Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator allow me to respond to the point? Will the Senator allow me to respond?

Mr. TORRICELLI. Cubans are restricted.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Florida.

Mr. TORRICELLI. A final question. And I am very pleased the distinguished minority whip, Senator Reid of Nevada, is going to join with us on a motion to table. But before I yield back, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts left a very appealing notion of the example of President Havel, that this exchange of visiting and talking to people about democratic ideas would somehow change the Cuban political reality. Again, you know more about this than I do. It is my impression that under Cuban law, as Fidel Castro has now changed the law, if a would-be Havel walked up, in Havana, to an American tourist and talked to that tourist about democracy, he would be rewarded--not with information, a growth of knowledge--but he would go to jail because talking about democracy in Cuba to an American tourist will guarantee one thing--you will be arrested, you will be indicted, and you will go to jail. Is that the reality of what a conversation about democracy with an American tourist is?

Mr. TORRICELLI. If the Senator would continue to yield, I think what is important about your statement is you recognize this policy isn't about travel; it is about money. It is about giving Fidel Castro millions of dollars of American tourist money to support his regime, his dictatorship, his armed forces, his security forces. That is what we are denying. But the frustration that the Senator from Florida may have--and you probably know more about the Cuban economic experience and the travel experience than anyone in this institution by virtue of your constituency--and to rely upon your expertise for a moment, it is my understanding, contrary to what the Senate may be led to believe today, that when tourists go to Cuba from European countries, they are put into tourist compounds. Cubans are not allowed to visit those hotels. They cannot talk to people in those hotels. So the notion that hundreds of thousands of American tourists are going to walk the streets of Cuba and democratize the island, spread the message of human rights--in fact, the average Cuban cannot get inside those compounds. They are walled off. The Senator knows more about this, by far, than I do, but is that not the story of many of these beach-front hotels?

Mr. TORRICELLI. I congratulate the Senator from Florida on his statement and his extraordinary leadership on this issue through the years and simply inquire of him, through this decade, American policy towards Cuba has largely been defined by the Cuban Democracy Act that the Senator from Florida joined with me in writing, the Helms-Burton Act that the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, Senator Helms, wrote, and now under the leadership of President Clinton. This amendment would largely undermine the policies outlined in that legislation and by President Clinton. Indeed, the President recently has redefined his own policy of travel towards Cuba. But by a sweep of the pen, that bipartisan policy that the Senators and the President of the United States have written would largely be undermined, in my estimation. Is that the Senator's conclusion?

Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. TORRICELLI. I recognize that. I thank the Senator from Vermont. Let me further present the case, in case the Senator misunderstood me, that this is not a case that Cuba spied against the United States. That we expect. This is a case where the President of the United States, in my judgment, rightfully sought to ease restrictions on travel to Cuba and did so in allowing charter flights, the expansion of flights throughout Cuba, the easing of restrictions on travel to Cuba, and the response that he received is that we now have 14 Cubans under indictment, not for responding but for attempting to infiltrate an American military installation and committing a terrorist act. What I want the Senator from Vermont to do is put himself in the position of Fidel Castro. The United States makes concessions to allow greater travel, which we have now done twice in 24 months. The Cuban Government attacks those concessions with acts of aggression and attempts to commit terrorist acts against the United States. The human rights situation further deteriorates. People are jailed. Contact with the U.S. Government is criminalized. And now this Senate returns not in outrage but says, Mr. President, we don't think you went far enough; let's go further and further and liberalize trade. That is my concern, recognizing how this will be seen in Havana. I agree with the Senator's analysis. The United States allows travel to many places. But the Senator has to concede to me that travel has often been an effective tool in altering international conduct. This country participated in prohibiting flights to Libya after it shot down the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland. We prohibited flights. After a period of 10 years, the Libyan Government relented and allowed extradition to an international court those who are responsible for the act. I don't ask anything with regard to the victims of Lockerbie that we are not asking now of those in the Cuban Government. What is the difference? How do you look at the families of the young men shot down over the Straits of Florida and murdered by the Cuban Government, and tell them, well, we will overlook this, though we will resolve it with Libya? When Americans have been in jeopardy, whether it was in Iran, or in Libya, or years ago in Vietnam, when they were arresting people and putting them in concentration camps, we prohibited travel. I suggest to the Senator that that prohibition is still an effective mechanism of policy. In any case, I yield the floor to allow my friend from Connecticut to speak. I urge my colleagues to join with Senator McConnell on a motion to table. This is the wrong judgment with the wrong signal at the wrong moment--not undermining the historic American policy, but it is undermining the policy of the Clinton administration which has been well calibrated and very well defined. This is not a partisan matter. It is bipartisan against the leadership of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate led by Senator Helms and by President Clinton. It counters both policies. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Please conclude.

Mr. TORRICELLI. May I reclaim my time for the moment? I yielded to the Senator----

Mr. TORRICELLI. I will answer the question first and continue my remarks. I don't think travel restrictions on China would change Chinese policy. I oppose those restrictions. I do believe travel restrictions on Cuba will change Cuban policy. That is why I support them. I do believe that continued international resolve--for the first time, the Senator's amendment would weaken America's policy. We have gotten Europeans and Latins so outraged by the jailing of these dissidents and these secret trials that European and Latin nations that have voted against us for 20 years have joined with us this year in Europe in voting to condemn the Cuban Government. Just as they are joining the fight for human rights, the United States would abandon it. There is one other thing that is important. I will finish making my case and I will be glad to yield. There is one other change. This isn't just about what Cuba does internally anymore. This is also about what they are doing to our country. The government that you would have us now visit, in lifting these restrictions, is a Cuba that has crossed a very important threshold. Just this last year, indicted by the government of Cuba on May 7, were 14 Cubans captured in Miami. Let me suggest to you the nature of that indictment to see whether it makes an impression on the Senator and see whether or not he thinks this is an appropriate time to ease restrictions on travel to Cuba. The indictment of Cuban agents in Miami last fall was for attempting to penetrate the U.S. Southern Command and planning ``terrorist acts against U.S. military installations.'' The indictment was further revised to include 2 of the 14 with conspiracy to murder 4 American citizens by shooting down their aircraft over the Straits of Florida. Let me suggest that I, as all of my colleagues, am prepared to respond to initiatives from Havana. The day there are elections, the day there are open trials, the day there is a free press, the day they respond to a request for extradition of people who murder American citizens, I will join you with my colleagues on that day on this floor matching the Cuban Government 2-to-1, 3-to-1, 1 of their initiatives to 3 of ours, 10 of ours, or 20 of ours. We will meet them 95 percent of the way down the field. But, my friends, to ask this Senate to respond to the record of the last year of jailing dissidents, secret trials, shooting people on the streets, the indictment of 14 Cuban agents penetrating the United States military installations to commit terrorist acts against the United States, and the indictment of Cubans for murdering American citizens--this, my colleagues, would not appear to me to be the best time to suggest that it is time to forgive and forget, and have thousands--maybe tens of thousands--of Americans visit Cuba to rescue the Cuban economy from its current position of collapse, and provide Fidel Castro with the revenue to strengthen his regime. These sanctions are having an effect. Fidel Castro has had to reduce his military by one-half. He cannot afford to keep them in uniform. The secret police have been reduced by nearly a third in their size. We are causing the collapse of the Communist Party of Cuba--not in a timely way, not as I would like it to be, but it is having an impact. Why, given this record of indictments and terrorism and murder against American citizens, would we choose this moment? Those in the world who have been the most critical of our policy--the Holy Father in the Vatican, who led an initiative himself to ease restrictions on Cuba, has now joined the chorus of those. Fidel Castro broke his promise about priests. The Holy Father appealed to him not to proceed with these jail terms, and he did it anyway. The Vatican is now joining the criticism. The states of Latin America for the first time are voting against his human rights record. And we in the United States who led this effort for all of these years are about to change sides. This Senate has been resolute on this issue in the past. I will join with my friend from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, I hope in a motion to table this amendment. I think the debate has been worthwhile. My friend from Connecticut and my friend from Vermont have made it very clear to the Cuban Government that we are ready, willing, and able to change our policy if they change theirs. But I believe the motion to table is the right way to proceed in the Senate at the moment. I would be glad to yield to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. TORRICELLI. That is where we agree.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Let me, in my time, answer the Senator's question with a question. Do you believe that travel restrictions on China would change Chinese policy?

Mr. TORRICELLI. Yes.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, a case has been made that Americans cannot travel to Cuba. Indeed, the facts reveal that Americans travel to Cuba by the thousands. The policy that this Congress has endorsed, President Reagan, President Bush, and President Clinton have supported. There has been a calculated policy of American contacts in travel to Cuba. Today American students, journalists, people with archeological interests, cultural interests, travel to Cuba by the thousands. Cuban Americans travel to visit family members who have problems, medical emergencies, by the thousands. The restriction of the U.S. Government is not about travel. We are using travel as a weapon to help convince the Cuban people to put pressure on the Cuban Government, support for democracy, free markets, that their contact with Americans is helpful in changing the politics of the repression of Cuba. Restrictions in travel is not about denying Americans the right to go to Cuba. It is about denying Fidel Castro the economic benefits of American tourism. Travel that enhances knowledge, causes political difficulties, we not only allow but we have encouraged. Travel that simply provides Fidel Castro with millions of dollars to support his regime, his military, his security forces, we are denying, and appropriately so. Nor is it a static policy. On January 9 of this year, President Clinton revised the policy again, for the second time in 2 years, to add new remittances by American citizens to Cuba, so that people can send money and support their families at appropriate levels that are humanitarian, to help with medical or food emergencies but not so much that it would allow Fidel Castro to profit by it. President Clinton has allowed charter passenger flights to cities other than Havana for the first time, and the measure permits direct mail service to Cuba. The measure also authorizes the sale of food and agricultural inputs to independent nongovernment entities. New regulations for all of this were issued on May 10--flights, new authority for travel, food and medicine--as part of a calculated policy to always test Castro: When you are ready to talk about democracy, to respect human rights, American policy will begin to change. Several days after President Clinton announced these new initiatives, the Cuban Government responded and Castro announced that it constituted a policy of ``aggression.'' Once again, as President Carter found, as did Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, every time you make an act of concession--in this case, a legitimate concession--to test Fidel Castro to see whether he is interested in a bilateral relationship, we are denounced for redressing the Cuban nation by disallowing travel. My colleagues offer an amendment now to remove these restrictions and open travel and allow Fidel Castro to get the full economic benefit of millions, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars worth of travel. What kind of regime is it that they will be visiting? If Castro is to receive the benefit of our tourist dollars, what is it he would be doing with this money? It is worth taking a look at Cuba, not of 1961 when the cold war brought us to sanctions, but the Cuba of 1999. It is suggested by my friend and colleague from Vermont that the cold war is over, implying that perhaps we have no argument with this regime. Our argument with Cuba is about more than the cold war. It is about all the things that have always motivated the United States: human rights, human decency, the nature of the regime itself. Our argument with Fidel Castro is not over. The causes of that argument still endure. While the United States has been seeking to ease sanctions, look at the record in the last 24 months in response to our review and change of policy. In February, Fidel Castro criminalized all forms of cooperation or participation in any prodemocracy efforts--not a fine, not an arrest, but 20 years in jail if you participate in a prodemocracy effort. This is the Cuba you will be visiting. He imposes a 30-year jail term on anybody who cooperates with an agency of the U.S. Government. That includes Radio Marti, distribution of food or medicine by a government agency, or anyone acting on behalf of anyone associating with this Government. On March 1, the law was tested. Four prominent human rights dissidents were tried in secrecy for their criticism of the Communist Party of Cuba. International diplomats who traveled to Cuba to witness the trial were barred from attending any of the proceedings. After being held without charges for 1 year--no foreign press, no foreign visitors, no diplomats, held in secrecy for 1 year--they were found guilty and sentenced for up to 5 years in jail. This is the Cuba of 1999. Amnesty International, in its recent report, concludes that there are now 350 political prisoners in Cuba. Ten unarmed civilians, in the meantime, have been shot by Cuban security officials on the streets of Havana. I do not ask the Senate to do anything it has not done before. Just on March 25, the Senate voted 98-0, stating that the United States should make all efforts to criticize Cuba and condemn its human rights record. What is the price of this conduct? They hold hundreds of political prisoners, people are shot in the streets, people are held in secret trials, and our response is: Let's go for a visit. Let's go see how they are doing and have a good meal in Havana. No. My colleague is right. There is no cold war, but there is a great deal at issue that this country cares a great deal about.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this amendment and the preservation of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. It is important that we maintain our commitment to the Armenian people. One of the greatest foreign policy priorities in the post-Cold War world is to assist former Communist countries in making the difficult transition to democracy. The fall of the Soviet Union was not the final victory of the Cold War. That will come only when all of these former adversaries embrace liberty, free markets, and the rule of law. Senator Brownback's underlying amendment has the potential to further economic and political progress in the Caucasus and Caspian Sea regions. In its current form, however, it severely weakens one of Congress' central achievements of the post-Cold War era. The 102nd Congress in 1992, passed the Freedom Support Act. This bill acknowledged that we can help countries make the transition to democracy both with the carrot of economic aid and the stick of withholding such assistance. It included a provision, Section 907, which mandated that Azerbaijan will not receive any direct economic aid until it ceases the blockade of neighboring Armenia and the Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. Even still, the United States has supported the Azeri people with over $180 million in humanitarian assistance through NGOs since 1992. The Foreign Operations Appropriations bill itself also allows OPIC and TDA activities in Azerbaijan which we approved last year. The Azeri blockade of Armenia and of Karabakh is a direct result of the dispute between the two countries over the status of Karabakh. This is the longest-running ethnic conflict in the former Soviet Union. So far, the human cost has been 35,000 lives and 1.4 million refugees. Outside of the conflict, the brutality of the Azeri blockade has been equally devastating for Armenia. As a land-locked country where only 17 percent of the land is arable, its ties to the outside world are its lifeline. Humanitarian assistance cannot get to Armenia, which is still trying to rebuild from the devastating earthquake of a decade ago. In Karabakh, the blockade has produced a critical shortage of medical equipment. True regional cooperation is unrealistic as long as this conflict continues. By passing the underlying amendment in its current form, we are virtually guaranteeing that the OSCE peace process will fail. Armenia will have little incentive to participate in the future, and Azerbaijan will receive the message that its rejection of any future peace proposals is acceptable. I support Senator Brownback's attempts to promote an East-West axis in the region, and I believe it is critical that we encourage these former republics to look westward. By allowing the blockade to endure, however, we are leaving Armenia with only North-South options. If our intent is to truly improve the quality of life in the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea, we must make a positive impact on the Caucasus without undermining our commitment to the Armenian people. I urge my colleagues to support the McConnell-Abraham amendment and allow Section 907 to remain in place.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of my remarks that the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Edwards, be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, once again my Democratic colleagues in the Senate have joined this week in a discussion of the overwhelming national need for reform of managed health care. Once again, Senators from States across the Nation have shared the experiences of their constituents, the frustrations of their families at being denied the treatment and care through managed care for which they are paying. Once again, it has been a one-sided discussion. We have been talking about the need for reform of managed care while our friends and colleagues across the aisle have been preventing any real debate. The American people have waited long enough for a basic and fundamental reform of the managed health care system in America. We have allowed weeks, months and even years to pass while recognizing American families are in jeopardy and not receiving the care they need, deserve, or have even paid for. There is simply no further excuse for delay. During this session of the Congress, this Senate has spent 7 days considering 38 amendments on the relatively simple concept of educational flexibility. The Senate had 8 days available for 52 amendments on juvenile justice; 4 days for 159 amendments on defense authorization; 13 days to consider 51 amendments on the Y2K problem. These were all important issues, all legitimate. But in each and every instance time was not an issue; the available amendments by Members of the Senate were fully considered. On this single issue, which affects as many or more Americans than any of these others, the Senate does not have time; it cannot give its attention. Like other Members of the Senate who have come to the floor to discuss the experiences of their constituencies, I want to share the experience of one of mine: A young woman from Spotswood, NJ, Kristin Bolinger. Kristin suffers from a unique condition that causes seizures and scoliosis, but it can be managed with proper treatment. The genius of medical science in America, the care of her doctors, can prevent these seizures that are interrupting her life. Her family is enrolled in an HMO. She was denied access to a specialist, the one with the knowledge to treat her illness. The procedure was deemed unnecessary. She was denied critical home nursing, denied physical therapy, denied reimbursement. The fact of the matter is, the care her parents were paying for, she was paying for, the benefit of the genius of American medical science, was denied to her. There are 161 million Americans just like Kristin, covered by managed care, who simply cannot wait any longer for this Senate to find their problems, the tragedies of their families, relevant. In my State, in New Jersey, 3.8 million people who are part of health maintenance organizations have no legal protections. Like their fellow citizens across America, they believe it is time for us to act. The American people have been polled and 79 percent are in favor of and demand some reform in the management of health care in America. They believe, as I believe, that doctors, specialists, people trained to care, should be making these medical judgments; not accountants, not financial managers. People should be making decisions to provide care who know what care is required. There is a lot that has changed in American health care through the years. The family doctor who in the middle of the night knocked on your door to help may be gone. By necessity, it may all have changed. But we do not have to abandon that one principle that has always been at the foundation of private health care in America--doctors make health care decisions. Mr. President, 30 percent of the American people, an extraordinary number, claim they personally know someone who needed health care, who had a problem, and was denied that care although they were enrolled in and had paid for a managed care plan. Here is the answer. Here is the legislation we would like to bring to the Senate that addresses these problems--it is overwhelmingly supported by the American people--but we are denied the opportunity to do so. No. 1, ensure that doctors, not the HMO, determine what is ``medically necessary.'' No. 2, guarantee access to a qualified specialist for those who need one, even if that specialist is not part of the HMO. No. 3, ensure independent medical appeals for treatment denied by the HMO, so when you are denied treatment, there is someone else to whom you can make your case to get care for yourself, your family, or your child. No. 4, guarantee wherever you are in America, if you need to get access to an emergency room, you can get into that emergency room. In sum, what this would provide is some new sense of security in health care in American life. Americans with cancer would be guaranteed access to an oncologist, not just a family doctor. If their HMO denied access, they could go on and appeal to ensure the right judgment was made, and the oncologist, not the HMO, would decide their treatment. In substance that is what this means. This is important for all Americans. Let me conclude by saying there is a category of Americans for whom these reforms are the most important. Mr. President, 75 percent of all the medical decisions in families in America are made by women, for themselves and for their children. One of the things that is required in our legislation is that an OB/GYN can be a primary health care provider, can make the necessary judgments on first impression. It is, perhaps, one of the most important reforms in the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights. It is overwhelmingly supported by American women. But we also prohibit drive-through health procedures like mastectomies and guarantee access by children to pediatric specialists. From American children to American women to all American families, there is an overwhelming need to begin these reforms. It can be postponed for another year, another few years, maybe another decade. The only thing the Senate guarantees by postponement is that the list of millions of Americans who are not getting to specialists, who are denied access to emergency rooms, whose medical doctors are not allowed to make the ultimate determinations--that list is growing. It is growing, and so is the frustration of the American electorate. I hope in this session, in this year, in this Senate, the need for a Patients' Bill of Rights finally comes to be recognized and accepted. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for a peaceful process of self-determination in East Timor. These are both exciting and troubling times in Indonesia as a whole, and the future of East Timor may be resolved in the coming months. President Habibie himself indicated that he would work toward resolution of East Timor's status by the end of the year. The recent Parliamentary elections in Indonesia proceeded peacefully, and virtually without incident. It appears as if a democratic transition will be forthcoming, and I am hopeful that the people of Indonesia remain committed to free and fair elections. While we have supported these elections, and encouraged a fair process, we simultaneously receive reports of increased social unrest. Clashes between Muslims and Christians in Ambon are only one indication of the tensions which underlie relations between different ethnic groups. The situation in East Timor has historically divided sympathies over an acceptable solution, and violent attacks in the region have become more prevalent since the beginning of the year. Evidence has indicated that anti-independence militias have been supported and armed by some members of the Indonesian military. The end result of such support can only be an increase in the political tensions and violence in East Timor. The militias have committed scores of human rights abuses against the ethnic East Timorese in an effort to suppress any movement towards full independence in East Timor. It is as yet unclear how East Timor's status will ultimately be resolved. Solutions from greater autonomy within Indonesia to full independence are only two of the proposals that have been brought forward. The international community has sought to encourage an open decision process by the people of East Timor as to what their future status should hold, but the increased strength of the anti-independence militias threatens to undermine the process. In order for a free ballot to be held in the coming months, the United States must make an effort to ensure that the process is fair. I co-sponsored a resolution offered by Senator Leahy to encourage an open ballot on the question of East Timor, but this resolution also urges full access by international human rights monitors and the disbanding of the militias. Such steps are critical to the fair determination of East Timor's future, and I hope that this Congress will continue to show its support for the ballot process.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Frank M. Wade as he celebrates his retirement as the Executive Director of the New Jersey State Building and Construction Trades Council. Frank has served in this capacity for the past ten years, and he has a long history of commitment to labor organizations in the State of New Jersey. In fact, Frank has been a cornerstone for labor rights in New Jersey. It is a pleasure for me to be able to honor his accomplishments. Since he started as a member of the Iron Workers Local #480 in 1954, through his election as Executive Director in 1989, Frank has fought hard to protect the rights of working men and women in New Jersey. His dedication to the New Jersey State Building and Construction Trades Council, and to labor causes in general, is widely known and admired throughout the State of New Jersey. In addition to his position with the New Jersey Building and Construction Trades Council, Frank has played a very active role in strengthening the political and economic life of New Jersey. He has served on a number of civic organizations including the New Jersey Society for Environmental, Economic Development (NJSEED), the New Jersey Employment Security Council, and on the Advisory Committee on the Prevailing Wage Act. Frank has never lost sight of the need to serve his community. Despite his responsibilities he has still found the time for charitable causes. Deborah Hospital Foundation is just one of the organizations that has benefitted from Frank's involvement. So it gives me great pleasure to recognize a leader of great stature in New Jersey's labor community, but also a great friend. Through all our years together, fighting for the cause of working men and women, I have always known Frank to stand on principle, loyalty, and hard work. While he may be leaving this post, I know I can always rely on him to hold true to that standard in every endeavor he undertakes.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman and Senator Dodd to introduce the Tax Fairness for Commuters Act. Last month, Governor Pataki of New York signed legislation to ``repeal'' the New York City commuter tax. However, the legislation signed into law only repealed the tax for residents of New York. The over 300,000 residents of Connecticut and New Jersey will still be subjected to this tax. I believe that the lawsuit jointly undertaken by New Jersey and Connecticut along with the city of New York and affected commuters will ultimately prevail and this attempt will be proven unconstitutional. However, I am concerned about the attempted precedent that has been set. Our legislation will remove the temptation of any State or any city to impose higher taxes on non-residents than it does on residents. The bill is very simple. It says that a State or city may not impose a higher tax on the income earned by non-residents than it does on residents. I hope that each Senator, no matter what part of the country they are from, will recognize the inherent danger in discriminatory taxes of this nature and will support this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman and Senator Dodd to introduce the Tax Fairness for Commuters Act. Last month, Governor Pataki of New York signed legislation to ``repeal'' the New York City commuter tax. However, the legislation signed into law only repealed the tax for residents of New York. The over 300,000 residents of Connecticut and New Jersey will still be subjected to this tax. I believe that the lawsuit jointly undertaken by New Jersey and Connecticut along with the city of New York and affected commuters will ultimately prevail and this attempt will be proven unconstitutional. However, I am concerned about the attempted precedent that has been set. Our legislation will remove the temptation of any State or any city to impose higher taxes on non-residents than it does on residents. The bill is very simple. It says that a State or city may not impose a higher tax on the income earned by non-residents than it does on residents. I hope that each Senator, no matter what part of the country they are from, will recognize the inherent danger in discriminatory taxes of this nature and will support this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, the Nazi Benefits Termination Act of 1999. This legislation seeks to halt an unintended and unwarranted series of public benefits payments to utlimately deportable individuals who assisted or otherwise participated in persecution sponsored by the Nazis or their allies during World War II. The bill also closes a loophole in the current law which allows some of these deportable individuals to avoid the suspension of their benefits by fleeing the United States. Such individuals who illegally gain access to the bounty of the United States, for example, by misrepresenting the facts of their wartime conduct, should not be allowed to benefit from their deceit at the expense of the Treasury, including the Social Security Trust Funds. So too, individuals who avoid entry of an order of deportation or removal by fleeing the United States should not be permitted to circumvent the intent of the law at the expense of the Trust Funds. Recognizing the excellent work of the Department of Justice's Office of Special Investigations (OSI) in bringing and winning cases against those who participated in Nazi persecution, the Nazi Benefits Termination Act of 1999 delegates to the Attorney General the discretionary authority to initiate proceedings to prohibit the payment of public benefits to any benefits receipient or applicant whom the Attorney General has reason to believe may have been a participant in persecution sponsored by the Nazis or their allies. Although OSI's success in deporting former Nazi persecutors has resulted in the cessation of social security benefits payments to numerous persons, this bill will, among other things, permit termination of benefits even before (or without) an order of deportation. This bill will apply to persons eventually subject to deportation who have assisted in Nazi persecution in any way. Proof by a preponderance of the evidence of such assistance or other participation in persecution is required. The Attorney General need not prove that a particular respondent is or was a war criminal. Rather, this legislation adopts the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals' properly broad interpretation of the Holtzman Amendment (now Sections 212(a)(3)(E) and 237(a)(4)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) terms ``participated'' or ``assisted'' in persecution. In Schellong v. I.N.S., the Sevneth Circuit properly interpreted the Holtzman Amendment, which is incorporated into this bill's statutory standard. The standard set out by the Sixth Circuit in Petkiewytsch v. I.N.S., ignores the plain language of the Holtzman Amendment and is specifically rejected by this bill. The Nazi Benefits Termination Act of 1999, like the Holtzman Amendment, applies to persons who assisted or otherwise participated in Nazi-sponsored persecution in any way, and does not require a showing by the government of personal or direct involvement in atrocities, voluntariness or motive. Section 2(b)(2)(B)(1) of the bill is drafted to cover naturalized citizens whose admission to the United States was unlawful due, inter alia, to assistance in persecution or who otherwise procured their citizenship illegally or by concealment of a material fact or misrepresentation. Section 3(a) of the legislation provides that Immigration Judges appointed by the Attorney General pursuant to the procedure established under the regulations implementing Section 1101(b)(4) of Title 8 will preside over the benefits hearings established by this bill. The rules, procedures, and rights applicable in these hearings are to be governed by the terms of this bill, existing regulations under Title 8, and any necessary additional implementing regulations. The preponderance-of-the-evidence burden of proof will apply in hearings conducted under Section 3(a) of the bill. This standard is applicable in federal benefits revocation proceedings and most civil proceedings. Under this standard, we can avoid the delays incident to assembly of proof in denaturalization and deportation cases brought against this class, and consequently stem current depletion of the Treasury. Section 3(f) of the bill makes clear that findings under section 3(c)(3)(A) of the bill may be based upon the collateral estoppel effect of denaturalization, deportation, or other appropriate judgments. It is important to pass this legislation to help protect the public against unintended and unwarranted waste in paying benefits to ultimately deportable individuals. This measure will help to conserve resources so that future generations can continue to rely upon social security and other necessary public benefits payments. I hope all my colleagues will be able to support this important legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, the Nazi Benefits Termination Act of 1999. This legislation seeks to halt an unintended and unwarranted series of public benefits payments to utlimately deportable individuals who assisted or otherwise participated in persecution sponsored by the Nazis or their allies during World War II. The bill also closes a loophole in the current law which allows some of these deportable individuals to avoid the suspension of their benefits by fleeing the United States. Such individuals who illegally gain access to the bounty of the United States, for example, by misrepresenting the facts of their wartime conduct, should not be allowed to benefit from their deceit at the expense of the Treasury, including the Social Security Trust Funds. So too, individuals who avoid entry of an order of deportation or removal by fleeing the United States should not be permitted to circumvent the intent of the law at the expense of the Trust Funds. Recognizing the excellent work of the Department of Justice's Office of Special Investigations (OSI) in bringing and winning cases against those who participated in Nazi persecution, the Nazi Benefits Termination Act of 1999 delegates to the Attorney General the discretionary authority to initiate proceedings to prohibit the payment of public benefits to any benefits receipient or applicant whom the Attorney General has reason to believe may have been a participant in persecution sponsored by the Nazis or their allies. Although OSI's success in deporting former Nazi persecutors has resulted in the cessation of social security benefits payments to numerous persons, this bill will, among other things, permit termination of benefits even before (or without) an order of deportation. This bill will apply to persons eventually subject to deportation who have assisted in Nazi persecution in any way. Proof by a preponderance of the evidence of such assistance or other participation in persecution is required. The Attorney General need not prove that a particular respondent is or was a war criminal. Rather, this legislation adopts the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals' properly broad interpretation of the Holtzman Amendment (now Sections 212(a)(3)(E) and 237(a)(4)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) terms ``participated'' or ``assisted'' in persecution. In Schellong v. I.N.S., the Sevneth Circuit properly interpreted the Holtzman Amendment, which is incorporated into this bill's statutory standard. The standard set out by the Sixth Circuit in Petkiewytsch v. I.N.S., ignores the plain language of the Holtzman Amendment and is specifically rejected by this bill. The Nazi Benefits Termination Act of 1999, like the Holtzman Amendment, applies to persons who assisted or otherwise participated in Nazi-sponsored persecution in any way, and does not require a showing by the government of personal or direct involvement in atrocities, voluntariness or motive. Section 2(b)(2)(B)(1) of the bill is drafted to cover naturalized citizens whose admission to the United States was unlawful due, inter alia, to assistance in persecution or who otherwise procured their citizenship illegally or by concealment of a material fact or misrepresentation. Section 3(a) of the legislation provides that Immigration Judges appointed by the Attorney General pursuant to the procedure established under the regulations implementing Section 1101(b)(4) of Title 8 will preside over the benefits hearings established by this bill. The rules, procedures, and rights applicable in these hearings are to be governed by the terms of this bill, existing regulations under Title 8, and any necessary additional implementing regulations. The preponderance-of-the-evidence burden of proof will apply in hearings conducted under Section 3(a) of the bill. This standard is applicable in federal benefits revocation proceedings and most civil proceedings. Under this standard, we can avoid the delays incident to assembly of proof in denaturalization and deportation cases brought against this class, and consequently stem current depletion of the Treasury. Section 3(f) of the bill makes clear that findings under section 3(c)(3)(A) of the bill may be based upon the collateral estoppel effect of denaturalization, deportation, or other appropriate judgments. It is important to pass this legislation to help protect the public against unintended and unwarranted waste in paying benefits to ultimately deportable individuals. This measure will help to conserve resources so that future generations can continue to rely upon social security and other necessary public benefits payments. I hope all my colleagues will be able to support this important legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that is important to me, and many of my constituents, in the context of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. The tragedy of Pan Am Flight 103 occurred over ten years ago. 270 people were killed as a result of the bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, including 189 Americans. The bombing of Pan Am 103 was the worst act of international terrorism ever directed against the United States. Since then, we have fought a long battle to see the perpetrators of that crime brought to justice. I have personally spoken to the families of the victims and shared their outrage that the suspects were harbored by the Libyan government. It now appears as if the indicted suspects, Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah, may finally be tried for their crime. Colonel Qaddafi has turned over the two men to stand trial before a Scottish court, under Scottish law, and by a panel of Scottish judges in the Netherlands. Barring any unforseen problems, a trial of the two men suspected in the bombing of Pan Am 103 is all but certain to take place at the Hague. This Congress and the Administration have been extremely supportive of the victims' families, but it would be fair to say that they have seen little justice over the past 10 years. We have all been touched by this tragedy. In the State of New Jersey alone there are 38 family members who lost a loved one aboard Pan Am 103. As we move toward a trial, an appropriate gesture from this Congress to the families is the opportunity to witness the trial. The United States has made clear our determination in seeing these two men tried for their crime. Now we must be equally determined to let the victims' families, who want to, witness the trial. I offered language during Committee consideration of this bill to authorize the release of as much money as is necessary from Libyan assets frozen in the United States since 1986. These funds would be used to cover the travel expenses for all immediate family members who wish to go to the Hague. I can think of no one more appropriate to cover the cost of the families' travel expenses than Muammar Qaddafi. However, since the Foreign Relations Committee approved this bill, Congress has passed the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. I am pleased that we were able to include language to allow money form the Crime Victim's Fund Act to be used to cover the costs of the trial. It is important that we make this important gesture to the families at such a critical time, and I look forward to seeing this provision implemented.