Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Who is meeting this morning with the President of Nigeria who is here to talk about that.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Senator spoke of those who oppose this legislation. I believe we voted to move to this legislation by a vote of 90-8?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Well, then doesn't the Senator think we should find a way around our self-imposed restraints and vote?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will the distinguished chairman yield for a question?

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. In 1934.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Right.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate our revered chairman for his achievement in a partisan setting. I think it is generally agreed that this Congress has not been one governed from the center. Here we have major legislation brought to the floor by near unanimous vote of the Committee on Finance and with extraordinary support across the country. I wish to make two points, the first to the question of Trade Adjustment Assistance. It goes back 37 years as an integral measure in our trade policy. As Dean Acheson might say, I was present at the creation. I was an Assistant Secretary of Labor, one of three delegates who negotiated the Long-Term Cotton Textile Agreement which was necessary to win the votes in the Senate for authorizing what became the Kennedy Round. When we came back with that agreement, the issue arose, if we were to open up trade, there would inevitably be persons displaced--just as jobs were created, jobs would be lost. There is nothing complex in the calculation nor very complex in identifying just whom you are talking about. We started Trade Adjustment Assistance. It has worked. We included a comparable provision in the NAFTA implementing legislation. In Fiscal Year 1998, we had 150,000 workers eligible to receive Trade Adjustment Assistance; last year, we had 200,000 eligible workers. Those are rounded numbers. This is an active program. There are families who are displaced in the world economy, and they are living off this transitional benefit-- 200,000 eligible workers. That is not a small number. The authorization for this program, that has been integral to our trade policy for 37 years, expired on June 30. The appropriation expires on Friday; on Saturday, it is no more. And when it can come back, how it comes back-- have we seen many things started of late in this Congress or the previous ones? No. Now, those are lives of American workers we are talking about, just as President Kennedy talked about them. John Pastore of Rhode Island was very vigorous on this matter, and many Members of the Senate who are marked in history by their capacity to see the large national interest. One other matter: The chairman noted the meeting which the Committee on Finance had with the group of presidents, vice presidents, and foreign ministers from Central America, ranging from Trinidad and Tobago all the way up to Honduras. It took place just off the Senate floor in the LBJ Room. It was a special occasion. They came here as representatives of elected governments asking to trade. They weren't asking for foreign aid. They weren't asking for military assistance. They were simply asking to become part of the trading system of the western hemisphere in that Monroe Doctrine context about which the chairman spoke. It already seems to have happened long ago. In the 1980s, we spent $8 billion sending arms to Central America, with precious little to show for it. A good enough outcome in the end, but the weaponry was everywhere, on all sides--a fantastic miscalculation, in my view, in my view at the time. I will give my colleagues a moment's recollection. It was 1983. I was in El Salvador in the capital of San Salvador having breakfast with the president and provost of the University of Central America, a Jesuit institution. At that time, the United States was going through enormous efforts to prevent the Sandinistas in Nicaragua from smuggling arms to their rebel counterparts in El Salvador. I asked the President and the provost, with whom I had a relationship through a professor at the University of Chicago, ``Father, are the Sandinistas sending weapons to El Salvador?'' He said, ``No.'' I said, ``No? Well, surely they had been.'' He said, ``Yes.'' I asked, ``And they don't any longer?'' He said, ``No. You do.'' Every day, the skies over Salvador were filled with American planes bringing in weaponry, which was promptly divided--half for the government, a quarter for the rebels, and a quarter for the international arms market. And what a better thing now to be talking about trade. And we have stability. If we want to ensure it, there has to be an economic basis. This legislation does so and, again, and finally, there are 200,000 American families entitled to trade adjustment assistance, which expires on Friday after a 37-year run as part of the American safety net as a condition of expanding trade. Let's not let them down. We can do this if only we will do it together, as we did in the Finance Committee. I only hope the same can be repeated on the Senate floor. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see my friend from South Carolina who is seeking recognition.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Public Information Disclosure Act, a bill that seeks to add to our citizens' knowledge of how and why our country made many of its key national security decisions since the end of World War II. This bill creates a mechanism for comprehensively reviewing and declassifying, whenever possible, records of extraordinary public interest that demonstrate and record this country's most significant and important national security policies, actions, and decisions. As James Madison once wrote, ``A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.'' Acquiring this knowledge has become increasingly difficult since World War II's end, when we witnessed the rise of a vast national security apparatus that encompasses thousands of employees and over 1.5 billion classified documents that are 25 years or older. Secrecy, in the end, is a form of regulation. And I concede that regulation of state secrets is often necessary to protect national security. But how much needs to be regulated after having aged 25 years or more? The warehousing and withholding of these documents and materials not only impoverish our country's historical record but retard our collective understanding of how and why the United States acted as it did. This means that we have less chance to learn from what has gone before; both mistakes and triumphs fall through the cracks of our collective history, making it much harder to resolve key questions about our past and to chart our future actions. On the other hand, greater openness makes it more possible for the government to explain itself and to defend its actions, a not so unimportant thing when one recalls Richard Hofstader's warning in his classic 1964 essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics: ``The distinguishing thing about the paranoid style is not that its exponents see conspiracies here and there in history, but they regard a `vast' or `gigantic' conspiracy, set in motion by demonic forces of almost transcendent power as the motive force in historical events.'' A poll taken in 1993 found that three-quarters of those surveyed believed that President Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy involving the CIA, renegade elements of our military, and organized crime. The Grassy Knoll continues to cut a wide path across our national consciousness. The classified materials withheld from the Warren Commission, several of our actions in Vietnam, and Watergate have only added to the American people's distrust of the Federal government. Occasionally, though, the government has drawn back its cloak of secrecy and made substantial contributions to our national understanding. In 1995, the CIA and the NSA agreed to declassify the Venona intercepts, our highly secretive effort that ranged over four decades to decode the Soviet Union's diplomatic traffic. Much of this traffic centered on identifying Soviet spies, one of the cardinal preoccupations of that hateful era we call ``McCarthyism.'' These releases made at least one thing crystal clear: Their timely release decades ago would have dimmed the klieg lights on many who were innocent and shown them more brightly on those who truly were guilty. It would have been an important contribution during a time when the innocent and the guilty were ensnared in the same net. Today, Congress plays a pivotal role in declassification through so- called ``special searches.'' Generally, these involve a member of Congress or the White House asking the intelligence community to search its records on specific subjects. These have ranged from Pinochet to murdered American church women to President Kennedy's assassination. However, these good intentions often produce neither good results nor good history. Sadly, most of these searches have been done poorly, costing millions of dollars and consuming untold hours of labor. Several have been performed repeatedly. Special searches on murdered American church women, for example, have been done nine separate times. Yet there are still several important questions that have yet to be answered. The CIA alone has been asked to do 33 ``special searches'' since 1998. Part of the problem is that Congress lacks a centralized, rational way of addressing these requests. This bill establishes a nine-member board composed of outside experts who can filter and steer these searches, all the while seeking maximum efficiency and disclosure. The other part of the problem lies in how the intelligence community has conducted these searches. It is imperative that searches are carried out in a comprehensive manner. This is not only cheaper in the long run but produces a much more accurate record of our history. One cannot do Pinochet, for example, and not do Chile under his rule at the same time. To do otherwise skews history too much and creates too many blind spots, all leading to more questions and more searches. This does a disservice not only to those asking for these searches but to the American people who have to pay for ad hoc, poorly done declassification. If we do it right the first time, then we can forgo much inefficiency. Many of these special searches ask vital questions about this nation's role in many disturbing events. We must see, therefore, that they are done correctly and responsibly. This legislation, if passed, would improve Congress' role in declassification, making it an instrumental arm in the de-cloaking and re-democratization of our national history. Indeed, anything less would cheat our citizens, undermine their trust in our institutions, and erode our democratic values.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am aware there are other Senators who wish to speak. I will only take a moment to thank our chairman, our revered chairman, for his comments, with which I wholly agree, with which the Finance Committee entirely agrees. This bill comes to you, as he has said, from a near unanimous committee. Ninety Senators voted, just yesterday, to move forward. I would just say, sir, I wish we could have all been present this afternoon when the Congressional Gold Medal was presented to President Ford and Mrs. Ford in the Rotunda. The President gave a wonderful speech, describing the Congress he came into, just as the Cold War commenced; the extraordinary efforts that the 80th Congress made to pass the Marshall Plan, for which they were not entirely rewarded by President Truman, who kept talking about the ``do-nothing'' 80th Congress. But there you are. Then came President Eisenhower and the movement to establish NATO and to fund NATO, in which Speaker Rayburn, Majority Leader Johnson, and great Republicans joined in that matter. Of his life in politics, in government, he said: I came in and I remained a moderate on social issues, a fiscal conservative on fiscal issues, and a convinced internationalist. That is the America that fought in the dark, that long struggle about which John F. Kennedy talked. And we prevailed. The totalitarian 20th century is behind us. Freedoms open up. Are we now to close down at just the moment when everything we have stood for as a nation, from the time of Cordell Hull and the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934--every measure we are talking about in this bill, no, it is not the final end-all effort; it is a part of a continuing effort that goes back to Trade Adjustment Assistance. It was established in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. I was involved in writing that legislation. It said, if you have trade, there will be winners, there will be losers. We will look after the people who are temporarily, as it turns out, disrupted, as economic patterns, trade patterns change. In 48 hours, or 52 hours, the appropriation for the program, supported by every President since President Kennedy, expires. The authorization in fact ended on June 30. Can we let that happen? Can we believe that we would do this? Surely not. But unless we are urgently attentive to the matters before us, and work out what are technical differences, it will go down; and we will be remembered for ending an era of enormous expansion and example to the rest of the world, which the Western World is just beginning to follow on. It is hard to believe. But listen to what the chairman said and hope in the next 24 hours we can do this, because we can. And, sir, we must. Under the rules, President Ford, I believe, has free access to the floor. I wish he would come on here and talk to each of us one on one.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Public Information Disclosure Act, a bill that seeks to add to our citizens' knowledge of how and why our country made many of its key national security decisions since the end of World War II. This bill creates a mechanism for comprehensively reviewing and declassifying, whenever possible, records of extraordinary public interest that demonstrate and record this country's most significant and important national security policies, actions, and decisions. As James Madison once wrote, ``A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.'' Acquiring this knowledge has become increasingly difficult since World War II's end, when we witnessed the rise of a vast national security apparatus that encompasses thousands of employees and over 1.5 billion classified documents that are 25 years or older. Secrecy, in the end, is a form of regulation. And I concede that regulation of state secrets is often necessary to protect national security. But how much needs to be regulated after having aged 25 years or more? The warehousing and withholding of these documents and materials not only impoverish our country's historical record but retard our collective understanding of how and why the United States acted as it did. This means that we have less chance to learn from what has gone before; both mistakes and triumphs fall through the cracks of our collective history, making it much harder to resolve key questions about our past and to chart our future actions. On the other hand, greater openness makes it more possible for the government to explain itself and to defend its actions, a not so unimportant thing when one recalls Richard Hofstader's warning in his classic 1964 essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics: ``The distinguishing thing about the paranoid style is not that its exponents see conspiracies here and there in history, but they regard a `vast' or `gigantic' conspiracy, set in motion by demonic forces of almost transcendent power as the motive force in historical events.'' A poll taken in 1993 found that three-quarters of those surveyed believed that President Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy involving the CIA, renegade elements of our military, and organized crime. The Grassy Knoll continues to cut a wide path across our national consciousness. The classified materials withheld from the Warren Commission, several of our actions in Vietnam, and Watergate have only added to the American people's distrust of the Federal government. Occasionally, though, the government has drawn back its cloak of secrecy and made substantial contributions to our national understanding. In 1995, the CIA and the NSA agreed to declassify the Venona intercepts, our highly secretive effort that ranged over four decades to decode the Soviet Union's diplomatic traffic. Much of this traffic centered on identifying Soviet spies, one of the cardinal preoccupations of that hateful era we call ``McCarthyism.'' These releases made at least one thing crystal clear: Their timely release decades ago would have dimmed the klieg lights on many who were innocent and shown them more brightly on those who truly were guilty. It would have been an important contribution during a time when the innocent and the guilty were ensnared in the same net. Today, Congress plays a pivotal role in declassification through so- called ``special searches.'' Generally, these involve a member of Congress or the White House asking the intelligence community to search its records on specific subjects. These have ranged from Pinochet to murdered American church women to President Kennedy's assassination. However, these good intentions often produce neither good results nor good history. Sadly, most of these searches have been done poorly, costing millions of dollars and consuming untold hours of labor. Several have been performed repeatedly. Special searches on murdered American church women, for example, have been done nine separate times. Yet there are still several important questions that have yet to be answered. The CIA alone has been asked to do 33 ``special searches'' since 1998. Part of the problem is that Congress lacks a centralized, rational way of addressing these requests. This bill establishes a nine-member board composed of outside experts who can filter and steer these searches, all the while seeking maximum efficiency and disclosure. The other part of the problem lies in how the intelligence community has conducted these searches. It is imperative that searches are carried out in a comprehensive manner. This is not only cheaper in the long run but produces a much more accurate record of our history. One cannot do Pinochet, for example, and not do Chile under his rule at the same time. To do otherwise skews history too much and creates too many blind spots, all leading to more questions and more searches. This does a disservice not only to those asking for these searches but to the American people who have to pay for ad hoc, poorly done declassification. If we do it right the first time, then we can forgo much inefficiency. Many of these special searches ask vital questions about this nation's role in many disturbing events. We must see, therefore, that they are done correctly and responsibly. This legislation, if passed, would improve Congress' role in declassification, making it an instrumental arm in the de-cloaking and re-democratization of our national history. Indeed, anything less would cheat our citizens, undermine their trust in our institutions, and erode our democratic values.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise once more to thank our dear colleague, the Senator from Oregon, for his remarks and his typically self-effacing mode. He said we may not have the last word. Indeed, we may not. But we have the first word. We have to do this together; that is, both sides of the aisle. We can. He and the Senator from Maine have the votes. But we need a vehicle. His most important point is that medication is now making that great move from treatment of disease to prevention. That is always the great advance in health for everyone. The single most important health measures that we have done in the last century have been to clean up our water supplies so that we don't get ill. These drugs do the same. He is right. I am with him. I yield the floor, sir.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, as have so many of our colleagues today, I rise to speak in memory of and in praise of John Chafee. He was my dearest friend for nigh onto a quarter century. We came to the Senate together in 1977. As it happens, we were both appointed to the same committees. As we all know, the life of a Senator very much depends on the committees he or she is appointed to and the amount of time that they remain on those committees. We were appointed to the Committee on Finance with its enormous range of jurisdiction, and to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Only recently at that point had the ``environment'' come up and made its way onto the title of what had previously been a Public Works Committee. We worked together on both committees from the very first. These are exceptional committees. Possibly because of the great common interests that are dealt with, they have been exceptionally bipartisan committees. I point out at this point we have three measures before the Senate: The trade legislation which we will go to tomorrow morning, the tax extender legislation which we must get to, and the Medicare and Medicaid amendments to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. All three of these measures come to the floor with practically unanimous agreement. Two cases were unanimous; on another, just a voice vote with two dissents. John Chafee, ranking Republican, as Senator Roth, the chairman, would agree, was part of this consensus development from the first. He was instinctively a man of this body, and the national interests always came first. I can recall an occasion on the Committee on Environment and Public Works when we took a vote and afterwards John said: Hold it, hold it, did we just have a vote along party lines? We haven't had one of those in 15 years on this committee. It happened we had one, and that moment passed. He was deeply involved in environmental matters--the world environment as well as our own. I tended to emphasize public works, and we had a remarkably reinforcing and effective time, or so we like to think. Everyone has commented on his work. On the Finance Committee--which not everyone understands is, in fact, also the health committee of the Senate--we deal with Medicare and Medicaid. John did a great many things. The one that was so typical and wonderful was to transmute gradually --over a quarter century--the Medicaid program from a program of health insurance for persons on welfare under title IV(a) of the Social Security Act such that we confined the population who could benefit to those persons who were dependent on welfare and added another incentive to dependency. He slowly moved this program to a health insurance program for low-income Americans. It was brilliantly done, not least of all because he never said he was instituting it; it just happened at his insistent and consistent behest. The last great matter we addressed together was the effort to postpone, so as not to reject, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. He was deeply involved with that. It is perhaps not easily accessible to others now that he was of a generation--I suppose I was of that generation--who can very arguably be said to owe their lives to the atom bomb. He was with marines already in the Solomon Islands. I was in the Navy; I would soon be on a landing craft. We were all headed for Honshu. The war would go on but then stopped because of that terrible, difficult, necessary decision President Truman made. It was the most natural thing in the world for someone such as John Chafee to spend the rest of his life, in effect, trying to ensure that such a terrible act never was repeated. He was deeply attached to maintaining the essentials of the antiballistic missile program and believed that a rejection of the test ban treaty would then lead to our insisting on that. He did not prevail, but he was witnessed, as he was all of his life, as a man of valor, a man of courage, and such a decent man. He was chairman of the Republican Conference. Around 1990, I believe, he was challenged, and openly--legitimately, in politics of our type-- as too liberal. It was a very close contest, decided by a single vote. Another colleague of his from that side of the aisle, of course, thought the honorable thing to do was to tell him in advance that he would be voting against Senator Chafee's role as party conference chairman and came over to John on the floor and told him this. It was, in effect, devastating news. John's reaction was, ``Oh, dear.'' Never a word of acrimony. He told me about it smiling the next day. He was hurting a bit, but he smiled even then. He was so wide in his concerns and his empathy and his sympathy. I can only say all of us deal with special interests; we all have special interests. But the only one I can identify with him was the Rhode Island Jewelry Manufacturers. Never did a trade bill pass through our committee without a little essay by him on the subject of the necessity to protect this important sector of the American economy; and he did, and without difficulty. If he wanted it, we wanted him to have it. I close with the lines of W.B. Yeats, a wonderful poem, ``The Municipal Gallery Revisited,'' which concludes: Think where man's glory most begins and ends. And say my glory was I had such friends. We, all of us, share in that as we contemplate our loss, a loss which is more than made up by the great glory of his friendship. Liz and I send our deepest love to Ginny and to his family. I yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. There is no objection.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I must say how delighted I am that the Senate has just confirmed Richard K. Eaton to be a Judge of the United States Court of International Trade. I have known Dick for nearly a quarter-century: he volunteered to work on my first campaign for the United States Senate in 1976. I was so impressed with his abilities, I asked him to run my Oneonta office. Later, he ran my New York City office. Then he moved to Washington to serve as my legislative director and--on two separate occasions--as my chief of staff. Dick Eaton lives in Georgetown with his wife Susan Henshaw Jones and their two delightful daughters, Alice and Liza. He is a partner in the New York law firm of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP. He was also a partner in Mudge Rose Guthrie Alexander & Ferdon. His practice has been varied, but includes work on some of the largest offerings of municipal securities in American history and appearances on behalf of clients in civil lawsuits in both State and Federal Courts. I suppose I have always thought of Dick as a judge. Before he joined my staff he was--at the tender age of 26--the Village Justice of Cooperstown, New York. I know I have always benefitted from his wise counsel with regard to matters large and small, professional and personal. I can tell you that he has the requisite qualities to make a fine judge: a respect for all points of view, extraordinarily good sense, an evenness of temperament, patience, intellectual agility, and absolute integrity. Mr. President, Richard Eaton's greatest contribution to the administration of Justice may be that, since 1977, he has been the anchor of my committee that screens candidates for recommendation for Federal District Court and United States Attorney nominations. Dick now serves as chairman of the committee which--in our view at least--serves as a model for other States. Ours was the first such committee to proceed on a non-partisan basis. New York University Law School Professor Stephen Gillers put it this way: In most places, lawyers who count, who want to be judges, become politically active. In New York, lawyers who want to be Federal trial judges complete a twelve-page questionnaire containing thirty-seven questions. An eleven-member panel screens applicants and recommends nominees. . . . Who have been Moynihan's nominees? . . . They are a first-rate group, as might be expected from the process that produced them. No one deserves more credit for the committee's work than Dick. I know that a great number of Federal judges in New York can attest to the value of his counsel, so indispensable during the nomination and confirmation process, which often can be quite torturous. I daresay it is only fitting that Dick should himself join the Federal bench. International trade litigation is a subject requiring intelligence and energy. The issues facing the Court of International Trade are hugely complex. As Congress prescribed in the Customs Court Act of 1980, the Court of International Trade has broadened its powers and is now far more capable of providing uniformity in the judicial decision- making process for import transactions as required under Article I, section 8, of the Constitution. It will require the dedication and surpassing intellect of someone meeting Dick Eaton's high standard to see this job through. The President has shown great wisdom in proposing Dick for this Court. It would be remiss of me not to thank the Majority and Minority Leaders for shepherding this nomination, and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senators Hatch and Leahy, for their generous support. We have confirmed a man of great talent and unwavering integrity who will distinguish himself on the bench as he has in every other endeavor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those of millions of New Yorkers to thank two treasured teams for a most memorable baseball season in the Empire State. We seldom enjoy such sweet success from both our major league teams, and in this regard our season has been unique. Our revered Bronx Bombers competed in typical Yankee fashion and have earned yet another World Series berth: their third in four years, 36th of the century. Meanwhile, our equally cherished Mets brought us an emotionally-lifting season and for a remarkable month faithfully lived up to their moniker ``The Amazin's.'' Each team achieved its success with character and class, and I would like to speak on these attributes. This year's Mets provided us with a look into the gloried past as they continually conjured up wins worthy of the fabled '69 Miracle Mets. The last month of the season was a window into the Mets heart and soul, the view enthralling. Each time their prospects dimmed the gentlemen from Queens rose to the challenge. From a one-game playoff to enter the Division Series, to the final 26 roller-coaster innings of games five and six of the National League Championship Series, the Amazin's captivated New York with their relentless play. These victories were earned by a collection of individuals epitomizing all that makes New York great. Al Leiter's pivotal shutout of the Reds advanced New York to the Division Series. Todd Pratt, substituting for the mighty Mike Piazza, won the Division Series with a storybook home run. Rookie Melvin Mora led the Mets in hitting in the NLCS. Perhaps the ultimate New York moment was Robin Ventura's ``Grand Single'' in the bottom of the 15th inning of Game 5 to win. Together, these players captivated us for a month of remarkable baseball. No game was out of reach and we watched in awed appreciation. Unfortunately, even these Miracle Mets reached the end of the road, a mere two wins shy of the World Series. But there is great pride in New York today for these Mets have soared. We are blessed with another baseball team in New York. The Yankees are the greatest franchise in the history of sports and this season they have continued to meet their own lofty standards. Their quiet confidence and unassailable professionalism have powered them to a rematch with their 1996 World Series opponents, the Atlanta Braves. This matchup will determine who is the best team of the '90's and there is little doubt that the Yankees will bring their best to this pursuit. The character of the Yankee team is unassailable. Joe Torre has fashioned a team in his own typically modest image. When an early season bout with cancer stole Torre from the team the Yanks rallied around their manager and maintained the unity that he created. This toughness of character was displayed throughout the season and into the playoffs. Paul O'Neill's gritty play with a broken rib best exemplifies the type of play the Yankees have given for Torre. With the dominance of ``El Duque'' Orlando Hernandez and Mariano Rivera the Yankees intimidated the Rangers and defeated the Red Sox. And of course the perpetually unflappable Ramiro Mendoza was pivotal in carrying us in times of trouble. With this team effort the Yankees have given Torre their best. It is with great anticipation that we look forward to the Yankees picking up the banner for the honor of New York. Near the end of the regular season, as the Mets prospects looked bleak, one Atlanta player uncharitably suggested that New York fans shed their loyalty for the Mets and give their allegiance to the Yankees. The Mets very nearly proved this player wrong. With great charity a united New York responds; Chipper, we'll see you in the Bronx.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, before the Senator from Oregon leaves, I express my own personal gratitude to him and to Senator Snowe for bringing this issue in the congenial, collegial way they do. It must be addressed. I feel presumptuous to speak on such matters in the presence of the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Tennessee, but since the advent of sulfa and penicillin, the great medical revolution has been the development of the array of prescription drugs that prevent disease as against cured, in the case of penicillin. We will one day go this way, and we will have Senator Wyden and Senator Snowe to thank and the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, the Senator from Iowa has been generous enough to let me speak a very short while on this measure, to tell you at the time we get on the bill the chairman of the Finance Committee, who cannot be here at this moment, will offer a manager's amendment which includes the sub-Saharan Africa bill which we are now technically on, with the Caribbean Basin Initiative bill, as well as the reauthorization of the Generalized System of Preferences and the Trade Adjustment Assistance programs. These measures have been reported by the Committee on Finance by an all but unanimous vote, voice vote, in all these cases. We very much hope we will bring this to a successful conclusion. At stake is two-thirds of a century of American trade policy going back to the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 for which there is a history. Cordell Hull began the policy, under President Roosevelt. In 1930, the Senate and the House passed what became known as the Smoot-Hawley tariff. If you were to make a short list of five events that led to the Second World War, that would be one of them. The tariffs went to unprecedented heights here. As predicted, imports dropped by two-thirds, but as was not predicted so did exports. What had been a market correction--more than that, the stock market collapse in 1929--moved into a long depression from which we never emerged until the Second World War. The British went off free trade to Commonwealth preferences, the Japanese began the Greater East Asian Coprosperity Sphere, and in 1933, with unemployment at 25 percent, Adolph Hitler came into power as Chancellor of Germany. That sort of misses our memory. In 1934, Cordell Hull, Secretary of State, began the Reciprocal Trade Agreements program which was designed to bring down, by bilateral negotiations, the levels of tariffs. This has continued through administration after administration without exception since that time. I would like to note in the bill we have before us that there are two measures of very large importance, both of which have expired. Unless we move now, we will again lose immeasurably important trade provisions for us. The first of these is the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which is now in its 37th year. I can stand here as one of the few persons--I suppose the only--who served in the administration of John F. Kennedy. I was an Assistant Secretary of Labor. President Kennedy had sent up a very ambitious bill, the Trade Expansion Act. It was really the only major legislation of his first term. It required, in order to meet the legitimate concerns of southern textile manufacturers and northern clothing unions--needle trades, let's say--that we get a long-term cotton textile agreement which Secretary Blumenthal, Secretary Hickman Price, Jr., and I negotiated in Geneva successfully. True to their word, the Southern Senators came right up to this measure and voted for it. But we added something special, which was trade adjustment assistance. We agreed in a free trading situation, or freer trade situation, the economy at large and the population at large would be better off, but some would lose. Trade adjustment assistance was to deal with that situation. It had been first proposed, oddly, by a fine labor leader, David MacDonald, of the United Steel Workers, in 1954, saying if we are going to have lower barriers to trade, we are going to lose some jobs; gain others. It was based on a modest and fair request from American labor: If some workers are to lose their jobs as a result of freer trade that benefits the country as a whole, a program should be established to help those workers find new employment. It was Luther Hodges, Secretary of Commerce under President Kennedy, who came before the Finance Committee to propose this measure. Secretary Hodges was the Governor of North Carolina, was he not? A wonderful man; I recall working with him. I know the Senator from South Carolina would. He said to the Finance Committee that ``the Federal Government has a special responsibility in this case. When the Government has contributed to economic injuries, it should also contribute to the economic adjustments required to repair them.'' This has been in law, and we added a special program for NAFTA, and for firms as well. It has been there for 37 years. The program has now expired. The continuing resolution keeps it going for 3 weeks or whatever, but if we lose this we lose a central feature of social legislation that has allowed us to become the world's greatest trading nation with the most extraordinary prosperity in the course of a generation. There is also the matter of the Generalized System of Preferences for the developing world. It was a response to a plea by developing countries that the industrial world ought to give them an opportunity and a bit of incentive to compete in world markets; not to beg for aid, just to buy and sell. It has been in our legislation since the Trade Act of 1974, which makes it a quarter century in place. It was renewed in 1984. It is now on life support. We got a 15-month extension in 1993; a 10-month extension in 1994; 10 months in early 1996; 13 months in early 1997; 12 months in 1998. We have responsibility in both of these matters. The Finance Committee has met that responsibility. In due course, we will bring this measure to the floor for what we hope will be a successful vote on renewal of Trade Adjustment Assistance and a 5-year reauthorization of the Generalized System of Preferences. I do not want to keep the Senate any longer. I see my distinguished colleague is on the floor. I thank my friend from Iowa, and I yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. No?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Bravissimo. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, we have now set aside--until the next time!--the McCain-Feingold legislation on campaign finance reform. I did not speak during this most recent debate. The third in three years, and for certain not the last as Senator Feingold made clear last evening on the ``NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.'' I supported the reform with only a faint sense of familiarity. Here we are, reforming the results of the last reform. A not infrequent task of Congress. But now it might be useful to offer a few related observations. The first is to state that raising money for political campaigns has never been a great burden for this Senator, and for the simple reason that I hardly do any. One dinner a term, perhaps two. Some receptions. Lots of mail. Not surprisingly the results are not exactly spectacular. In 1994, my last campaign, and which will be my last campaign, the Federal Elections Commission records our having raised $6,100,147. This is for the State of New York, the third most populous in the nation. But it sufficed. For practical purposes, all the money went to television, with the incomparable Doug Schoen keeping an eye on the numbers lest trouble appear unexpectedly. Our campaign staff never had ten persons, which may sound small to some, but I believe was our largest ever. Even so, we have done well. In 1988, I received some 4,000,000 votes and won by more than 2,000,000 votes, the largest numerical margin of victory in any legislative election in history. I say all this simply to note that just possibly money isn't everything. But if we think it is, it might as well be. And so we must persevere. This July, in his celebrated Wall Street Journal column, Paul Gigot referred to me as an ``old pol'' and an ``ever loyal Democrat.'' I wrote to thank him, for this is pretty close to the truth. If I have spent time in universities it was usually seeking sanctuary after a failed election, my own or others. I go back before polling, and before television. (Although in 1953 I did write a 15-minute television speech for the Democratic candidate for Mayor of New York City, Robert F. Wagner, Jr. It might have been seen by 10,000 people.) But of course polling caught on, as the mathematics got better, and television has never stopped. And these, of course, are the technologies that seemingly confound us today. But this subject has been with us the longest while. Congress first placed restrictions on political spending with the Naval Appropriations Bill of 1867 which prohibited Navy officers and Federal employees from soliciting campaign funds from navy yard workers. Faced with allegations that corporations had bought influence with contributions to his campaign, President Theodore Roosevelt called for campaign finance reform in his 1905 and 1906 State of the Union addresses. In response, Congress passed the Tillman Act of 1907, banning corporate gifts to Federal candidates. And during World War II, the War Labor Disputes Act of 1943, known as the Smith-Connally Act, temporarily prohibited unions from making contributions in Federal elections. In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act made this wartime measure permanent. As my colleagues well know, these bans have been made virtually irrelevant with the advent of so-called ``soft money.'' Requirements for the disclosure of donors originated in the so-called Publicity Act of 1910 which required the treasurer of political committees to reveal the names of all contributors of $100 or more. Congress expanded the disclosure rules with the 1925 Federal Corrupt Practices Act, requiring political committees to report total contributions and expenditures. The Court upheld this Act in Burroughs v. United States, declaring that Congress has the prerogative to ``pass appropriate legislation to safeguard (a Presidential) election from the improper use of money to influence the result.'' We continue to debate how to exercise that prerogative today. But may I focus on one particular aspect of campaign funding, which is relatively new? Money for television. Ease this by providing free television time--those are public airways--and as much about the problem goes away as will ever be managed in this vale of toil and sin. Max Frankel, the long-time and venerable editor of the New York Times and a wise and seasoned observer of American politics, addressed this issue in the October 26, 1997 New York Times Magazine: The movement to clean up campaign financing is going nowhere for the simple reason that the reformers are aiming at the wrong target. They are laboring to limit the flow of money into politics when they should be looking to limit the candidates' need for money to pay for television time. It is the staggering price of addressing the voters that drives the unseemly money chase. To run effectively for major office nowadays one needs to spend millions for television commercials that spread your fame, shout your slogans, denounce your opponents, and counteract television attacks. A campaign costing $10 million for a governorship or seat in the Senate is a bargain in many states. The President, even with all the advantages of the White House at his command, appears to have spent more than $250 million on television ads promoting his reelection in 1996. $250 million! The problem of so-called ``issue advocacy'' is only fueling the amount of money going into television ads and further distorting our electoral system. On February 10, 1998, Tim Russert delivered the fifth annual Marver H. Bernstein Symposium on Governmental Reform at Georgetown University. In his address, he asserted that ``television ads paid for by the candidates themselves are (not) going to be the problem in future election cycles. That distinction will be earned by so-called `issue advocacy' advertising by ideological and single issue groups.'' He made the point that, unlike candidates, these groups are not subject to campaign contribution limits or disclosure requirements. In Buckley v. Valeo the Supreme court held that these ads are protected speech under the First Amendment. We are told that requiring such groups to disclose their list of contributors might be a violation of the First Amendment under NAACP v. Alabama. Mr. Russert contends that ``unless the Fourth Estate is able to identify these groups and ferret out their funding, and explain their agenda, many elections could very well be taken hostage by a select band of anonymous donors and political hit men.'' There must be a better way. Might I suggest that the way to reduce the influence of these ``select band of anonymous donors and political hit men'' and to reduce the ungodly amount of money being used in campaigns is free television time for candidates. Frankel writes: It would be cheaper by far if Federal and State treasuries paid directly for the television time that candidates need to define themselves to the public--provided they purchased no commercial time of their own. Democracy would be further enhanced if television stations that sold time to special interest groups in election years were required, in return for the use of the public spectrum, to give equal time to opposing views. But so long as expensive television commercials are our society's main campaign weapons, politicians will not abandon the demeaning and often corrupt quest for ever more money from ever more suspect sources. The version of the McCain-Feingold bill we have been considering restricts so-called ``soft money''--contributions that national, state, county, and local party organizations may collect and spend freely provided only that the television messages they produce with the funds are disguised to appear ``uncoordinated'' with any candidate's campaign. This is a good first step. But it is not enough. Even if soft money and slimy variants were prohibited, political money would reappear in liquid or vaporous form. If we want to make significant changes with regard to how we conduct campaigns, we must--to repeat Frankel--look beyond limiting the flow of money into politics and rather look to limiting the candidates' need for money to pay for television time. Frankel concludes his piece on campaign finance reform by stating that ``there is no point dreaming of a law that says `you may not' so long as the political system daily teaches the participants `you must.' Until candidates for office in America are relieved of the costly burden of buying television time, the scandals will grow.'' He could not be more right.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S.- Turkey Free Trade Agreement Act of 1999. This bill provides traditional trade negotiating authority--we once called it ``fast track authority''--for a free trade agreement (FTA) with the Republic of Turkey. It would authorize the President to negotiate and conclude a free trade agreement with one of America's most important allies and bring that agreement and any necessary implementing legislation back to the Congress for an up-or-down vote, within a time certain. I would begin by noting that Turkey has played a singular role at the crossroads of East and West since 1923, when the legendary Mustafa Kemal ``Ataturk'' built a western-oriented, secular state out of the ashes of the collapsed 600-year old Ottoman Empire. Its constitution establishes a democratic, parliamentary form of government with an independent judiciary. Indeed, it is the only Muslim country with a secular democracy. Turkish-American friendship is longstanding: it was first consecrated in the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the United States and the Ottoman Empire in 1830. The 1929 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation cemented our commercial ties with the new republic, while the July 12, 1947 agreement on aid to Turkey, implementing the Truman Doctrine, inaugurated the very close relationship that continues today. Our friendship has since been reinforced by more than 60 agreements, treaties and memoranda of understanding. It is time to take that relationship a step farther, and begin negotiations toward a free trade agreement with Turkey. Not only do our strategic and political interests dictate closer economic integration, but our commercial interests do so as well. Straddling Europe and Asia, Turkey has played a central role in safeguarding the United States' security interests in the region since it first entered World War II on the side of the allies at the end of the war. Turkey was a charter member of the United Nations and joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1952. It currently has the largest military force in the Middle East, and the second largest military force in NATO. Its geography, history, and relative economic success put Turkey in a position of potential influence in Central Asia, which is, of course, populated mainly by Turkic peoples. To the west, Turkey plays an important role in Europe, both because of its NATO membership and the situation on Cyprus. We applaud the recent improvements in Turkey's relations with Greece, and hope for more. This past summer the two countries held bilateral talks on a range of issues, talks which continued in early September. The tragedy of the recent earthquakes further reinforced this burgeoning relationship as Greece and then Turkey promptly dispatched emergency rescue crews and supplies to assist the other in dealing with these disasters. And to the south, Turkey is, without question, one of our two most important allies in the Middle East. The other is its neighbor, Israel, with whom the United States negotiated a free trade agreement that went into effect in 1985. Less well known is the fact that Turkey and Israel negotiated a free trade agreement in 1996, which was ratified in 1997 and is in force today. A U.S.-Turkey FTA would simply complete the triangle. Writing in the September 28, 1999 edition of The Washington Post, Dr. Isaiah Frank, the very distinguished William L. Clayton Professor of International Economics at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, argued persuasively on political grounds for a free trade agreement with Turkey. The EU's equivocation [over Turkey's proposed membership in the European Union] has bred Turkish disaffection from Europe and plays into the political hands of the Islamists who as recently as 1996 were at the helm of the government. Clearly, the enormous U.S. stake in a secular, Western-oriented Turkey warrants action by the United States to offset the EU's arm's length treatment and to strengthen and solidify the country's Western political and economic integration. But Dr. Frank was correct to point out as well that a free trade agreement with Turkey would also be in the United States' economic interest. Turkey is an industrial country, underpinned by strong free market principles and a vibrant private sector. It was in 1961 a founding member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the exclusive club--there are today only 29 OECD member countries--that serves as the principal economic forum for the industrialized world. In the 1980's, Turkey took major steps to liberalize its economy. Progress continues to be made: earlier this year, Turkey's parliament passed a significant banking reform bill, landmark social security reform and constitutional amendments removing obstacles to foreign investment and promoting the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Turkey's increasingly open economy has produced rewards: during most of the 1990's, it has been one of the fastest growing of the OECD countries and, for the past eight years, it has had the fourth highest annual growth rate, after Ireland, Korea and Luxembourg, recording a 4.4% average annual rate of growth in GNP between 1990 and 1998. Turkey has opened itself to the global economy in significant ways. It became a Contracting Party to the General Agreement on Tariffs in Trade in 1951 and joined the World Trade Organization as a charter member in 1995. Turkey signed a free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association in 1991 and established a customs union with the European Union in 1996. As Dr. Frank noted, it has sought full membership in the EU, thus far without success. There has been, of late, some limited progress in that regard: on October 13, 1999, the European Commission suggested that Turkey be made a candidate for possible EU membership, but proposed that negotiations be deferred for some unspecified time. The matter is to be discussed at the EU summit this December. In 1992, Turkey joined ten other countries (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Russia and Ukraine) to form the Black Sea Economic Cooperation group, which aims at promoting multilateral cooperation and trade in that region. Our own economic ties with Turkey have strengthened over the years as well. In 1986, we concluded a bilateral investment treaty and in 1998 a bilateral tax treaty. And on September 29, 1999, President Clinton and Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement, which establishes a bilateral Council on Trade and Investment that will serve as a forum for regular discussions on commercial matters. Helpful steps all, but, I would argue, not bold enough. I agree with Dr. Frank that a free trade agreement with Turkey ought to be our goal. Yes, our trade with Turkey is still on a small scale. In 1998, U.S. merchandise exports to Turkey reached $3.5 billion, making Turkey our 34th largest export market. Our imports from Turkey were even smaller-- $2.5 billion, or less than 0.3 percent of total imports--making Turkey our 39th largest source of imports. Certainly Turkey compares favorably with Chile, the only country with whom the United States has begun free trade agreement negotiations since the North American Free Trade Agreement entered into force. In 1998, U.S. merchandise exports to Chile totaled $3.9 billion, only slightly higher than our $3.5 billion in exports to Turkey that year, while our imports from Chile in 1998 were the same as our imports from Turkey--$2.5 billion. And both countries fall within the World Bank's grouping of ``upper middle income'' countries based on per capita GNP: in 1998's Turkey's stood at $3,160, compared with $4,810 for Chile. Turkey's market potential is certainly greater than Chile's: Turkey's population is four times the size of Chile's population (62 million vs. 15 million) and Turkey's total imports in 1998--about $42 billion--were double Chile's total imports that year--$19 billion. To be sure, more than 50 percent of Turkey's trade--both exports and imports--is conducted with the European Union, but the United States is Turkey's second largest single-country trading partner, after Germany. And in 1993, the Department of Commerce designated Turkey one of 10 ``Big Emerging Markets''--a focal point for U.S. export and investment promotion efforts--because of its ``outstanding growth prospects'' and growing market of 62 million consumers. I am convinced that there are strong economic arguments for a free trade agreement with Turkey. Our negotiators will have to take care, of course, that the benefits of the FTA are restricted to the United States and Turkey. But this is a matter that will be addressed when the negotiators write the rules of origin that will apply to the FTA. The legislation that I am introducing today would set us on the course of negotiating and implementing an FTA with Turkey, much as we negotiated an FTA over a decade ago with Turkey's neighbor, and our dear friend, Israel. And much as Turkey and Israel have seen it in their mutual interest to negotiate a free trade agreement. Dr. Frank made the case persuasively and succinctly in his op-ed piece in The Washington Post: In light of Turkey's strategic role as a U.S. ally in a rough neighborhood, a U.S.-Turkey free-trade agreement would help consolidate Turkey's Western orientation and contribute to stability in a highly volatile region of the world. I am hopeful that this bill will start us down that path. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill and Dr. Frank's op- ed article be inserted into the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to correct the Record by noting that Senator Barbara Boxer was erroneously listed as having signed the letter Senator Warner and I wrote on October 12, 1999, regarding the Senate's need to postpone voting on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Her name should therefore be excised from this letter.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S.- Turkey Free Trade Agreement Act of 1999. This bill provides traditional trade negotiating authority--we once called it ``fast track authority''--for a free trade agreement (FTA) with the Republic of Turkey. It would authorize the President to negotiate and conclude a free trade agreement with one of America's most important allies and bring that agreement and any necessary implementing legislation back to the Congress for an up-or-down vote, within a time certain. I would begin by noting that Turkey has played a singular role at the crossroads of East and West since 1923, when the legendary Mustafa Kemal ``Ataturk'' built a western-oriented, secular state out of the ashes of the collapsed 600-year old Ottoman Empire. Its constitution establishes a democratic, parliamentary form of government with an independent judiciary. Indeed, it is the only Muslim country with a secular democracy. Turkish-American friendship is longstanding: it was first consecrated in the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the United States and the Ottoman Empire in 1830. The 1929 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation cemented our commercial ties with the new republic, while the July 12, 1947 agreement on aid to Turkey, implementing the Truman Doctrine, inaugurated the very close relationship that continues today. Our friendship has since been reinforced by more than 60 agreements, treaties and memoranda of understanding. It is time to take that relationship a step farther, and begin negotiations toward a free trade agreement with Turkey. Not only do our strategic and political interests dictate closer economic integration, but our commercial interests do so as well. Straddling Europe and Asia, Turkey has played a central role in safeguarding the United States' security interests in the region since it first entered World War II on the side of the allies at the end of the war. Turkey was a charter member of the United Nations and joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1952. It currently has the largest military force in the Middle East, and the second largest military force in NATO. Its geography, history, and relative economic success put Turkey in a position of potential influence in Central Asia, which is, of course, populated mainly by Turkic peoples. To the west, Turkey plays an important role in Europe, both because of its NATO membership and the situation on Cyprus. We applaud the recent improvements in Turkey's relations with Greece, and hope for more. This past summer the two countries held bilateral talks on a range of issues, talks which continued in early September. The tragedy of the recent earthquakes further reinforced this burgeoning relationship as Greece and then Turkey promptly dispatched emergency rescue crews and supplies to assist the other in dealing with these disasters. And to the south, Turkey is, without question, one of our two most important allies in the Middle East. The other is its neighbor, Israel, with whom the United States negotiated a free trade agreement that went into effect in 1985. Less well known is the fact that Turkey and Israel negotiated a free trade agreement in 1996, which was ratified in 1997 and is in force today. A U.S.-Turkey FTA would simply complete the triangle. Writing in the September 28, 1999 edition of The Washington Post, Dr. Isaiah Frank, the very distinguished William L. Clayton Professor of International Economics at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, argued persuasively on political grounds for a free trade agreement with Turkey. The EU's equivocation [over Turkey's proposed membership in the European Union] has bred Turkish disaffection from Europe and plays into the political hands of the Islamists who as recently as 1996 were at the helm of the government. Clearly, the enormous U.S. stake in a secular, Western-oriented Turkey warrants action by the United States to offset the EU's arm's length treatment and to strengthen and solidify the country's Western political and economic integration. But Dr. Frank was correct to point out as well that a free trade agreement with Turkey would also be in the United States' economic interest. Turkey is an industrial country, underpinned by strong free market principles and a vibrant private sector. It was in 1961 a founding member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the exclusive club--there are today only 29 OECD member countries--that serves as the principal economic forum for the industrialized world. In the 1980's, Turkey took major steps to liberalize its economy. Progress continues to be made: earlier this year, Turkey's parliament passed a significant banking reform bill, landmark social security reform and constitutional amendments removing obstacles to foreign investment and promoting the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Turkey's increasingly open economy has produced rewards: during most of the 1990's, it has been one of the fastest growing of the OECD countries and, for the past eight years, it has had the fourth highest annual growth rate, after Ireland, Korea and Luxembourg, recording a 4.4% average annual rate of growth in GNP between 1990 and 1998. Turkey has opened itself to the global economy in significant ways. It became a Contracting Party to the General Agreement on Tariffs in Trade in 1951 and joined the World Trade Organization as a charter member in 1995. Turkey signed a free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association in 1991 and established a customs union with the European Union in 1996. As Dr. Frank noted, it has sought full membership in the EU, thus far without success. There has been, of late, some limited progress in that regard: on October 13, 1999, the European Commission suggested that Turkey be made a candidate for possible EU membership, but proposed that negotiations be deferred for some unspecified time. The matter is to be discussed at the EU summit this December. In 1992, Turkey joined ten other countries (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Russia and Ukraine) to form the Black Sea Economic Cooperation group, which aims at promoting multilateral cooperation and trade in that region. Our own economic ties with Turkey have strengthened over the years as well. In 1986, we concluded a bilateral investment treaty and in 1998 a bilateral tax treaty. And on September 29, 1999, President Clinton and Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement, which establishes a bilateral Council on Trade and Investment that will serve as a forum for regular discussions on commercial matters. Helpful steps all, but, I would argue, not bold enough. I agree with Dr. Frank that a free trade agreement with Turkey ought to be our goal. Yes, our trade with Turkey is still on a small scale. In 1998, U.S. merchandise exports to Turkey reached $3.5 billion, making Turkey our 34th largest export market. Our imports from Turkey were even smaller-- $2.5 billion, or less than 0.3 percent of total imports--making Turkey our 39th largest source of imports. Certainly Turkey compares favorably with Chile, the only country with whom the United States has begun free trade agreement negotiations since the North American Free Trade Agreement entered into force. In 1998, U.S. merchandise exports to Chile totaled $3.9 billion, only slightly higher than our $3.5 billion in exports to Turkey that year, while our imports from Chile in 1998 were the same as our imports from Turkey--$2.5 billion. And both countries fall within the World Bank's grouping of ``upper middle income'' countries based on per capita GNP: in 1998's Turkey's stood at $3,160, compared with $4,810 for Chile. Turkey's market potential is certainly greater than Chile's: Turkey's population is four times the size of Chile's population (62 million vs. 15 million) and Turkey's total imports in 1998--about $42 billion--were double Chile's total imports that year--$19 billion. To be sure, more than 50 percent of Turkey's trade--both exports and imports--is conducted with the European Union, but the United States is Turkey's second largest single-country trading partner, after Germany. And in 1993, the Department of Commerce designated Turkey one of 10 ``Big Emerging Markets''--a focal point for U.S. export and investment promotion efforts--because of its ``outstanding growth prospects'' and growing market of 62 million consumers. I am convinced that there are strong economic arguments for a free trade agreement with Turkey. Our negotiators will have to take care, of course, that the benefits of the FTA are restricted to the United States and Turkey. But this is a matter that will be addressed when the negotiators write the rules of origin that will apply to the FTA. The legislation that I am introducing today would set us on the course of negotiating and implementing an FTA with Turkey, much as we negotiated an FTA over a decade ago with Turkey's neighbor, and our dear friend, Israel. And much as Turkey and Israel have seen it in their mutual interest to negotiate a free trade agreement. Dr. Frank made the case persuasively and succinctly in his op-ed piece in The Washington Post: In light of Turkey's strategic role as a U.S. ally in a rough neighborhood, a U.S.-Turkey free-trade agreement would help consolidate Turkey's Western orientation and contribute to stability in a highly volatile region of the world. I am hopeful that this bill will start us down that path. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill and Dr. Frank's op- ed article be inserted into the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, Edward C. Banfield has died. This had to come. He was 83. Yet little were those who loved him prepared. Or ready, you might say. He held, of course, Henry Lee Shattuck Chair in Government at Harvard and, as Richard Bernstein notes in his fine obituary in The Times, was most active in the Joint Center for Urban Studies of M.I.T. and Harvard in the 1960s and 1970s. For part of that time I was chairman of the Joint Center and so came to know him at the peak of his long, comparably brilliant and yet understated career. In 1970, he published The Unheavenly City, which stands to this day as the most salient and, well, heart-wrenching exposition of the intractable nature of so many urban problems. He had been there before. As early as 1955 he wrote, with Martin Meyerson, Politics, Planning and the Public Interest which argued that the near religious zeal for high-rise public housing then current in Chicago, and across the land, would be a disaster. One notes it has taken Chicago the better part of thirty-five years to realize this, and start dynamiting the projects, as they came to be known. Just so was the seminal, The Moral Basis of a Backward Society, a study of a small village in Southern Italy, which he wrote with Laura Fasano- Banfield, his radiantly intelligent wife and companion of sixty-odd years. Now of course, none of this work was welcome, especially in academe. Not least because it made too much sense to be rejected. James Q. Wilson, once his student, now his heir, got this just right in a memorial that appeared in last week's Weekly Standard entitled ``The Man Who Knew Too Much, Edward C. Banfield, 1916-1999.'' He was onto The Mob, inside The Agency, privy to The Plan. And yet they never got him. He was, as he would say, a ``swamp Yankee,'' a tough breed. He was also a great teacher, something Robert J. Samuelson writes about so wonderfully well in The Washington Post. Above all he taught his students to pursue the truth, ``no matter how inconvenient, unpopular, unfashionable or discomforting.'' The greatest gift a great teacher can give. He could be indulgent if the case seemed hopeless. I went to see him at the time I was thinking of running for the Senate. What would he advise? ``Well,'' he said, ``you could do that. Who knows, you might make a good Senator.'' Those words are with me to this moment. I ask that the obituary from The Times, the article from The Weekly Standard, and the column from The Washington Post be included in the Record. The articles follow. [From the New York Times, Oct. 8, 1999] E.C. Banfield, 83, Maverick On Urban Policy Issues, Dies (By Richard Bernstein) Edward C. Banfield, a professor emeritus of government at Harvard University whose work on urban policy and the causes of poverty gave him a reputation as a brilliant maverick, died Sept. 30 at his summer home in Vermont. He was 83 and lived in Cambridge, Mass. Mr. Banfield, born on a farm in Bloomfield, Conn., held Harvard's Henry Lee Shattuck Chair in Government for many years. He was one of the intellectual leaders of the Harvard- Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Center for Urban Studies in the 1960's and 70's, when the problems of cities were prominent on the national political agenda. His books and articles had a sharp contrarian edge. He was a critic of almost every mainstream liberal idea in domestic policy, especially the use of Federal aid to help relieve urban poverty. Mr. Banfield argued that at best Government programs would fail because they aimed at the wrong problems; at worst they would make the problems worse. He fostered generations of graduate students, some of whom became leading figures in American intellectual life. They included James Q. Wilson, who succeeded him in his chair at Harvard, and Christopher DeMuth, president of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. Mr. Banfield received his B.A. in English for the University of Connecticut in 1938 and went to work for the United States Forest Service. After jobs with the New Hampshire Farm Bureau and the United States Farm Security Administration in Washington and California, he went to the University of Chicago to work on his doctorate in political science. Chicago at that time, under the influence of figures like Milton Friedman and Leo Strauss, was a bastion of Laissez-faire politics, a cause that Mr. Banfield later promoted in his own work. He served briefly on the faculty in Chicago, moving to Harvard in 1959. He taught at the University of Pennsylvania before returning to Harvard at the end of his career. In 1955 Mr. Banfield and Mr. Meyerson collaborated on ``Politics, Planning and the Public Interest,'' which examined Chicago's public housing projects. That book was one of several in which Mr. Banfield found Government programs to be foiled by a law of unintended consequences. In the Chicago case he predicted that creating tall institutional buildings full of small apartments would have the unintended effect of racially isolating the urban poor. A major theme of Mr. Banfield's work on poverty, which was often angrily criticized in liberal circles, is that culture plays a more important role than factors like discrimination or lack of education in impeding a person's economic progress. Among his most influential books was ``The Moral Basis of a Backward Society,'' a study of a small village in southern Italy, researched in collaboration with his wife, the former Laura Fasano. Mr. Banfield's thesis, summed up in a term he coined, ``amoral familism,'' was that the narrow focus on family relations prevented people from cooperating with those outside the family or village. He is survived by his wife; a daughter, Laura Banfield Hoguet, a lawyer; a son, Elliott A. Banfield, an illustrator, and four grandchildren. Mr. Banfield's emphasis on culture as the basic element in poverty drew accusations that he was promoting a ``blame the victim'' attitude. In his 1970 book ``The Unheavenly City,'' and in various papers that he published in the late 60's, he recognized the existence and harm of racism but propounded the view that economic class and not race was the essential ingredient in poverty. In that book Mr. Banfield constructed a sociological portrait of what he called ``the lower-class individual'' as someone who was very different from the middle-class professionals who sought ways to solve his problems. ``The lower-class individual lives moment to moment,'' he wrote. ``Impulse governs his behavior either because he cannot discipline himself to sacrifice a present for a future satisfaction or because he has no sense of the future. He is therefore radically improvident.'' Mr. Banfield's role as an adviser to President Richard M. Nixon and chairman of his Model Cities Task force gave his published views an extra measure of controversy. During the Reagan Administration he served on a task force seeking ways to increase public support for the arts. But his subsequent book, ``the Democratic Muse: Visual Arts and the Public Interest,'' argued that Federal support of the arts was neither justified by the Constitution nor useful in practice. ``Affording enjoyment to people is not a proper function of organizations serving the common good,'' he wrote in that book.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, This year marks the centennial of Catholic Charities of the Brooklyn-Queens Diocese, the largest Roman Catholic human services agency in the nation. Perhaps on earth. The New York Times had the happy thought to mark the occasion with a profile of Bishop Joseph M. Sullivan, the vicar of the diocese, who heads Catholic Charities. The warmth and wisdom of this great churchman comes through so clearly, so forcefully. As Yeats once wrote of such a man, ``he was blessed and had the power to bless.'' I have treasured his friendship, and share his fears as to the fate of New York's poor when they begin to fall off the five-year cliff created by the so-called Welfare Reform Act of 1996. We would do well to contemplate the fact that the only major social legislation of the 1990s was the abolition of Aid to Families of Dependent Children, a provision of the great Social Security Act of 1935. We could care for children in the midst of the Great Depression of the 1930s, but somehow not in the midst of the great prosperity of the 1990s. I spoke at length about the gamble we were taking when the legislation was before us. I hope I was wrong. But if Joe Sullivan is worried I think we all should be. I know we all should be. I ask that the story from The Times be included in the Record. The story follows. [From the New York Times, Oct. 13, 1999] Now Pitching for the Rome Team, It's Bishop Sullivan (By Randy Kennedy) ``The year was 1948 and a guy says to me, `Hey listen, you think you're such a good pitcher, they're having a tryout for the Phillies. So go.' '' And so Joe Sullivan of Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, went. ``And the guy asked me to throw the ball. And I could throw pretty hard. And I could throw a fairly decent curve.'' One thing leads to another ``and they wanted to sign me.'' If this were the made-for-television version of the life of Bishop Joseph M. Sullivan, this is where the big turning point would come: he chooses God over baseball. He gives up a brilliant pitching career to go to bat for the souls of men. But as it turns out, Bishop Sullivan never really liked the baseball life that much anyway. ``It was essentially a boring life,'' he remembers of his one summer canvassing the South in a beaten-up bus and throwing for the Americus Phillies in Georgia. ``You played all night ball in the minor leagues, and you'd kind of lounge around most of the rest of the time.'' He had always loved the church, however. He was a standout in the choir. He missed being an altar boy only because he was much too proud to stoop to asking Sister Blanche, the nun who made the recommendations. (``Quite bluntly, I felt I wasn't going to kiss . . . you know . . . you know?) But even as a young boy and through high school, he almost never missed a daily Mass at St. Ephrem's. ``I mean,'' he said, ``I bought Catholicism as a young kid. I really believed.'' So the real turning point in his life, one not of his making, came much later, after he had spent four years at seminary and three years as the pastor of his first parish, Our Lady of Lourdes in Queens Village. The bishop needed social workers. ``I got a call on a Tuesday night to see him Wednesday morning. And I was registered for graduate school in social work by Thursday morning. I didn't know what a social worker was.'' He adds: ``When I went to school and they asked me, `Why did you choose social work?' I said, `Because the bishop appointed me.' The social work people's reaction to that was that I was hostile. I said, `Well, it's the truth. I don't know whether it's hostile or not.' ``So then they asked me if I wanted to be a social worker. And the answer was, `No!' '' He pauses for a little dramatic effect. ``Best thing that ever happened to me.'' Yesterday, Bishop Sullivan, an imposing, tough-talking, immensely friendly man, was sitting in a makeshift television studio in Bishop Ford High School in Brooklyn. He was preparing for a live cable show in which he would talk about the centennial, this month, of Catholic Charities of the Brooklyn-Queens Diocese, now the largest Roman Catholic human-services agency in the country, covering America's most populous diocese. Despite not knowing what a social worker was back then, Bishop Sullivan has devoted 38 years of his life to the job, serving in welfare offices and hospitals, rising to direct the charities and now serving as vicar for human services, overseeing the charities' vast operations with their director, Frank DeStafano. (Mr. Stefano couldn't resist a dig at the boss yesterday as a reporter sat down: ``Not the baseball thing again. He was only on the team for three days! Myself, I was always dedicated to the poor. No time for any kind of fund like that.'') Bishop Sullivan's message to the cable audience yesterday was that he could hope for nothing better during the next 100 years of Catholic charity work than for one message to be hammered home: ``To be a practicing Catholic means to be involved in the lives of others.'' But as he relaxed after the show he had another, angrier message not about personal but about public responsibility: welfare reform. He complained that too few people are talking about its effects now, which he says have hurt the poor in Brooklyn and Queens as much as anything he has seen in three decades of tumultuous change in the boroughs. ``I agree,'' he said, ``that it had to be reformed, and I agree that there had to be a change in the culture that work must be more important than relief. But I radically disagree with the way it was done.'' Four years ago, he and another bishop managed to wangle an hour and 15 minutes in the Oval Office with President Clinton, to try to talk him out of signing the welfare reform legislation. Mr. Clinton said he understood them. Then he signed the measure anyway. ``But I will tell you,'' he said, his face coloring, ``that I think most of what is being said about the success of these programs is hype including here in this city. To me it's a sham. You look at the food lines at Catholic Charities. You look at the food lines at parishes. You look at the people trying to pay their rents.'' He added: ``They haven't heard the last of this. We're only into the third year, and the reality is that there will always be dependent people who can't work.'' As he socked on a snap-brim hat to run out and give a speech about health care, he was asked whether it ever disheartens him--approaching his 70th year, his 44th as a priest, and nearly as long as a social worker--that there are still so many people suffering. ``It might not make any sense but it doesn't,'' he said. ``I really think this job as heaven on . . . way to heaven. It doesn't come in the end. It begins here.''