ironic, Mr. President, that here we are fighting to stabilize Mexico's peso and our dollar is just in free fall. Oh, we have propped it up for a while. But what the marketplace is telling us is, if you continue this, if you do not have the courage to get your house in order, you will be Mexico II. It is ironic that we spend as much time as we have with Mexico, the President lobbying Members of this Congress to support loan guarantees, first $40 billion, now we have $20 billion, and campaigning against a balanced budget amendment that would do something that would have an impact to strengthen the American dollar, to cut the deficits, to bring interest rates down. And now we are faced with just the opposite. The second tough hit we took was the administration's blatant disregard of the will of the governed when they opened up our Treasury to $20 billion of our taxpayers' money. Now, who does that money go to? Where is it being spent? There is not one Member of this Congress who can tell us how that money is being spent. There is not one Member of this Congress who can say that the Mexican Government is not still continuing to print pesos. Why are we doing this? Who is getting paid off? Who is getting the money down there? We just read where we have the man who was murdered, the No. 2 man in the Mexican Government, his brother-in-law ran away and they found he has $6.5 million in the bank, American dollars. Is that what we are doing? We are not talking about a democracy. That is a corrupt, dictatorial government. Those elections are a farce. It is about time we ponied up and told the people the truth. Never before has a President sent $20 billion from our Exchange Stabilization Fund to bail out a foreign country. This is not the President's personal piggy bank. Mr. President, Congress must not stand on the sidelines while the administration allows the dollar to fall in a failed attempt to save the peso and a failed administration policy toward Mexico. Congress has an obligation to insist that the administration account for its actions. The Banking Committee will hold hearings tomorrow and Friday on Mexico and on the administration's use of the funds to bail out Mexico and the impact of Mexico on the dollar. We have an obligation to determine what the administration knew about Mexico and when did the administration know it. We have an obligation to investigate whether the administration's inaction or silence caused the crisis or exacerbated it. We have an obligation to find out if this administration advised Mexico to devalue the peso. The vast majority of Mexicans, Mr. President, deeply resent the Clinton administration's meddling in their affairs. There is a grave risk that the Mexican people will blame the United States for Mexico's economic meltdown. Could you imagine if your interest rates on your home went from 20 percent on the mortgage to 85 percent and you were told that is because the Americans have insisted on these new austere measures? Is that designed to gain us respect and confidence from the Mexican people? The Mexican economic policy should be set in Mexico and not in Washington, DC. The President has set a terrible precedent. What happens next time the peso collapses? What happens when some other country hits an economic currency collapse? Does the American taxpayer come forward and bail them out? What happens if our neighbors to the north have serious economic problems? We gave $20 billion or made it available to Mexico. Certainly Canada is every bit as important, and historically has been very close to this country. Can we afford to bail out the global currency speculators every time a foreign currency collapses? Who will bail out the United States if we collapse under a mountain of debt? The Japanese? The Germans? I doubt it. Make no mistake about it. The time for Congress to act has come. I understand that, as of March 3, the Mexican Government has already drawn down $3 billion of the first $20 billion and it will draw down another $7 billion by the end of June. Before Mexico draws down further funds, and particularly in view of the deteriorating situation in Mexico, I think Congress must reassert its right and its prerogatives with regard to this matter. Congress must consider whether or not we should amend the ESF statute. The President was wrong to go around Congress to bail out Mexico, and although I recognize that the Secretary of the Treasury must have some discretion in administering these funds, Congress must have the final say on the spending of $20 billion of taxpayers' money on what amounts to foreign aid. The Constitution says we have to appropriate. This was just a mechanism and a vehicle to get around this, a loophole. Never intended for these purposes. Now that the dollar is under assault, the American people have a right to know the full facts. More of our money is being shipped to Mexico, and before it is being shipped, what is going to be taking place with that money? Mr. President, we must fight for the American taxpayers, not for mismanaged foreign governments and global currency speculators. Mr. President, to conclude, let me say again that what we have seen is a misuse of this fund. Mr. President, that fund was never set up to be a guarantor or guarantee for foreign currencies. There was no prohibition, but it certainly was not set up for that purpose. It seems to me that Congress has an absolute obligation, at the very least, to see how those moneys are being utilized and that the administration cannot hide behind a shield of some kind of executive immunity; that certainly at the very least we should know what conditions are being imposed as it relates to the money being drawn down, whether or not Mexico is complying, whether or not it was practical for those conditions that are being set out to be implemented. Is it practical to raise interest rates to a height where we may have a revolution in the country? What about the stability of the Mexican Government? All of these are questions that are absolutely mandatory. We have a responsibility. The Government may have used this loophole-- the President and the administration--but we have an absolute obligation to see how these funds are spent, at the very least, if not amend the statute, to see that this kind of invasion of the Treasury without congressional authority is never undertaken again. We intend to pursue that. Mr. President, I think this should be very disturbing to all Members of Congress--Democrats and Republicans. There is no accountability. We are fighting to cut the budget. Yet here is $20 billion, and I daresay, $3 billion at least has been spent. We have not been notified how it has been utilized, nor whether this is just more money going to more corrupt officials, to more speculators. Whether or not the American people have had a say in this, seems to me to be of some consequence and some importance. We, as their representatives, have had little if anything to say. We have little in the way of ability to give an accounting of how these taxpayers' dollars are being utilized. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. D'AMATO

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

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I do not think it is any secret that I had some grave reservations about going forth with the nominations of the BRAC commissioners. I have withdrawn any objection I had. I do not intend to ask for a recorded vote. Let me tell you how it is and why it is that I was concerned. Two years ago, my State, New York, was a victim of one of the most outrageous, self-serving, manipulative, politically mean-spirited and inspired acts under the former BRAC commission. Not the kind of thing that would engender confidence in a process that was to be fair, that was to be open, that was to take into consideration everyone's concern. A process that would not lend itself to the political process as we know it. A process of putting forth your best case, seeing to it that people have an opportunity to be heard, recognizing that this was not easy and that, regardless of the wisdom of the decision, there were going to be areas in this country that would suffer. Let me tell Members that what the process did was close Plattsburgh Air Force Base and build up McGuire Air Force Base, and that one of the moving forces behind this travesty was none other than the Chairman of the BRAC Commission. That does not inspire confidence. In the 1993 round of closures, the Air Force proposed establishing an air mobility wing at Plattsburgh. They were going to put in an air mobility wing there. Their recommendation. It was not this Senator's. It was not anybody's in the community. They reasoned that the long runways and the vast apron at Plattsburgh were ideal for the large airlift aircraft. Facilities at the base were new--new. Tens and tens of millions of dollars had been spent and the base was well laid out. To all observers it was the perfect match. But somehow the BRAC Commission saw it differently. They bullied the FAA into not objecting at the introduction to McGuire AFB of 70 to 80 large aircraft in the busiest air corridor in the world. Now, Mr. President, it does not take one long to figure out that when we have one of the busiest commercial air corridors in the world, that is not the place where we put 70 to 80 large transports and say that that is going to be the mobility airbase. Not to mention the antiquated facilities. Not to mention the cost would be hundreds of millions of dollars in new construction. The FAA did not object. After having created a tissue of false rumors and lies regarding Plattsburgh's crash zone and fuel delivery costs, the BRAC decided that, lo and behold, McGuire, the oldest, the most antiquated of the facilities, located in the middle of one of the heaviest traffic air corridors in the world, that that would be where the Air Force would move these planes. They decided that McGuire, which the Air Force had initially recommended be downgraded to a reserve facility, obviously because of the traffic congestion in the air, that it be chosen as the new mobility hub. Want to talk about politics in its rawest, nastiest, rottenest sense, that is it. That is the kind of thing that all Members have an obligation to avoid. The infamous proposal--by the way, because it took somebody with some ingenuity to suggest this--came from none other than one of the commissioners. That was H.T. Johnson, a former Air Force general. He harbored a grudge--well-known, well-known--and my distinguished colleagues on the floor, if they care to check into this will find out because there are no secrets in this business. H.T. Johnson did not like the then Air Force Chief of Staff Tony McPeak. Can you imagine, here we now have these personalities, one former general is on the commission, does not like the then Air Force chief, and he knew that the Air Force and General McPeak were solidly behind the Plattsburgh proposal. So when H.T. Johnson came up with this plan, he did not have any trouble getting the Chairman of the Commission to quickly second it, to follow through on this deed, the commissioner himself having been a former Congressman from New Jersey, representing that district in which this move was made. Now, that is not what this process is to be about. We understand that there will be difficult decisions. We understand that. There has not been anyone here who has not seen them, and we understand, and we lick our wounds and we go on and do the best we can, and we try to get a community to pick up the pieces. I have to say, this outrage was buried in a host of other recommendations to Congress. Senator Moynihan and myself raised our voices. If there was any solace in what took place, it was that New York retained Rome Lab, which was located at Griffiss Air Force Base. It was the premier command and control research and development facility in the country. The Air Force said, ``Well, we will keep this going for another 5 years.'' Now, even that, in this last round, is gone. So, having been victimized once, the Pentagon is now recommending the closure of that lab, when they said ``Do not worry.'' And now they come back and put it on the list. And to add insult to injury, where do you think they call for realigning some of its work? Fort Monmouth, NJ. Now, look, there is a moral obligation and a commitment that this lab was going to be kept and the State went forward--the State of New York-- putting forth millions of dollars. We built a comprehensive scientific foundation linked with all of the universities: Rensselaer, Syracuse, Poly Institute, Rochester Institute, University of Rochester, Cornell. And now, instead of being an integral part of the Air Force's 5-year plan, nothing. Based on those assurances, New York gave millions of dollars to ease the operating costs and further facilitate the transfer of lab products to the private sector--and we can do it, and we can eventually take over the entire Government cost. Give us those 5 years and it will not cost the Federal Government anything. But, no, no, let me tell members how serious our State is. We are cutting spending. We have a deficit of $5 billion. For the first time in 40 years the State is actually reducing spending. We will spend less this year than we did the previous year. Three percent less. I do not think there is another State in the country that is doing that, yet the Governor increased the budget allotments and saw to it that the funds for Rome lab would be continued. The fact is that the Air Force deceived the Rome community into making investments in that lab, and now under their plan the hope for economic recovery is removed. It is morally wrong to do that to any community. If I saw that taking place in another community and my colleague addressed that and said, ``Take a look and see what took place,'' where one general, former general, because of his dislike of another, moves to crush the plan which called for the location of have that major installation--which was the best--decimated, closed down, with the remaining lab over at Griffiss. It was promised we will keep this and now we come back 2 years later and we will take that out as well. That does not inspire confidence in the integrity of the process. Having said that, I say I am tremendously encouraged at the qualifications, the candor, the ability, and the credibility first of all of the Chairman of the Commission, our former colleague Senator Dixon, and after having seen the quality of the other commission Members. Now, it is not easy for a commission to then restore a base once the Air Force or any of the services have put it on the list and said they are targeted. They do not generally do that. Not as a rule. But I certainly hope that we can make a case based upon the situation that exists today, and based upon what was morally indefensible, and what was done to the community by the BRAC Commission of 1993. It is a sorry saga, but one I believe that has to be told. I would not have come forth and made this public at this time were it not for what took place this year, following the commitments that were made, and the expectations that we had to save this facility. That is why I do so. It is a sordid, dirty, little story. But if anything, hopefully we can learn by that. I think we have a moral obligation to see to it that this facility is continued. The Governor has assured me that he will do everything in his power to give whatever aid in reducing costs to this facility and helping to move it into the private sector and in helping to keep it the premier lab that it is. So, Mr. President, it is on that basis that I have withdrawn my objection because, obviously, I understand there are decisions that have to be made. The taxpayers and the Members of this Congress have an obligation to see that our money is wisely spent and husbanded. This is not easy. But I thought that it was important to lay these facts out and, hopefully, we can avoid a repetition of that kind of thing. Nobody and no community should ever be subjected to it. I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, what is it about F-22 electronic combat effectiveness testing that terrifies Air Force? The fiscal year 1995 Senate Defense Appropriations Report 103-321 included the following language: The Committee is concerned that the F-22 test and evaluation master plan [TEMP] may not include sufficient electronic combat effectiveness testing before the onset of production. The Committee believes that it is important for the F-22 to demonstrate its capabilities in an offensive air superiority mission against a full array of likely threats. Those threats should include a modern integration air defense system, at a minimum on a simulated basis to the extent practicable, affordable, and cost effective. Therefore, the Committee directs that no more than 65 percent of the funds provided for the F-22 program for fiscal year 1995 may be obligated until the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (acquisition) submits to the congressional defense committees a report outlining the cost and schedule impacts on the F-22 program, and the technical and operational advantages and disadvantages, of revising the TEMP to include significantly more thorough electronic combat effectiveness testing before initiation of: (1) pre- production vehicle procurement; (2) commitment to low-rate initial operational test and evaluation. This report shall include, as a baseline, thorough electronic combat testing at the real-time electromagnetic digitally controlled analyzer and processor [REDCAP] and the Air Force electronic warfare evaluation simulator [AFEWES], and an installed system test facility with a capable wide- spectrum radio frequency generator that is interfaced for real-time control from remote facilities and a high capability dome, visual system cockpit simulator. The report also shall identify the funding required between fiscal years 1996-99 to allow the electronic combat test facilities cited in the preceding paragraph to thoroughly undertake effectiveness testing on integrated avionics suites. This report requirement was retained in Conference, though, as a courtesy of the House colleagues, the fence was dropped. Well, March 1, 1995 has come and gone, but no report; however, there has been an interesting development. On February 28, 1995, the Air Force base closure and realignment recommendations were made public. The Air Force operates 10 major test and evaluation [T&E] facilities with a combined budget in fiscal year 1995 of $1.722 billion. Not one was recommended for closure; but two very small T&E facilities with a combined fiscal year 1995 budget of less than $20 million were recommended for closure: the Real-time Electromagnetic Digitally- Controlled Analyzer and Processor [REDCAP] and the Air Force Electronic Warfare Evaluation Simulator [AFEWES], the very facilities where Congress directed the Air Force to consider conducting F-22 electronic combat effectiveness testing. What is the Air Force afraid of? The one facility mentioned in the Senate report that was not closed, the installation system test facility, belongs to the Navy. Apparently, the Air Force could not get at it. The most perplexing thing about the aversion of the Air Force to proper testing of the F-22 is that the B-2 program is about to undertake tests at the REDCAP very similar to those being avoided by the F-22. The B-2 test program has been thorough to the point of exhaustive. Is the B-2 successful because it was thoroughly tested, or was it successful so it is being thoroughly tested? Either way, what lesson can we draw about the F-22? When our needs are so many, and money so short, Congress can ill- afford to buy a pig in a poke. Congress gave the Air Force the opportunity to prove its claims regarding the F-22. The Air Force responded by trying to eliminate the facilities that could have rendered a judgment on the effectiveness of the F-22, Obviously, the Air Force has something to hide. If they will not test it, we will not buy it. Come budget funds.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me commend my colleagues, not only for their statements but for their clarity, the clarity they have brought to this argument, that they campaigned on. They did not just forget their campaign promises. They are committed to cutting down the size of Government. We must pass the balanced budget amendment. Those who oppose this amendment will face the wrath of the people. We must force the Federal Government to live within its means. The Federal Government spends too much and taxes too much. Today, as we vote on this amendment, it is ironic that the Denver International Airport is finally opening--more than 16 months late and $3 billion over its original budget. This $4.9 billion boondoggle demonstrates why we need the balanced budget amendment. It demonstrates why we need less government, not more. If you have any question about the balanced budget amendment, take a look at the Denver airport. The FBI, SEC and the Denver district attorney are investigating allegations of fraud and public corruption involving the construction of DIA. This airport is a monument to Government waste and mismanagement. The FAA has already poured almost $700 million of Federal dollars into this white elephant. How much more will be needed to keep this airport from crash landing? In 1989, when Denver voters approved the construction of DIA, the politicians promised that the new airport would cost $1.7 billion and have 120 gates. The airport's price tax has now reached almost $5 billion, and the airport has only 87 gates. What happened to gates 88 to 120? The taxpayers have a right to know why DIA's cost increased by $3 billion while the airport shrunk in size? Where did the extra $3 billion go? The Denver airport was built on the expectation of 56 million passengers per year. But a total of only about 32 million passengers will fly in and out of Denver this year. It is outrageous that Denver travelers will reportedly have to pay $40 extra on every round-trip ticket to support this airport. Why was this Taj Mahal of the Rockies ever built? Why wasn't Denver's existing airport, Stapleton, simply expanded? Who is to blame for this folly? The new Denver airport was built with almost $4 billion in municipal bonds. In the wake of the Orange County debacle, the Banking Committee is looking into the adequacy of disclosure to DIA bondholders. Were bondholders adequately advised of DIA's projected revenues and costs? Was information about Denver's faulty of DIA? Will DIA's bondholders be paid in full? The airport's bonds have a junk rating. Standard & Poor's says that ``DIA faces major ongoing uncertainties that could lead to inadequate capacity to meet timely debt service payments.'' Will Denver's taxpayers have to pick up the tab if the airport defaults? As we vote on the balanced budget amendment, we must remember the Denver airport. We must remember what happens when taxpayers' money is wasted on grandiose schemes. We must force Government to live within its means.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to honor our Nation's engineers during National Engineers Week. Although we might not realize their presence, engineers have worked tirelessly to improve our world through science and technology. Without engineers, there would be no transportation. Engineers design cars, trains, and buses, as well as devices that improve them. If not for engineers, we would have no structurally sound buildings, bridges, or highways. And their achievements do not end there. Engineers create the technology that help doctors diagnose illnesses. Working with the medical profession, they have developed sensitive equipment used in medical research. Options are now available for so many people that would not otherwise be able to lead normal and productive lives. Transportation, infrastructure, and medicine are just some of the areas influenced by the mastery of the engineer. Engineers' effect on the communications industry has catapulted us into a new age of technology. Magnetic tape recording, developed by an engineer, is used in audio cassettes, videotape, computer floppy disks, and credit card magnetic strips. We use these items everyday and never even think twice about it, thanks to engineers. And who is responsible for the progress in the entertainment industry? We are seeing more of the morphing technique in movies and commercials. Animation has become so advanced because of these technological geniuses. This profession has brought us some of the most complex special effects that keep us spellbound during a movie. For their efforts to improve the world we live in, the engineering profession should be applauded. For their work to improve our future, they should be admired. That is why, during this National Engineers Week, I am taking the opportunity to thank engineers, in all fields, for their accomplishments.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask that the rules of procedure and jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be printed in the Record. Rules of Procedure for the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs (Adopted in executive session, January 11, 1995) rule 1.--Regular meeting date for committee The regular meeting day for the Committee to transact its business shall be the last Tuesday in each month that the Senate is in Session; except that if the Committee has met at any time during the month prior to the last Tuesday of the month, the regular meeting of the Committee may be canceled at the discretion of the Chairman. rule 2.--committee (a) Investigations.--No investigation shall be initiated by the Committee unless the Senate, or the full Committee, or the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member have specifically authorized such investigation. (b) Hearings.--No hearing of the Committee shall be scheduled outside the District of Columbia except by agreement between the Chairman of the Committee and the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee or by a majority vote of the Committee. (c) Confidential testimony.--No confidential testimony taken or confidential material presented at an executive session of the Committee or any report of the proceedings of such executive session shall be made public either in whole or in part by way of summary, unless specifically authorized by the Chairman of the Committee and the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee or by a majority vote of the Committee. (d) Interrogation of witnesses.--Committee interrogation of a witness shall be conducted only by members of the Committee or such professional staff as is authorized by the Chairman or the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. (e) Prior notice of markup sessions.--No session of the Committee or a Subcommittee for marking up any measure shall be held unless (1) each member of the Committee or the Subcommittee, as the case may be, has been notified in writing of the date, time, and place of such session and has been furnished a copy of the measure to be considered at least 3 business days prior to the commencement of such session, or (2) the Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee determines that exigent circumstances exist requiring that the session be held sooner. (f) Prior notice of first degree amendments.--It shall not be in order for the Committee or a Subcommittee to consider any amendment in the first degree proposed to any measure under consideration by the Committee or Subcommittee unless (1) fifty written copies of such amendment have been delivered to the office of the Committee at least 2 business days prior to the meeting, or (2) with respect to multiple first degree amendments, each of which would strike a single section of the measure under consideration, fifty copies of a single written notice listing such specific sections have been delivered to the Committee at least 2 business days prior to the meeting. An amendment to strike a section of the measure under consideration by the Committee or Subcommittee shall not be amendable in the second degree by the Senator offering the amendment to strike. This subsection may be waived by a majority of the members of the Committee or Subcommittee voting, or by agreement of the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member. This subsection shall apply only when at least 3 business days written notice of a session to markup a measure is required to be given under subsection (e) of this rule. (g) Cordon rule.--Whenever a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part thereof shall be before the Committee or Subcommittee, from initial consideration in hearings through final consideration, the Clerk shall place before each member of the Committee or Subcommittee a print of the statute or the part or section thereof to be amended or repealed showing by stricken-through type, the part or parts to be omitted, and in italics, the matter proposed to be added. In addition, whenever a member of the Committee or Subcommittee offers an amendment to a bill or joint resolution under consideration, those amendments shall be presented to the Committee or Subcommittee in a like form, showing by typographical devices the effect of the proposed amendment on existing law. The requirements of this subsection may be waived when, in the opinion of the Committee or Subcommittee Chairman, it is necessary to expedite the business of the Committee or Subcommittee. rule 3.--subcommittees (a) Authorization for.--A Subcommittee of the Committee may be authorized only by the action of a majority of the Committee. (b) Membership.--No member may be a member of more than three Subcommittees and no member may chair more than one Subcommittee. No member will receive assignment to a second Subcommittee until, in Committee have chosen assignments to one Subcommittee, and no member shall receive assignment to a third Subcommittee until, in order of seniority, all members have chosen assignments to two Subcommittees. (c) Investigations.--No investigation shall be initiated by a Subcommittee unless the Senate or the full Committee has specifically authorized such investigation. (d) Hearings.--No hearing of a Subcommittee shall be scheduled outside the District of Columbia without prior consultation with the Chairman and then only by agreement between the Chairman of the Subcommittee and the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee or by a majority vote of the Subcommittee. (e) Confidential testimony.--No confidential testimony taken or confidential material presented at an executive session of the Subcommittee or any report of the proceedings of such executive session shall be made public, either in whole or in part or by way of summary, unless specifically authorized by the Chairman of the Subcommittee and the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee, or by a majority vote of the Subcommittee. (f) Interrogation of witnesses.--Subcommittee interrogation of a witness shall be conducted only by members of the Subcommittee or such professional staff as is authorized by the Chairman or the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee. (g) Special meetings.--If at least three members of a Subcommittee desire that a special meeting of the Subcommittee be called by the Chairman of the Subcommittee, those members may file in the offices of the Committee their written request to the Chairman of the Subcommittee for that special meeting. Immediately upon the filing of the request, the Clerk of the Committee shall notify the Chairman of the Subcommittee of the filing of the request. If, within 3 calendar days after the filing of the request, the Chairman of the Subcommittee does not call the requested special meeting, to be held within 7 calendar days after the filing of the request, a majority of the members of the Subcommittee may file in the offices of the Committee their written notice that a special meeting of the Subcommittee will be held, specifying the date and hour of that special meeting. The Subcommittee shall meet on that date and hour. Immediately upon the filing of the notice, the Clerk of the Committee shall notify all members of the Subcommittee that such special meeting will be held and inform them of its date and hour. If the Chairman of the Subcommittee is not present at any regular or special meeting of the Subcommittee, the Ranking Member of the majority party on the Subcommittee who is present shall preside at that meeting. (h) Voting.--No measure or matter shall be recommended from a Subcommittee to the Committee unless a majority of the Subcommittee are actually present. The vote of the Subcommittee to recommend a measure or matter to the Committee shall require the concurrence of a majority of the members of the Subcommittee voting. On Subcommittee matters other than a vote to recommend a measure or matter to the Committee no record vote shall be taken unless a majority of the Subcommittee is actually present. Any absent member of a Subcommittee may affirmatively request that his or her vote to recommend a measure or matter to the Committee or his vote on any such other matters on which a record vote is taken, be cast by proxy. The proxy shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently clear to identify the subject matter and to inform the Subcommittee as to how the member wishes his or her vote to be recorded thereon. By written notice to the Chairman of the Subcommittee any time before the record vote on the measure or matter concerned is taken, the member may withdraw a proxy previously given. All proxies shall be kept in the files of the Committee. rule 4.--witnesses (a) Filing of statements.--Any witness appearing before the Committee or Subcommittee (including any witness representing a Government agency) must file with the Committee or Subcommittee (24 hours preceding his or her appearance) 120 copies of his statement to the Committee or Subcommittee, and the statement must include a brief summary of the testimony. In the event that the witness fails to file a written statement and brief summary in accordance with this rule, the Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee has the discretion to deny the witness the privilege of testifying before the Committee or Subcommittee until the witness has properly complied with the rule. (b) Length of statements.--Written statements properly filed with the Committee or Subcommittee may be as lengthy as the witness desires and may contain such documents or other addenda as the witness feels is necessary to present properly his or her views to the Committee or Subcommittee. The brief summary included in the statement must be no more than 3 pages long. It shall be left to the discretion of the Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee as to what portion of the documents presented to the Committee or Subcommittee shall be published in the printed transcript of the hearings. (c) Ten-minute duration.--Oral statements of witnesses shall be based upon their filed statements but shall be limited to 10 minutes duration. This period may be limited or extended at the discretion of the Chairman presiding at the hearings. (d) Subpoena of witnesses.--Witnesses may be subpoenaed by the Chairman of the Committee or a Subcommittee with the agreement of the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee or Subcommittee or by a majority vote of the Committee or Subcommittee. (e) Counsel permitted.--Any witness subpoenaed by the Committee or Subcommittee to a public or executive hearing may be accompanied by counsel of his or her own choosing who shall be permitted, while the witness is testifying, to advise him or her of his or her legal rights. (f) Expenses of witnesses.--No witness shall be reimbursed for his or her appearance at a public or executive hearing before the Committee or Subcommittee unless such reimbursement is agreed to by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. (g) Limits of questions.--Questioning of a witness by members shall be limited to 5 minutes duration when 5 or more members are present and 10 minutes duration when less than 5 members are present, except that if a member is unable to finish his or her questioning in this period, he or she may be permitted further questions of the witness after all members have been given an opportunity to question the witness. Additional opportunity to question a witness shall be limited to a duration of 5 minutes until all members have been given the opportunity of questioning the witness for a second time. This 5-minute period per member will be continued until all members have exhausted their questions of the witness. rule 5.--voting (a) Vote to report a measure or matter.--No measure or matter shall be reported from the Committee unless a majority of the Committee is actually present. The vote of the Committee to report a measure or matter shall require the concurrence of a majority of the members of the Committee who are present. Any absent member may affirmatively request that his or her vote to report a matter be cast by proxy. The proxy shall be sufficiently clear to identify the subject matter, and to inform the Committee as to how the member wishes his vote to be recorded thereon. By written notice to the Chairman any time before the record vote on the measure or matter concerned is taken, any member may withdraw a proxy previously given. All proxies shall be kept in the files of the Committee, along with the record of the rollcall vote of the members present and voting, as an official record of the vote on the measure or matter. (b) Vote on matters other than to report a measure or matter.--On Committee matters other than a vote to report a measure or matter, no record vote shall be taken unless a majority of the Committee are actually present. On any such other matter, a member of the Committee may request that his or her vote may be cast by proxy. The proxy shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently clear to identify the subject matter, and to inform the Committee as to how the member wishes his or her vote to be recorded thereon. By written notice to the Chairman any time before the vote on such other matter is taken, the member may withdraw a proxy previously given. All proxies relating to such other matters shall be kept in the files of the Committee. rule 6.--quorum No executive session of the Committee or a Subcommittee shall be called to order unless a majority of the Committee or Subcommittee, as the case may be, are actually present. Unless the Committee otherwise provides or is required by the Rules of the Senate, one member shall constitute a quorum for the receipt of evidence, the swearing in of witnesses, and the taking of testimony. rule 7.--staff present on dais Only members and the Clerk of the Committee shall be permitted on the dais during public or executive hearings, except that a member may have one staff person accompany him or her during such public or executive hearing on the dais. If a member desires a second staff person to accompany him or her on the dais he or she must make a request to the Chairman for that purpose. rule 8.--coinage legislation At least 40 Senators must cosponsor any gold medal or commemorative coin bill or resolution before consideration by the Committee.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am today introducing the Limited-Purpose Bank Growth Cap Relief Act with Senators Mack, Bennett, Faircloth, and Bryan as cosponsors. Mr. President, this bill would lift the 7-percent cap on the annual asset growth of limited-purpose banks. This growth cap, which was imposed temporary under the 1987 Competitive Equality Banking Act [CEBA], imposes an arbitrary and unnecessary regulatory burden. The removal of this cap would enhance the ability of limited-purpose banks to serve their customers, increase the availability of credit, and allow such banks to maintain assets on their balance sheets. By way of background, the ownership of limited-purpose banks by certain non-banking holding companies was protected by a grandfather provision in CEBA. A grandfathered non-bank holding company was permitted to maintain its ownership of limited-purpose bank if the bank, first, did not both accept demand deposits and engage in commercial lending; second, limited its cross-marketing of financial services with affiliates; third, did not participate in activities in which the bank did not already engage prior to the passage of CEBA; fourth, did not provide daylight overdrafts to affiliates; and fifth, limited its annual asset growth to 7 percent. Except for these restrictions, limited-purpose banks were subjected to the same capital requirements, regulatory supervision, community reinvestment obligations, consumer protection laws and banking laws as full-service banks. Mr. President, Congress intended these CEBA restrictions on limited- purpose banks to be only a temporary measure coexistent with the moratorium on the ability of the bank regulators to permit banks to engage in additional securities, insurance and real estate activities. The legislative history is clear that these restrictions would be reconsidered as part of comprehensive banking legislation. The overall purpose of CEBA was merely to preserve the opportunity for Congress-- not the regulators or the courts--to define more precisely regulatory supervision over financial service institutions and competition among financial service providers. Mr. President, Congress has not enacted comprehensive banking legislation, although I am hopeful this important national policy objective can be accomplished in this Congress with the enactment of S. 337, the Depository Institution Affiliation Act of 1995, which I introduced on February 2. Despite the significant changes in the laws and regulation governing the financial services industry over the past 8 years that have enhanced the diversification opportunities of banks, securities firms, insurance companies and other financial providers, the temporary and arbitrary restrictions CEBA imposed on limited purpose banks remain in place. The number of limited-purpose banks has sharply dropped from nearly 160 to only 23. And the remaining institutions are forced to labor under severe restrictions that cannot be justified from a regulatory, public policy, or competitive standpoint. Mr. President, limited service banks have been frozen in time. Congress has enacted numerous laws to render full-service banks more competitive, efficient and financially strong. The growth cap is no longer necessary from a regulatory perspective. In 1989 and 1991, Congress enacted legislation to increase the ability of regulators to ensure that all banks are run in a safe and sound manner, including the authority to freeze bank asset growth if capital levels decline significantly. And the restriction is not necessary from a competitive standpoint. The Finally, bank regulators and the courts continue to approve a growing list of securities, insurance, and other financial services activities for banks. Mr. President, only a small category of specialized and limited purpose banks remain subject to onerous limitations on their growth, activities, products, and customer relationships. This situation is both unfair and unnecessary. Mr. President, the Limited-Purpose Bank Growth Cap Relief Act would lift the 7-percent asset growth cap for limited-purpose banks. It would not remove any of the other CEBA restrictions and it would not allow the chartering of additional limited-purpose banks from a statutory requirements that has outlived its usefulness. Mr. President, the repeal of the growth cap is entirely consistent with the objectives of the Depository Institutions Affiliation Act, which I introduced several weeks ago. Both bills seek to enhance the global competitiveness of the U.S. financial services industry and to ready the regulation of that industry for the next century.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, the Air Force and Navy are quietly scrapping our electronic warfare [EW] squadrons. At best, the Services are making penny wise and pound foolish decisions. At worst, the Air Force and Navy are attempting to force Congress into funding an all- stealthy tactical aviation fleet. Either way, America is on the verge of losing its decisive edge in EW. Reviewing the ``Conduct of the Persian Gulf War,'' one is struck by the crucial role EW played in achieving air superiority: The attacks on the Iraqi electronic order of battle [EOB] affected every aspect of [the] air supremacy operation. Coalition aircraft conducting air defense suppression missions saturated Iraqi airspace with jammers, shooters, and bombers. Iraqi defense that attempted to engage were disrupted, and risked being destroyed. EF-111A's and EA-6B's were used in stand-off and close-in orbits to jam early warning, acquisition, and [Ground Control Intercept] GCI radars. EC-130H Compass Call aircraft jammed radio communications, data links, and navigation systems. F-4G's, F-16's, EA-6B's, A-6E's, A-7E's, and F/A-18's used [High- Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles] HARMs to destroy acquisition, GCI, and target tracking radars. Various aircraft dropped bombs on air defense emplacements and control facilities. [Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses] SEAD forces and bomb droppers caused confusion, hesitation, and loss of capability, which degraded Iraqi air defense capability. This confusion, hesitation, and loss of capability was directly responsible for the spectacular success of our air and ground campaigns. More importantly, air superiority was a key element in reducing Coalition losses in men and material. Yet, a mere 4 years since Desert Storm, our EW capability is rapidly wasting away for lack of funds. The most immediate dilemma facing Congress is the proposed termination of the EF-111A System Improvement Program (SIP). EF-111 performance, pre-SIP, was described in glowing terms in the ``Conduct of the Persian Gulf War:'' [EF-111As] were part of the initial surge of aircraft across the Iraqi border the first night of the war, and established orbits to escort strike packages into the H-3 and Baghdad areas. They jammed EW, height finder, GCI, and target-acquisition radars, and were effective in tricking the enemy into opening fire at fake radar returns in areas where there were no Coalition aircraft. It should be noted that only F-117's were cleared for Baghdad, a point that I will return to in a moment. The SIP will significantly enhance the effectiveness, reliability, and maintainability of the already proven EF-111. Unfortunately, the Air Force proposed, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense accepted, the termination of the SIP in fiscal year 1996 for budgetary reasons preparatory to retiring the aircraft in fiscal year 1997. To compensate for the loss of EW capability that will result from the termination of the SIP and retirement of the EF-111A, the Air Force has suggested a number of alternatives: at its most cynical. The EA-6B Advanced Capability (ADVCAP) upgrade was cancelled by the Navy in February 1994. The future of Navy EW is in disarray, and it is likely that EA-6B modernization will be limited to safety of flight improvements until the retirement of the aircraft; Stealthy aircraft require less EW support: Perhaps, but, as mentioned before, F-117's benefited from EW support in the skies over Baghdad. Stealth is actually an EW force multiplier, because the jamming power and techniques needed to hide an aircraft with the radar cross section (RCS) of a B-52 will be many times more effective hiding an aircraft with the RCS of a sparrow; and, Jamming pods can replace stand-off jammers: This is, at best, only a partial solution. Pods provide only self- protection, frequencies, power output, and techniques are limited, man-in-the-loop responsiveness is lost, and aircraft maneuverability, payload, speed, and range are reduced. The menu of options presented by the Air Force is hardly ideal, and, taken separately, or in some combination, represent a significant diminution of U.S. EW capability. Worse yet, the use of prior year EF- 111A SIP funds as a source for the supplemental by the House Appropriations Committee may foreclose our opportunity to debate the wisdom of the EF-111A SIP cancellation. If prior year EF-111A SIP funds are rescinded, the termination of the program will be irreversible. So what do we do? First, drop EF-111A SIP funds as a source for the supplemental. Second, pry loose the congressionally mandated Joint Tactical Electronic Warfare Study. Third, if the study says what I think it will, ensure that the fiscal year 1996 defense authorization and appropriations bills include funds to maintain and modernize the EF-111A, EA-6B, and F-4G (``Wild Weasel'') fleets. The alternative is to let the services have their way, and let America's EW advantage erode. This erosion will have profound implications for Congress. Without proper EW support, conventional aircraft are almost immediately obsolete. For Members vaporlocking over the cost of the F-22, it is worth considering that the 442 F-22's proposed will only fill out 4 of the 20 Fighter Wing Equivalents (FWE's) in the Bottom Up Review Force. That means one of two things: First, we buy 17 more FWE's worth of stealthy tactical aircraft, or second, we accept considerably higher losses among conventional aircraft in the next conflict. For Congress, an ugly choice.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Keller George, who was recently elected president of the United South and Eastern Tribes. Mr. George, a resident of Oneida, NY, is a member of the Onieda Indian Nation, a nation whose triumphant history includes playing an integral part in the victory of the colonists during the American Revolutionary War. Onieda Indians brought food to the American Army during the harsh winter at Valley Forge, and fought by their side at the Battle of Oriskany. The epic battle that took place at Oriskany represented a partnership between native Americans, Europeans, and Americans for freedom and self-determination. The battle was the bloodiest in the revolution. Mr. George has quite an impressive and extensive resume in serving both the United States of America and the Onieda Indian Nation. For over 20 years he was a member of the U.S. Air Force. Mr. George has been a businessman, managing the Onieda Nation's first smokeshop. He currently holds the position of special assistant to Onieda Nation representative Ray Halbritter. But that only scratches the surface of Mr. George's substantial role as a leader in the Onieda Nation. He is also first representative for the Onieda Nation's sovereign housing authority, first representative and treasurer for the Onieda Indian Nation Gaming Commission, a member of the Onieda Nation's men's council, a member of the board of directors for the National Indian Gaming Association, and vice president of the northeastern area of the National Congress of American Indians. Now Mr. George has risen to the position of president of the United South and Eastern Tribes. The United South and Eastern Tribes is composed of 21 tribes whose purpose is to provide leadership for its member tribes and to advance the causes of all native Indians. Mr. President, all Americans can related to these causes. They include providing educational opportunity and promoting understanding among the general public of the achievements of their member tribes. I can think of no other person who is more qualified and more deserving of such a position as Keller George. I congratulate him on this tremendous achievement, and wish him the best of luck in his new position.