Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I understand that this legislation would allow the Secretary of the Treasury to partner with other Federal agencies, principally the Federal Election Commission, in a manner similar to that contemplated under the bill reported by the Ways and Means Committee. Is that understanding correct?

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read some of the names of those who lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago today. June 29, 1999: Rokisha Denard, 18, Trenton, NJ; Herman Eastorly, 79, St. Louis, MO; Scott M. Echoles, 27, Chicago, IL; William Hunter, 33, Nashville, TN; Elton James, 28, New Orleans, LA; Craig Jones, 28, New Orleans, LA; Bernard Lathan, San Francisco, CA; Jackie Lee Nabor, 39, Detroit, MI; Billy J. Phillips, 43, Chicago, IL; Richard Rogers, 16, Fort Wayne, IN; Sidney Wilson, 14, Fort Wayne, IN; Tonya Tyler, 24, Nashville, TN; Unidentified male, 16, Chicago, IL.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor my friend John Chafee. On Sunday June 25, 2000, an article appeared in Parade Magazine entitled, ``Let Us Salute Those Who Served''. The article chronicled John's service in the Korean War. I ask that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in opposition to two key provisions which should not have been included in this appropriations bill. I commend my colleagues, particularly Chairman Stevens and Chairman Roth, for reaching an understanding that the funds taken by these provisions will be entirely restored in the conference report on the Labor/HHS appropriations bill. The first provision relates to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) we created in 1997. Put simply, it will prevent uninsured, low-income children from receiving health care services they need and may even jeopardize the future of this critically important children's health program. Enrollment in SCHIP has been increasing--doubling from just under 1 million to 2 million children between 1998 and 1999. But the SCHIP funding cut included in the Labor- HHS bill will undermine this progress and discourage State efforts to increase enrollment. If the precedent is set for using these funds as offsets, States could not rely on the future availability of their SCHIP allotments. The second provision is a massive unwarranted cut in funds for the Social Services Block Grant, from $1.7 billion to $600 million. SSBG is a most flexible source of social services funding. The States and local communities decide, within broad parameters, which needs to address. Among many things, SSBG supports: Help for the home-bound elderly; Assistance for adoptive families; Elder abuse prevention; and Foster care for abused children. In my own State of New York, we use most of our SSBG funds to provide child protective services and for day care. There is no reason to, in the words of the President, ``bankrupt'' SSBG. I recognize that the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee faced very difficult decisions in light of the unreasonably low allocation it received. These problems were created by the FY 2001 Budget Resolution which underfunded this and other appropriations measures while providing for a large tax cut. This tax cut, if merited, should not be paid for by limiting insurance coverage for low-income children and reducing help to the aged and disabled. With the Congressional Budget Office expected to increase its estimate of the on-budget surplus, there is no good reason for these two provisions. amendment no. 3625

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today on the East Front of the Capitol ground is being broken for the new Capitol Visitor Center, a project that will take at least five years and hundreds of millions of dollars to complete. Nearly a century ago, in March 1901, the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia embarked on another project. The Committee was directed by Senate Resolution 139 to ``report to the Senate plans for the development and improvement of the entire park system of the District of Columbia * * *. (F)or the purpose of preparing such plans the committee * * * may secure the services of such experts as may be necessary for a proper consideration of the subject.'' And secure ``such experts'' the committee did. The Committee formed what came to be known as the McMillan Commission, named for committee chairman, Senator James McMillan of Michigan. The Commission's membership was a ``who's who'' of late 19th and early 20th-century architecture, landscape design, and art: Daniel Burnham, Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., Charles F. McKim, and Augustus St. Gaudens. The commission traveled that summer to Rome, Venice, Vienna, Budapest, Paris, and London, studying the landscapes, architecture, and public spaces of the grandest cities in the world. The McMillan Commission returned and, building on the plan of French Engineer Pierre Charles L'Enfant, fashioned the city of Washington as we now know it. We are particularly indebted today for the commission's preservation of the Mall. When the members left for Europe, the Congress had just given the Pennsylvania Railroad a 400-foot wide swath of the Mall for a new station and trackage. It is hard to imagine our city without the uninterrupted stretch of greenery from the Capitol to the Washington Monument, but such would have been the result. Fortunately, when in London, Daniel Burnham was able to convince Pennsylvania Railroad president Cassatt that a site on Massachusetts Avenue would provide a much grander entrance to the city. President Cassatt assented and Daniel Burnham gave us Union Station. But the focus of the Commission's work was the District's park system. The Commission noted in its report: Aside from the pleasure and the positive benefits to health that the people derive from public parks, in a capital city like Washington there is a distinct use of public spaces as the indispensable means of giving dignity to Government buildings and of making suitable connections between the great departments . . . (V)istas and axes; sites for monuments and museums; parks and pleasure gardens; fountains and canals; in a word all that goes to make a city a magnificent and consistent work of art were regarded as essential in the plans made by L'Enfant under the direction of the first President and his Secretary of State. Washington and Jefferson might be disappointed at the affliction now imposed on much of the Capitol Grounds by the automobile. At the foot of Pennsylvania Avenue is a scar of angle-parked cars, in parking spaces made available temporarily during construction of the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building. Once completed, spaces in the building's garage would be made available to Senate employees and Pennsylvania Avenue would be restored. Not so. Despite the ready and convenient availability of the city's Metrorail system, an extraordinary number of Capitol Hill employees drive to work. The demand for spaces has simply risen to meet the available supply, and the unit block of the Nation's main street remains a disaster. During the 103rd Congress and thereafter I proposed the ``Arc of Park,'' legislation that would almost completely eliminate surface parking. Under my proposal the Architect of the Capitol would be instructed to eliminate the unsightly lots, and reconstruct them as public parks, landscaped in the fashion of the Capitol Grounds. A key element of my proposal was that--to the extent we continue to offer it--parking must be put underground. I rise today to emphasize the need for us to remain focused--as we break ground for the Visitor's Center-- on a project currently being designed: an underground parking structure. One year ago the Architect of the Capitol received approval from Chairman McConnell of the Rules Committee to proceed with preliminary design for an underground garage to be located on Square 724, which is just North of the Dirksen and Hart buildings. Upon completion it will replace the existing lot of surpassing ugliness. By getting cars off the streets and underground it will bring us nearer to the pedestrian walkways and parks McMillan--and before him L'Enfant--envisioned. The final garage will include three levels with capacity for 1210 parking spaces. The 1981 report on the Master Plan identified Square 724 as the site for a future Senate office building. Thus the garage will be designed and constructed to accommodate an eight story office building on top of it, should the need for such building ever arise. The current plan, however, would be to top the garage with a simply landscaped plaza. Upon approving advancement with the design of the new structure, Chairman McConnell stated that, ``Square 724 appears to offer the most cost-effective opportunity for phased growth of Senate garage parking within the Capitol Complex.'' I understand that this time next year, after I have left this Body, the Architect of the Capitol will ask Congress to appropriate the funds needed to actually build Phase I of the garage, which will accommodate 500 cars. And then funding will be crucial--with the Russell garage in dire need of renovation and the Capitol Visitor Center expected to displace some parking. I urge you to support the Architect in his request. Today, as we break ground on a new project, one that will nearly double the size of the Capitol, let us not forget the grand vision of the McMillan Commission from a century ago. Washington is the capital of the most powerful nation on earth, and deserves to look it.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, Tim Russert, who served for many years as a member of the Senate staff, and who now serves the Nation as moderator of ``Meet The Press'' gave the Class Day Address this past Wednesday at the Harvard Law School. It is wonderfully reflective and just as emphatically exhorting. I ask that it be printed in today's Record. The address follows: Address by Tim Russert, Harvard Law School Class Day, June 7, 2000 Well today I finally got into Harvard. And I thank you. But most respectfully my perspective is different today than when I applied to law school 27 years ago. You have chosen for your class day speaker the son of a man who never finished high school . . . who worked two jobs--as a truck driver and sanitation man--for 37 years and never complained. And so may I dare suggest to you I now believe that my dad taught me more by the quiet eloquence of his hard work and his basic decency than I learned from 16 years of formal education. With that caveat, let me begin. Former White House Chief of Staff John Sununu. Legend has it, in 1991 he encountered some difficult times. He approached the First Lady Barbara Bush and said ``Barbara . . . I need your advice . . . your wisdom . . . your counsel . . . why is it that people here seem to take such an instant dislike to me?'' She replied, ``because it saves time John.'' Justice Frankfurter said it this way. ``Wisdom too often never comes and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late.'' In that humble spirit. Congratulations! But before you can begin to move on to the next phase of your lives--you must undergo the last grueling hurdle in your career here at Harvard Law school. The Class Day Address. Let me be honest with you about my experiences with class day or commencement addresses. I've been through several of my own and I've sat through dozens of others. And I can't recall a single word or phrase from any of those informed, inspirational and seemingly interminable addresses. Despite that, others wiser and more learned than I, have decided there continues to be virtue in this tradition so I will speak to you, but I will try not to delay you too long. In 1985, I was granted an extraordinary opportunity--a private audience with the Holy Father. I'll never forget it. The door opened--and there was the Pope--dressed in white. He walked solemnly into the room, at that time it seemed as large as this field. I was there to convince His Holiness it was in his interest to appear on the Today show. But my thoughts soon turned away from Bryant Gumbel's career and NBC's ratings toward the idea of salvation. As I stood there with the Vicar of Christ, I simply blurted, ``Bless me Father!'' He put his arm around my shoulder and whispered--you are the one called Timothy''--I said yes, ``the man from NBC''--``yes, yes, that's me.'' ``They tell me you are a very important man.'' Somewhat taken aback, I said, ``Your Holiness, with all due respect, there are only two of us in this room, and I am certainly a distant second.'' He looked at me and said ``right.'' That was not the last time I pleaded nolo contendere. In preparing for this afternoon, I had thought about presenting a scholarly essay on the media coverage of the private lives of Presidents and their interns, but I demurred because as you've been taught res ipse loquitor. Television has a very hard time conveying complicated issues. It is a medium that seems to seek out simplicity over nuance. It is said that David Brinkley recently reminisced that the way television news would cover Moses in the year 2000 would be as follows: ``Moses came down from the mountaintop today with the 10 commandments . . . here is Sam Donaldson with the three most important.'' So let me skip the temptation of crafting an article for your law review or honing a compelling oral argument. Let me instead take a few minutes to have a conversation with you. You have chosen a profession and a university that is unique and you made the choice deliberately. The education you've received at Harvard Law School isn't meant to be the same as you could have received at medical, engineering or business school. You've been given an education that says it's not enough to have skill. Not even enough to have read all the books, mastered all the briefs or shepardized all the cases. The oath you will take, the ethics you must abide by, demand more than that. Embarking on a legal career will bring some uncertainty, insecurity, apprehension. But fear not. I've overcome worse. You should try being a Buffalo Bills fan in Washington! I actually took Meet the Press to the Super Bowl one year. At the end of the program, I looked into the camera and said, ``It's now in God's hands. And God is good. And God is just. Please God, please make three a charm. One time. Go Bills! My colleague Tom Brokaw turned to me and said, ``you Irish Catholics from South Buffalo are shameless.'' Well, as I moped back from the stadium after the Dallas Cowboys snuck by 38-10. The first person I saw was Brokaw--he came up put his arm around me and said, ``Well, pal, I guess God is a Southern Baptist.'' I've had the opportunity to work for Senators and Governors, meet Popes and interview Presidents--I do know one thing to be true. The values you have been taught, the struggles you have survived and the diploma you are about to receive tomorrow, have prepared you to compete with anybody, anywhere in the world. But let us not forget--and Harvard Law graduates, if you hear anything, hear this--it is people, not degrees, who defend, protect and help those in need. You will be the foot soldiers--the front-line of our legal system dealing day in and day out with the problems and needs of the ordinary folks, the common citizens--the ones the Court calls plaintiffs and defendants. Even if you choose to be a super lawyer/lobbyist in Washington . . . a rainmaker on Wall Street . . . the clerk of a prestigious court you must do your part that true justice prevails for everyone. Recall the admonition of Justice Learned Hand ``If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandmant: Thou shalt not ration justice. Your contributions as a lawyer can be significant. You can help save lives, protect the innocent, convict the guilty, provide prosperity, guarantee justice and train young minds. In words of an American Olympics coach, ``You were born to be players. You were meant to be here. At this time. At this moment. Seize it.'' And so, too, with the Harvard Law graduates of 2000. You were born to be players in this extraordinary game called life, in this extraordinary vocation called the law. So go climb that ladder of success and work and live in comfort. And enjoy yourself. You earned it. For that is the American dream. But please do this work and your honorable profession one small favor. Remember the people struggling along side you and below you. The people who haven't had the same opportunity, the same blessings, the same education. Recognize, comprehend, understand the society into which you are now venturing . . . 13 children a day are shot dead in the United States of America. We--you--have an obligation to at least ask why? Be it criminal law, family law, corporate law, poverty law, politics, litigation, academic--you cannot--you must not-- ignore these problems. They threaten the very foundation of our system of jurisprudence--the very fabric of our society. These are the real numbers--real problems--involving real people. Liberals may call it doing good; conservatives may call it enlightened self-interest. Whatever your ideology, reach down and see if there isn't someone you can't pull up a rung or two--someone old, someone sick, someone lonely, someone uneducated, someone defenseless. Give them a hand. Give them a chance. Give them a start--give them protection. Give them their dignity. Indeed there is a simple truth. ``No exercise is better for the human heart that reaching down to lift up another.'' That's what I believe it means to be a Harvard Law School graduate--a lawyer in the year 2000. For the good of all of us, and most important to me--my 14-year-old son, Luke-- please build a future we all can be proud of. And one last thing, laugh at yourself . . . keep your sense of humor. One of your alumni, John Kennedy class of 1940, used to send these words to his close friends: ``There are three things which are real. God . . . human folly and laughter. The first two are beyond our comprehension so we must do what we can with the third.'' A friend once told me. The United States is the only country he knows that puts the pursuit of happiness right after life and liberty among our God given nights. Laughter and liberty--they go well together. Have an interesting and rewarding career and a wonderful and fulfilling life. Thank you for inviting me to share your class day. I now have the best of both worlds: a Jesuit education and a Harvard baseball cap! Take care.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today, joined by my colleagues Senators Kerry, Rockefeller, Snowe, Allard, Baucus, Breaux, Brownback, Bryan, Bunning, Burns, Daschle, Durbin, Enzi, Hollings, Hutchinson, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerrey, Landrieu, Lincoln, Mikulski, Reid, Robb, Roberts, Schumer, and Thurmond, I am introducing the Broadband Internet Access Act of 2000. This legislation provides a tax incentive to stimulate rapid deployment of high-speed communication services to residential, rural, and low-income areas. A term of art often used for high-speed communication service is ``broadband.'' The term is a remnant from the era of analog systems. It refers to the size of spectral bandwidth over which signals can be transmitted. Even though it is not essential to have wide spectra in the digital world to transmit vast amounts of data, ``broadband'' remains in our digital society's lexicon for high-speed communication or throughput. In common use, broadband connotes fast Internet access, and that is certainly part of the goal of this legislation. The grander goal, however, extends beyond simply expediting traditional Internet use. It is to deliver, in the near future, a wide array of voice, video, and data communication services, at extremely fast speeds, to all Americans. The Broadband Internet Access Act of 2000 provides graduated tax credits for deployment of high-speed communications to residential and rural communities. It gives a 10-percent credit for the deployment of at least 1.5 million bits per second downstream and 200,000 bits per second upstream to all subscribers--residential, business, and institutions--in rural and low income areas. This is essentially ``current generation'' broadband. The bill gives a 20-percent credit for the deployment of at least 22 million bits per second downstream and 10 million bits per second upstream to all subscribers in rural and low income areas, and to all residential customers in other areas. This is what we are calling ``next generation'' broadband. The bill does not dictate the technological means by which these broadband services are to be delivered. Today, the possibilities include telephone lines, cable modems, fiber optics, terrestrial wireless, and satellite wireless. In the future there may be others. Whether high-speed communications are delivered by electrons or by photons, with wires or without wires, by copper or by glass, by terrestrial or by extraterrestrial means, is immaterial. With a temporary tax credit, it is economically feasible to push national communication capabilities forward by ten or perhaps twenty years. The bill permits a variety of technological approaches to make under-served areas more economically attractive to broadband providers. Yesterday we had electronics. Today we have photonics. Tomorrow we will have some ``future-onics.'' Mr. President, as I stand before you today, the streets of Washington, D.C. and of many other major cities in this country are being torn-up to lay cables for high-speed communication. Line-of-sight communication ``dishes'' are being installed on office buildings permitting business-to-business voice, video, and data transmissions. The problem is, market forces are driving deployment of high-speed communication capabilities almost exclusively to urban businesses and wealthy households. Low-income families, exurban communities, rural businesses, and rural families are relegated to the back of the queue. The bill gives private industry economic incentives to accelerate high- speed communication capabilities to Americans who are at the end-of- the-line. Why is this important? Let me offer examples of this technology's power and importance. I start with two historical cases. During the 1950's the National Institute of Mental Health funded a 1,278- mile closed-circuit telephone system between seven state hospitals in Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Health care providers at the hospitals held weekly teleconferencing lectures via this system. By 1961, the system included both audio and video, and psychiatrists successfully used it to care for patients under a program called ``telepsychiatry.'' At about the same time, radiologists in Montreal had a coaxial cable laid between two hospitals three miles apart, thus connecting them for audio and video communications. Doctors were regularly transmitting radiographic images to each other to consult on difficult cases and to conduct educational conferences. As a result of these two projects, patients were treated by physicians who were, in some cases, hundreds of miles away. The medical profession was able to share information and ideas, which improved healthcare in this country and Canada. Unfortunately, such ``telemedicine'' links are very few, even though our ability to transmit data has increased. Why? Because there is no nationwide high-speed data-transfer infrastructure. Instead, the standard business Internet speed in rural areas is 56,000 bits per second. What can be done at that speed? Printed matter can be sent and received reasonably quickly. But photographs or graphics, require long waits, and then often with poor image quality. More advanced uses, such as video conferencing, are out of the question. At faster Internet speeds of, say, 200,000 to 300,000 bits per second, information can be sent much faster. Photographs and graphics leap to the screen, instead of crawling. Video conferencing also is possible, although jittery images and low image resolution make it impractical. Music and movies can be downloaded slowly to a compact disk. At higher data transfer speeds--about 1.5 million bits per second-- the amount and quality of information that can be transmitted becomes quite good. Very good video conferencing is possible. Two or more people in different places can see and talk to each other as if in the same room, at a crisp image resolution and without image jitter. And at even higher speeds, extraordinarily rich images of movement, color, and detail can be transmitted as if one were looking at them in person. Complex medical images can be sent and received. At twenty million bits per second, a digitized mammography image can be transmitted in about fifteen seconds, and a standard chest x-ray in about four seconds. Twenty million bits per second is about 360 times faster than the fastest speeds available on a conventional modem attached to a Plain Old Telephone Service, or, as I am told, POTS. Is it really possible to do this? Indeed, it is. The technology exists now. Over ordinary copper wire, some of our communication companies are now offering data speeds of 26 million bits per second. Imagine the tremendous personal and economic benefits our nation will reap with universal high-speed communication access, including telemedicine; telecommuting; distance learning at all education levels; electronic commerce in low-income and rural communities; digital photography; and entertainment video. As a result, we will enjoy greater educational opportunities, greater geographic freedom, increased wealth in low-income areas, and even decreased urban congestion. So if the benefits are so great and the capability exists, why are these technologies not widely available? Simple economics. It is much more lucrative to provide services to business customers. Although a few affluent individuals in urban areas have high speed Internet access, the great majority of Americans are limited to extremely slow communication or to none at all. That is why it is appropriate for government to step in at this time and provide an incentive to stimulate deployment of high-speed communication service to residential areas and small businesses, especially in rural and low-income areas of the country. Our country has a proud history of supporting critical services in rural and under- served communities. Three major examples are utilities, interstate highways, and the airline industries. The Rural Utilities Service is a federal credit agency within the Department of Agriculture that helps rural areas finance electric, telecommunications, water, and waste water projects. Its lending creates public-private partnerships to finance the construction of infrastructure in rural areas. Working in partnership with rural telephone cooperatives and companies, the Department of Agriculture helped boost the number of rural Americans with telephone service from 38 percent in 1950 to more than 95 percent in 1999. The federal government funded 90 to 100 percent of the cost of building the interstate highway system. The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 initiated a nationwide program that aimed to be completed within 20 years. The bulk of the program was completed within this time period, although full implementation was not achieved until the early 1990s. In the 1930s, the airline industry--much like today's Internet start- ups--was operating at a loss. Believing airline service to be both unique and necessary, the federal government stepped-in with an airmail subsidy in 1938, and this federal funding made the industry instantly profitable. The airline industry then flourished, and the subsidy was removed in the mid 1950s. In a 1979 speech titled, ``Technology and Human Freedom,'' I stated, ``I believe that government can and should seek to advance technology-- as a condition of social progress.'' I still believe that. In 1979, I went on to say, ``In my view, only a person of what St. Augustine would have termed `indomitable ignorance' could deny that technology has greatly enhanced human freedom. . . . Freedom is choice, and technology vastly enhances choice. . . . The relation between technology and democracy is intimate. . . . Experimentation, variety, optimism: these are the ingredients of both technology and democracy.'' In 1978, the late Mancur Olson, an esteemed economist, cautioned that the very liberty of societies such as ours may be the source of developments that make innovation considerably more difficult. We should guard against the prospect of our government retarding technology as Professor Olson hypothesized. The bill I introduce today encourages technology, and extends its range to those residential and business areas it otherwise would not reach until much later. We need this legislation now to maintain our technological leadership. As the press has recently reported, Sweden, Japan, Singapore, and Canada are deploying broadband at levels higher than those called for in this bill. We cannot afford to fall behind in this critical area. History indicates that, if we do not act aggressively, it will take a very long time to deploy broadband services on a widespread basis. The first regular, sustained commercial telephone services were offered in 1876, but it took more than 90 years to make the service available to 90 percent of residences in the United States. It would be deplorable if it takes even half as long to bring existing broadband technology to the same number of Americans. If the Internet is the information superhighway, broadband communication is the information super sonic transport. I want to encourage the communications industry to accelerate deployment of the this super sonic transport to every community in the country. I want to thank my colleagues for their support and collaboration on this bill. Senator John Kerry and his staff have been involved in every aspect of this legislation, and we could not have formulated the bill without their detailed knowledge of the communications industry. And Senators Rockefeller and Snowe recently introduced a similar bill focusing on the deployment of broadband in rural areas, and the legislation we introduce today incorporates and expands upon their work. This bill is meant to be a proposal. As we consider this measure, Congress may decide to modify it. Moreover, we have not yet received a revenue estimate on the bill, and if it proves to be too expensive, we will have to scale it back. It is time, however, to focus on this issue. Let us begin the discussion of how we can provide the stimulus necessary to ensure the availability of high-speed communication to every American. I urge the Senate to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and letters of support from a number of organizations appear in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today, joined by my colleagues Senators Kerry, Rockefeller, Snowe, Allard, Baucus, Breaux, Brownback, Bryan, Bunning, Burns, Daschle, Durbin, Enzi, Hollings, Hutchinson, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerrey, Landrieu, Lincoln, Mikulski, Reid, Robb, Roberts, Schumer, and Thurmond, I am introducing the Broadband Internet Access Act of 2000. This legislation provides a tax incentive to stimulate rapid deployment of high-speed communication services to residential, rural, and low-income areas. A term of art often used for high-speed communication service is ``broadband.'' The term is a remnant from the era of analog systems. It refers to the size of spectral bandwidth over which signals can be transmitted. Even though it is not essential to have wide spectra in the digital world to transmit vast amounts of data, ``broadband'' remains in our digital society's lexicon for high-speed communication or throughput. In common use, broadband connotes fast Internet access, and that is certainly part of the goal of this legislation. The grander goal, however, extends beyond simply expediting traditional Internet use. It is to deliver, in the near future, a wide array of voice, video, and data communication services, at extremely fast speeds, to all Americans. The Broadband Internet Access Act of 2000 provides graduated tax credits for deployment of high-speed communications to residential and rural communities. It gives a 10-percent credit for the deployment of at least 1.5 million bits per second downstream and 200,000 bits per second upstream to all subscribers--residential, business, and institutions--in rural and low income areas. This is essentially ``current generation'' broadband. The bill gives a 20-percent credit for the deployment of at least 22 million bits per second downstream and 10 million bits per second upstream to all subscribers in rural and low income areas, and to all residential customers in other areas. This is what we are calling ``next generation'' broadband. The bill does not dictate the technological means by which these broadband services are to be delivered. Today, the possibilities include telephone lines, cable modems, fiber optics, terrestrial wireless, and satellite wireless. In the future there may be others. Whether high-speed communications are delivered by electrons or by photons, with wires or without wires, by copper or by glass, by terrestrial or by extraterrestrial means, is immaterial. With a temporary tax credit, it is economically feasible to push national communication capabilities forward by ten or perhaps twenty years. The bill permits a variety of technological approaches to make under-served areas more economically attractive to broadband providers. Yesterday we had electronics. Today we have photonics. Tomorrow we will have some ``future-onics.'' Mr. President, as I stand before you today, the streets of Washington, D.C. and of many other major cities in this country are being torn-up to lay cables for high-speed communication. Line-of-sight communication ``dishes'' are being installed on office buildings permitting business-to-business voice, video, and data transmissions. The problem is, market forces are driving deployment of high-speed communication capabilities almost exclusively to urban businesses and wealthy households. Low-income families, exurban communities, rural businesses, and rural families are relegated to the back of the queue. The bill gives private industry economic incentives to accelerate high- speed communication capabilities to Americans who are at the end-of- the-line. Why is this important? Let me offer examples of this technology's power and importance. I start with two historical cases. During the 1950's the National Institute of Mental Health funded a 1,278- mile closed-circuit telephone system between seven state hospitals in Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Health care providers at the hospitals held weekly teleconferencing lectures via this system. By 1961, the system included both audio and video, and psychiatrists successfully used it to care for patients under a program called ``telepsychiatry.'' At about the same time, radiologists in Montreal had a coaxial cable laid between two hospitals three miles apart, thus connecting them for audio and video communications. Doctors were regularly transmitting radiographic images to each other to consult on difficult cases and to conduct educational conferences. As a result of these two projects, patients were treated by physicians who were, in some cases, hundreds of miles away. The medical profession was able to share information and ideas, which improved healthcare in this country and Canada. Unfortunately, such ``telemedicine'' links are very few, even though our ability to transmit data has increased. Why? Because there is no nationwide high-speed data-transfer infrastructure. Instead, the standard business Internet speed in rural areas is 56,000 bits per second. What can be done at that speed? Printed matter can be sent and received reasonably quickly. But photographs or graphics, require long waits, and then often with poor image quality. More advanced uses, such as video conferencing, are out of the question. At faster Internet speeds of, say, 200,000 to 300,000 bits per second, information can be sent much faster. Photographs and graphics leap to the screen, instead of crawling. Video conferencing also is possible, although jittery images and low image resolution make it impractical. Music and movies can be downloaded slowly to a compact disk. At higher data transfer speeds--about 1.5 million bits per second-- the amount and quality of information that can be transmitted becomes quite good. Very good video conferencing is possible. Two or more people in different places can see and talk to each other as if in the same room, at a crisp image resolution and without image jitter. And at even higher speeds, extraordinarily rich images of movement, color, and detail can be transmitted as if one were looking at them in person. Complex medical images can be sent and received. At twenty million bits per second, a digitized mammography image can be transmitted in about fifteen seconds, and a standard chest x-ray in about four seconds. Twenty million bits per second is about 360 times faster than the fastest speeds available on a conventional modem attached to a Plain Old Telephone Service, or, as I am told, POTS. Is it really possible to do this? Indeed, it is. The technology exists now. Over ordinary copper wire, some of our communication companies are now offering data speeds of 26 million bits per second. Imagine the tremendous personal and economic benefits our nation will reap with universal high-speed communication access, including telemedicine; telecommuting; distance learning at all education levels; electronic commerce in low-income and rural communities; digital photography; and entertainment video. As a result, we will enjoy greater educational opportunities, greater geographic freedom, increased wealth in low-income areas, and even decreased urban congestion. So if the benefits are so great and the capability exists, why are these technologies not widely available? Simple economics. It is much more lucrative to provide services to business customers. Although a few affluent individuals in urban areas have high speed Internet access, the great majority of Americans are limited to extremely slow communication or to none at all. That is why it is appropriate for government to step in at this time and provide an incentive to stimulate deployment of high-speed communication service to residential areas and small businesses, especially in rural and low-income areas of the country. Our country has a proud history of supporting critical services in rural and under- served communities. Three major examples are utilities, interstate highways, and the airline industries. The Rural Utilities Service is a federal credit agency within the Department of Agriculture that helps rural areas finance electric, telecommunications, water, and waste water projects. Its lending creates public-private partnerships to finance the construction of infrastructure in rural areas. Working in partnership with rural telephone cooperatives and companies, the Department of Agriculture helped boost the number of rural Americans with telephone service from 38 percent in 1950 to more than 95 percent in 1999. The federal government funded 90 to 100 percent of the cost of building the interstate highway system. The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 initiated a nationwide program that aimed to be completed within 20 years. The bulk of the program was completed within this time period, although full implementation was not achieved until the early 1990s. In the 1930s, the airline industry--much like today's Internet start- ups--was operating at a loss. Believing airline service to be both unique and necessary, the federal government stepped-in with an airmail subsidy in 1938, and this federal funding made the industry instantly profitable. The airline industry then flourished, and the subsidy was removed in the mid 1950s. In a 1979 speech titled, ``Technology and Human Freedom,'' I stated, ``I believe that government can and should seek to advance technology-- as a condition of social progress.'' I still believe that. In 1979, I went on to say, ``In my view, only a person of what St. Augustine would have termed `indomitable ignorance' could deny that technology has greatly enhanced human freedom. . . . Freedom is choice, and technology vastly enhances choice. . . . The relation between technology and democracy is intimate. . . . Experimentation, variety, optimism: these are the ingredients of both technology and democracy.'' In 1978, the late Mancur Olson, an esteemed economist, cautioned that the very liberty of societies such as ours may be the source of developments that make innovation considerably more difficult. We should guard against the prospect of our government retarding technology as Professor Olson hypothesized. The bill I introduce today encourages technology, and extends its range to those residential and business areas it otherwise would not reach until much later. We need this legislation now to maintain our technological leadership. As the press has recently reported, Sweden, Japan, Singapore, and Canada are deploying broadband at levels higher than those called for in this bill. We cannot afford to fall behind in this critical area. History indicates that, if we do not act aggressively, it will take a very long time to deploy broadband services on a widespread basis. The first regular, sustained commercial telephone services were offered in 1876, but it took more than 90 years to make the service available to 90 percent of residences in the United States. It would be deplorable if it takes even half as long to bring existing broadband technology to the same number of Americans. If the Internet is the information superhighway, broadband communication is the information super sonic transport. I want to encourage the communications industry to accelerate deployment of the this super sonic transport to every community in the country. I want to thank my colleagues for their support and collaboration on this bill. Senator John Kerry and his staff have been involved in every aspect of this legislation, and we could not have formulated the bill without their detailed knowledge of the communications industry. And Senators Rockefeller and Snowe recently introduced a similar bill focusing on the deployment of broadband in rural areas, and the legislation we introduce today incorporates and expands upon their work. This bill is meant to be a proposal. As we consider this measure, Congress may decide to modify it. Moreover, we have not yet received a revenue estimate on the bill, and if it proves to be too expensive, we will have to scale it back. It is time, however, to focus on this issue. Let us begin the discussion of how we can provide the stimulus necessary to ensure the availability of high-speed communication to every American. I urge the Senate to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and letters of support from a number of organizations appear in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a farmer, Army captain, Senator, and President of the United States who founded the United Nations, launched the Marshall plan, and forged the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]. As an original cosponsor of the bill to name the Federal building located at 2201 C Street, Northwest, in the District of Columbia, currently headquarters for the Department of State, as the ``Harry S Truman Federal Building.'' I am pleased that my colleagues from both sides of the aisle and in both Houses have unanimously agreed to adopt this measure. Fifty-five years ago, President Truman challenged Democrats and Republicans in his Four Point Speech to join together and lend their full support to international organizations; continue programs for world economic recovery; join with other free peoples in the defense of democracy; and draw on our country's vast storehouse of technical expertise to help people overseas help themselves in the fight against ignorance, illness, and despair. President Truman envisioned ``that what happens beyond our shores determines how we live in our own lives,'' and the American people agreed. He exemplified the very best of what we need in our elected officials. The United States is extremely fortunate to have had such a man be its Chief Executive in a time of two wars, where he presided over the fall of Germany, the ultimate surrender of Japan, and the preservation of South Korea. It is only appropriate for us to honor a man who made the United States a major force in world affairs by working with all the world for freedom and democracy. I look forward to seeing this legislation adopted, and giving President Truman the recognition he deserves for his tireless efforts to bring peace.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to express great appreciation for the confirmation of Nicholas G. Garaufis to be United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of New York. I want to thank my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, and Senator Leahy, Chairman Hatch, Senator Lott, Senator Daschle, and all Senators for confirming the nomination of Judge Garaufis. Hailing from Bayside, New York, he is a graduate of both Columbia College and Columbia School of Law and for the last five years has served as Chief Counsel for the Federal Aviation Administration. He is superbly qualified and I have every confidence he will make an excellent addition to the Eastern District Court.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. How very generous of you, Mr. President. How kind of my beloved colleague and friend. I rise with a measure of animus, if I may do, sir, this afternoon. I was one of those who, with my colleague, introduced Mr. Lynch to the Committee on the Judiciary with such very considerable pride to have that opportunity. My colleague remarked about the founders of the Constitution. I will speak in just a moment about the Columbia Law School, which precedes the Constitution, which Constitution was written in very large measure by a graduate of that law school, Alexander Hamilton, and whose first large treatise of explanation was written by Chancellor Kent, as he is known, having been chancellor of New York State, with his commentaries on the laws of the United States. It is not a small thing to become a member of that law faculty. It is a large honor carefully reserved for lawyers of successive generations who note history and demand its importance to this time. We have before us, sir, the nomination of a great lawyer--I use that carefully--who will be a superb judge. I think he might have been surprised--we would not have been surprised--that early in life and at another time he might not have chosen criminal law as his specialty. But he came of age in the bar when that was the first problem, singularly so, of the Southern District of New York. And he went to work at it. He was a serious prosecutor, sir, a successful one--a relentless one and a successful one. I want to say that, sir-- a successful one. None came into his compass charged with a crime that he did not prosecute fairly, rigorously, relentlessly, and, in the end, sir, with an extraordinary range of success--and I defer to my revered colleague-- with an extraordinary range of success. This is a man of whom criminals had never heard but, when they appeared in court with him, will never forget. This man understood that the principles of a free society require adherence to law with a reverence and respect and, if necessary, a measure of fear: Do not appear before this judge with the burden of guilt or you shall be found guilty. He has a range of intellectual pursuits. Ought not a member of the school of law that taught Alexander Hamilton and graced by Chancellor Kent and his great success--ought not there be such a range? Ought he not be able to entertain alternative ideas, examine them, and consider the possibilities? We have, sir, a wonderful symbol--I do not know in my ignorance whether it is from Greece or Rome--of Justice blindfolded, holding up a scale and weighing the evidence. He has done that in a great range of professional articles. He has done that in a long career of prosecution. And he has considered alternatives and made judgments because he is by nature a judge. He has been in the pits where judges have to make determinations from whatever is presented to them as evidence. And he knows the process. He graduated summa cum laude from Columbia Law School. He clerked for Judge Feinberg on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals --the Second Circuit, sir, the mother court, we should say--and for Justice Brennan on the Supreme Court. Over the past 23 years, he has won award upon award, including the University-wide President's Award for Outstanding Teaching in 1997. He is nationally known as a criminal law expert, for his writings, and particularly his writings on racketeering law. I come before the Senate to say there has not been a finer judge proposed by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. We are honored to have him before the Senate. I prayerfully hope none of us ever appear before him.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Library of Congress on the occasion of its Bicentennial. Since April 24, 1800, when President John Adams created the Library, it has stood as the foremost research library in the world. But more importantly it has been a symbol of the public's freedom of access to information, an idea which is the bedrock of our Republic. The history of the Library of Congress is filled with some rather compelling stories. The early days of the Library were turbulent, to say the least. In 1813, in what may not have been our nation's proudest moment, American troops burned the Parliament House and the Library of Canada in present day Toronto. Seeking revenge, a year later British troops stormed into Washington, burned the White House and the Capitol, including the original Library of Congress. Recognizing that this national treasure must be restored, the then retired Thomas Jefferson offered his personal library at Monticello as a replacement. Today the Library is the most comprehensive library in the country, and is almost completely open to the public. It is more than just Congress' library, it is the nation's source of knowledge. This year we have been marking the Library's 200th anniversary. It comes as no surprise that the centerpiece of this year's Bicentennial celebration is the Local Legacies Project, a volunteer project that celebrates America's history, culture, and folklore. With this exhibit the Library will showcase important events, places, and people from around the nation--things that help define who we are as Americans and what this country is all about. I am proud that five projects from across New York State which I designated have been included as part of the Local Legacies Project. They are the Little Falls Canal Celebration, Winter Olympics at Lake Placid (Olympic Regional Development Authority), Summer at Jones Beach (New York State Parks), ``Immigrant Life in New York'' (Lower East Side Tenement Museum), and the Allentown Arts Festival. I believe that these events, along with those other projects nominated by my colleagues from the New York Congressional Delegation, represent the diversity and rich history that is New York State. The Lower East Side Tenement museum shows how New York City's large and diverse immigrant culture lived upon beginning their new lives in America. Jones Beach represents the many recreation opportunities our state offers and how families spend time together. The Little Falls Canal Celebration is about the history of our State's industrial development and the pride a local community has taken in that history. Were it not for the Erie Canal, New York would not be the Empire State. Lake Placid, home of two Winter Olympics is about New York's rich sports history. It also is a showcase for the beauty and majesty of the Adirondack Mountains. Finally, the Allentown Arts Festival is about our commitment to the arts, something which can be seen across the State but especially in Allentown. It was one of the great and inspired choices of our predecessors in the Congress to purchase Thomas Jefferson's personal library, and thereafter establish the Library of Congress. As New Yorkers, with our Public Library, we truly understand the eminence of the Library of Congress. It is the largest research library in this country, and indeed the world. The Local Legacies Project is a fitting way to celebrate this great treasure. The Library is about preserving and disseminating knowledge about many things, but especially about this great nation. The Local Legacies project is about commemorating and showcasing that knowledge.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable woman, Alice Fuller. At the age of 81, she has two adult daughters, six grandchildren, and nine great grandchildren. She manages a thirteen-acre farm and garden, and still spoils her family with homemade rolls and baked goods at every family dinner. Her stamina and good-nature should be an inspiration to all Americans. A native of Missouri, she moved with her family to California in 1936, and in 1941, she married and moved to Oregon. Irrespective of her southern and western roots, she is an enthusiastic and loyal fan of the New York Yankees. On Mother's Day, The Register-Guard of Eugene, Oregon included the following story on this, ``One Tough Mom.'' Mr. President, I ask that this statement and the following article be printed in the Record. A Farmer's Instinct (By Kimber Williams, The Register-Guard) Veneta.--Seated on a stack of newspapers astride her John Deere tractor, dragging a brush cutter around her 13-acre farm, she looks no bigger than a child. At 81, Alice Fuller is small--her slim, delicate limbs whittled by the inevitable bending and shrinkage that come with the years. Steadied by a wooden cane, she stands at 4 feet 6 inches and weighs maybe 91 pounds. Don't be fooled. She's still got plenty of horsepower. Fuller has lived alone since her husband's death, tending her beloved garden and fruit trees, hauling in wood to heat her home--she prefers wood heat--cooking and baking her famous from-scratch dinner rolls. As always, keeping her place up. Hard work is the essential rhythm to her life--as sure and steady as her own heartbeat. As the daughter of Missouri sharecroppers, Fuller grew up working the land. Corn and wheat and oats, watermelon and canteloupe. She quit school early to help her brothers, the baby of the family intent on carrying her own weight. It was a good life, an honest life. But she would never tell you that it's been hard. Like many children of the Depression--like mothers everywhere--she simply did what had to be done. As a wife and mother in rural Oregon, Fuller learned to run a chicken ranch--raising up to 75,000 chickens five times a year. She could clean and dress 100 chickens, dissect a chicken and tell you what killed it, then turn around and fry up a batch for dinner. Once, when Fuller left to visit her own ailing mother, she returned to find that someone had left a chicken house door unlatched. Cows had wandered in among the 15,000 maturing broilers, sending terrified chickens scrambling. Smothered chickens were stacked in every corner of the chicken house. Without complaint, she went to work slaughtering and dressing a couple of hundred chickens. Fuller's Poultry Farm is behind her now, but the will to work remains, a siren song even in her waning years. Work is the call that propels her out of bed each morning. It gives her purpose and keeps her moving. Call it a farmer's instinct. It is the only life she has known. She is blessed with both extraordinary drive and internal blinders that allow her to ignore many barriers of age--much to the consternation of her grown daughters, Evelyn McIntyre and Judy Bicknell, who view their tiny, determined mother with love, gratitude and amazement. If there is a problem, Fuller tackles it. That simple. ``When a water pipe broke earlier this year, Mom went out in the rain, muck and mud, and dug the hole for the plumber to be able to fix the pipe,'' McIntyre recalled. ``She falls often, and in fact, fell into the hole, but climbed back out and went right back to digging. ``I don't think Mom ever, ever thought there was anything she couldn't do.'' At this, Fuller can't keep quiet. ``Well there's one thing that I can't do, much to my daughters' delight,'' she said with a good-natured grumble. ``There are four chain saws out in the shop, and I can't start one of them. It's been so frustrating to me, and I don't think anything could make them happier.'' It might be hard to imagine a 91-pound woman with arms as slight as a 10-year-old's waving around a roaring chain saw. But you don't know Fuller. There's still a touch of flame in her once-auburn hair, and a bit of fire in her belly. ``Oh, I'm pretty reckless,'' she jokes with a wave of her hand. ``I stalled the John Deere yesterday--tried to put it between two trees. The tractor would make it, but the brush cutter wouldn't. Had to get out the Oliver, the big tractor, to get her out.'' It's like her. Over the years, she has developed a habit of depending on herself. Once, while climbing a metal ladder to check a feed bin on a rainy day, she discovered a short in the electric auger that moved chicken feed into the bin. Her hand froze to the ladder, fixed with an electrical current. It wouldn't budge. ``Well, the girls had gone to school, my husband had gone to work and there I stood. I could not let loose of this ladder,'' she chuckled. ``It was about 9 in the morning, and I decided I couldn't possibly stand there all day.'' With her left hand, Fuller grabbed the fingers of her right hand, carefully prying each one off the metal. ``They just stayed stiff until they were all off,'' she smiled. ``I was kind of lucky that time.'' Other times, she wasn't so lucky. A cow kick that led to knee surgery. A broken ankle. A torn rib cartilage from a fall off a ladder. The rigors of farm life. ``Once she rode her riding mower under a sign, but was looking behind her and forgot to duck,'' McIntyre recalled. ``She hurt her neck quite a bit, but at the hospital the doctors couldn't read the X-rays of the bones in her neck to tell if anything had been broken because of so many arthritic changes in her bones. Fuller wasn't one to complain. ``Mom always gave us the feeling that we could and should accomplish the next challenge before us,'' McIntyre added. ``She demanded absolute honesty--always counted her change and checked the clerk's math, but would just as readily return an error in her favor as point out when she was short- changed. ``One tough mom,'' she added. ``She's ours and we love her.'' Ask Fuller where she finds strength, and she shrugs. She doesn't give advice to others. She knows what she knows. And what she knows is work. She'll tell you that she's slowed down. ``Not nearly as active as I once was,'' Fuller insisted, a wistful note in her voice. But in the same breath, she talks about the tasks before her. It's spring out at her place, with calla lilies unfurling and bleeding hearts and sword ferns awakening in the shade of towering fir trees. Tall grass stretches upward beneath gentle spring rain, a yard demanding to be mown. There is a garden to plant, nearly an acre of raspberry bushes to tend, fruit trees in flower and a grape arbor that promises 40 to 50 quarts of grape juice this summer. There are jobs to be done. And that's enough.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to give praise and recognition to one of my fellow New Yorkers who has devoted his life to helping heal the wounds of crime. Thomas Alessandro recently received the Crime Victim Service Award from Attorney General Janet Reno. I rise today to echo that recognition and to briefly describe Mr. Alessandro's innovation and tireless work in this field. The Crime Victim Service Award was given to Mr. Alessandro as part of the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime's 20th annual observance of National Crime Victims' Rights Week, held this year from April 9 to April 15. This week of observance enables communities across the country to recognize the millions of Americans who have felt the burdens of crime and those who have enabled them to navigate the difficult and often complex path to justice. This highlights the efforts of Mr. Alessandro and other outstanding individuals by drawing attention to their cause, and praising all citizens of the Nation who work toward this laudable ideal. As part of this week of recognition the Attorney General awarded the Crime Victim Service award to Mr. Alessandro, four other individuals, four organizations and two families. Mr. Alessandro was selected from 110 nominees for the award because of his outstanding progress and innovation in the field of crime victim service, the highest federal award for service to victims of crime. Mr. Alessandro is a shining example of how our law enforcement officials should protect justice and help victims of injustice seek healing. Mr. Alessandro has dedicated the last 22 years of his life to the service of crime victims. One of his most astounding innovations was the development of the Victims Aid Services into a comprehensive program addressing the needs of all crime victims who come to the New York County District Attorney's Office. Additionally, Mr. Alessandro forged many public and private sector partnerships to strive toward the goal of justice. Among these partnerships and organizational enhancements, he established a counseling department and created a child victim specialist division. These additional tools allow the New York District Attorney's Office to protect the rights of victims not only in the form of conviction of criminals, but also in the form of healing the emotional scars of the victim especially the young victim. This second step is essential to making this society healthier and safer. The counseling staff is now made up of certified clinical social workers who provide individual and group therapy for victims. It is my honor to rise in recognition of this great man who actualizes this ideal. In addition to counseling services, Mr. Alessandro has directed the development of new technology to increase the efficiency and availability of victim services, including protection order tracing and victim notification systems. He has forged partnerships with private sector organizations, including the AT&T Cell Phone Project, which, along with additional services, provides crime victims with 911 programmed cell phones for use in emergencies. Mr. Alessandro's commitment to the needs of crime victims does not stop when he leaves the office. His tireless efforts continue into volunteer service. Beyond his professional role, Mr. Alessandro has been actively involved with numerous other state and local initiatives, such as the development of the New York city Victim Information and Notification System. For these accomplishments and innovations in this heroic field I rise to thank Thomas Alessandro and to draw this institution's attention to his outstanding work in this field.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky and I rise today to submit, along with several of our distinguished colleagues, a resolution commemorating the 10th anniversary of free and fair elections in Burma. On May 27, 1990, the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, won a majority of the parliamentary seats in the elections. This was a great victory for the champions of democracy and human rights in Burma. However, the Burmese military arbitrarily annulled the results and arrested Aung San Suu Kyi and hundreds of NLD members. Others were forced to flee, and the people's freedoms of assembly, speech and the press were severely restricted. Today, the steady erosion of human rights continues under the heavy hand of the military regime known as the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). This resolution calls upon the SPDC to guarantee basic freedoms to its people; accept a political dialogue with the NLD and other Burmese political leaders; and to comply with human rights agreements and resolutions emanating from such bodies as the United Nations General Assembly, the European Union, and the International Labor Organization. The struggle in Burma is not over. The 1999 Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Burma identifies more than 1,300 people who continue to suffer as political prisoners. A recent study traced the distribution patterns of different HIV strains to paths of heroin traffic originating from the country. As a New York Times editorial wrote on March 16, 2000, ``The cruelty of * * * Burma is increasingly a regional problem that threatens to destabilize its Southeast Asian neighbors with refugees, narcotics and now AIDS.'' I urge my colleagues to pass this important resolution.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. After a vote on final passage, this would be entirely in order, and if a resolution is to be offered, then you could deal with the resolution; but you could not deal with it now, is that right? I ask that question of the majority leader.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. After we have a vote on final passage, then these matters would be entirely in order, correct?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, might I ask the distinguished and forbearing majority leader, if we have a vote on the African trade bill, if the Senator from New Jersey could speak to the matter he is discussing?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I concur with my distinguished colleagues from Iowa.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this was a momentous moment for the Senate, for the Nation, and for the world. We have passed the first trade bill in 6 years, having rejected others and having come about in the aftermath of very dim expectations. From no chance whatever, we have come to the point where this bill passed by 77 votes. It could not have happened without the majority leader, who personally convened meetings in his office day after day. There were mind-numbing details about thread, yarn, square meter equivalents, hundreds, millions--but it came about. Senator Roth, our chairman, who could not be here today, will be back next week. He put this matter through the Finance Committee nearly unanimously. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the staff who not only did this, but did it until dawn, day after day--or should I say night after night. They are, on the majority staff: Frank Polk, Grant Aldonas, Faryar Shirzad, Tim Keeler, and Carrie Clark. On the majority leader's staff: Dave Hoppe and Jim Hecht. On our minority staff: David Podoff, Debbie Lamb, Linda Menghetti, and Timothy Hogan. Plus majority and minority tax staffs because tariffs are taxes, we had: Mark Prater, Ed McClellan, Russ Sullivan, Cary Pugh, Anita Horn, and Mitchell Kent. And a very special word of thanks to Polly Craighill, Senate Legislative Counsel, who labored with the committee staff long into the night. Once again, I say to my dear colleague, Senator Grassley, who carried the matter so brilliantly on the other side, not every day do we pass a trade bill 4-1. Thank you. And I again thank the majority leader. The Nation is in his debt.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Fine. I would simply close by saying, sir, as to the matter of worker rights, the amendment to the CBI legislation offered on this matter was offered by Senator Levin, which I cosponsored. It provided that the President must take into account the extent to which a prospective CBI beneficiary country protects internationally recognized worker rights. That is to say, the core labor standards established by the ILO. I report to the Senate that this was retained in the conference agreement, as were many other Senate amendments. I thank the Chair and I regret having imposed upon my colleague's time.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I do thank my colleague, who will be speaking momentarily. I want to simply recapitulate some of the statements made yesterday, of which the first and the most important is to say this is the first trade bill to come to the floor of the Senate in 6 years. It is not simply that there have not been matters to attend to, it is rather that we have not been able to attend to them. Most important, we have been unable to provide the President with negotiating authority for future trade agreements in the manner that developed over the last half century, following the epochal decision and action in the first term of President Roosevelt under Cordell Hull to begin the reciprocal trade agreements program. Under that program, the United States negotiated with individual countries, and then after World War II with a group of countries gathered together under the umbrella of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 gave the President the authority to negotiate and proclaim tariff reductions and that procedure evolved, in 1974, into the trade agreements negotiating authority, whereby the Congress gave the President the opportunity to reach a common agreement with other countries and then send it to the Congress to be approved up or down, not to be negotiated item by item as we had done in the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930. We have never had a tariff bill as such on the Senate floor in 70 years. The administration was hesitant about asking the Congress to renew this authority. When finally it did, we were hesitant about giving it, and it looked for a while as if an enormous, a momentous event in the world economy and the American economy and in the political stability of the world was being lost. The role of trade has become so important. Many of the principal actors in the Second World War were at war with each other in very much trade-related matters. It would now be thought inconceivable for any such conflict to take place. I say this because not only was this the first bill in six years, but yesterday we began our debate on an auspicious note with a resounding vote of 90-6 in support of the motion to proceed to the conference report, and now we will vote to invoke cloture. I trust we will do so with the same resounding vote. This is a good bill. It is not perfect, nor will it solve all the economic problems of sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, but it will help, as Senator Grassley and others said yesterday. My esteemed colleague, the Senator from Iowa, is here representing Senator Roth, the chairman of our committee, who is recovering from surgery and who will be back with us next week when on next Wednesday we will take up in the Finance Committee the proposition of permanent normal trade relations with China, an epic decision we will have to make and which I think we will be able to make in the context of this legislation having succeeded. I remind all who might be listening that 6 months ago, this legislation was dead. It was not going anywhere. The House had passed a measure limited to Africa and not very well received over here. They had not included anything for the Caribbean Basin and Central America, as we call it, a program begun under President Reagan, and the Finance Committee took it up. The Finance Committee worked for 6 months on this matter. I know there are persons who feel it is unacceptable because it does not contain provisions that provide for assistance to sub-Saharan Africa with respect to HIV/AIDS. I say to my friends, the Senate did have such a provision. We fought for it in conference. We were not able to succeed because on the House side it was thought the legislation was a trade measure and public health issues were not relevant. But also, absent economic development, there will be no controlling this epidemic in Africa, anymore than in the subcontinent of Asia, and we will not have anything in which to begin an engagement on these matters--nothing. Anyone who comes to this body thinking that legislation which is not perfect is unacceptable will often be disappointed. I was disappointed with the extent to which persons spoke yesterday about rejecting this legislation because it was not perfect. I note that the Foreign Relations Committee has reported out a measure, S. 2382, the Technical Assistance, Trade Promotion and Anti- Corruption Act of 2000, which includes some important provisions addressing this public health crisis. Other suggestions are under review. These include proposed tax incentives to promote vaccine development. These tax incentives will come to the Finance Committee. I am sure my friend from Iowa will agree that Senators who accept what we have done today, even if not perfect, will find a much more receptive Finance Committee. We have worked very hard on this. We know perfectly well the facts, and we propose to address them in a context where we will have a tax bill. We will try to get a tax bill on the House side, and we will enact something of much greater consequence than anything now contemplated. I offer a further thought, which is that on May 3, the Wall Street Journal reported, and I was advised of this in advance, that the Pfizer pharmaceutical company--one of the oldest, the one which developed penicillin during World War II, the British having discovered it and not having the capacity to produce it; a great firm with great successes--had offered to provide one of its drug therapies for HIV infection, called Diflucan, at no cost to South Africans. There is a press announcement from Geneva this morning that five pharmaceutical companies--Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Glaxo Wellcome, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roche--are participating in a collaborative initiative with the United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, which is termed UNAIDS to ``explore ways to accelerate and improve the provision of HIV/AIDS-related care and treatment in developing countries.'' Does the Presiding Officer wish me to cease and desist?

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I see my friend from Florida is here, so I am happy to yield to him. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.