Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Small Business Brownfields Redevelopment Act of 1999, a bill to set aside a portion of the Small business Administration's (SBA) resources for use by small businesses for brownfields prevention and redevelopment. I am pleased to co-sponsor this measure with Senator Jeffords of Vermont. Together, we co-chair the Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition. We recognize that our area of the country has its share of brownfields and the need for this important legislation. Many smaller banks, including those represented by the SBA, are hesitant to lend to projects involving brownfields which they perceive to be risky. Our bill will encourage and provide the legitimacy to brownfields investment and lending that is long overdue. This bill designates a portion of the funding of two of SBA's programs, Section 504, Certified Development Companies (CDCs) and Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs), for brownfields activities. This will ensure that small businesses receive the support they need to promote the redevelopment of valuable land. Companies across the nation have recognized the financial and social advantages of Smart Growth and brownfields redevelopment. Communities call on us to preserve and promote open space. This bill unites the goals of businesses and residents in a common purpose: more efficient, economical and ecological use of our nation's lands.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I have two amendments that I believe the distinguished chairman is prepared to accept en bloc, as is the ranking member, as I understand. They are, first of all, a sense of the Senate, which says: It is the sense of Congress that the systematic declassification of records of permanent historic value is in the public interest and that the management of classification and declassification by the Executive Branch agencies requires comprehensive reform and additional resources. The second measure, in regard to that last phrase, the Information Security Oversight Office, which is charged with administering this Nation's intelligence classification and declassification, would receive an additional $1.5 million to hire more staff so it can more efficiently manage the program. They are in the National Archives. The Archives asked for $5 million. They did not get it. This is a small agency. It does indispensable work. It gives you a continuous series of the amount of classification we do and the degree of classification and the agencies that do it.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am sorry. Forgive me.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

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

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Small Business Brownfields Redevelopment Act of 1999, a bill to set aside a portion of the Small business Administration's (SBA) resources for use by small businesses for brownfields prevention and redevelopment. I am pleased to co-sponsor this measure with Senator Jeffords of Vermont. Together, we co-chair the Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition. We recognize that our area of the country has its share of brownfields and the need for this important legislation. Many smaller banks, including those represented by the SBA, are hesitant to lend to projects involving brownfields which they perceive to be risky. Our bill will encourage and provide the legitimacy to brownfields investment and lending that is long overdue. This bill designates a portion of the funding of two of SBA's programs, Section 504, Certified Development Companies (CDCs) and Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs), for brownfields activities. This will ensure that small businesses receive the support they need to promote the redevelopment of valuable land. Companies across the nation have recognized the financial and social advantages of Smart Growth and brownfields redevelopment. Communities call on us to preserve and promote open space. This bill unites the goals of businesses and residents in a common purpose: more efficient, economical and ecological use of our nation's lands.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the minority of the Finance Committee, I want to associate myself wholly with the remarks of our chairman. This is not the time to engage in protracted debate on the Senate floor over our economic relations with China and Vietnam. The Finance Committee has not yet had an opportunity to consider the disapproval resolutions that the Senator from New Hampshire seeks to discharge. Nor has the House acted on the companion measures. It will do so later this month. If the motions to discharge the Finance Committee are approved, the Senate will be committing itself, as the Trade Act of 1974 provides, to 20 hours of debate on Vietnam and 20 hours of debate on China. The Senate's time is better spent on other matters. The Senator from New Hampshire has moved to discharge the Finance Committee from further consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 27 and Senate Joint Resolution 28. Let us be clear what is at issue here. S.J. Res. 27 and S.J. Res. 28 disapprove of the President's decision of June 3, 1999 to extend for another year his waiver of the so-called ``Jackson-Vanik'' amendment as it applies to China and Vietnam, respectively. A bit of history is in order. The Jackson-Vanik amendment was the vision of Senator Henry M. Jackson of Washington, who, in 1972, first proposed: . . . an unprecedented measure to bring the blessings of liberty to these brave men and women who have asked only for the chance to find freedom in a new land. ``Scoop'' Jackson's amendment was precipitated by the decision of the Soviet Union, in August 1972, to assess exorbitant fees on persons wishing to emigrate. Cloaked as ``education reimbursement fees'' or ``diploma taxes,'' the Soviet authorities argued that emigrants owed an obligation to reimburse the Government for their free education, since, by reason of their departure, the emigrants would no longer put their education to use for the benefit of Soviet society. The exit taxes applied to all emigrants, but affected primarily Soviet Jews wishing to emigrate to Israel or the United States. Thus was born the Jackson-Vanik amendment. Representative Charles Vanik of Ohio was the chief sponsor in the House. The amendment--Section 402 of the Trade Act of 1974--provides that no country shall be eligible to receive Normal Trade Relations tariff treatment or to participate in any United States Government programs that extend credit or credit guarantees or investment guarantees if that country: (1) denies its citizens the right or opportunity to emigrate; (2) imposes more than a nominal tax on emigration or on the visas or other documents required for emigration, for any purpose or cause whatsoever; or (3) imposes more than a nominal tax, levy, fine, fee, or other charge on any citizen as a consequence of the desire of such citizen to emigrate to the country of his choice. Under the law, the President may waive these restrictions if he determines that: . . . such waiver will substantially promote the objectives of this section . . . and he has received assurances that the emigration practices of that country will henceforth lead substantially to the achievement of the objectives of this section. The United States has granted NTR status to China since 1980, on the basis of a waiver of the Jackson-Vanik provisions. Vietnam does not yet enjoy NTR status, but, since 1998, when the President first waived the Jackson-Vanik requirements, U.S. exports to Vietnam and investment projects in that country have been eligible for certain U.S. Government credits and credit and investment guarantees issued by the United States Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the United States Department of Agriculture. The issue before the Senate, then, is whether the Senate agrees with the President's assessment of the emigration policies and practices of China and Vietnam. At stake are our economic relations with those countries. The first point to be made is that the authors of the Jackson-Vanik amendment had neither China nor Vietnam in mind when they drafted their provision. The amendment was a creature of the Cold War, and is today an anachronism in many respects. The President's June 3, 1999 report to the Congress, which accompanied his determination to extend the Jackson-Vanik waiver to China for another year, made the following points: In FY 1998, 27,776 U.S. immigrant visas were issued to Chinese nationals abroad, up slightly from FY 1997 . . . and up to the numerical limitation under U.S. law . . . . The principal constraint on increased emigration continues to be the capacity and willingness of other nations to absorb Chinese immigrants rather than Chinese policy. On Vietnam, the President reported the following: Overall, Vietnam's emigration policy has liberalized considerably in the last decade and a half. Vietnam has a solid record of cooperation with the United States in permitting Vietnamese to emigrate. Over 500,000 Vietnamese have emigrated as refugees or immigrants to the United States under the Orderly Departure Program (ODP), and only a small number of refugee applicants remain to be processed. The President reported particular progress in the so-called ROVR program--the Resettlement Opportunities for Vietnamese Returnees program--formalized in 1997 to facilitate the emigration of Vietnamese who were still in asylum camps in Southeast Asia or who had recently returned to Vietnam. As the President noted in his June 3, 1999 report: After a slow start, processing of eligible cases under the ROVR program accelerated dramatically in 1998 and is now near completion. As of June 1, 1999, the [Government of Vietnam] had cleared for interview 19,975 individuals, or 96 percent of the ROVR applicants. Given these findings, I would submit that the President's determination to waive the Jackson-Vanik freedom-of-emigration provisions with respect to both China and Vietnam was fully in accordance with the law. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to discharge the Finance Committee from further consideration of the disapproval resolutions: there is no need to take the Senate's time at this point.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield as much time as he should desire to my distinguished chairman and friend, the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to continue the remarks so forcefully made by our beloved chairman of the Armed Forces Committee, the Senator from Virginia, and the Senator from Nebraska, as regards the nomination before us on the calendar for the position of permanent representative to the United Nations. I would like to make the point--and I have served in that role--that this is a Cabinet position. It has been from the time of President Eisenhower when Henry Cabot Lodge was in the Cabinet. It is one of the oldest traditions of this body that a President is entitled to and must have his own counselors. Be they right-minded or wrong-minded, they are the President's judgment and they are his responsibility. This office is a Cabinet office of the highest importance, as the Senator from Virginia has said, in mediating urgent international issues. But there is an awesome principle. Once, almost a half century ago, the Senate did reject a Cabinet nomination of President Eisenhower. It was not a proud moment for the Senate. We have not done it since, for the good reason that we ought not to do it ever. I plead with the Senate to respect this prerogative of the other branch. I hope I will not seem mischievous if I repeat the remarks of my friend from Nebraska who said the day may come when there is a President of the other party. And indeed that could come very shortly. I do not predict it, but that is the way we work here. That President would want to choose his Cabinet members and would be entitled to do so, for all the errors they may make or not. That is the constitutional form of government in which we live. Let us, sir, support that regime of two centuries, unparalleled in the history of democratic government, based upon this principle of the separation of powers and the President's right to choose. I yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to thank Rae Liu, a brilliant young intern from Columbia University where she is a National Merit Scholar and a debater. Rae came to my office this May. When an opening appeared on my personal staff in June, Rae was our unanimous choice to fill it until we could hire someone permanently. At 18, she took on the task of being a full-fledged member of my staff. From the outset, Rae displayed judgment, maturity, initiative, and a work ethic way beyond her years. She worked tirelessly overhauling and drafting legislation, attending policy reviews, and meeting with constituents. She quickly made herself indispensable to my foreign policy, intelligence, and defense legislative assistant, and distinguished herself with her quick mind, sharp wit and devastating competence. It is rare to see so much ability and professionalism in one so young. Rae is exactly the sort of young person we need to attract to public service. This is not going to be easy as we compete with the best law and business schools for talented young Americans who can earn much more than taking the Queen's shilling. We must try, however, for if we do not, we risk losing a new generation of bright ideas and insights. This would be not only tragic but shortsighted. I wish this young lady from Texas godspeed in her studies and thank her again for her contributions.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will the Senator from Wyoming yield for a very brief remark?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, first, I thank my friend and distinguished ranking member on the Judiciary Committee for his remarks about Judge Katzmann, as I believe he now is. I am very much indebted to Senator Hatch, the chairman of the committee. I thank the acting majority leader, the Senator from Wyoming. On a brief personal note, this is a very special moment for the Senator from New York. Judge Katzmann was a graduate student of mine. I was a member of the orals examining committee when he received his Ph.D. He has been a remarkable student, a professor of law at Georgetown University at this point, and an author of important articles and books on the relationship between the Congress and the judiciary, a subject little attended and important. It attracted the attention of Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy. I thank the Senator for his indulgence. I thank the Senate for its great good judgment in this important confirmation which I do believe history will one day record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will protect the natural beauty and resources of the Long Island Sound from current dredging policies that allow large amounts of material to be dumped into the estuary without stringent environmental review. The Long Island Sound Protection Act of 1999 would require all large dredging projects in the Sound to comply with sediment testing provisions of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, commonly known as the Ocean Dumping Act. Under the Ocean Dumping Act, any Long Island Sound dredging project that disposes of more than 25,000 tons of dredged material must undergo toxicity and bioaccumulation tests before it is safe to dump. However, smaller nonfederal projects need only comply with the Clean Water Act, which does not require testing. In recent years, the Army Corps of Engineers has begun an unfortunate practice of avoiding the more rigorous requirements of the Ocean Dumping Act by individually permitting smaller projects that are clearly a part of larger dredging operations. Individually permitted, these projects need only comply with the Clean Water Act, even though they are dumped together in the Long Island Sound and have the same cumulative effect as one large project would to the local ecosystem. The Long Island Sound Protection Act would end this practice of stacking permits and would ensure that at least one environmentally acceptable disposal site is designated by the Environmental Protection Agency within a two-year period. Dredging projects are critical to the people and businesses who rely extensively on the Sound to transport goods, services, and people every day. However, the health of the Long Island Sound ecosystem is also important to the 8 million people living within the boundaries of the Long Island Sound watershed, with more than $5 billion generated annually from boating, commercial and sport fishing, swimming, and beachgoing. The Long Island Sound is also an estuary of national significance that my State, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency, has worked diligently to restore under the 1992 Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. This bill would remove one of the barriers to achieving the laudable goals of this Plan. A clean and safe Sound is important to us all. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will protect the natural beauty and resources of the Long Island Sound from current dredging policies that allow large amounts of material to be dumped into the estuary without stringent environmental review. The Long Island Sound Protection Act of 1999 would require all large dredging projects in the Sound to comply with sediment testing provisions of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, commonly known as the Ocean Dumping Act. Under the Ocean Dumping Act, any Long Island Sound dredging project that disposes of more than 25,000 tons of dredged material must undergo toxicity and bioaccumulation tests before it is safe to dump. However, smaller nonfederal projects need only comply with the Clean Water Act, which does not require testing. In recent years, the Army Corps of Engineers has begun an unfortunate practice of avoiding the more rigorous requirements of the Ocean Dumping Act by individually permitting smaller projects that are clearly a part of larger dredging operations. Individually permitted, these projects need only comply with the Clean Water Act, even though they are dumped together in the Long Island Sound and have the same cumulative effect as one large project would to the local ecosystem. The Long Island Sound Protection Act would end this practice of stacking permits and would ensure that at least one environmentally acceptable disposal site is designated by the Environmental Protection Agency within a two-year period. Dredging projects are critical to the people and businesses who rely extensively on the Sound to transport goods, services, and people every day. However, the health of the Long Island Sound ecosystem is also important to the 8 million people living within the boundaries of the Long Island Sound watershed, with more than $5 billion generated annually from boating, commercial and sport fishing, swimming, and beachgoing. The Long Island Sound is also an estuary of national significance that my State, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency, has worked diligently to restore under the 1992 Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. This bill would remove one of the barriers to achieving the laudable goals of this Plan. A clean and safe Sound is important to us all. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President. I rise today to pay tribute to Meredith Gardner, long unsung contributor to the identification of spies. Described by the FBI's Robert Joseph Lamphere as ``the greatest counter-intelligence tool this country has ever known,'' Gardner was the National Security Agency's leading enabler of the reading of thousands of enciphered cables intercepted from Soviet foreign intelligence in the 1940's. The NSA, under its various names, spent four decades deciphering what Moscow intended to be an unbreakable Soviet cipher. Gardner and his team painstakingly worked on these messages in a project which came to be known eventually as ``VENONA.'' The resulting VENONA decrypts, which were finally revealed publicly in 1995, detail the Soviet's espionage efforts in the United States during and after World War II. Gardner has a genius for learning languages, and is fluent in German, Spanish, French and Russian and has had courses in Old High and Middle High German, Old Norse, Gothic, Lithuanian, and Sanskrit. He taught languages at the Universities of Texas and Wisconsin before being recruited by the U.S. Army's Signals Intelligence Service (the precursor to the National Security Agency) shortly after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The Army wanted people fluent in many languages to work on breaking German and Japanese codes. Until 1955 Gardner worked at Arlington Hall, a former girl's school located 10 miles outside Washington, which served as the Army's headquarters for code-breaking operations. Gardner soon added Japanese to his repertoire of languages. By chance, he became the first American to read in an intercepted message the Japanese word for atom bomb, ``genshi-bakudan.'' When the war with Japan ended, the NSA phased out its Japanese section. Gardner learned that there was a section working on Soviet Union messages (its existence was kept secret) and he transferred into it. Gardner insists that the most arduous efforts to make the messages readable had already been done before he came along. First, the messages had to be sorted into at least four varieties, each used by representatives of separate Soviet government departments. It had also been discovered that some messages could be paired as having been ``randomized'' by the same pad and page carrying random additive digits (and hence were solvable). Such mixed pairs were worked on by a small group of women led by Katurah ``Katie'' McDonald. This group had already produced a remarkable amount of code text, and the code-groups that had appeared so far had even been indexed in context by a card machine. The material was just awaiting the appointment of a linguist, and Gardner ``appointed himself'' to be it. It was the easy stage, but without it all the preparatory work would have been for nothing. Gardner's reconstruction of the foreign intelligence (VENONA) code book was slow at first, but gained momentum. Because some recruits were named in the messages and given cover names, it became obvious that the FBI ought to receive translations of the cables. Special agent Robert Joseph Lamphere was assigned to be the (very efficient) link between the NSA and FBI. The next is history. Gardner spent 27 years working on the ``Russian problem'' before retiring in 1972. He and his wife of 56 years, Blanche, who also worked for the Army Security Agency, now spend part of their time teaching Latin to a small group of students. I commend Mr. Gardner for the invaluable assistance he has given to our country, which we are only now beginning to realize and understand. I salute Mr. Gardner for his dedicated and important service.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this past Friday (July 9, 1999), the Washington Post carried an excellent op-ed piece, ``Deinstitutionalization Hasn't Worked,'' by E. Fuller Torrey and Mary T. Zdanowicz. The authors are the president and executive director, respectively, of the Treatment Advocacy Center. They write about the continued stigma attached to mental illness. They write about barriers to treatment. Most important, they write about the aftermaths of deinstitutionalization, and the seemingly horrific effects this policy has had. In this morning's New York Times (July 12, 1999), Fox Butterfield writes about a Department of Justice report released yesterday which states that some 283,800 inmates in the nation's jails and prisons suffer from mental illness. (This is a conservative estimate.) As Butterfield puts it, ``. . . jails and prisons have become the nation's new mental hospitals.'' Over the past 45 years, we have emptied state mental hospitals, but we have not provided commensurate outpatient treatment. Increasingly, individuals with mental illnesses are left to fend for themselves on the streets, where they victimize others or, more frequently, are victimized themselves. Eventually, many wind up in prison, where the likelihood of treatment is nearly as remote. This is a cautionary tale, instructive of what is possible and also what we ought to be aware of. I was in the Harriman administration in New York in the 1950s. Early in 1955, Harriman met with his new Commissioner of Mental Hygiene, Paul Hoch, who described the development of a tranquilizer derived from rauwolfia by Dr. Nathan S. Kline at what was then known as Rockland State Hospital (it is now the Rockland Psychiatric Center) in Orangeburg. The medication had been clinically tested and appeared to be an effective treatment of many patients. Dr. Hoch recommended that it be used system wide; Harriman found the money. That same year Congress created a Joint Commission on Mental Health and Illness with a view to formulating ``comprehensive and realistic recommendations'' in this area which was then a matter of considerable public concern. Year after year the population of mental institutions grew; year after year new facilities had to be built. Ballot measures to approve the issuance of general obligation bonds for building the facilities appeared just about every election. Or so it seemed. The discovery of tranquilizers was adventitious. Physicians were seeking cures for disorders they were just beginning to understand. Even a limited success made it possible to believe that the incidence of this particular range of disorders, which had seemingly required persons to be confined against their will or even awareness, could be greatly reduced. The Congressional Commission submitted its report in 1961; it was seen to propose a nationwide program of deinstitutionalization. Late in 1961 President Kennedy appointed an interagency committee to prepare legislative recommendations based on the report. I represented Secretary of Labor Arthur J. Goldberg on this committee and drafted its final submission. This included the recommendation of the National Institute of Mental Health that 2,000 ``community mental health centers'' (one for every 100,000 people) be built by 1980. A buoyant Presidential Message to Congress followed early in 1963. ``If we apply our medical knowledge and social insights fully,'' President Kennedy stated, ``all but a small portion of the mentally ill can eventually achieve a wholesome and a constructive social adjustment.'' A ``concerted national attack on mental disorders [was] now possible and practical.'' The President signed the Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act on October 31, 1963--his last public bill signing ceremony. He gave me a pen. The mental hospitals emptied out. The number of patients in state and county mental hospitals peaked in 1955 at 558,922 and has declined every year since then, to 61,722 in 1996. But we never came near to building the 2,000 community mental health centers. Only some 482 received Federal construction funds from 1963 to 1980. The next year, 1981, the program was folded into the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health block grant program, where it disappeared from view. Even when centers were built, the results were hardly as hoped for. David Musto has noted that the planners had bet on improving national mental health ``by improving the quality of general community life through expert knowledge [my emphasis], not merely by more effective treatment of the already ill.'' The problem was: there is no such knowledge. Nor is there. But the belief there was such knowledge took hold within sectors of the profession, which saw institutions as an unacceptable mode of social control. These activists subscribed to a redefining mode of their own, which they considered altruistic: mental patients were said to have been ``labeled,'' and were not to be drugged. So as the Federal government turned to other matters, the mental institutions continued to release patients, essentially to fend for themselves. There was no connection made: we're quite capable of that in the public sphere. Professor Frederick F. Siegel of Cooper Union observed: ``in the great wave of moral deregulation that began in the mid-1960s, the poor and the insane were freed from the fetters of middle-class mores.'' Soon, the homeless appeared. Only to be defined as victims of an insufficient supply of affordable housing. No argument, no amount of evidence has yet affected that fixed ideological view. I commend these two articles to my colleagues and ask that they be printed in the Record. The articles follow: [From the Washington Post, July 9, 1999] Deinstitutionalization Hasn't Worked ``We have lost effectively 93 percent of our state psychiatric hospital beds since 1955'' (By E. Fuller Torrey and Mary T. Zdanowicz) The White House Conference on Mental Health identified stigma and discrimination as the most important barriers to treatment for the mentally ill. For the most severely ill, there are more significant barriers to treatment, such as laws that prevent treating individuals until they become dangerous. These laws and our failure to treat individuals with schizophrenia and manic-depressive illness are, ironically, the leading causes of stigma and discrimination against those with mental illnesses. Stigma is created by the sort of headlines that result when a person is not being treated for mental illness and shoots two Capitol police officers to death, or pushes an innocent victim in front of a speeding subway train. Some 20 years of research has proven this point. A 1996 study published in the Journal of Community Psychology demonstrated that negative attitudes toward people with mental illnesses increased greatly after people read newspaper articles reporting violent crimes by the mentally ill. Henry J. Steadman, an influential public opinion researcher, wrote as far back as 1981: ``Recent research data on contemporary populations of ex-mental patients supports these public fears [of dangerousness] to an extent rarely acknowledged by mental health professionals. . . . It is [therefore] futile and inappropriate to badger the news and entertainment media with appeals to help destigmatize the mentally ill.'' Tipper Gore and the White House must tackle 30 years of failed deinstitutionalization policy if they hope to win the battle of mental illness stigma and solve the nation's mental illness crisis. Hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Americans are eking out a pitiful existence on city streets, underground in subway tunnels or in jails and prisons because of the misguided efforts of civil rights advocates to keep the severely ill out of hospitals and out of treatment. The images of these gravely ill citizens on our city landscapes are bleak reminders of the failure of deinstitutionalization. They are seen huddling over steam grates in the cold, animatedly carrying on conversations with invisible companions, wearing filthy, tattered clothing, urinating and defecating on sidewalks or threatening passersby. Worse still, they frequently are seen being carried away on stretchers as victims of suicide or violent crime, or in handcuffs as perpetrators of violence against others. All of this occurs under the watchful eyes of fellow citizens and government officials who do nothing but shake their heads in blind tolerance. The consequences of failing to treat these illnesses are devastating. While Americans with untreated severe mental illnesses represent less than one percent of our population, they commit almost 1,000 homicides in the United States each year. At least one-third of the estimated 600,000 homeless suffer from schizophrenia or manic-depressive illness, and 28 percent of them forage for some of their food in garbage cans. About 170,000 individuals, or 10 percent, of our jail and prison populations suffer from these illnesses, costing American taxpayers a staggering $8.5 billion per year. Moreover, studies suggest that delaying treatment results in permanent harm, including increased treatment resistance, worsening severity of symptoms, increased hospitalizations and delayed remission of symptoms. In addition, persons suffering from severe psychiatric illnesses are frequently victimized. Studies have shown that 22 percent of women with untreated schizophrenia have been raped. Suicide rates for these individuals are 10 to 15 times higher than the general population. Weak state treatment laws coupled with inadequate psychiatric hospital beds have only served to compound the devastation for this population. Nearly half of those suffering from these insidious illnesses do not realize they are sick and in need of treatment, because their brain disease has affected their self-awareness. Because they do not believe they are sick, they refuse medication. Most state laws today prohibit treating individuals over their objection unless they pose an immediate danger to themselves. In other words, an individual must have a finger on the trigger of a gun before any medical care will be prescribed. Studies have proved that outpatient commitment is effective in ensuring treatment compliance. While many states have some form of assisted treatment on the books, the challenge remains in getting them to utilize what is at their disposal rather than tolerating the revolving-door syndrome of hospital admissions, readmissions, abandonment to the streets and incarceration that engulfs those not receiving treatment. Adequate care in psychiatric facilities also must be available. Between 5 and 10 percent of the 3.5 million people suffering from schizophrenia and manic-depressive illness require long-term hospitalization--which means hospitalization in state psychiatric hospitals. This critical need is not being met, since we have lost effectively 93 percent of our state psychiatric hospital beds since 1955. It is time to recognize that feel-good mental health policies have caused grave suffering for those most ill and that real solutions must be developed. The lives of millions of Americans depend on it.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Chair. This is a fine moment for the Senate. We are here to confirm Mr. Lawrence Summers as Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. He has had a fine career in Government. He was on the staff of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan. He was Under Secretary for International Affairs of the U.S. Treasury under Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, our former colleague. Since 1995, he has been Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. If my revered colleague and chairman were present at this moment, he would want to point out that his nomination was reported out from the Finance Committee unanimously.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today, I am proud to co-sponsor the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, introduced by my good friend and colleague Senator Chafee. We are joined by a group of our colleagues, including Senator Rockefeller, Bond, Reed. This legislation will help a group of our children in dire circumstances--foster children who reach age 18 still in the custody of the state. They were victims of abuse and neglect and their families proved to be beyond repair. About 20,000 children a year ``age out'' of the foster care system. They reach 18 and we, in large part, abandon them to the world. Many make their way successfully. But far too many, alas, do not, and these children are more likely to become homeless or end up on public assistance. More than a decade ago, we recognized that these children needed additional help in preparing for life on their own. I am proud to have helped create the Independent Living program, which provided Federal support for efforts that prepare teenager for the transition from foster care to independence. Today we are working on a bipartisan basis to build on this program. The bill we are introducing will double funding for the Independent Living program and increase the use of the funds to assist former foster care children until they reach 21, including, for the first time, help with room and board. As any parent knows, many 19 and 20- year olds remain in need of family support from time to time. For children who have ``aged out'' of foster care by turning 18, the government is, in effect, their parent and we should do more to help them become independent and self-sufficient, just as other parents do. The legislation also contains important provisions encouraging states to continue Medicaid coverage for these children so that health care remains available to them. Mr. President, this legislation has widespread support, including from the Administration and key members of both parties. I would like to particularly thank the First Lady for her leadership in working on behalf of these children. I thank Senator Chafee for offering it and look forward to working with him and many others to see that it becomes law.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this Saturday, a most blessed event will occur on Shelter Island: the wedding of two of my constituents, Lisa Maxwell and George Newall. Martin Luther remarked, ``There is no more lovely, friendly and charming relationship, communion or company than a good marriage.'' I must say that I agree, having just celebrated my 45th wedding anniversary a few weeks ago. Marriage--as the Book of Common Prayer tells us--is intended by God for ``mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity.'' A wonderful institution, to be treated reverently. My hope for Lisa and George is that their love for each other--so obvious to anyone who knows them--is, and will always remain, a seal upon their hearts, For stern as death is love, relentless as the nether world is devotion; its flames are a blazing fire. Deep waters cannot quench love, nor floods sweep it away. Were one to offer all he owns to purchase love, he would be roundly mocked.--Song of Solomon, 8:6-7 I wish them all the best as they begin their life together.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today, I am proud to co-sponsor the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, introduced by my good friend and colleague Senator Chafee. We are joined by a group of our colleagues, including Senator Rockefeller, Bond, Reed. This legislation will help a group of our children in dire circumstances--foster children who reach age 18 still in the custody of the state. They were victims of abuse and neglect and their families proved to be beyond repair. About 20,000 children a year ``age out'' of the foster care system. They reach 18 and we, in large part, abandon them to the world. Many make their way successfully. But far too many, alas, do not, and these children are more likely to become homeless or end up on public assistance. More than a decade ago, we recognized that these children needed additional help in preparing for life on their own. I am proud to have helped create the Independent Living program, which provided Federal support for efforts that prepare teenager for the transition from foster care to independence. Today we are working on a bipartisan basis to build on this program. The bill we are introducing will double funding for the Independent Living program and increase the use of the funds to assist former foster care children until they reach 21, including, for the first time, help with room and board. As any parent knows, many 19 and 20- year olds remain in need of family support from time to time. For children who have ``aged out'' of foster care by turning 18, the government is, in effect, their parent and we should do more to help them become independent and self-sufficient, just as other parents do. The legislation also contains important provisions encouraging states to continue Medicaid coverage for these children so that health care remains available to them. Mr. President, this legislation has widespread support, including from the Administration and key members of both parties. I would like to particularly thank the First Lady for her leadership in working on behalf of these children. I thank Senator Chafee for offering it and look forward to working with him and many others to see that it becomes law.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank and applaud Ron Kavulick, the Chief Reporter of Debates, for the tremendous work that he did for the U.S. Senate. Being in charge of the Congressional Record is a very demanding and important responsibility. For it is the historical document of the Senate--the bills we introduce, the statements that we make, and all of our debates are printed in the Record. I am often amazed how the Record is compiled and printed in such a short amount of time. Ron was to have ended his Senate career at the close of the 105th Congress, but remained in his position as the Senate conducted the impeachment trial of the President. His experience was greatly appreciated throughout this historical proceeding. Ron's reporting background is both extensive and impressive. He became an Official Reporter of the Record of Senate Debates in 1979 and served in that capacity until he was elevated to the position of Chief Reporter in 1995. Before that, he was an official court reporter in the Air Force's Judge Advocate General Corp, and while employed with Alderson Reporting Company, Ron had the opportunity to work at the White House. He traveled extensively both with President Johnson and President Nixon. My staff and I personally cannot thank Ron enough for his service. He was always available, day or night, for any help that my staff or I needed. I once wrote that the single most exciting thing you encounter in government is competence, because it's so rare. In that case, Ron Kavulick is a rarity in government, and we are blessed to have had him in the Senate.