Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to thank, above all Members in this body, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, who is opposed to this treaty, as I am in support. Together we have addressed a letter to our distinguished leaders, Senator Lott and Senator Daschle, asking that the matter be put off until the next Congress, as the President has requested be done. Sir, this morning I don't think we had a handful of signatures on that letter. At this moment, we have more than half the Members of this body--as the day has gone by, the realization of what an enormous decision we are making with so very little consideration has sunk in. Sir, we spent in my time in this body 38 days debating the Panama Canal Treaty. The Treaty of Versailles--equally important--was debated 31 days in 1919 and 24 days in 1920. Note that it was passed over, because a treaty does not die once it has simply been voted down; it remains on the calendar. But I would like to express the hope that before the debate is over, the distinguished Senator from Virginia might place in the Record the letter which we addressed to the leaders and perhaps, if he wishes, the signatures we have so far received. He indicates he would be willing to do that. I thank him and I thank my leader, Senator Biden.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I think the Senator from Virginia will have all the time he wishes.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I shall be honored to work with the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Delaware. This may be a very productive moment in what looks like a perilous time. Mr. President, I have spoken at some length. I am happy to yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, Oct. 8, 1999] A Treaty We All Need (By Jacques Chirac, Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroder) During the 1990's, the United States has made a vital contribution to arms control and nonproliferation. Thanks to the common resolve of the world's powers, we have achieved a substantial reduction in nuclear arsenals, the banning of chemical weapons, the indefinite and unconditional extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and, in 1996, the conclusion of negotiations on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. South Africa, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus have renounced nuclear weapons in the same spirit. The decisions we take now will help determine, for generations to come, the safety of the world we bequeath to our children. As we look to the next century, our greatest concern is proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and chiefly nuclear proliferation. We have to face the stark truth that nuclear proliferation remains the major threat to world safety. Failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will be a failure in our struggle against proliferation. The stabilizing effect of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, extended in 1995, would be undermined. Disarmament negotiations would suffer. Over half the countries that must ratify the new treaty to bring it into force have now done so. Britain, France and Germany ratified last year. All the political parties in our countries recognize that the treaty is strongly in our interests, whether we are nuclear powers or not. It enhances our security and is verifiable. The treaty is an additional barrier against proliferation of nuclear weapons. Unless proliferators are able to test their devices, they can never be sure that any new weapon they design or build is safe and will work. Congress realized this in 1992 when it compelled the United States Presidential Administration to seek the conclusion of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by 1996. It was a welcome move for the world's strongest power to show the way. The treaty is effectively verifiable. We need have no fear of the risk of cheating. We will not be relying on the good will of a rogue state to allow inspectors onto its territory. Under the treaty, a global network of stations is being set up, using four different technologies to identify nuclear tests. The system is already being put in place. We know it will work. Opponents of the treaty claim that, without testing, it will not be possible to guarantee the continuing safety and reliability of nuclear weapons. All nuclear powers, including the United States, Britain and France, examined this issue carefully. All reached the same conclusion. With the right investment and modern technology, the necessary assurance of safety and reliability can be maintained without further nuclear tests. Rejection of the treaty in the Senate would remove the pressure from other states still hesitating about whether to ratify it. Rejection would give great encouragement to proliferators. Rejection would also expose a fundamental divergence within NATO. The United States and its allies have worked side by side for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty since the days of President Eisenhower. This goal is now within our grasp. Our security is involved, as well as America's. For the security of the world we will leave to our children, we urge the United States Senate to ratify the treaty.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. With great pleasure. We are listening and learning.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I agree ``catastrophic'' is not too strong a term. And the Senator would be receptive to postponing a foregone catastrophe on Tuesday?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am happy to do so and honored.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Do I take it, from what the Senator so ably set forth about his concerns on both sides, that he would be receptive to a proposal to put off this vote?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Never.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. At any time in our history, can anyone imagine the effective heads of the Governments of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany pleading with the Senate in our own press to do what we had led the world to do in the first place. The point has been made that the idea of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was first proposed by President Eisenhower in 1958. I note that when we finally got around to drafting one, the United States was the first signatory on that same day in New York. The other four of the five declared nuclear powers also signed. However, we were the first to propose it, as we were the first to develop nuclear power as a weapon; the first to propose ending tests to continue expanding our arsenals; and now the first to sign such a treaty, almost a generation after Eisenhower proposed it. There were increments along the way. I was in the Kennedy administration at the time the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty was signed. It seemed such a large event, and it was. Governor Harriman was a negotiator in Moscow and made the point--I had served him in Albany, and we talked about this--he said that when he arrived, the Soviets had already decided to sign this treaty, but of course we had to have days of intense negotiations to reach the point where they would agree to do what they had already decided to do. The Soviets had said yes, there is too much danger to mankind. That was something they had not previously concerned themselves over much with, save as a revolutionary state. Just a line from the article by the three heads of government: The decisions we take now will help determine, for generations to come, the safety of the world we bequeath to our children. As we look to the next century, our greatest concern is proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and chiefly nuclear proliferation. We have to face the stark truth that nuclear proliferation remains the major threat to world safety. They are speaking to us in this near-empty Chamber. Some of our most distinguished authorities in these matters are here. Most Senators are not. The powers that dominated the last 500 years of politics: England, France, Germany--Spain somehow not there for the moment--pleading with us. May I be specific, if I can, on the matter of particular interest? You may be sure it was on the minds of the leaders who have written to us today, and that is the situation in the subcontinent, which is to say India and Pakistan. I was Ambassador to India in 1974 when the Indians set off what they called a ``peaceful nuclear explosion.'' They intended it as such. In conversations with Prime Minister Gandhi, she was persuasive that they were not going to build a bomb; they simply wanted to establish that they had the capacity to do so. It was a matter of prestige. It was a matter of reminding Westerners that Indian physicists, such as Satyendranath Bose, had been as much a part of the great era of discovery early in the century as the Europeans, and more than Americans. A quarter century goes by. The Congress Party with its universalist tendencies and professions has gone into a minority. A new party, a Hindu party, as it calls itself, the BJP, came to power in March of 1998. Two months later, India set off a series of five nuclear explosions. That was followed almost instantly with Pakistan doing the same. At the same time, they demonstrated a missile, probably of North Korean origin, which they named the Ghauri, in honor of the first Islamic invader of Hindu India. Here you have all those things that conspire to destruction. This spring there was a Pakistan offensive in the Kargil mountains of Kashmir. The Indian Government quite successfully held it back and repulsed it, I believe, but not before Pakistani military officers had said: Keep this up and there are other options available to us. Those other options of course include the nuclear option. Here an important distinction is to be made. In India, to its great credit, nuclear development is a matter directly under the control of the Prime Minister and is not under the control of the military. The Indian military have been very apolitical, kept out of politics, and have followed civilian command from the beginning. Not so Pakistan. The Pakistan bomb is in the armamentarium of the Pakistan military. Here, if I can make a point on which I do have total confidence, but I believe is a shared judgment: It is not clear that the Indian tests last year were all that successful. They probably did not achieve a hydrogen bomb as they proclaimed. Even the 1974 test was exaggerated in its volume. The Indians have kept the military out of nuclear matters, but their scientists know they have not sufficiently succeeded, and they want to test more. In the report from India in this morning's press announcing the BJ Party has been returned to office with a very solid coalition, it was noted that the outgoing government, which will now be coming back in, had committed itself to further testing. They need to do that because they are, obviously, at a disadvantage as regards their adversary, the Pakistanis. They need, as it were, to show the Pakistanis they have the weapons that they have claimed to have. In turn, the Pakistanis will respond. Pakistan is not a stable country, not a country with civil authority very secure, and an impoverished country, a country that will be selling nuclear weapons. They will be selling them to the Middle East. A Saudi prince has recently visited Pakistan and was shown nuclear facilities. We have to expect this migration. It is ineluctable, unless we get this treaty. The point I finally make is we dare not reject the treaty but we need not instantly ratify it. The treaty, very carefully drawn, provides that 44 states must have ratified this treaty before it goes into effect--44. As of today, of the 44 states required, 41 have signed the treaty but only 26 have ratified it, which is to say another 18 countries, including the United States, have to do so before it goes into effect. Of these countries, the most significant clearly are India and Pakistan. I assure you--well, I withdraw that remark--I prophesy that, should we turn this treaty down, the forces in New Delhi and in Islamabad will say: ``You see, there are the Western imperialists demanding their own liberties to do anything they wish--tests, they have already the 1,030 tests--and they want now to deny them to us? No. That day is over.'' Can we not listen to our closest friends and allies? We cannot ratify today. Someday we will, but we must not reject this treaty. It would be sending a ruinous signal. The complexities of our procedures in the Senate are not understood abroad, and they need not be in that sense. The word will be we said no, just as in 1919 we said no to the Treaty of Versailles, we would not become involved in the affairs of Europe. And how many years was it until D-Day when we had to land our forces there?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I entirely agree with the Senator, if we can preface his remarks by the statement that we do not have the votes to ratify the treaty today.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, to continue on the point made by our distinguished ranking member that the leaders of Britain, France, and Germany are appealing to the Senate this very day to sign this treaty, I make a point to the Senate which I don't know has ever been made. That is that in the aftermath of the Cold War we find ourselves the one nation on Earth that has the power to shape events all over the Earth. Coral Bell, of the Australian National University, wrote about this in an article in the recent issue of ``The National Interest,'' called ``American Ascendancy.'' There is a striking passage. She writes: During the 1990s, the United States has mostly tiptoed through the current unipolar structure of the society of states with a sort of ponderous tact, like a benign Ferdinand-type bull making its way delicately around a china shop of unknown value. That prudence has been well justified: the situation is still quite new and of uncertain import to all the world's policymakers. History is not much help, for no equal degree of unipolarity has existed since the high point of the Roman world, almost two millennia ago. I repeat, there has been no such unipolarity since the high point of the Roman world, two millennia ago. The central balance of power had seen the main agenda of world politics for more than five centuries. We think of the Congress of Vienna of 1815, of the British role in the balance of power in Europe, and such the like. Bell continues, ``. . . this `intermission,' even for a time whose length remains a matter of speculation, is a truly transformatory event.'' A truly transformatory event. Nothing such has happened in two millenia. As if evidence were required, in this morning's New York Times, Jacques Chirac, the President of France, and Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain, and Gerhard Schroeder, Chancellor of Germany, wrote an op- ed article pleading with the Senate to ratify this treaty. I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed after my remarks.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I most certainly have.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Twenty minutes.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise simply to express the thanks of this Senator to the eminent chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations for the careful discourse he has presented to us, for the facts, they are complex. No one understands complexity better than he or is more willing to live with it. If we do not come to the same conclusions, it is not for lack of respect and, indeed, a reverence.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by Senators Jeffords, Leahy, Grams, Kerrey, Robb, Rockefeller, and Sarbanes, to introduce legislation to provide greater disclosure of the impact of pension plan conversions. This is the second bill I have sponsored this session aimed at achieving transparency of the effects of traditional pension plan conversions to ``cash balance'' plans, which have become extremely controversial in recent months. At least 300 large U.S. companies have converted to cash balance plans in the last few years. Cash balance plans combine certain features of ``defined benefit'' and ``defined contribution'' plans. Like defined contribution plans, cash balance plans provide each employee with an individual account representing a lump-sum benefit. Like traditional defined benefit plans, cash balance plan contributions are made primarily by the employer and are insured by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The calculation of benefits under cash balance plans, however, differs from other defined benefit plans. Whereas a traditional defined benefit plan grows slowly in the early years and more rapidly as one approaches retirement, cash balance plans de-accelerate this later-year growth and increase the early-year growth. Consequently, younger employees tend to do better under cash balance plans than under traditional plans, while older employees typically do worse. In some cases, an older worker's starting account balance may remain static for years--typically referred to as the ``wear away'' period. The controversy over cash balance plans arises in part because present disclosure requirements are inadequate. Under present law, when an employer amends a defined benefit pension plan in a manner which significantly reduces the rate of future benefit accrual, the employer must provide participants with an advance written notice of the amendment. The law does not, however, require employers to disclose the effect the amendment will have on participants. In fact, it does not even require employers to disclose that benefits will be reduced. All that present law requires is that employers provide participants with a summary or copy of the plan amendment. Consequently, current law can be satisfied with a summary buried in an obscure document. In some cases, workers have complained that their employers purposefully obscured benefit reductions. As a result, employee anger over cash balance plans has grown, resulting in several class action lawsuits being filed in just the last three years. The Pension Reduction Disclosure Act will strengthen existing law by requiring disclosure of information which will enable employees to determine the effects of benefit reductions. Specifically, before the plan is changed, each adversely-affected employee must receive illustrative examples showing the effects of the change on various employee groups. Moreover, each employee must have the opportunity to receive the benefit formulas for the old and new versions of the plan so that he or she can make specific comparisons of both plans. Then, 90 days after the plan is changed, each adversely-affected employee must have, upon request, the opportunity to receive an individual benefit comparison prepared by the employer. This information will provide employees with the knowledge they need regarding pension benefit reductions, while imposing minimal burden on employers. The Pension Reduction Disclosure Act, is a modified version of legislation I introduced in March entitled The Pension Right to Know Act (S. 659). The new measure attempts to address concerns raised by employers concerning S. 659. For example, the new measure requires disclosure only for adversely-affected employees, not all employees, in order to meet employer concerns that S. 659 was too broad in its reach. Moreover, the new bill addresses employer concerns that it would be difficult to provide individual benefit comparisons before the amendment effective date due to a lack of individual data. Under the bill introduced today, individual benefit comparisons would be required no earlier than 90 days after the effective date, and then only upon request. (To enable employees to compare the old and new plans before the effective date, this bill provides illustrative examples and, upon request, the benefit formulas for the old and new plans.) Another change is that the new bill allows the Secretary of Treasury to develop alternative and simplified compliance methods where appropriate, as in cases where there is no fundamental change in the manner in which benefits are determined. Moreover, the Secretary may reduce the advance notice period from 45 days to 15 days in cases in which the 45-day requirement would be unduly burdensome because the amendment is contingent on a merger, acquisition, disposition or other similar transaction. I believe that such disclosure not only is in the best interest of employees, but also of the employer. Several class action lawsuits have been filed in the last three years challenging conversions to cash balance plans. These suits will likely cost millions of dollars in attorneys' fees, but with proper disclosure they might not have occurred. I want to acknowledge the work of the Clinton Administration in helping to craft this measure. The bill largely follows the outline of a proposal suggested by the Administration in July which was developed in collaboration with my staff. The Departments of Treasury and Labor have provided great insight and creativity in developing this bill, and I thank them for their assistance. Two of our distinguished House colleagues, Congressman Robert Matsui of California and Congressman Jerry Weller of Illinois, are introducing this legislation in the other chamber, so hopefully it will become law this year. In closing, let me repeat what I have said in the past. I take no position on the underlying merit of cash balance plans. Ours is a voluntary pension system, and companies must do what is right for them and their employees. But I feel strongly that companies must fully and comprehensibly inform their employees regarding whatever pension benefits the company offers. Companies have no right to misrepresent or obfuscate the projected benefit employees will receive under a cash balance plan or any other pension arrangement, notwithstanding the fact that some pension consultants have advocated cash balance plans for that very purpose. As I said upon introduction of my earlier legislation on this topic, it is time to let the sun shine on pension plan conversions. I urge the Senate to support this important measure. I ask unanimous consent that a copy and summary of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by Senators Jeffords, Leahy, Grams, Kerrey, Robb, Rockefeller, and Sarbanes, to introduce legislation to provide greater disclosure of the impact of pension plan conversions. This is the second bill I have sponsored this session aimed at achieving transparency of the effects of traditional pension plan conversions to ``cash balance'' plans, which have become extremely controversial in recent months. At least 300 large U.S. companies have converted to cash balance plans in the last few years. Cash balance plans combine certain features of ``defined benefit'' and ``defined contribution'' plans. Like defined contribution plans, cash balance plans provide each employee with an individual account representing a lump-sum benefit. Like traditional defined benefit plans, cash balance plan contributions are made primarily by the employer and are insured by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The calculation of benefits under cash balance plans, however, differs from other defined benefit plans. Whereas a traditional defined benefit plan grows slowly in the early years and more rapidly as one approaches retirement, cash balance plans de-accelerate this later-year growth and increase the early-year growth. Consequently, younger employees tend to do better under cash balance plans than under traditional plans, while older employees typically do worse. In some cases, an older worker's starting account balance may remain static for years--typically referred to as the ``wear away'' period. The controversy over cash balance plans arises in part because present disclosure requirements are inadequate. Under present law, when an employer amends a defined benefit pension plan in a manner which significantly reduces the rate of future benefit accrual, the employer must provide participants with an advance written notice of the amendment. The law does not, however, require employers to disclose the effect the amendment will have on participants. In fact, it does not even require employers to disclose that benefits will be reduced. All that present law requires is that employers provide participants with a summary or copy of the plan amendment. Consequently, current law can be satisfied with a summary buried in an obscure document. In some cases, workers have complained that their employers purposefully obscured benefit reductions. As a result, employee anger over cash balance plans has grown, resulting in several class action lawsuits being filed in just the last three years. The Pension Reduction Disclosure Act will strengthen existing law by requiring disclosure of information which will enable employees to determine the effects of benefit reductions. Specifically, before the plan is changed, each adversely-affected employee must receive illustrative examples showing the effects of the change on various employee groups. Moreover, each employee must have the opportunity to receive the benefit formulas for the old and new versions of the plan so that he or she can make specific comparisons of both plans. Then, 90 days after the plan is changed, each adversely-affected employee must have, upon request, the opportunity to receive an individual benefit comparison prepared by the employer. This information will provide employees with the knowledge they need regarding pension benefit reductions, while imposing minimal burden on employers. The Pension Reduction Disclosure Act, is a modified version of legislation I introduced in March entitled The Pension Right to Know Act (S. 659). The new measure attempts to address concerns raised by employers concerning S. 659. For example, the new measure requires disclosure only for adversely-affected employees, not all employees, in order to meet employer concerns that S. 659 was too broad in its reach. Moreover, the new bill addresses employer concerns that it would be difficult to provide individual benefit comparisons before the amendment effective date due to a lack of individual data. Under the bill introduced today, individual benefit comparisons would be required no earlier than 90 days after the effective date, and then only upon request. (To enable employees to compare the old and new plans before the effective date, this bill provides illustrative examples and, upon request, the benefit formulas for the old and new plans.) Another change is that the new bill allows the Secretary of Treasury to develop alternative and simplified compliance methods where appropriate, as in cases where there is no fundamental change in the manner in which benefits are determined. Moreover, the Secretary may reduce the advance notice period from 45 days to 15 days in cases in which the 45-day requirement would be unduly burdensome because the amendment is contingent on a merger, acquisition, disposition or other similar transaction. I believe that such disclosure not only is in the best interest of employees, but also of the employer. Several class action lawsuits have been filed in the last three years challenging conversions to cash balance plans. These suits will likely cost millions of dollars in attorneys' fees, but with proper disclosure they might not have occurred. I want to acknowledge the work of the Clinton Administration in helping to craft this measure. The bill largely follows the outline of a proposal suggested by the Administration in July which was developed in collaboration with my staff. The Departments of Treasury and Labor have provided great insight and creativity in developing this bill, and I thank them for their assistance. Two of our distinguished House colleagues, Congressman Robert Matsui of California and Congressman Jerry Weller of Illinois, are introducing this legislation in the other chamber, so hopefully it will become law this year. In closing, let me repeat what I have said in the past. I take no position on the underlying merit of cash balance plans. Ours is a voluntary pension system, and companies must do what is right for them and their employees. But I feel strongly that companies must fully and comprehensibly inform their employees regarding whatever pension benefits the company offers. Companies have no right to misrepresent or obfuscate the projected benefit employees will receive under a cash balance plan or any other pension arrangement, notwithstanding the fact that some pension consultants have advocated cash balance plans for that very purpose. As I said upon introduction of my earlier legislation on this topic, it is time to let the sun shine on pension plan conversions. I urge the Senate to support this important measure. I ask unanimous consent that a copy and summary of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CCPIA). This legislation improves the procedures for restricting imports of archaeological and ethnological materials. I am pleased that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, joins me, as well as my distinguished colleague from New York, Senator Schumer. This legislation provides a necessary clarification of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act. The CCPIA was reported by the Senate Finance Committee and passed in the waning days of the 97th Congress. The CCPIA implements the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. It sets forth our national policy concerning the importation of cultural property. As the last of the authors of the CCPIA remaining in the Senate, it falls to me to keep a close eye on its implementation. Central to our intention in drafting the CCPIA was the principle that the United States will act to bar the importation of particular antiquities, but only as part of a concerted international response to a specific, severe problem of pillage. The CCPIA established an elaborate process to ensure that the views of experts--archaeologists, ethnologists, art dealers, museums--and the public, are taken fully into account when foreign governments ask us to bar imports of antiquities. The Congress put these safeguards in place with the specific intent to provide due process. The need for this bill arises from the recent proliferation of import restrictions imposed on archaeological and ethnological artifacts from a number of countries, including Canada and Peru. Restrictions may soon be imposed on imports from Cambodia, and I am told that the Government of Italy has now requested that the United States impose a sweeping embargo on archaeological material dating from the 8th century B.C. to the 5th century A.D. My understanding is that the standards and procedures the Congress meant to introduce in the CCPIA are not being followed. The chief concerns are two-fold: (1) the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, which reviews all requests for import restrictions, remains essentially closed to non-members despite the provisions of the 1983 Cultural Property Act--which I co-authored with Senators Dole and Matsunaga-- that call for open meetings and transparent procedures; and (2) the Committee lacks a knowledgeable art dealer--in large part because the Executive Branch has interpreted the statute--incorrectly, in my view--to require that Committee members serve as ``special government employees'' rather than--as was intended--``representatives''--of dealers. Candidates have thus been subjected to insurmountable conflict-of-interest rules that have effectively prevented experts from serving on the Committee--the very individuals whose advice ought to be sought. The amendments I offer today would open up the proceedings of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee and the administering agency (formerly USIA, now an agency under the Department of State) to allow for meaningful public participation in the fact-finding phase of an investigation, i.e., the stage at which the Committee and the agency review the factual basis for a country's request for import restrictions. The bill would require that notice of such a request be published in the Federal Register, that interested parties be provided an opportunity to comment, and that the Committee issue a public report of its findings in each case. Once the evidence is gathered, the Committee would, as under current law, be permitted to conduct its deliberations behind closed doors so as not to jeopardize the government's negotiating objectives or disclose its bargaining position. The amendments would also clarify that Cultural Property Advisory Committee members are to serve only in a ``representative'' capacity-- as is the case with members of the President's trade advisory committees--and not as ``special government employees.'' It was my clear understanding, as one of the chief drafters of the law, that members of the Advisory Committee would be acting in a representative capacity. The CCPIA sought to ensure that there would be a ``fair representation of the various interests of the public sectors and the private sectors in the international exchange of archaeological and ethnological materials,'' by designating members to represent those various perspectives. The CCPIA reserves specific slots on the Advisory Committee for representatives of the affected interest groups, including as I mentioned earlier, art dealers. The special conflict-of- interest provisions applicable to ``special government employees'' would probably prevent any active art dealer knowledgeable in the affected areas of trade from serving on the Committee, depriving the Committee of invaluable expertise. This bill, clarifying Congressional intent, is essential to successful implementation of the CCPIA. If I may ask the Senate's indulgence, I would like to summarize the key provisions of the bill: Procedural requirements.--The bill amends Section 303(f)(2) of the CCPIA to provide that a foreign nation's request for relief shall include a detailed description of the archaeological or ethnological material that a party to the 1970 Cultural Property Convention seeks to protect and a comprehensive description of the evidence submitted in support of the request. This information is to be included in the Federal Register notice required to initiate proceedings under the CCPIA. The purpose of this amendment is to provide interested parties with adequate notice of the nature of a foreign nation's request and the evidence in support of an allegedly serious condition of pillage, which is evidence essential to any response under CCPIA. In the past, proceedings before the CPAC and the administering agency (formerly USIA, now an agency under the Department of State) have been conducted almost in total secrecy, thus denying interested parties the opportunity to prepare rebuttal and response to the evidence presented by a foreign nation on alleged pillage and with respect to the other statutory requirements that must be satisfied. The result is that the Committee is denied a full, unbiased record upon which to make its decisions. The bill also amends Section 303(f)(1)(C) of the CCPIA to provide that interested parties shall have an opportunity to provide comments to Executive Branch decision-makers on the findings and recommendations of the CPAC, which are to be made public under a separate provision of the bill. To date, interested parties have not had an effective opportunity to bring their perspectives to the attention of the statutory decision-maker. Proceedings before the committee.--The bill amends Section 306(f)(1) of the CCPIA to provide that the procedures before the Advisory Committee shall be conducted to afford full participation by interested parties in the fact-finding phase of the CPAC review. This provision draws a clear line between the fact-finding investigation and the deliberative review phases of the Committee's proceedings and provide for full public participation in the fact- finding phase. It also responds to concerns that, under current procedures, the Committee is denied full information from interested parties relating to the foreign nation's request because there is no public information about the specific nature of a request nor of the data supporting it. Also, in an amendment to Section 306(f)(1) of the CCPIA, the Committee is directed to prepare, and then publish in the Federal Register, a report which includes, inter alia, its findings with respect to each of the criteria described in Section 301(a)(1) of the Act, which sets forth the requirements that must be met before import restrictions may be imposed. This amendment is essential to ensure that the Committee faithfully responds to each of the statutory criteria. Import restrictions.--Our bill amends Section 303(a)(1)(A) of the CCPIA, dealing with the authority to impose restrictions, to make clear that there must be evidence of pillage which supports the full range of any import restrictions under the CCPIA and that such evidence must reflect contemporary pillage. Evidence of contemporary pillage is essential to the working of the Act, which is based on the concept that a U.S. import restriction will have a meaningful effect on an ongoing situation of pillage. There is striking evidence that the Committee and the administering agency are now promulgating broad-scale import restrictions where there is no evidence of contemporary pillage that would justify the scope of those restrictions. Recent examples include omnibus import restrictions involving cultural property from Canada and Peru, extending over thousands of years. Vast portions of the Canadian restrictions were supported by no evidence whatsoever of contemporary pillage. Likewise, the Peruvian restrictions extend far beyond any evidence of current pillage contained in the administrative record. I am told that the Government of Italy has now requested that the United States impose a sweeping embargo on Italian archaeological materials dating from the 8th century B.C. to the 5th century A.D. This provision also makes clear that an import embargo cannot be based on historical evidence of pillage; rather, there must be contemporary pillage. This amendment responds to recent instances where the committee has made recommendations, which the agency has accepted, based upon evidence of pillage that is many years old, and indeed, evidence of pillage that occurred hundreds of years previously. It is quite obvious that an import restriction in 1999 cannot deter pillage that took place decades or even centuries ago. This provision is imperative to ensure that the administrative process under the act is faithful to the statutory goals of CCPIA. Continuing review.--Our bill amends section 306(g) of the act to make more specific the obligation of the committee to conduct reviews, on an annual basis, of existing agreements providing for import restrictions; to publish in the Federal Register the conclusions of such reviews; and to report on those agreements not reviewed during the preceding year and the reasons why such agreements were not reviewed. The amendment provides for full public participation in the fact-finding phase of the annual reviews. It is prompted by the committee's failure to undertake, with full public participation, a prompt review of existing import restrictions, particularly those relating to Canada, for which serious questions have been raised as to the claims of pillage made in support of the omnibus U.S. import restrictions. Multinational response.--These provisions deal with the action required by other art-importing nations in connection with non- emergency import restrictions imposed under the act. The act requires that any import restriction under Section 303 of the act be accomplished by corresponding import restrictions by other nations having a significant trade in the cultural properties barred by the U.S. import restriction. The rationale for this requirement is that one cannot effectively deter a serious situation of pillage of cultural properties if the U.S. unilaterally closes its borders to the import of those properties, and they find their way, in an undiminished stream of commerce, to markets in London, Paris, Munich, Tokyo, or other air- importing centers. Congress imposed a specific requirement of an actual multinational response. There is a concern that the committee is simply disregarding these requirements in its recent actions imposing far-reaching restrictions on cultural properties. Therefore, this subsection amends section 303(g)(2) of the act to require the administering agency to set forth in detail the reasons for its determination under this provision. Consultation by committee members.--These provisions relate to the appropriate activities of committee members. In order to provide that maximum information and insight be brought to bear upon the committee's fact-finding and deliberations, all members of the Committee will be free to consult with others in connection with non-confidential information in an effort to secure expert advice and information on the justification for a particular request, and to share non-confidential information received from a requesting country in support of its request. Any such consultation must be reported in the committee's records. In the past, committee members have been advised that they would face severe sanctions if they were to consult with experts on the extent of pillage or other pertinent facts in connection with a foreign nation's request. Cultural Property Advisory Committee membership.--Our bill clarifies that members of the CPAC serve in a representative capacity and not as officers or employees of the government or as special government employees (``SGEs''). This additional language is necessary because officials at the administering agency and elsewhere in the executive branch appear to have misconstrued congressional intent in this regard. Because CPAC members are expected to bring their particular institutional perspectives to CPAC deliberations, the CCPIA seeks to ensure a ``fair representation of the various interests of the public sectors and the private sectors in the international exchange of archaeological and ethnological material,'' by designating members to represent various perspectives. To accomplish this purpose, Congress reserved specific slots on the CPAC for representatives of the affected interest groups. Despite this language, the administering agency has asserted that CPAC members serve as SGE rather than in a representative capacity. As a result, certain experts have been prevented from serving on the CPAC. The proposed amendment would restate and clarify that all members of the CPAC serve in a representative capacity. Federal Advisory Committee Act.--Finally, the bill makes clear that the transparency provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (e.g., open meetings, public notice, public participation, and public availability of documents) apply to the fact-finding phase of the committee's actions. Those provisions shall not apply to the deliberative phase of the committee's action if there is an appropriate determination that open procedures would compromise the Government's negotiating objectives or bargaining position. This provision would open to the public the fact-gathering phase of the CPAC's work, while retaining discretion, consistent with section 206(h) of the CCPIA, to close the deliberative phase where the government's negotiating objectives or bargaining positions may be compromised. Mr. President, I urge the speedy passage of this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill appear in the Record along with a brief section-by-section description of the bill.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to voice my displeasure at the severe reduction this year's Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill includes for the Social Services Block Grant. This program was established under Title XX of the Social Security Act to help people who are least able to help themselves; the elderly, the disabled, and children of low income families. The money is put to good use in some two dozen areas such as foster care services, day care, intervention and prevention for at-risk families, and special services for the disabled. The Labor-HHS Subcommittee has produced a bill that cuts SSBG funds from $1.9 billion to $1 billion. Just short of cutting it in half. The committee report cites tight budget constraints and suggests that states can make up the difference with proceeds from the tobacco settlement. Mr. President, money from the tobacco settlement should be used for anti-smoking programs and other health programs. The basis of that litigation was that smoking caused health problems which the states had paid for. So health care programs that were deprived of funds in the past should be the beneficiaries of the tobacco money, as should anti-smoking programs. We should not tell the states that we're pulling the rug out from under the SSBG and it is up to them to make up the difference if they choose to. Some states have already passed legislation that allocates the tobacco money. The Social Services Block Grant program is an entirely egalitarian program. The formula could scarcely be simpler. The proportion of the money each state gets is the proportion of the national population it has. New York has seven percent of the population. It gets seven percent of the funds. So this draconian cut affects states evenly. Everyone should be concerned about it. One further point. This is a block grant. It allows the states to decide how best to spend money on a range of similar needs. The alternative would be a handful of categorical programs to which the states would apply individually. From time to time Senate debate centers on the merits of block grants versus categorical programs. Education comes to mind, for example. The opponents of block grants frequently say that once you block grant a group of existing programs, it becomes significantly easier to cut their funding. If this $900 million reduction is allowed to stand, the opponents of block grants will have a shining new example of the damage that can be done to a block grant and the proponents of block grants will have a more difficult time gaining their objectives in the future.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might speak for up to 3 minutes as in morning business, and that at the conclusion of my remarks the quorum call be reinstated.

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

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to the most urgent of matters about which I can be succinct. There has arisen in New York City the question of the propriety of a museum exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum. The city government has contested this, and the museums of the city have, in turn, raised objections. Floyd Abrams, who is perhaps the most significant first amendment lawyer of our age--I should correct myself to say he is the most significant first amendment lawyer of our age--is taking this case to a Federal district court, urging that a first amendment issue is involved and that the proposed measures of the City of New York are in violation of the first amendment and cannot be allowed to stand. In that circumstance, I should think any Member of this body ought to defer to the courts before which this issue is now being placed. Clearly this amendment by Senator Smith will not become law. In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial which appeared this morning in the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Now I request, as I believe I said, the quorum call be reinstated.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank both my distinguished colleagues for their cooperation. national science foundation