Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Northern Ireland Fair Employment Practices Act. This legislation seeks to deter efforts to use the work place as an arena of discrimination in Northern Ireland. I am pleased that my colleague from New York, Representative Ben Gilman, chairman of the House International Affairs Committee has introduced this bill, H.R. 470, in the House. The Northern Ireland Fair Employment Practices Act incorporates the MacBride Principles, which are modeled after the famous Sullivan Principles, one of the initial efforts to apply United States pressure to change the system of apartheid in South Africa. The MacBride Principles are named in honor of the late Sean MacBride, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and cofounder of Amnesty International. This amendment will enlist the cooperation of United States companies active in Northern Ireland in the campaign to force the end of discrimination in the workplace by: First, eliminating religious discrimination in managerial, supervisory, administrative, clerical, and technical jobs and significantly increasing the representation in such jobs of individuals from underrepresented religious groups; Second, providing adequate security for the protection of minority employees at the workplace; Third, banning provocative sectarian and political emblems from the workplace; Fourth, publicly advertising all job openings and undertaking special recruitment efforts to attract applicants from underrepresented religious groups, and establishing procedures to identify and recruit minority individuals with potential for further advancement, including managerial programs; Fifth, establishing layoff, recall, and termination procedures which do not favor particular religious groupings; Sixth, abolishing job reservations, apprenticeship restrictions, and differential employment criteria which discriminate on the basis of religious or ethnic origin; Seventh, developing and expanding upon existing training and educational programs that will prepare substantial numbers of minority employees for managerial, supervisory, administrative, clerical, and technical jobs; and Eighth, appointing a senior management staff member to oversee the U.S. company's compliance with the principles described above. It is at the workplace in Northern Ireland, which can be used to either foster or eliminate discrimination, where improving the employment opportunities for the underprivileged will help factor out the economic causes of the current strife in Northern Ireland resolution of the so-called troubles. 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 pleased today to cosponsor with Senator Mack the Mexican loan commitments resolution. As I stated on February 8, the President never should have circumvented the will of the American people to bail out a mismanaged Mexican Government and global currency speculators. I remain outraged that American taxpayers have been forced to do something they did not want to do. The President knew full well that Congress would never approve a $40 billion bailout. He never should have submitted to economic blackmail. The President's use of $20 billion from our Exchange Stabilization Fund [ESF] to bail out Mexico was unprecedented. This fund was intended to stabilize the dollar, not the Mexican peso or any other foreign currency. It is not the President's personal piggy bank. The President has now committed $20 billion of the approximately $25 billion the ESF has available for lending. Are sufficient funds left in the ESF to stabilize the dollar's exchange rate in the event of a crisis? What happens if Mexico defaults? Does the President propose to raise taxes or cut needed domestic programs to replenish the ESF? The Banking Committee intends to hold oversight hearings on the President's use of the ESF to bail out Mexico. These hearings will address, among other issues: First, the President's legal authority to use the ESF to provide $20 billion in loans, loan guarantees, and other assistance to Mexico; second, the need for such assistance to Mexico; third, Mexico's compliance with the conditions imposed for United States assistance; fourth, the administration's monitoring of economic conditions in Mexico during 1994, including whether the administration or the International Monetary Fund [IMF] participated in Mexico's December 20 decision to devalue the peso; and fifth, lessons of the Mexican peso crisis, including the risk of similar crises occurring in other nations. The Mexican loan commitments resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that Congress must receive sufficient information to judge the success or failure of the President's Mexican adventure. This resolution urges the Secretary of the Treasury to provide the Senate Banking Committee with monthly information on: First, economic conditions in Mexico, and second, Mexico's use of the funds it obtains from the ESF and IMF. The Secretary now submits a monthly ESF financial statement to the Senate and House Banking Committees. Mr. President, in a February 9 letter to me, Secretary Rubin expressed a willingness to provide some additional information to the Banking Committee on Mexico's economic condition, and Mexico's use of our assistance. I ask that the Secretary's letter be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. (See exhibit 1.) The purpose of this resolution is to detail the information that the Senate believes the Secretary must submit to allow the Banking Committee to monitor the President's extraordinary use of the ESF to aid Mexico. The resolution urges the Secretary to provide the Banking Committee with information on: The activities of the Mexican Central Bank, including the reserve positions of the Mexican Central Bank and data relating to the functioning of Mexican monetary policy; The implementation and extent of wage, price, and credit controls in the Mexican economy; Mexican tax policy; Planned or pending Mexican Government regulations affecting the Mexican private sector; and Any efforts to privatize public sector entities in Mexico. This information will allow the committee to determine whether Mexico's Government has instituted the tight money and free market reforms needed to improve its economy. provided with a full disclosure of all financial transactions, both inside and outside of Mexico, directly involving funds disbursed from the ESF or the IMF. This information will allow the committee to determine whether these funds are being used to strengthen the peso or to refinance Mexico's debt. As Senator Bennett urged last week, these funds should be used to extinguish excess pesos not to bail out speculators in Mexican tesobonos. Finally, this resolution asks that the committee be informed of any consultations involving Mexico between the Untied States Department of the Treasury, the IMF, and the Bank of International Settlements. This information will assist the committee in evaluating the success of the multilateral effort to aid Mexico. Mr. President, I hope my dire predictions about the President's use the ESF to aid Mexico turn out to be wrong. I hope that Mexico prospers, and that American taxpayers are not left holding the bag. Mr. President, I strongly urge passage of the Mexican loan commitments resolution. The information specified in this resolution will allow Congress to blow the whistle if Mexico fails to life up to its commitments--to stop the peso press, to balance its budget, and to privatize. We must protect American taxpayers, not badly run foreign governments. Exhibit 1 Secretary of the Treasury, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC, February 9, 1995. Hon. Alfonse M. D'Amato, Chairman, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator D'Amato: In your floor statement of February 8, you called on the Department of the Treasury to provide the Banking Committee with monthly information on (i) economic conditions in Mexico, and (ii) Mexico's use of the funds it will obtain through our support package. As you know, the Treasury Department presently submits a monthly report to the House and Senate Banking Committees on Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) operations. We are happy to supplement this monthly report with the information you requested. The report will also provide a detailed picture of developments in Mexico, as well as an analysis of Mexico's compliance with our agreed economic terms and conditions. This information will enable the Congress and the American people to review actions we are taking in America's interests to deal with Mexico's financial situation. Let me assure you that we fully share your concerns about the need to ensure Mexico's proper use of our support. To that end, Mexico has already agreed to meet a tough set of economic conditions imposed by the IMF as a requirement for accepting support from the Fund. These include strict monetary targets that will hold Mexico to negative real monetary growth, and disciplined fiscal targets that will move Mexico to budget surplus. In addition, the Mexicans have committed themselves to pushing forward with their privatization program and further opening their economy. Our own framework agreement with Mexico will take the IMF program as a base. But we will also require the Mexicans to agree to additional obligations, over and above those imposed by the IMF, to protect our own resources. We will insist that Mexico take steps to assure the independence of its central bank. Moreover, we will require far greater transparency and regular reporting on Mexico's financial condition and policies. We will further ensure Mexico provides us with the data we need to determine independently whether Mexico is complying with our conditions and the IMF's conditions. Let me emphasize to you that we will preserve the right to halt our support program if we conclude that Mexico is not cooperating, or if we judge that Mexico's economic situation is deteriorating. Please let me know if I or my staff can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Robert E. Rubin.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the introduction of the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation along with Senators Biden, Kohl, Specter, and Kerrey. Mr. President, what we are seeing today is an exponential increase in violence across the globe. Acts that were once thought to be implausible are becoming commonplace. We witnessed the bombing of the World Trade Center 2 years ago. What we saw there was something that so sane person could imagine. Unfortunately, six people were killed and over 1,000 were injured. Thankfully, more we not killed and due to quick police work the perpetrators Additionally, special recognition must go out to those responsible for the arrest of Ramzi Yousef, the alleged mastermind of the operation, in Pakistan just this week. We must prevent another World Trade Center-like operation from taking place. We can no longer rely on luck. The bill we are introducing today will close loopholes and shore up jurisdiction problems and allow us to get our hands on these murdering terrorists before they get a chance to act and if need be, to grab them overseas. It offers us essential legal tools such as the RICO statute and wiretapping capabilities to stop terrorism in its tracks. If we wish to fight terrorism, we must have the right tools. This bill is a great beginning and will help us to gain the upper hand. I am pleased to be joining my colleagues in introducing this legislation and I urge my other colleagues in the Senate to join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am today introducing the Asset Conservation, Lender Liability, and Deposit Insurance Protection Act of 1995. This bill addresses an urgent issue facing America's banks and lenders today--the imposition of massive liability for the cleanup of property they hold as security interest on a loan, or as the technical owner under a leveraged lease, that is later discovered to be contaminated. Mr. President, court decisions have eviscerated the ``secured creditor exception'' currently contained in CERCLA, or as it is more commonly known, the Superfund law. Some courts have scrutinized the oversight activities of creditors, and deemed them responsible for cleanup costs. For instance, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals deemed a secured creditor liable because it exercised authority over the contaminated property ``sufficiently broad to support the inference that it could affect hazardous waste disposal decisions if it chose.'' As a result, lenders risk being targeted as convenient deep pockets, and being forced to foot the cleanup bill for contamination, not because they caused it or did not take precautions, but simply because they hold a security interest or have some other technical indicia of ownership. Mr. President, this bill will not permit lenders to evade responsibility if they cause environmental contamination. But lenders should not be held liable merely because of their deep pockets. The imposition of culpability based on legal dictates of commercial or fiduciary law is wrong. And, the implications of this legal doctrine extend beyond the finance industry. Why? Because the so-called deep pockets in the banking and finance industries are not bottomless pits. And the ultimate losers in this scheme are not the lenders, but potential borrowers, especially small businesses, who may face liability. Lenders are reluctant to extend credit and face potential liability. Many small businesses and potential homeowners do not receive financing because of potential claims. Without access to credit small businesses can not get off the ground or grow. So, in the final analysis, the victims are economic growth and job creation. Mr. President, the refinements embodied in this bill are not new. The Senate passed similar legislation in Corporation Improvement Act. The Senate approved a lender liability amendment to the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992. Last year, the Banking and Environment Committees worked together and crafted language for inclusion in the Superfund reauthorization bill. This bill is modeled on final language form that bill, with several adjustments. Most significantly, this bill would clarify lender liability rules not only with respect to Superfund, but also with respect to the underground tank provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. This bill will make clear the potential liability that lenders, acting in their capacity as secured creditors, lessors, or fiduciaries, face for contamination. Lender liability will be limited to the net gain that the lender realizes from the sale of property. Fiduciary liability may not exceed the assets held in that fiduciary capacity. This bill also addresses the liability problems that the FDIC, RTC, and other banking agencies face when they close a financial institution and take over the assets of the failed institution. If these assets include contaminated property acquired through foreclosure, the agency may assume liability for contamination for which it is not responsible. Finally, the bill provides clarity as to when creditors will be deemed to be owners or operators of contaminated property, and excludes federally appointed receivers and conservators, including Federal agencies acting in this capacity, from the definition of owner or operator. Mr. President, the time has come to make it clear that innocent banks and lenders should not face liability for environmental contamination because they make a loan or protect their security interest. In light of the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in Kelly versus Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA's ability to effectively address this problem is limited. Congressional action is needed. The Senate has an ambitious agenda set out for this Congress; an agenda that includes regulatory relief and litigation reforms. This bill is consistent with this initiative for economic growth. I offer this bill in the hopes of furthering the process of reform.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I know my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from New York, is waiting to speak. I think he is going to yield me up to 10 minutes?

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, last week, the President of the United States went around the will of the people to bail out a mismanaged Mexican Government and global currency speculators. That was wrong. I am outraged that American taxpayers are being forced to do something they did not want to do. The President went around the people bailout of Mexico. Never before has a president used $20 billion from our exchange stabilization fund to bail out a foreign country. The ESF is not the President's personal piggy bank. This fund is supposed to be used to stabilize the dollar, not the peso. The President was wrong, and I am outraged. The President has used scare tactics to justify going around Congress to bail out Mexico. The President claimed that world stock markets would crash and floods of illegal immigrants would cross our borders. The President was wrong, and I am outraged. As former FDIC Chairman Bill Seidman testified last week, Mexico's credit crunch can be solved by letting the market work. Mexico and its creditors should be forced to renegotiate its debt. That's the capitalist way. Investors in Mexico might get 50 or 60 or even 70 cents on the dollar. That is fair. Investors in Mexico took a gamble. If they wanted a United States-guaranteed investment, they should have put their money into a 6-percent C.D., not a 20-percent Mexican pesobono. The President has given in to economic blackmail. Will American taxpayers have to send Mexico $40 billion next time to protect our borders from illegal immigration? I am outraged that the President has used our exchange stabilization fund to pay blackmail to Mexico. The President has set a terrible precedent. What happens next time the peso collapses? What happens when some other country's currency collapses? The American taxpayer cannot afford to be the world's banker. We cannot afford to bail out global currency speculators every time a foreign currency collapses. The President should not be sending $20 billion to Mexico when Congress must cut United States domestic programs to put our own economic house in order. The Governor of my home State has to cut $5 billion from the state budget. We should send $20 billion to New York or Florida or California or other States that are in need before we send it to Mexico. Make no mistake about it. Two years from now. Five years from now. I predict that this bailout will go down as one of the President's biggest blunders. I predict that this bailout will not work. It is a quick fix and will come back to haunt American taxpayers. They will wind up paying. Let us look at the facts. Mexican political bosses got into this mess to win the August 1994 election. They printed pesos at an outrageous rate. They created the illusion that the Mexican economy was still thriving, and then they devalued the peso. That was wrong. It hurt poor and middle-class Mexicans. We should not bail out mismanaged foreign governments. The President's plan will not force Mexico's ruling party to make needed economic or political reforms. Once our money is shipped to Mexico, we will have no leverage. Let us look at some of the promises Mexico has made for the $20 billion of American taxpayers' money--promises Mexico cannot keep. Mexico has promised to keep inflation low. But they cannot do that. The peso's devaluation has set off 20 to 30 percent inflation, and the Mexican Government will have to keep printing pesos to prevent more unrest in Chiapas. Mexico has promised to cut spending and to maintain a budget surplus. But that is impossible. Mexico must pay sky-high interest on more than $160 billion in debt and faces a recession. Mr. President, let me ask the question. If we cannot balance our budget here, here we are promising $20 billion to Mexico, not a loan guarantee. We are going to give it to them. We say as one of the conditions we expect you to have a budget surplus. I ask, is that realistic? We cannot balance a budget here. We are not saying Mexico is going to have a budget surplus. That is ridiculous. It is ludicrous. And no one could promise you that would take place. Mexico has promised to raise $12 to $14 billion through privatizations. But who is going to invest in Mexico now? How are they going to bring about privatization? I am outraged that the President's bailout of Mexico will leave American taxpayers holding the bag. Now, when we have to make painful cuts in the Federal budget, is not the time to be risking American taxpayers' money. The administration assumes that Mexico will pay off its debt. But Mexico could not pay back United States banks in 1982. The President claims that assured sources of repayment exist. But if assured sources of repayment really existed, banks and private investors would provide money to support Mexico's debt. The President has not obtained real collateral. Mexico has already pledged its oil reserves as collateral for its existing debt. The President relies solely on a security mechanism involving the New York Fed. But this security mechanism is a mirage. It goes into effect only after a default. Mexico can sell oil only to customers who do not pay through the New York Fed. When Congress provided $1.5 billion in loan guarantees to New York City and Chrysler, Congress demanded much more collateral. I am shocked and outraged that the President has not demanded more collateral from Mexico for $20 billion. What will the President do if Mexico refuses to pay us back? Will the President send in the 82d Airborne to seize the oilfields? Of course not. It is preposterous. Will he try to raise U.S. taxes to replenish our exchange stabilization fund? The President's bailout will not win us friends south of the border. Already the Mexican people resent the fact that we are making those moneys available on conditions that they speak about. Most Mexicans oppose the $40 billion bailout. The administration says that it was taken totally by surprise when Mexico set off this crisis by devaluating the peso on December 20. But the signs of serious trouble in Mexico were present months ago. Congress must determine what the administration knew about Mexico and when. The New York Times, January 24, 1995, reports that the CIA advised the administration in July 1994--6 months before the peso's devaluation in December--that Mexico's ruling party was borrowing and spending at a furious pace. We have an obligation to investigate whether the administration's inaction or silence caused this crisis. We must find out if the administration advised Mexico to devaluate the peso. Devaluation was a terrible mistake. We all admit that now. But who was there and when? What advice did this administration give, if any, to the Mexican Government? On January 26, Senators Dole, Lott, Mack, and Abraham asked for documents concerning the administration's advice to Mexico on currency devaluation. Twelve days later, we still have not received this critical documents. Why have we not received these documents? When will we get them? What is the administration hiding? The American people have a right to know. The Banking Committee will hold oversight hearings on the administration's use of the ESF to bail out Mexico. Senator Mack and I will introduce a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that the Treasury should, in conjunction with the minority reports required by the ESF statute, provide the Banking Committee with monthly information on: First, economic conditions in Mexico, and second, how Mexico is spending the $20 billion. American taxpayers have the right to know whether their money is being wasted in Mexico. They have the right to know if the Mexican Central Bank has slowed the peso printing press. They have a right to know if Mexico has stopped spending and balanced its budget. We must hold the administration's feet to the fire. We must blow the whistle if the administration does not make Mexico live up to its commitments--to stop the peso press, to balance its budget and to privatize. We must fight for middle-class American taxpayers, not for mismanaged foreign governments and global currency speculators. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, since the mid-1930's, New York State has paid blind disabled veterans a monthly annuity. Qualified veterans--of which there are less than 2,000--receive monthly payments of $41.66, the same amount as has been paid since the program's inception. The blind annuity has not been adjusted upward, because should a State decide to increase its blind annuity, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs would respond by reducing Federal pensions paid to these individuals by the same amount. Thus, there would be no net benefit for veterans receiving the annuity. The legislation that I and my distinguished colleague from New York, Senator Moynihan, are reintroducing today will prevent the VA from penalizing blind veterans, should any State undertake or increase a blind annuity. Charity begins at home. My legislation will allow States to compensate those who have paid a very high price in defense of our country, at no cost to the Federal Government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to present the remarks of a courageous woman, Devorah Halberstam, whose son Ari was brutally murdered by Rashid Baz on March 1, 1994, in a cowardly act of terrorism on the Brooklyn Bridge. Mrs. Halberstam's statement before New York State Supreme Court Justice Harold Rothwax on January 18, 1995, took place before the sentencing of Rashid Baz, who subsequently received 141 years in prison for a single count of second-degree murder, 14 counts of attempted murder in the second-degree, and one count of criminal use of a firearm in the first-degree. Mr. President, what happened that day on the Brooklyn Bridge was nothing less than an act of terrorism and we should call it just that. Ari Halberstam was murdered for one reason: He was a Jew. In her piognant statement before the court, Mrs. Halberstam relates a tearful plea that she hopes that what happened to her and her family, never happen to any other family. Her statement is a powerful one and I urge my colleagues to read it so that they may gain a greater insight into the sorrow and grief suffered by a woman whose son was taken from her in an act of terrorism. Mr. President, I ask that the text of Mrs. Halberstam's statement be included in the Record following the conclusion of my remarks. The statement follows: Statement by Mrs. Devorah Halberstam Before State Supreme Court Justice Harold Rothwax, January 18, 1994 Your Honor: Fourteen boys testified before this Court. Fourteen very special young men whose pure and innocent lives are dedicated to the betterment of our world. Fourteen adolescents whose own lives were forever changes on the Brooklyn Bridge less than a year ago on March 1st. But the youngest of the students--the fifteenth--his voice was silent. And will remain silent forever. Ari's blue eyes were deep as the ocean--windows to a soul in which I swam and energized myself every day of his 16 brief years. A soul who feared nothing but the Almighty, whose humility was an inspiration, whose days and nights were testimony to the heights of human endeavor and aspiration. A soul hand-picked by the Lubavitcher Rebbe and the Rebbe's wife, to serve as their surrogate child from earliest infancy, to be surrounded by their holiness and kindness and universal love. A gem of a human being who combined the rigors of Chassidic life with its long days of study, with a grace on the basketball court that was star quality. A mere child who would jump at the opportunity--and they were numerous--to relinquish his own bed to a tired guest. A prince of a boy who was generous to a fault with his time--always ready to listen to a troubled friend. But above all he loved his family, especially his sisters and brothers. That, your honor, was my son Ari. That, your honor is the witness who could not be here to testify. Which is why I have gathered what fragments are left of my energy and sanity, your honor, to address this court today. On May 6, 1977, I was blessed and overjoyed as my first born son Ari came into this world. On March 1, 1994 I was there at his side watching as the final color of life ebbed from his dying face. And on that day, I too died your honor. And my husband. Our lives will never be the same. Yes, my life has been forever shattered by the hot bullet released by Rashid Baz's cold and calculating and viciously Jew-hating hand. Your honor, we are compelled to look at the shocking and outrageous events that are going on in our world. Several weeks ago, Islamic terrorists highjacked a French airliner with nearly 200 passengers. Their intent was to explode the jet in the heart of Paris in a suicide mission that would have killed thousands. Their mission was not the complete success they had hoped for--instead of thousands, only five innocent civilians were actually murdered. That very week, an Islamic terrorist--explosives strapped to his body--detonated himself beside a crowded public bus in the heart of Jerusalem. His mission was not the complete success he had hoped for--because only one person was seriously wounded, four others less seriously. The 50 passengers on the target bus were miraculously unharmed. Two years ago, Islamic terrorists attempted to detonate the World Trade Center hoping to collapse a 110 story building and kill tens of thousands of our fellow Americans. Their mission was not the complete success they had hoped for--because only 6 were actually killed and dozens more wounded. On March 1st of last year an Islamic terrorist armed with an arsenal of sophisticated weapons stalked a van carrying 15 Rabbinical students on the Brooklyn Bridge with the intent to kill them all. His mission was not the complete success he had hoped for--because only one of the fifteen was killed-- And that as you know, was my precious son Ari. Your honor. The civilized world cannot afford ``failures'' like these. Each day, innocent people--men, women and children--are being targeted in the cross hairs of these mass murderers who would kill and wound indiscriminately, not only others, but even themselves. They murder with the sanction and participation of governments in Teheran and Khartoum. Governments whose representatives roam our streets freely. Whose diplomatic pouches--laden with plastic explosives and conventional weapons--are inviolate. Whose treacherous plans sews destruction, mayhem and terror in the hearts of civilized people everywhere. They murder with the blessing of fanatical religious leaders--some of whom are guests in this great land. They murder in the name of a god they call ``Allah the Merciful.'' These killers are a disgrace to all people of faith, including the many millions of their own coreligionists who pray for peace in their hearts but dare not speak peace because they fear for their lives. These murderers respect no territorial boundaries. They obey no law. They view anybody and everybody, but especially Jews, as fair game. They believe--not without justification-- the more blood they shed the more ready the world will be to capitulate to their nefarious and bloodthirsty aims. A cowardly world hands down token sentences to those who are apprehended. Spineless western governments discreetly free some of the most wanton mass killers--releasing them into the hands of the very fundamentalist, dictatorships and theocracies which dispatched them in the first place. They do this in order to improve their balance of trade, or worse yet, as a payoff, selfishly and foolishly hoping to forestall further acts of terrorism against their own people and on their own territory. This, your honor, is the world we live in. And the time has come to say, ``Enough, we won't take it anymore.'' I have addressed you on behalf of a civilized world which will be further threatened, further degraded, and further destabilized if this killer gets anything less than the maximum sentence you can give. The man you will sentence today, Rashid Baz, killed my baby. And robbed Nochum Sossonkin of his youth. And he felt immune and invincible because the world's track record in dealing with his kind is an embarrassment to all civilized and justice-loving people. The jury which declared this murderer guilty showed incredible personal courage in reaching its verdict. Because the community of Islamic terrorists is as vindictive as it is sadistic. Yes, Rashid Baz's mission on the Brooklyn Bridge was a failure. Because 14 of his 15 intended victims are still alive. But for me, my husband, my aged parents, and my four other children--as for the mothers and fathers and grandparents and sisters and brothers and sons and daughters of the other murder victims from those other ``failures'' I mentioned before--his mission was a success. For we will never see our Ari again * * * For I will never see my tall, beautiful, kind, scholarly, charming, friendly 16 year old son grow to maturity * * * For my younger children will never again have the loving, compassionate guidance of the older brother they adored * * * For my husband and I will never see the grandchildren we had expected. And the generations upon generations of descendants that were to have come from Ari will never be--generations that were meant to replace and replenish the catastrophic loss of Jewish life that is our legacy from the Holocaust. On March 1st Rashid Baz murdered Ari. But he also sentenced me and my family to a lifetime of mourning. To an endless series of sleepless nights. To a wound which can never heal. To a living death which chips away at us, measured in the slow cadence of endless seconds * * * to a limbo of joylessness which will end only when we ourselves are reunited with Ari. Indeed, there is nothing that can happen here today, nothing you or anyone else can do to bring Ari back. There is no way to give me back all those years of joy, love and worry. There is no sentence that you can give Baz for my murdered heart or for the security that was robbed from the lives of my children and replaced instead with cobrays, glocks and terror. What can you say to Ari's sister Sara who grew up side by side with him and was her best friend throughout her life? Or Chanie, his sister who fears going into any taxicab. Or Mendy, Ari's brother, who looked up to Ari as his mentor and protector. And who lost his older brother on the day of his birthday. Or Ari's four year old brother, who keeps asking me when Ari will be back. And whose last prayer at night is I love you Ari with my whole heart please come back home. Your honor, our pain is too great to bear. We long for our son constantly. We listen for his footsteps and voice in hour home. Yet life must go on, and justice, the inadequate justice that humans can mete out, must be done. And now, your honor, it is your responsibility to show courage, and demonstrate that we in America are not cowards. That we do not capitulate to the blackmail of terrorism. That we value life and liberty. That those who would presume on American hospitality and freedom in order to bring civilization to its knees will find no refuge in this land. And that here, at least justice will prevail, and this cold blooded killer will never see the light of freedom again so long as he lives. There is no death sentence in New York State. If there were, I would surely be tempted to ask for it. Because death would send a message to the world that America knows how to deal with terror. And death, too, might have brought a measure of finality to the horror me and my family have to live with. But death, unfortunately, is not an option. Which is why I beseech you, your honor, from a heart filled with pain and anguish, in the name of civilization and the values we hold dear, in memory of my son, and out of basic consideration for me and my family--sentence Rashid Baz to the very same sentence to which he sentenced us--namely, that not a day, not an hour, not a minute or a second of his life should go by without him being reminded of what he has done. Remorse? The only remorse he has is over his faulty aim, and the fact that his mission was not completed entirely. This murderer must live and die behind bars and barbed wire. He must spend the remainder of his natural life caged like the remorseless creature that he is. Deprived of any of the rights or freedoms he mocks. Separated from any opportunity to continue in his ways. Reduced to a number in the impersonal hell of prison. Consigned to a life of living death until God takes him and renders the eternal justice which we on earth cannot. Your honor, this is the least you can do. Unfortunately, it is also the most. Thank you.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I today introduce the Depository Institution Affiliation Act of 1995 to modernize the antiquated laws governing the financial services industry. I am pleased that Representative Richard Baker, chairman of the House Banking Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities and Government Sponsored Enterprises, will today introduce similar legislation. This comprehensive legislation seeks: To promote competition among bank and nonbank providers of financial services; To encourage innovation in the design and delivery of financial services and products to individuals, large and small businesses, nonprofit institutions, and municipalities; To ensure the adequate regulation of financial intermediaries in order to protect depositors and investors; To preserve the safety and soundness of the banking system and the overall financial system; and To protect the Nation's taxpayers by requiring that nonbanking activities are conducted in separately capitalized and functionally regulated affiliates. Mr. President, now is the time to ready the Nation's financial services industry for the 21st century. Congress has allowed regulation of the financial services industry, a goliath with 5 million employees and $16 trillion in assets, to fall far behind market forces. Since the late 1970's, market forces have fueled massive changes in the financial services industry. But the in the wake of the Great Depression, which stifles competition among providers of financial services. Without comprehensive reform, the Nation risks losing its leadership in the global market for financial services to Europe and Japan. Mr. President, this bill is virtually identical to legislation that I have previously sponsored or cosponsored. I first introduced this bill in 1987 as S. 1905, and I reintroduced it in 1989 as S. 530. The actual text of the 1995 bill, and its significant principles and provisions, are identical to the earlier versions. The 1995 version, however, contains technical and conforming changes to reflect the enactment of banking laws since its original introduction, such as the Financial Institutions Reform and Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, Public Law 101-73, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, Public Law 102-242, and the interstate banking and community development bills of the last Congress. Mr. President, I remain committed to comprehensive, fair, and innovative financial services reform. Congress must assert its authority and meet its responsibility to increase the availability of innovative financial products and services for consumers, businesses and Government at the lowest possible cost. Mr. President, let me summarize the key provisions of the Depository Institution Affiliation Act [DIAA]. I will submit a more detailed section-by-section explanation of the bill at the end of my remarks. In general, the DIAA retains and reinforces the basic principles reflected in the present framework for regulation of federally insured banks and thrifts, while permitting banks and nonbanks to affiliate in a holding company framework. The DIAA thus preserves all the safety-and- soundness and conflict-of-interest protections of the present system, while providing legal flexibility for a company to meet the financial needs of consumers, businesses and others by removing limitations on affiliations. Mr. President, the DIAA would establish a new charter alternative for all companies interested in entering or diversifying in the financial services field--a financial services holding company [FSHC]. The bill would permit the merging of banking and commerce under carefully regulated circumstances by allowing a FSHC to own both a depository institution and companies engaged in both financial and nonfinancial activities. Mr. President, by authorizing an alternative regulatory framework, the legislation would essentially exempt a FSHC's subsidiaries and affiliates from those sections of the Glass-Steagall and Bank Holding Company Acts that restrict mixing commercial banking with other financial--securities, investment banking, and so forth--and nonfinancial activities--retailing, technology, manufacturing. A FSHC would be able to diversify into any activity through affiliates of the holding company with such affiliates subject to enhanced regulation. Mr. President, the regulation of the bank and nonbank affiliates of financial services holding companies would be along functional lines. The insured-bank affiliate would be regulated by Federal and State bank regulators, the securities affiliate by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and so on. Thus, for each affiliate, existing regulatory expertise will be applied to protect consumers, investors and taxpayers. Functional regulation will also assure that competition in discrete products and services is fair by eliminating current loopholes and regulatory gaps. Mr. President, I want to underscore that the DIAA would not require existing firms to alter their regulatory structure. By permitting financial services providers to become FSHC's, such providers will have the options to phase gradually into, or expand within, the financial services industry. Mr. President, our country still relies on a system of financial regulation that was established in the aftermath of the economic collapse of the 1930's and the Great Depression. By restricting competition among the various sectors of the financial services industry, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, the Federal securities law of that era, and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 sought to enhance the safety of financial instruments and intermediaries. Mr. President, the past 20 years have seen a growing competition among providers of financial services. Banks seek more freedom to sell securities, mutual funds and insurance. Nonbank lenders, such as brokerage and insurance firms, offer commercial loans and other financing arrangements to business. And, finance companies and their commercial owners now play an increased role in the Nation's financial system. Many financial intermediaries provide functionally equivalent products and services. Mr. President, the United States must adopt a regulatory regime that recognizes market realities and assesses and controls risk. Our present patchwork of financial laws protects particular industries, restrains competition, prevents diversification that would limit risks, restricts potential sources of capital, and undermines the efficient delivery of services and the competitive position of our financial institutions in world markets. Mr. President, the Banking Committee and other committees of Congress have already held exhaustive hearings on the issues raised by the DIAA and reviewed bookshelves full of studies and blueprints for financial reform. Rather than enact comprehensive reform, Congress has thus far ceded the playing field to piecemeal deregulation by bank regulators and the courts. We must now end this debate and enact a legal framework that prepares our financial institutions for the new century and the challenges of a rapidly changing global economy. Mr. President, the DIAA represents a good starting point and a sound approach to modernizing our financial structure. I recognize that this bill can be improved from the 1987 version, and I am specifically requesting constructive and helpful comments to improve and to refine the major principles underlying the bill. Mr. President, congressional studies, Federal regulators, and industry leaders have supported comprehensive reform of the Nation's financial system. The Treasury Department's study, ``Modernizing the Financial System: Recommendations for Safer, More Competitive Banks'' (1991), essentially endorsed the legislation I am introducing today. In the recently enacted Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Efficiency Act of 1994 Congress directed Treasury to conduct another study of the Nation's financial services system. In a letter sent to Secretary Rubin today, I have strongly urged the Treasury Department to endorse and to reaffirm the basic conclusions of its 1991 study and to make further recommendations to promote competitiveness and efficiency, and to protect the taxpayer. Mr. President, given the broad support for comprehensive reform, why has Congress not overhauled the antiquated laws governing financial services? Why has Congress, by default, permitted the bank regulatory agencies and the courts to rewrite, in an ad hoc fashion, these laws? Mr. President, the answer is clear. Congress, Federal regulators, and the affected industries have lacked the vision to support the comprehensive reform reflected in this bill. We have debated bank deregulation and expanded bank powers. This polarizing debate has pitted the banks against securities firms, big banks against small banks, and banks against insurance agents and real estate brokers. Mr. President, history must not repeat itself. Today, as the Fed, the FDIC and the Comptroller of the Currency consider modifying their rules to permit banks, nonbank affiliates of holding companies and operating subsidiaries of national banks to engage in a de novo or additional securities and insurance activities, I have a sense of deja vu. In 1987, the Competitive Equality Banking Act was passed to preserve Congress' ability to conduct a comprehensive review of banking and financial laws, and to make decisions on the need for financial restructuring legislation. Congress imposed a statutory moratorium on the authority of bank regulators to approve certain securities, insurance and real estate activities, 100-86. This moratorium ended on March 1, 1988. Mr. President, the Banking Committee closely monitors activities and around Washington of regulatory moratoriums, I strongly urge bank regulators to support our efforts to rewrite the laws they administer rather than to stretch current laws beyond their statutory terms or the intent of Congress. Mr. President, our outdated regulatory regime has hurt the global competitiveness of U.S. financial institutions. Over the past 20 years, in part because financial markets in Japan and Europe are less regulated than in the United States, the number of American banks among the top 25 in the world has dropped from eight to none. In an era of increased globalization and free trade, as illustrated by NAFTA and GATT, we must not shackle U.S. financial institutions with a statutory framework that responds to the policy concerns of the 1930's. Mr. President, the 104th Congress must address and resolve the important questions relating to the health and future of the banking industry in the broader context of a financial system that is increasingly composed of nonbank financial service providers. We must focus on the needs of our economy for credit and growth in the future and the next century. We must focus on financial stability, safety and soundness, fair competition, and functional regulation of all financial service providers--whether they are banks, investment banks, insurance companies, finance companies or even telecommunications or computer companies. Mr. President, we must live up to the challenge. In recent years, Congress has responded quickly and effectively to correct deficiencies or excesses in the financial system. In the face of problems created by stock market breaks, depleted deposit insurance funds, or credit crunches, we have addressed serious financial crises. In the process, Congress has prudently learned that statutory provisions adopted in the 1930's can aggravate and actually create problems for depository institution and other financial providers in the 1980's and 1990's--for example, interest rate controls, restrictions on interstate banking, portfolio concentrations, and statutory impediments to diversification. Congress has eliminated or modified many of these provisions of law in the past decade for banks and thrifts. The homogenization of financial service and globalization of markets has also necessitated the close coordination by discrete regulators, nationally and internationally, through informal mechanisms, such as the Treasury Department's Working Group and the so-called Basle Committee. In recent years, in FIRREA and FIDICA, Congress has also employed market-oriented substitutes for direct government regulation, such as industry developed codes of conduct, capital strength, internal controls, management information systems and management experience. Mr. President, Congress must modernize the restrictions on affiliations found in the Glass-Steagall and Bank Holding Company Acts. I introduce this bill today, and make these extensive remarks, to underscore the critical national importance of modernizing our financial system. Last year, Congress was finally able to eliminate barriers to interstate banking, to facilitate the securitization of small business loans, and to prune outdated and burdensome regulatory requirements. Those bills were the result of a successful collaboration among the administration, Federal and State regulators, and providers and consumers of financial services. I seek to sustain this process and pass comprehensive financial services reform during this Congress. Mr. President, history demonstrates that financial services reform that is not comprehensive will not be enacted. I have previously opposed piecemeal reform because such reform is not pro-competitive, is inconsistent with the objective of ``competitive equality'' articulated by Congress in 1987 and the Treasury's 1991 study, and will not advance the long- term interests of the banking industry or the United States. Mr. President, the DIAA will make the financial system as a whole safer and more stable. Rather than debate the important but narrow issue of the future of the banking franchise and the role of banks in the economy and attempt to gerrymander markets through piecemeal legislation to protect any single component, Congress must enact comprehensive legislation. Only comprehensive legislation will produce beneficial changes for all financial intermediaries by: Permitting financial intermedi- aries--commercial banks, investment banks, thrifts, et cetera--to attract capital by eliminating existing restrictions on ownership by and affiliations among depository and nondepository firms; Facilitating diversification and assuring fair competition by creating a new category of financial service holding companies authorized to engage in any financial activity through separately regulated subsidiaries; Insulating insured subsidiaries from the more risky business activities of other affiliates as well as the parent holding company; Enhancing substantially the quality and effectiveness of regulation through functional regulation; Improving coordination and supervision of the overall financial system by permitting more effective analysis and monitoring of aggregate stability and vulnerability to severe disruptions and breakdown; and Removing unnecessary barriers to competition between providers of financial service in the United States in order to maintain the preeminence of the U.S. capital markets and U.S. financial intermediaries and to respond to growing competition from foreign companies. Mr. President, this legislation, as introduced, is not intended to force major changes in the insurance industry. Nevertheless, it will affect issues important to the insurance agents, insurance companies, and financial institutions engaged in insurance activities. The exact impact of the legislation on the relationship between banking and insurance will continue to be examined--especially the issues raised by traditional State regulation of the business of insurance. Immediately following the bill's introduction, the Banking Committee will begin to examine issues relating to bank involvement in insurance activities. In the end, I expect the bill to balance appropriately fair competition, functional regulation and respect for the traditional leadership of the States in insurance regulation. As the committee proceeds to hearings and further consideration of the bill, I intend to make changes and adjustments in order to ensure fairness, safety and soundness, consumer protection, and effective and efficient regulation, particularly as it relates to insurance and other financial products. Mr. President, I introduce the Depository Institution Affiliation Act as a prelude to a vigorous debate about the future of our financial system. I strongly believe that this Congress can achieve the passage of a comprehensive financial services reform bill. By working together, the Congress and the administration can overcome the complaints of vested interests and reform our antiquated financial services laws. We should not miss this opportunity for constructive bipartisanship. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that more detailed section-by- section summary of the bill and a copy of my letter to Secretary Rubin be reprinted in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of our new colleague, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee. I think he has spelled out very cogently why the American people voted for change. They are tired of Big Brother Government saying, you, whether you like it or not. We have programs that are good for you, whether you can pay for them or not.'' The people want a balanced budget amendment, and they are right. This is no time to start playing politics as usual. This is an important issue. I will tell you how important it is. If we continue to do business as we have in the past, we will become just like our neighbor to the south. Who will we go to for the bailouts? Who? What are we talking about? We are not talking about cutting spending. Oh, no, we are talking about decreasing the rate of spending. We are still going to spend trillions--something like $13 trillion in the next 7 years. We are talking about maybe cutting that down to $12 trillion. If we can do that, we have a balanced budget. What do we have here? The opposition, the Democrats, are simply and purely stalling. They are looking for a way for escape clauses. Let me tell Members, there are many of our colleagues who voted on the other side for the balanced budget amendment. What are they doing now? Why, they are scampering for the hills. The Senator from Tennessee was absolutely right. They voted for the balanced budget amendment to protect their political hide in years gone by so they could go back and say to their people, ``Oh, I voted for the balanced budget amendment.'' They knew we could not get two-thirds. And here we are. Here we are, poised to do something that the American people overwhelmingly want. And what are they doing? Ducking, shimmying, telling us, ``How can you get there? Spell it out over the next 7 years.'' They cannot tell us what they are going to do next month, let alone 7 years down the line. What are the interest rates going to be 7 years down the line? Keep spending this way, it will be 20-plus percent, we will not have any economy. The Senator is right. Know what Social Security will be worth? Know what inflation will take place? Incredible. What are we going to do then? It is about time we did the business of the people. Stop the pussyfooting. The American people know what they want. Those Members who were sent here to do the business of the people should keep our feet to the fire. I know it will be tough. But doing the right thing sometimes does require some courage. The fact is that we should stick with the principles that the American people are demanding. They want Members to balance the budget. They want Members to cut spending, cut taxes. It is right for America. We can do it. I have to tell Senators I am not going to look the other way. I will be very candid. If our colleagues begin this business of attempting to find these escape clauses, we will call it to the attention of the American people. We have an obligation to keep their feet to the fire, to do the business of the people. Mr. President, in that connection, I have to say I think that the President of the United States looked for a way to get around the voice of the people. The voice of the people is the Congress. And in proposing his new agreement to help our neighbors to the south, he circumvented the Congress. Now, I hope that that plan works. But I have grave, grave doubts. I have grave doubts that we will have the ability to see to it that those loan guarantees are not just withered away, and that we do not see the American taxpayers picking up $20 billion-plus. I can name places I see loan guarantees and we know they will get paid back, and they do help. Maybe Orange County. I remember loan guarantees for New York. Much more difficult terms then those we have made available to our brethren in the south--Mexico. Guarantees. That means we are paid out over a period of 4 years. Not within an 18-month period of time. I did not know if the IMF and the World Bank will do the kind of job or whether they are in a position to see that Mexico makes the kind of reforms necessary, or whether they will just continue to print paper. I wonder, is it the business of this country to see to it that those who invested were getting 20- and 30-percent returns in Mexico, that we will hold them harmless and they will get every single dollar and get back 20 percent? Is that the business of this country? If you make an investment and there is a high risk and you get 20-percent return, people say you are a genius. But if it goes sour and you go down, do we really expect Uncle Sam, the American taxpayers, Uncle Sam to bail you out and say, ``We hold you harmless.'' What kind of economic stabilization program is that? I wonder why it is that we did not say to the Mexican Government, as those noteholders come due, ``We will help you in renegotiating the payments and the terms.'' Why should people get dollar for dollar, plus 20 percent? I did not know you did that in restructuring. Certainly that is not what the capital system is about. I have to tell Members, I think that all the doom and gloom predictions and the fact that there would be huge immigration, masses coming across the border, well, that is our Government's responsibility to see that we stop that kind of thing. You do not threaten the American people every time there is a crisis and say, ``My gosh, unless we do this, put up $20 billion, $40 billion we will have a massive migration to this country.'' Is that what we are coming to? Just raise that specter of fear? And we all succumb? I hope this plan works. I have grave doubts. I predict if we look at the history, we saw economic devaluations every time there was an election. I would suggest this administration knew of this crisis, and knew of it quite some time ago. Maybe back last November. And they hid it from the American people. They did not step in and insist that conditions be met at that point in time. Now they come and say the sky is falling in. Well, that is OK but I do not think it is right that the American taxpayer has to step in. Mr. President, I will tell you as the Senator charged with the responsibility of seeing to it that we are not wasteful, as it relates to taxpayer dollars, and being on the Banking Committee we will hold hearings and carefully monitor the execution of this agreement or the implementation, to see to it that we do the best we can to see that there are real economic reforms, and we are not taking hardworking taxpayers' money and just shoveling it down there. Then in 3 or 4 years from now throw up our hands and say, ``Oh my gosh, we did the best we could do. Maybe to protect our investment we have to invest another $20, $30, or $40 million.'' Look at the record and that is what it demonstrates. In 1982 the banks were holding most of the paper and took a pretty terrific loss. It seems to me that 12 years later, the only difference is, the American people may be poised that they can get a bigger hit. That is unfortunate. Thank you.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to address the problem of bank fraud that is being perpetuated against the U.S. Small Business Administration [SBA]. The SBA besides specializing in small business loans also gets heavily involved in loans for disaster relief areas. Currently there are over 5,000 loans in default with the SBA. These defaulted loans represent a loss over $1.8 billion to the SBA and the financial institutions that processed the loans. Since 1990, the SBA has repurchased in excess of $878 million of these defaulted loans yielding a direct loss to the U.S. Government. The remaining $300 million lost in this process was incurred by the federally insured financial institutions that processed the loans. The SBA guidelines for approving loans are adopted by the financial institution, these guidelines are clearly deficient. The background investigation and financial checks for SBA loan approval are basically nonexistent. The amount of fraud associated with SBA loans is extraordinary. In addition to the internal loan approval problems present in the SBA, there are several problematic areas within the prosecution of these violations. Currently SBA violations are prosecuted under title 18 USC, section 1001 (False Statements) and section 287 (False, fictitious or fraudulent claims). Both of these sections are merely 5- year counts. The U.S. Attorney's offices nationwide, due to the large caseload, have to prioritize their prosecutions. Five-year violations are usually declined due to lack of prosecutive merit. Furthermore, this meager judicial penalty allows for these violations to be cost effective for the defendants. Most of the SBA defaulted loans are over $100,000. These violations rarely result in prison terms, therefore crime truly does pay. The second problematic area within the prosecution of these violations is that neither of these sections have asset forfeiture provisions. Therefore, the SBA must make a business decision to prosecute or proceed civilly. My legislation will address all these issues. First, by incorporating SBA violations under title 18 USC, section 1344--(Bank Fraud) prosecutive thresholds will be met in virtually all U.S. attorney's offices. Second, this section will raise the penalties associated with these violations. This in effect will send the message out that we will not tolerate abuses against our financial systems of the U.S. Government. The current penalties for violation of section 1344 impose a fine of not more than $1 million or imprisonment of not more than 30 years, or both. This increased exposure tells would-be defendants that crime does not pay. And lastly, section 1344 has asset forfeiture provisions. This allows both for the return of the illegally gained proceeds to the Government and the victim financial institutions and for the prosecution of those involved. As is clearly demonstrated by the above figures, SBA fraud is already a form of bank fraud in that federally insured financial institutions share in the losses when SBA loans are defaulted. The recent indictment in Los Angeles of 16 defendants, highlights the necessity for this change. These defendants were responsible for approximately $10 million in losses. Just in my State alone during the last 4 years over $20 million in losses were incurred by defaulted SBA loans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act of 1995. This act will institute a total trade embargo between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. This embargo will also include a prohibition on all trade engaged in by a U.S. national abroad, but exempt all humanitarian supplies. This legislation is modeled after a provision in the Cuban Democracy Act, and forbids any United States-owned foreign subsidiary from doing business with Iran. Moreover, it will end the ability of United States oil companies to buy Iranian oil and then resell it on the open market. We must stop subsidizing Iranian terrorism. Our purchase of Iranian oil does just that. In 1993, oil purchases by United States companies of Iranian crude oil bought and resold percent of all Iranian crude oil sales. United States companies supply annually over $750 million in exports to Iran. In the first 6 months after the imposition of the sanctions in October 1992, $461 million in exports to Iran required G-DEST or General Destination licenses. Companies using G-DEST licenses do not submit individual license applications, thereby removing the State and Defense Departments from the review process. This process makes it easier to slip dual-use material through the oversight process and for Iran to continue receiving exports that it can convert for use in its military and nuclear program. This is exactly what Iraq did during the 1980's and we allowed it to happen. We cannot allow the same mistake to be repeated. Iran is arming itself to the teeth, and we are simply ignoring it. Iran conducted a $12 billion shopping spree for arms in 1990, and is stockpiling Chinese and North Korean Scud missiles. In 1991, Iran purchased Chinese nuclear technology and a nuclear reactor. This, in addition to its ongoing receipt of U.S. dual-use exports, portends a very dangerous situation. Iran set forth 2 years ago, an arms budget estimated at over $50 billion for the following 5 years. This should make it clear to all that Iran aims to build itself into a regional nuclear power intent on spreading its will by force. We cannot sit back and allow this bloodthirsty band of terrorists to grow into a monster too big for anyone to handle. Moreover, Iran's territorial expansion into North Africa and Central Asia is seemingly being ignored. Iranian-supported terrorists are active in Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Yemen, and in Israel. Iran is also making serious efforts at spreading its influence into Afghanistan and Tajikistan. While this may seem tangential, Iran's spreading influence is indicative of a wider, more dangerous effort, designed to build an anti-American bloc. This much has even been alleged, regarding suggestions of some Sudanese role in the bombing of the World Trade Center. Iran's actions, speak louder than words and its continued effort at obtaining weapons of mass destruction, as well as its pursuit of an Islamic fundamentalist, anti-American bloc, speak volumes about its intent in the world today. With Iran's goals in mind, the United States should not be providing it with the capabilities to build such weapons to fulfill its aims. Unfortunately, the Commerce Department has found no illegal exports, but is investigating some potentially suspect cases. I would suggest that if the administration is sincere about true export control, it should reexamine its policy vis-a-vis Iran. Over a year ago, Secretary of State Christopher announced an American intention to isolate Iran, yet the continued export of dual-use material to this country and the American purchase of Iranian oil, seems to run counter to this pronouncement. If the world community wishes to avoid another Middle Eastern war, we must join together to take any and all steps necessary to prevent Iran from its goal of nuclear domination of the Middle East. In 1981, Israel foresaw the danger in Iraq. In 1995, let us not ignore the danger again with Iran and miss an opportunity to stop this problem before it gets too big. We must sever any remaining trade between the United States and Iran, to ensure that we do not provide them with anything that will come back to haunt us. We must take the lead and begin a worldwide effort at halting all exports to Iran until it sheds its violence and antagonism towards the West. When Iran agrees to join the rest of the civilized world, then we can consider lifting sanctions. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a Banking Committee amendment to S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. This amendment is supported by both myself, the chairman, and the distinguished ranking minority member, Senator Paul Sarbanes. This amendment, Mr. President, would protect the safety and soundness of insured depository institutions. Specifically, the amendment would amend section 4 of the bill to provide that this bill does not apply to any proposed or final Federal regulation that ensures the safe and sound operation of an insured bank or thrift or that protects the deposit insurance funds. S. 1, as introduced, would have an anomalous effect of exempting three of the five Federal financial institution regulatory agencies-- the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the National Credit Union Administration. Two others, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision, are not exempted. There is no justification for this different treatment. Because the FDIC, Federal Reserve, and NCUA are not covered by this legislation, this exemption would apply only to regulations issued by the OCC and OTS. All of these agencies have the same supervisory responsibilities and need the same ability to act expeditiously in the public interest. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision, the two agencies that are subject to the bill, supervise the institutions that hold most of the assets of the U.S. financial system. These two agencies exceed the assets held by the other three combined. Treating two of the agencies differently from the others will hinder congressional intent to reduce regulatory burden. Mr. President, I am concerned that imposing the requirements of S. 1 on these Federal financial institution regulatory agencies could delay the prompt issuance of safety and soundness rules that effect federally insured financial institutions and credit unions and their deposit insurance funds. I strongly urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Prevention of the Sexual Exploitation of Children's Act. There is a large and growing threat to the welfare and safety of our children being caused by the advent of the computer age. The ``information superhighway,'' while a boon to our standard of living and economic growth, also contains hidden dangers which must be addressed to protect our children from debauched sexual predators. The ``information superhighway'' children into acts of sexual depravity with little chance of exposure. Pedophiles and other sexual miscreants historically would position themselves outside of schools, playgrounds, and other public areas where children would congregate in order to satisfy their own depraved appetites. Now through the use of bulletin boards, major on-line services such as Prodigy, America Online, Compuserve, Internet, and a host of other computer conduits, these individuals can ply their trade with much less exposure to parental supervision or law enforcement. While many State and local authorities are addressing this problem, the use of the ``information superhighway'' makes the role of the Federal Government even more critical. The use of the computer conduits allow for the defendants to cross State, local and even international boundaries with impunity. These miscreants can be extremely violent and cause irreparable harm to the children they come into contact with. This violence must be answered with stiff judicial penalties. In addition to the physical depravity that is a direct result of the computer age, there has been a noted increase in pornographic material involving children being distributed and sold over computer lines. This pornographic material not only acts as a stimulus to the pedophiles but the simple possession of this material by people creates a demand for it, and these people should share in the responsibility of the exploitation of children by the pornography producers. This circular motion of supply and demand fuels the proliferation of more and more pornographic material. My legislation will raise the judicial penalties which would deter the proliferation of pornographic material available and remove the defendants from society. By enacting harsher judicial penalties, Congress will be sending a strong message that our society will not tolerate these forms of criminal behavior. I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in support of this legislation. These violations are a growing concern both within the law enforcement community and the family structure, and we must deal with them now. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the text of this legislation and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am today introducing, along with my colleagues Senators Sarbanes and Bond, the Farmers Home Administration Section 515 Rural Multifamily Housing Program Extension Act of 1995. The Section 515 Program, now administered by the Rural Housing and Community Development Service [RHCDS] at the Department of Agriculture, is an important rural affordable housing program. It provides long-term, low interest rate direct government loans for nonprofit and for-profit developers to develop multifamily rental housing for low-income families in rural America. Moreover, this program is one of the few sources for low-income rental housing in rural America, with over 440,000 rental units in rural America to its credit. This simple legislation permanently reauthorizes the Section 515 Program and allows RHCDS to administer $220 million in funding appropriated as part of the HUD/VA fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill. While providing funding help with pressing rehabilitation needs. In addition, this bill enjoys strong bipartisan support and deserves quick action to help ensure the availability of low-income affordable housing in rural America. This program is of particular importance to my State, New York. Many people may not realize that New York is a very rural State, with a large number of persons below the poverty line living in rural areas. Of the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers below the poverty line, one-third live in rural communities. This program has been of great assistance to working families and the elderly who live in rural areas. There are currently 473 section 515 developments with 12,281 units in New York. Nearly 7,000 of these units are reserved for elderly citizens and 4,500 units are used by families. There is approximately a 4-year pipeline of projects in New York that are awaiting funding. Reauthorization of this program will help address this backlog in New York, as well as nationwide. The Section 515 Program has received widespread support. In addition to helping working families and the elderly obtain rental housing in rural areas, the program has provided construction and management employment opportunities. These jobs are desperately needed in States, such as New York, with rural areas that have been hit hard economically. I know there have been some concerns in recent years about possible program abuses in the Section 515 Program. In response to these concerns, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 made a number of reforms to ensure that developers would not be receiving unreasonable or windfall profits. The Department of Agriculture, through Farmers Home and RHCDS, has also been implementing a series of regulatory reforms to combat fraud and abuse in the Section 515 Program. Moreover, I expect that all rural housing programs, including the Section 515 Program, will be included in this Congress' overall reform of Federal housing policy. Finally, this legislation provides the Department of Housing and Urban Development with authority to renew, for up to 18 months, certain section 8 project-based contracts on terms identical to the current contract. This is a temporary provision. Section 8 contract renewals will be a major part of any housing reform considered by Congress this year. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the situation in Bosnia. While the situation in Bosnia is admittedly better than what it was several months ago, we have nevertheless failed at this time to reach a just and equitable peace. I am pained to see that the administration has arrived at the stance that the Karadzic Serbs cannot be stopped and have thus conceded to nearly all of their demands. Owing to the fact that yesterday was the 44th anniversary of the Genocide Convention, it is an outrage that the administration has allowed the slaughter in Bosnia to continue to go on. This one-sided approach to the issue is embarrassing and an affront to a people who wish only to be free of Serbian attack. The Bosnian Government asks only one thing of us, a lifting of the arms embargo. While the Senate has repeatedly tried to do so, the administration continues to refuse to do this, only worsening the situation. This is outrageous. Mr. President, following the Holocaust, the slogan ``Never Again,'' became a watchword. It was supposed to mean that we would remain vigilant to ensure that never again, would an entire population be subjected to extermination. Today, however, this is not the case. Today, the watchword seems to be, ``Yes, Again.'' This is very disheartening and it cannot continue.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, while American diplomats and foreign policy pundits hand-wring over various crises in Eurasia and the American military is hand-holding the doomed in a number of Third World quagmires, an economic crisis of alarming proportions is threatening to engulf our nearest neighbor to the south. Could there be a better example of the failure of our foreign policy than the potential collapse of Mexico? I believe that charity begins at home. Mexico and Canada are part of the American family. Yes, we bicker. We snipe. We engage in the kind of heated battles only family members could get away with, but, in the end, it is the family ties that bind. We can no longer take our good neighbors for granted. Our national security and our economic well-being are inextricably linked to the health and stability of Mexican society and the Mexican economy. We face a far greater threat from instability in Mexico than we will ever face from open conflict or economic chaos in most of the places American diplomatic attention and foreign aid are currently focused. We must help the Mexicans stabilize the peso, to renegotiate their debt, and to develop an economic strategy of long-term investment and growth that will improve the quality of life of all Mexicans, and, by extension, the quality of life of all Americans. To do as we have been doing, to focus on the problems of other continents while ignoring our own, is asking to worrying over a distant storm as wolves gather in our backyard.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to permanently establish by statute the position of the Coordinator of Counter- Terrorism within the office of the Secretary of State. If the State Department had its way it would downgrade the day-to-day responsibilities of the office, from an Assistant Secretary level, to one among several Deputy Assistant Secretaries under a new Assistant Secretary responsible for narcotics and international crime as well as terrorism. I am pleased that my colleague from New York, Representative Ben Gilman will be introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives. Under my amendment, the Coordinator shall have the rank of ``Ambassador-at-Large,'' a position that will require Senate confirmation, thereby giving the office an enhanced position in its relations with the other federal agencies that flight terrorism, and equal rank with similar officials of other nations. Last year, the administration proposed to downgrade the position--a decision that was wrong then and is still wrong today, for a number of important reasons. Let me explain. First, now is not the time to lower our guard against terrorism. Nearly 2 years ago, terrorism struck our shores when terrorists bombed the World Trade Center and planned additional bombings. Acts of terrorism have not lessened, but gotten more dangerous. We need look no farther then the heinous bombings in Buenos Aires, Panama, Tel Aviv, and the continuing Hamas campaign to disrupt the ongoing peace process, to see that the worldwide threat of terrorism is not receding but expanding. Second, downgrading the position sends a message that we are not serious about fighting terrorism and that we don't consider it a priority. What will the terrorists think if we downgrade an office designed to thwart their attacks on American targets? I think they will become emboldened. This move cannot have a positive effect on our counter-terrorism efforts. Third, downgrading the Counter-Terrorism office and placing it under a larger, more cumbersome portfolio that includes drugs and international crime, means that counter-terrorism will have a lower priority. The State Department contends that terrorism is explicitly tied to drug trafficking. This is a overly broad generalization and not a fact. Finally, downgrading the position makes it harder for the Coordinator to organize a coherent counter-terrorism policy because he or she will not be able to deal effectively with the other members of the Federal bureaucracy in the fight against terrorism. Mr. President, I would like to point out that according to the Congressional Research Service, between 1968 and 1993, including the attack on the World Trade Center, 769 Americans died in terrorist acts, worldwide. Moreover, in the World Trade Center bombing of February 26, 1993, in which six people died, over 1,000 others were injured. Losses incurred in that bombing surpassed $1 billion. As we all know, the terrorists planned more elaborate and dangerous operations. Fortunately, they were caught before more damage could be done. Is now the time to put fight against terrorism on the backburner? Is now the time to tell the world that we don't consider terrorism important? I don't think so. Nor do I think that we, as a nation, can tell the families of these 769 people that the death of their loved ones are going to be forgotten. I don't think that anyone in this Chamber would want to tell them that we should relent in our fight against terrorism either. But, if we allow the administration plan to downgrade the Counter-Terrorism position to go forward, we will be doing just that. The 1990 Report of the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism, following the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, called for the creation of such a position. Interestingly, four former counter- terrorism and international narcotics control officials, in a letter to me begged, ``Don't gut our counter-terrorism capability.'' In another letter to me, Lisa and Ilsa Klinghoffer, daughters of Leon Kinghoffer who was murdered by terrorist on the Achille Lauro in October 1985, urged that a separate and independent office be kept at the State Department as ``the most effective implementation of the administration's counter-terrorism policies and initiatives.'' If we are going to be serious about the fight against terrorism, we must have the right resources. One of those resources is an Ambassador- at-large for Counter-Terrorism. This Ambassador will act as the sole voice and have direct access to the Secretary of State and will coordinate our nation's fight against this scourge that we must stand up to, and that we must defeat. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.