Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, we thank the Senator from Missouri for his moving, eloquent tribute. I yield such time as he may require to my eminent friend, the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his beautiful words. My dear friend and colleague, the Senator from New York, has asked to speak, and I yield him 3 minutes, if we may, of the time that is beginning to run out. Also, the distinguished majority leader has come on the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I believe Senator Ashcroft would like to speak at this moment.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, might I add I am proud of the warm and insightful remarks of my junior colleague. I thank him. I see the eminent majority leader is on the floor. Through his courtesy, this time has been made available. I wish him to take whatever time he requires.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, our time has expired. Might I ask for 1 concluding minute?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the majority leader for his fine, perceptive remarks and for making this occasion possible. It is a little over a year since the passing of Rabbi Moshe Sherer, one of American Jewry's most distinguished communal leaders. Rabbi Sherer was the president of Agudath Israel of America for over 30 years and served as a reasoned, wise voice whose counsel was widely respected in the Yeshivot of his beloved Brooklyn and the halls of government in lower Manhattan, Albany, Jerusalem, and here in Washington. I first met Rabbi Sherer in the early days of the Kennedy administration when he came to Washington on behalf of Agudath Israel. I quickly learned to admire his sagacity and rely on his insightful counsel and abiding integrity. For over 35 years he was a treasured mentor and a trusted friend. Rabbi Sherer's earliest work on behalf of the Jewish community was the grassroots, and largely illegal, organization and transport of food shipments to starving Jews in Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe in 1941. His efforts also produced affidavits for European Jewish refugees that helped them immigrate to the United States. After the end of World War II, he and Agudath Israel continued to assist European Jews--survivors interned in displaced person camps-- with foodstuffs and religious items, and helped facilitate the immigration and resettlement of Jewish refugees on these shores. In ensuring decades, Rabbi Sherer spearheaded Agudath Israel's efforts on behalf of endangered Jews behind the Iron Curtain and in places like Syria and Iran. In 1991, years of clandestine activity on behalf of Soviet Jews culminated in his establishment of an office in Moscow to coordinate Agudath Israel's activities in Russia. Under his leadership, Agudath Israel also played an important role in providing social welfare and educational assistance to Israel Jews, and in advocating for Israel's security needs. Ignoring the pessimistic predictions about Orthodox Jewry made by sociologists and demographic experts in the 40s and 50s, Rabbi Sherer went on to help engineer a remarkable change in the scope, image and influence of the American Orthodox Jewish world. A staunch advocate of Jewish religious education as a early as the 1960s, he helped establish the principle in numerous federal laws--like the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965--and State laws that, to the full extent constitutionally permissible, children in non-public schools were entitled to governmental benefits and services on an equitable basis with the public school counterparts. In 1972, his efforts on behalf of education led to his being named national chairman of a multi-faith coalition of leaders representing the 5 million non-public school children in the United States. On the day of his funeral last year I took the Senate floor to declare that: World Jewry has lost one of its wisest statesman. America Orthodoxy has lost a primary architect of its remarkable postwar resurgence. All New Yorkers have lost a man of rare spiritual gifts and exceptional creative vision. Rabbi Sherer passed away only hours before the President of the Senate, Vice President Al Gore, addressed Agudath Israel's 76th anniversary dinner in New York. He spoke for the Senate and for all Americans when he eulogized the Rabbi as ``a remarkable force for the understanding and respect and growth of Orthodox Jewry over the past fifty years,'' whose ``contributions to spreading religious freedom and understanding have been truly indispensable in defending and expanding those same rights for all Americans in all faiths.'' I know I speak for the entire Senate when I express my condolences to his widow Deborah, his loving children Rachel Langer and Elky Goldschmidt, who join us today in the visitor's gallery, and his son Rabbi Shimshon Sherer whose inspiring prayer opened this morning's Senate session. ``There were giants in the Earth in those days,'' the book of Genesis teaches. Rabbi Noshe Sherer was a giant in our midst, whose counsel and wisdom will be missed by all of us who were privileged to enjoy his friendship.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to the growing chorus of people congratulating the Buffalo Sabres for their outstanding performance in the Stanley Cup Finals. Led by team captain Michael Peca, and their indefatigable goalie, Dominik Hasek, the entire team accomplished what was thought by many to be the impossible. Their heartfelt play brought a level of excitement to the Stanley Cup finals not seen in years. I am proud to stand with the City of Buffalo and Western New York to honor our team. Considered underdogs in all of their playoff series, the Sabres played with pure heart and soul to sweep the Ottawa Senators in the first round, defeated the Boston Bruins and then the Toronto Maple Leafs to win the Eastern Conference and the Prince of Wales Trophy for the first time in 24 years. The triple overtime loss in Game 6 of the Stanley Cup finals showed the hockey community what a team with determination and true grit is. The controversial goal that ended the dreams of the Sabres will not dampen the spirits of the most devoted fans in the world--Buffalo Sabres fans. As the Stanley Cup Finals end, I extend my deep appreciation to the Knox Family for bringing the Sabres to Buffalo 29 years ago, John J. Rigas, owner and Chairman of the Board, Darcy Regier, General Manager, Lindy Ruff, Head Coach, and the entire Buffalo Sabres team, their coaching staff, their families and their fans for their great efforts and support. I know next season will bring even more to celebrate. In this spirit, I ask that an article from The Buffalo News, be printed in the Record. [From the Buffalo News, June 23, 1999] Rally for Sabres Proves Buffalo Has Something Special It was noon Tuesday and they streamed into Niagara Square from all directions. White-haired men and middle-aged ladies and mothers pushing strollers made the pilgrimage down Niagara Street, Franklin Street, Delaware Avenue. They came, in all colors and sizes. Shirt-and-tie businessmen, smooth-skinned teens wearing black-and-red jerseys with Hasek or Peca stitched across the back, little kids holding their mother's hand. They came in cares, on bikes, on Rollerblades. They all came downtown, washed in the summer sun, because this is Buffalo and sometimes you win even when you lose. They crowded in front of City Hall, more than 20,000 of them. Men in business suits climbed atop the marble railings of the McKinley Monument. Dozens stood on the roofs of the Federal Court Building and the Buffalo Athletic Center and the Turner Parking Ramp. They do not have rallies for teams that lose in most cities. Most cities are not Buffalo. A lot of people around the country would read that and say ``Thank God.'' I ran into one of them on a plane to Dallas a couple of weeks ago. She said she was going home and asked where I was from. When I told her, she said, ``Why would anybody want to live there?'' Lady, this is why. Yes, there are things wrong with this place and I don't just mean high taxes. A streak of negativity runs through some folks. Our so-called leaders habitually put self- interest ahead of our interest. We get told we're the pits so often we sometimes forget this is a truly nice place to live. But there's a sense of community here, a shared bond, you don't find in most other places, at least not most other places I've been. It's a hard thing to prove, but then a day like Tuesday comes and there it is, 20,000 people for all the world to see. They didn't come to this rally for a hockey team that lost in the Stanley Cup finals because Buffalo loves a loser or likes to cry in its Genesee Cream Ale. They came because this team carried the city's name on its jerseys the way we want it to be carried. They came not to lament what might have been, but to celebrate what was. The hockey team was a lot like the town, overlooked and underappreciated. Yet they left team after supposedly better team dazed and bleeding by the side of the road. They finally got beat--with the help of officials too gutless to enforce the rules--by a tough, character-laden Dallas team many expected would swat them aside like a bothersome fly. Instead, the Sabres took them to their limit, made them sweat and ache and pay for every pass and shot and goal they got-- and even one they didn't. At the end, after absorbing a mind-boggling 82 hits in the final game, the Dallas trainer compare their locker room to a M.A.S.H. unit. Some Dallas players took intravenous fluids between the overtime periods of the 5\1/2\-hour game; a half- dozen ended the series with torn ligaments or other damage. You lay a team out like that and end up losing--losing on a tainted goal--and it doesn't mean you're losers. It means time ran out, fate didn't smile, the story is To Be Continued next season. If these guys had any doubt about that, 20,000 people Tuesday told them otherwise. They didn't abandon a team that tried mightily and never backed down and came up an illegally placed skate short. Just like you don't stop loving your kid or your brother or best friend. That's not the way it works around here. Diana and Nicole Jarosz, 21 and 18, came down 90 minutes early so they could be close to the stage. They have lived in Buffalo all their lives and they could not imagine not coming to this. ``We're here to say we still love you and we're still proud of you,'' said Diana. ``As hard as (Saturday night) was for us, I can't imagine how hard it must have been sitting on the (players') bench.'' We don't want to pick on Dallas, but it's a town of shameless front-runners. Some folks were interviewed in downtown Dallas a couple of weeks ago, before this series started. One of them said, ``If this team starts losing, people will drop them like a hot poker.'' Well, this Buffalo team lost early Sunday morning, and most folks just held them closer. The Stars won the Cup, and all of 150 people showed up to meet their plane at the airport. Buffalo lost it, and 20,000 came out to say, ``Thanks for the ride.'' The players seemed genuinely touched by it all, at times nudging each other and grinning when the crowd went nuts, or waving to the kids in Sabres jerseys sitting on their dads' shoulders. ``We really didn't expect that kind of excitement,'' said team captain Michael Peca afterwards. ``This is not a city that forgets (about) you, absolutely not.'' Dallas has a pewter Cup. We have something they'll never have. Something not about towering glass skyscrapers and money and jobs. It's a spirit, a feeling, a connection you don't get in big cities. It's something so many of those who move away from here, usually in search of greener job pastures, never find again. They go somewhere else, start a new life, but a piece of them stays. You can leave Buffalo, but you can never leave it behind. Tuesday, we showed the world why.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee just made this remark to me. He is too modest, perhaps, to say it himself. He suggested that we have just taken what will likely be the most important vote of this session of the Congress. It was the first such vote we have had, I know, in my 23 years on the Committee on Finance--a solid affirmation of a half century, and more, of American trade policy. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. May I say that the Senator from New York offered that legislation, and it was welcomed by the chairman. It is a bipartisan measure.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I ask unanimous consent 3 minutes be added to each side.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise with a measure of respect for all the parties to this question before us but with one absolute conviction, which is that what is proposed with this legislation, what has passed the House of Representatives, is illegal under international law. That, sir, is a law we created as the one party that emerged from World War II with its economy intact and the lesson of the protectionism that began on this floor, sir, in 1930 with the Smoot- Hawley Tariff Act. It spread throughout the world. If you want a short list of the causes of the Second World War, that was one. The American leaders, during the 1930s, with Cordell Hull, began the trade agreements program; and then we had hoped to have an international trade organization as part of a triad with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Again, it failed in the Finance Committee. But in Geneva, a temporary ad hoc arrangement was put together, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; it was temporary for about 45 years. But we acquired great respect for the rules, and 51 years ago, sir, article 11 of the General Agreement stated: No prohibitions or restrictions, other than duties or other charges, can be made through import quotas, export licenses, or other measures. None shall be instituted or maintained by any contracting party on the importation of any product. Now, sir, if we were to do this, there would be immediate retaliation. And it would be illegal. It is uncalled for. The law says you may not do what is being proposed, and other parties, as former Senator Baker would say, ``having no dog in this fight,'' would find themselves retaliated against, as would the agricultural industry. I plead, let's abide by the laws we helped to create. I yield the floor. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.

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 today to discuss an amendment to the State Department authorization bill. For 75 years academic freedom was squelched in the Soviet Union and the tools to build a democratic society were lost to its successor states. Thankfully, that is now passed. The Russians have the right to claim that they freed their own country from the horrors of a decayed Marxist-Leninist dictatorship. The Russian people and their leaders have something about which to be proud. I rise in that spirit to discuss an amendment that is simple in both premise and purpose: build democratic leaders of the NIS for the future through education. This modest amendment will partially fund doctoral graduate study in the social sciences for students from the NIS during the next two years. The benefits of education and exposure to the United States will be long lasting. We want to give these students from the NIS a chance to see American democracy and learn the tools to improve their own society. Indeed, for many it will be their first chance to visit the world's oldest democracy; to see the promise that democracy offers; and to judge its fruits for themselves. As one of our most famous visitors, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote: Let us look to America, not in order to make a servile copy of the institutions that she has established, but to gain a clearer view of the polity that will be the best for us; let us look there less to find examples than instruction; let us borrow from her the principles, rather than the details, of her laws . . . the principles on which the American constitutions rest, those principles of order, of the balance of powers, of true liberty, of deep and sincere respect for right, are indispensable to all republics . . . In 1948 the United States instituted the now famous Marshall Plan which included among its many provisions a fund for technical assistance. Part of this fund included the ``productivity campaign'' which was designed to bring European businessmen and labor representatives here to learn American methods of production. During the Plan's three years, over 6,000 Europeans came to the United States to study U.S. production. Though the funding for this part of the plan was less than one-half of one percent of all the Marshall Plan aid, its impact was far greater. The impact of this amendment may also be great. We must note here the current state of Russia's affairs: it is deplorable. Despite this situation, last spring the United States Senate voted to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Throughout the elements of the Russian political system NATO expansion was viewed as a hostile act they will have to defend against; and they have said if they have to defend their territory, they will do so with nuclear weapons; that is all they have left. The distrust born from NATO expansion will not fade quickly. Let us hope that this amendment will provide individuals from Russia and the other NIS the opportunity to see that we Americans do not hope for Russia's demise and isolation. Perhaps we can dispel the betrayal they may feel as a result of NATO enlargement, and give them the tools to further develop their own democracies. Beyond that, the importance of training the next generation of social scientists in the NIS is immeasurable. It is this generation that will revitalize the universities, teaching the next generation economics, political science, sociology and other disciplines. It is this generation of social scientists who will be prepared to enter their Governments armed with new ideas and new ways of thinking different from the status quo; they will bring their new knowledge and standards, their linkages to the United States back to their own countries, and they will have the best opportunity to influence change there.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Feingold amendment to the State Department authorization bill would have the effect of diminishing the standing enjoyed by the four principal grantees--and partners--of the National Endowment for Democracy. When the Endowment was established in 1983, the Congress envisioned that four core grantees would be established along with the NED to carry out its mission--the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) affiliated with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO's Solidarity Center. The reason for this decentralized approach was a belief--shared by leading Democrats and Republicans alike--that the promotion of democracy is an enduring American interest and that representatives of American civil society would be better able than government officials to help their counterparts--political parties, labor movements, business associations and civic groups--that are struggling to build democratic systems in their own countries. Private organizations doing private work in the public interest ought to be supported and expanded by federal funding. The National Endowment for Democracy has been debated on this floor on numerous occasions, most recently at some length in 1997, after which the Senate voted 72 to 27 to reaffirm its support for the Endowment and its programs. Along with successive Administrations-- including those of Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton alike--this body has consistently voiced its support for the mission and unique contribution to the spread of democracy by this organization. The Feingold amendment would eliminate the concept of the ``core grantees'' of the Endowment which is the heart of the operational premise that the NED embodies. While the amendment purports to make the Endowment more efficient and effective by making all NED grants competitive, it would actually have the opposite effect. If passed, the amendment's unintended consequence would be to create a centralized, bureaucratic structure that would severely weaken the NED, and slow the responsiveness of the core grantees. It would also oblige the Republican and Democratic institutes to compete with one another for the same funding, so instead of working in tandem to promote American ideals abroad, they would be set at odds with each other. The same would happen with the institutes for business and labor: conflict, rather then comity. The harmonious package of programs would be dissolved--for no apparent reason. The Endowment is a cost effective initiative that works. Anyone who has taken the time to examine the activities of the Endowment's core grantees or talked with the beneficiaries of their work in places like Northern Ireland, Nigeria, Indonesia, Cuba and Bosnia, would agree. The NED should be encouraged to continue this mission, which reflects the noblest American political tradition and serves the strategic interests of the United States. It should not be hamstrung by the new and unwarranted restrictions that are proposed in this amendment. It was the decision by the Congress that there should be four principal grantees of the Endowment because they each have a unique contribution to make in promoting democracy. This was a correct decision, and the core grantees should continue to be seen as different from other grantees and an integral part of the Endowment. If we should now change the Endowment's fundamental premise, the ability of these core grantees to respond quickly to democratic openings will be undermined. It has been suggested that under the current arrangement the work of the core grantees is not subject to adequate scrutiny because the Endowment each year sets aside a modest allocation of funding for each of their programs. This allocation--of 4.1 million for each institute's global array of programs--does not mean that they get a free ride or a blank check. It is important to note that every single one of the over 200 grants awarded annually by the Endowment is strictly reviewed by program and financial staff and by a distinguished bipartisan Board of Directors currently chaired by the distinguished former congressman from Indiana, Dr. John Brademas. This is true regardless of whether the grantee is one of the four core grantees or not. The core grantees are covered by the same reporting and evaluation requirements that effect all grantees. Let us leave the decision-making for the allocation of funding in the very able hands of the Endowment's Board of Directors, which includes some of the most accomplished international affairs strategists and democrats in the United States. This body frequently earmarks organizations that it believes should receive public support. There is nothing wrong nor nefarious in this approach. I hope the Senate will take this opportunity to reaffirm its strong support for the work of the four institutes associated with the Endowment--the republican and democratic party institutes, and those associated with the labor movement and the business community--by voting No on the Feingold amendment. This amendment seeks to fix something that is not broken. The amendment will not improve the Endowment, but to weaken its unique capacity to be flexible, responsive and effective. The last thing we should do is to hastily tinker with the internal workings of this important institution without any serious examination of the supposed problems this amendment is meant to address.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate, an OP-ED entitled ``Taxing Web Wallets'' that appears in today's New York Times. This article on the tax treatment of Internet Commerce is by my nephew, a former Treasury official, Michael Moynihan. Last October Congress passed the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which placed a three year moratorium on any new taxes on the Internet. But as Michael Moynihan points out, ``. . . we have yet to address the long-term tax consequences of the movement of trade on line.'' I ask the article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the New York Times, June 21, 1999] Taxing Web Wallets (By Michael Moynihan) Washington--Last month, 14 million Americans bought something on the Internet. Taking advantage of what might be the last tax loophole, 99 percent of them did not pay sales tax. Without knowing it, most broke the law. States cannot force out-of-state sellers to collect sales taxes, but 45 require buyers to pay the tax anyway. Compliance is virtually nil. Today, a Congressional commission on electronic commerce takes up two key questions: How do we tax the Internet? Should we? The Internet Tax Freedom Act, passed last fall, impose a three-year moratorium on cyber-specific taxes. By banning the infamous ``bit tax,'' which would tax every E-mail and downloaded image, the law helped the Internet marketplace flourish. Freedom from a thicket of 30,000 state and local taxing jurisdictions has provided predictability to the Web economy. But we have yet to address the long-term tax consequences of the movement of trade on line. Last year, Americans bought $43 billion in goods and services over the Internet; next year the figure is expected to reach $250 billion. That's a lot of lost sales tax. Governments will have two choices: cut services or find this money elsewhere. When the moratorium expires in 2001, the Internet will become fair game. Retailers who can't or won't sell on line, from barbers to boutiques, will clamor for equal sales tax treatment. The erosion of sales tax revenue could mean the end of the sales tax altogether. In Europe, where governments rely on value-added taxes, fearful authorities are already diverting inspectors from ports to the post office, where they open up individual packages looking for wily Internet scofflaws. And no one has come up with a way to monitor the purchase of digital goods like software. Why can't we just extend the obligation to collect sales tax to Internet merchants? Thirty thousand taxing jurisdictions means millions of rules, not easily adapted to E-commerce. The big states are quiet because they themselves are high-tech leaders. Though the commission will make its recommendations next May in an election year, it shouldn't pull punches. If the panel doesn't develop fair tax rules for the new economy, 30,000 local authorities and their overseas counterparts will be waiting.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I bring to the Senate's attention an excellent article written by Alan Emory, the Senior Washington Correspondent for the Watertown Daily Times, entitled ``WWII Seaplane Crew Still Battling With Navy Red Tape Over Medals.'' Mr. Emory tells the incredible story of the rescue of a U.S. Airman by the crew of the Patrol Bomber Martin from the waters off Japan in World War II. Remarkably, the crew was denied the proper recognition for this act, and they have battled over the years to right that wrong. At the time the rescue took place, the Navy, according to those involved, promised the pilot the Navy Cross and his crew the Silver Star. When the medals were actually awarded, however, all were awarded lesser medals. The disappointed crew accepted the medals without complaint. Years later when an appeal was filed, the Navy rejected the claim on the grounds that the deadline for such appeals had passed. But, a 1997 law waived the time limitation on appeals for such heroic acts. The Navy has denied that any promise was made to the pilot or the crew. However, a newly declassified document from six months after the rescue showed that in fact the Navy had promised the pilot, Robert H. Macgill, the Navy Cross. The crew had signed affidavits that they were promised the Silver Star. Unfortunately no document has been found to back up their claim, but this in no way decreases the gravity of this oversight. To date, the Department of the Navy has refused to upgrade the medal status of those involved, though the case is still under review. I thank Mr. Emory for bringing this important act of bravery and incredible oversight to our attention. I ask that the article be printed into the Record. The article follows: [From the Watertown Daily Times, Apr. 4, 1999] WWII Seaplane Crew Still Battling With Navy Red Tape Over Medals (By Alan Emory) Washington--One of the most daring exploits of World War II took place in the water off Kobe, Japan, on July 24, 1945. The war itself ended about a month later. For the pilot, copilot and crew of the huge Patrol Bomber Martin (PBM) seaplane that plucked a U.S. airman out of the water as Japanese boats headed for him, however, a post-war battle with Navy bureaucracy is still going on, nearly 54 years later. The men, now all in their 70s, were promised certain medals--a Navy Cross for pilot Robert H. Macgill of Miami, Fla., and Silver Stars for the others. All agree the pilot regularly receives the highest honor because he makes the key decisions. When medals were awarded however, Mr. Macgill received a Silver Star and the others Air Medals, which are given to any service personnel performing five flights in a combat area. Though disappointed, the fliers accepted their downgraded decorations without complaint, but a Korean War fighter pilot heard about the situation and launched an appeal to the Navy Department with the help of the PBM copilot, David C. Quinn. The Navy rejected the appeal, saying the deadline for such awards had expired. Last year, however, the ``Mariner/Marlin Association Newsletter'' reported that a 1997 law had waived the time limitation, and many war heroes had medal eligibility restored. The Navy stood its ground, however, so Mr. Quinn, a North Salem, N.Y., lawyer and husband of syndicated columnist Jane Bryant Quinn, took his case to Rep. Sue W. Kelly, R-Katonah, and Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan D-N.Y. The evidence was reviewed, and they agreed the higher-level medals should be awarded. Their case took on added political clout when one of the crewmen, Jerrold A. Watson, now a peach grower in Monetta, S.C., turned out to be a constituent of both Chairman Floyd Spence, R-S.C., of the House Armed Services Committee, and Sen. J. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sen. Moynihan called the rescue of the downed Corsair fighter pilot, Ensign Edwin A. Heck, 22, of Barrackville, W.Va., ``an act of bravery deserving of high recognition.'' Rep. Kelly said the ``extraordinary rescue,'' in the water off Japan's fourth largest city, merited ``something more than an Air Medal.'' She rejected the finding by Karen S. Heath, principal deputy to the Navy's chief of manpower and reserve affairs, that the awards were appropriate, countering that they resulted from ``errors in Navy records.'' Last September, then-Navy Secretary John H. Dalton told Sen. Moynihan that upgrading the Quinn medal was ``not warranted,'' and the Air Medal was ``appropriate and consistent'' with those awarded at the time. The Navy argued steadily that there was no documentary proof that a Navy Cross for Mr. Macgill and Silver Stars for his crew had actually been recommended, although all involved signed affidavits that they had been promised those medals. A declassified Navy memorandum six months after the rescue shows that Mr. Macgill had been recommended for a Navy Cross, though it does not affirm the oral recommendation for the Silver Stars for Mr. Quinn and the others. Mr. Quinn says that, instead of a trio of ``antique, disjointed medal-beggars,'' they were bolstered by the discovery that Mr. Macgill was alive in Miami. His address was found by a computer search, with a phone number that gave only a recorded response, but he received a forwarded letter and, last Oct. 30, phoned Mr. Quinn and confirmed the original medal recommendations. The PBM seaplane, known in Navy slang as a Dumbo because of its size, was part of a rescue squadron stationed at Okinawa on the seaplane tender Pine Island. Their mission was to rescue airmen shot down while raiding Japanese installations. Their aircraft was enormous, with a wingspread equal to the height of a 12-story building, and was very slow. On July 24, 1945, Mr. Heck was shot down and floated in a life jacket for about five hours in Kobe harbor. A radio call asked, ``Is there a Dumbo in the area?'' and the Macgill crew answered affirmatively. Sixteen Corsair fighters formed an escort and strafed Japanese boats trying to reach Mr. Heck. The PBM flew over the docks of Kobe at an altitude of about 400 feet, with people standing there watching, according to the Nov. 16, 1998, deposition of Mr. Macgill. The fighter escort, getting low on fuel, had to leave. A Japanese fighter made a run at the PMB, and shore batteries opened antiaircraft fire, but, Mr. Macgill says, it was ``amazing'' that they were not shot down. More than 14 hours after they had left Okinawa, they returned, hugging the Japanese coast, with the rescued fighter pilot. The official Navy report said, ``The Dumbo, sweating out the remaining fuel, returned to Okinawa at 300 feet altitude and approximately 10 miles offshore.'' Mr. Macgill, quoting Navy officers there, said they believed it was ``impossible'' to achieve an air-sea rescue on Japan's mainland. ``I distinctly recall,'' he said, that Squadron Commanding Officer Lt. Cmdr. William Bonvillian and Capt. William L. Erdmann, Greenburg, Ind., the officer in charge of rescue missions, had both said they were urging the Navy Cross for Mr. Macgill and Silver Stars for the others. ``My original memory was correct,'' he said, and the confusion over his own medal was never carried over to the ``unquestioned recommendation'' that the others in the crew receive Silver Stars. Mr. Quinn maintains that an official Navy account, marked ``Secret,'' disputes the finding that his rescue occurred ``seven miles southwest of Kobe'' and therefore, should be lumped in with other missions. A Smithsonian Institution Press book about the exploits of 28 World War II combat pilots in their own words includes the Quinn story because of the uniqueness of air-sea rescues and the high-risk Kobe flight. One war correspondent wrote that it was ``perhaps the most daring and the most spectacular of all Pacific air-sea rescues,'' the first into the Inland Sea, with the downed pilot within the sight of people walking the streets of Kobe. Judi Briner of St. Louis, daughter of PBM crewman Robert Briner, who has terminal cancer, told Mr. Quinn she would like to see Rep. Ike Shelton, D-Mo., an influential member of the House Armed Services Committee, brought into the case. Ironically, Mr. Quinn found out that another St. Louis resident, whose plea for a Bronze Star for his great-uncle had been ignored for more than a year, received the medal two weeks after Rep. Jim Talent, R-Mo., got in touch with the Army. It came along with a letter entitled, ``Expedite/ Congressional Interest.'' The Navy's Awards Branch has never challenged the description of the PMB crew's combat bravery. Instead, Mr. Quinn asserts, its accounts of the medal dispute are ``diametrically opposed'' and, he feels, are ``tainted and (should be) disallowed.'' A former assistant state attorney general, he says he flew Navy planes for 26 years, four in World War II, and he holds a Vietnam War Campaign Medal. He says, ``I do not easily throw in towels.'' Richard Danzig, the new Navy secretary, who is scheduled to address the National Press Club on Tuesday, told Sen. Moynihan Jan. 28 that the Navy Awards Branch was reviewing the documents. At a March 11 Capitol Hill meeting with key lawmakers and their aides, Ms. Heath said the Navy had, since the 50th anniversary of World War II, been ``inundated with requests'' for a new look at the war's awards, and Jeane Kirk, her aide, insisted the Quinn situation was ``not all that unique.'' Congressional staffers raised the possibility of a ``bureaucratic snafu'' leading to the medal downgrades. They stressed that the PBM mission was ``different,'' but the Navy could not explain why it had not been treated that way. The congressional pressure, however, did have an impact. The Navy officials promised to ``reboard,'' or review, the case with a panel of four ``senior captains.'' Secretary Danzig had promised a ``careful study.'' Rep. John M. McHugh, R-Pierrepont Manor, the senior New Yorker on the House Armed Services Committee, feels that if the issue were brought before the full New York congressional delegation and, possibly, the committee, it would receive a sympathetic hearing.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today, I am proud to cosponsor the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act of 1999, introduced by my good friend and colleague Senator Chafee. We are joined by our colleagues Senators McCain, Jeffords, and Mack, and by Senator Graham, who has long been a leader on this issue. This bill includes three provisions which are part of the Fairness for Legal Immigrants Act of 1999 (S. 792), which I introduced, along with Senator Graham, on April 14th of this year. They would restore health coverage to legal immigrants--mostly children--whose eligibility for benefits is denied to them by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. It is a crucial step we should take. I will continue to work to move forward the broader Fairness for Legal Immigrants Act as well because it contains important provisions to prevent hunger and help the elderly and disabled. The Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act would: Permit states to provide Medicaid coverage to all eligible legal immigrant children; permit states to provide Medicaid coverage to all eligible legal immigrant pregnant women; and permit states to provide coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to all eligible legal immigrant children. Note that these provisions are optional. There are no mandates in this bill. It would merely allow states to take common sense steps to aid legal immigrant children. The problem is that under current law, states are not allowed to extend such health care coverage--which is so important for the development of healthy children--to families who have come to the U.S. after August 22, 1996, until the families have been here for five years. Five years is a very long time in the life of a child. Such a bar makes little sense for them, and is nonsensical for pregnant women. It is common knowledge that access to health care is essential for early childhood development. We should, at a minimum, permit states to extend coverage to all poor legal immigrant children, no matter when they have arrived here. Let me emphasize that under the 1996 law, states cannot use federal funds for this--and we are restoring this option to them. This builds upon our recent achievements in promoting health care for children--legal immigrant children should not be neglected in these efforts. The provisions of that 1996 law concerning legal immigrants were based on the false premise that immigrants are a financial burden to American taxpayers. On the contrary. A recent comprehensive study by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that immigration actually benefits the U.S. economy. In fact, the study found that the average legal immigrant contributes $1,800 more in taxes than he or she receives in government benefits. Many Americans may not realize this, but legal immigrants pay income and payroll taxes. And without continued legal immigration, the long- term financial condition of Social Security and Medicare would be worsened. According to the most recent Social Security trustees report, a decline in net immigration of 150,000 per year will reduce payroll tax revenues and require a 0.1% payroll tax increase to replace. It is in our interest to see that these immigrant families have healthy children. And it is not merely wise, it is just. These immigrants have come here under the rules we have established and they have abided by those rules. The 1996 law did grevious harm to the safety net for immigrants. Some states have begun their own efforts--without federal funding--to assist immigrants to make up the difference. Yet a new Urban Institute study concluded that ``[d]espite the federal benefit restorations and the many states that have chosen to assist immigrants, the social safety net for immigrants remains weaker than before welfare reform and noncitizens generally have less access to assistance than citizens.'' The Urban study also notes that ``[b]y barring many immigrants from federal assistance, the federal government shifted costs to states, many of which already bore a fiscal burden for providing assistance to immigrants.'' We in Washington should do our fair share. Mr. President, simple decency requires us to continue to provide a measure of a safety net to legal immigrant families. I urge the enactment of this legislation to ensure that we do so.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, our revered chairman of the Finance Committee has been characteristically generous in thanking the associates who have joined him in this matter. I will take just a moment--I know he would wish me to do so--to call attention to the fact that it is our former colleague, our beloved former colleague, Bob Dole, who first proposed this matter. It was 1986. He introduced the Employment Opportunities for Disabled Americans Act to allow supplementary security income beneficiaries to continue to receive Medicaid when they return to work. As the chairman of our committee said, this has enabled people to go to work who are disabled but not unwilling. In a hearing before our committee on this bill, Senator Dole said: This is about people going to work. It is about dignity and opportunity and all the things we talk about when we talk about being an American. I think this accounts, sir, for the overwhelming support in this body. With that thought, and again my thanks to the chairman, I yield the floor. I have a snippet of time that Senator Kennedy may wish to use.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today, I am proud to cosponsor the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act of 1999, introduced by my good friend and colleague Senator Chafee. We are joined by our colleagues Senators McCain, Jeffords, and Mack, and by Senator Graham, who has long been a leader on this issue. This bill includes three provisions which are part of the Fairness for Legal Immigrants Act of 1999 (S. 792), which I introduced, along with Senator Graham, on April 14th of this year. They would restore health coverage to legal immigrants--mostly children--whose eligibility for benefits is denied to them by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. It is a crucial step we should take. I will continue to work to move forward the broader Fairness for Legal Immigrants Act as well because it contains important provisions to prevent hunger and help the elderly and disabled. The Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act would: Permit states to provide Medicaid coverage to all eligible legal immigrant children; permit states to provide Medicaid coverage to all eligible legal immigrant pregnant women; and permit states to provide coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to all eligible legal immigrant children. Note that these provisions are optional. There are no mandates in this bill. It would merely allow states to take common sense steps to aid legal immigrant children. The problem is that under current law, states are not allowed to extend such health care coverage--which is so important for the development of healthy children--to families who have come to the U.S. after August 22, 1996, until the families have been here for five years. Five years is a very long time in the life of a child. Such a bar makes little sense for them, and is nonsensical for pregnant women. It is common knowledge that access to health care is essential for early childhood development. We should, at a minimum, permit states to extend coverage to all poor legal immigrant children, no matter when they have arrived here. Let me emphasize that under the 1996 law, states cannot use federal funds for this--and we are restoring this option to them. This builds upon our recent achievements in promoting health care for children--legal immigrant children should not be neglected in these efforts. The provisions of that 1996 law concerning legal immigrants were based on the false premise that immigrants are a financial burden to American taxpayers. On the contrary. A recent comprehensive study by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that immigration actually benefits the U.S. economy. In fact, the study found that the average legal immigrant contributes $1,800 more in taxes than he or she receives in government benefits. Many Americans may not realize this, but legal immigrants pay income and payroll taxes. And without continued legal immigration, the long- term financial condition of Social Security and Medicare would be worsened. According to the most recent Social Security trustees report, a decline in net immigration of 150,000 per year will reduce payroll tax revenues and require a 0.1% payroll tax increase to replace. It is in our interest to see that these immigrant families have healthy children. And it is not merely wise, it is just. These immigrants have come here under the rules we have established and they have abided by those rules. The 1996 law did grevious harm to the safety net for immigrants. Some states have begun their own efforts--without federal funding--to assist immigrants to make up the difference. Yet a new Urban Institute study concluded that ``[d]espite the federal benefit restorations and the many states that have chosen to assist immigrants, the social safety net for immigrants remains weaker than before welfare reform and noncitizens generally have less access to assistance than citizens.'' The Urban study also notes that ``[b]y barring many immigrants from federal assistance, the federal government shifted costs to states, many of which already bore a fiscal burden for providing assistance to immigrants.'' We in Washington should do our fair share. Mr. President, simple decency requires us to continue to provide a measure of a safety net to legal immigrant families. I urge the enactment of this legislation to ensure that we do so.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate Senators McCain, Dodd, Bennett, and Hatch for all the work they have done on S. 96, the Y2K Act. The bill will help protect against frivolous Y2K lawsuits. With just 199 days until 2000, the focus must remain on fixing the computer problem, not on litigating it. The Y2K computer problem has been with us for some while, and it would be derelict of me not to mention that it was brought to my attention by a dear friend from New York, a financial analyst, John Westergaard, who began talking to me about the matter in 1995. On February 13, 1996, I wrote to the Congressional Research Service to say: Well, now, what about this? Richard Nunno authored a report which the CRS sent to me on June 7, 1996, saying that, ``the Y2K problem is indeed serious and that fixing it will be costly and time-consuming. The problem deserves the careful and coordinated attention of the Federal Government, as well as the private sector, in order to avert major disruptions on January 1, 2000.'' I wrote the President, on July 31 of that year, to relay the findings of the CRS report and raise the issue generally. In time, a Presidential appointment was made to deal with this in the executive branch. And last spring--less than 1 year ago--the majority and minority leaders had the perception to appoint the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem. We have done a fine job preparing for the Year 2000. It took some cajoling, but people finally began to listen. The Federal Government should make it. The securities industry has been out on front on this. Their tests went very well this past March and April. When Senator Bennett and I held a field hearing last summer--July 6--in the ceremonial chamber of the U.S. Federal Court House for the Southern District of New York, we found the big, large international banks in the City advanced in their preparations regarding this matter. But much work still remains to be done. Testing and contingency plans are still being addressed. Last year, Senators Bennett, Dodd, and I introduced the Y2K Disclosure Act. This act, which the President signed on October 19, 1999, has been very successful in getting businesses to work together and share information on Y2K. S. 96 builds on the Disclosure Act and encourages remediation and information sharing. It is a good short-term fix for a once-in-a-modern-civilization problem, and I encourage the Senate to pass it forthwith.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Meyer ``Mike'' Berman, a World War II veteran who demonstrated unusual heroism during his two years of service in the United States Army. Mike Berman, Private First Class, served as part of the 12th Infantry Regiment during World War II. An outstanding soldier, he was decorated with the Good Conduct Medal, the Bronze Star Medal with one Oak Leaf Cluster, the World War II Victory Medal and Ribbon, the European African Middle Eastern Campaign Medal, and a Ribbon with one Silver Service Star. However, the accomplishment Mike Berman is proudest of is the time he saved the life of his friend, Private John Buyers. While artillery shells were coming from all directions, Mike Berman rushed to the aid of Private Buyers, who had been grievously injured. Mike Berman singlehandedly carried Private Buyers by foot to the service jeep that transported him to medical aid. I ask that Private Buyers' letter expressing the gratitude he felt towards Private Berman for saving his life be printed in the Record. The letter follows: England: Oct: 29th 1944 Dear Mike: Just a few lines to say hello and let you know I'm coming along pretty good. I just wanted to thank you for what you done for me the day I got hit. I'll never forget it. If it hadn't been for you, I wouldn't be living today. Thanks a million, ``Mike.'' I've had three operations so far and I'm pretty weak, but I'll live through it. I won't be with you boys' any more but tell them all hello for me. Please write to me if you get a chance. Well, Mike, be good and take care of yourself. I sure didn't last long, did I? Oh well! It was all in the cards I guess. Please excuse my writing. I can do better but I'm pretty nervous these days. Once again thanks for what you done for me and maybe some day, I'll be able to sort of square things up. So long. Cordially, Buyers.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. It is particularly appropriate with the recent celebration of Memorial Day that we pay homage to truly courageous individuals like Mike Berman, whose faith in democracy and freedom for mankind have helped make our nation as great as it is today. The worst of times often best reveals the character of an individual. In the worst of times, Mike Berman proved his charity and love for his fellow man. He went beyond the call of duty when no one else dared to. Having come from an immigrant family, Mr. Berman's achievements illustrate the enormous passion and desire America's immigrants have to create a better future in their newly adopted country. Our recognition of Mr. Berman reminds us of the tremendous contribution that immigrants have made in the shaping of our Nation. This diverse group of extraordinary, enterprising, and self-sufficient individuals have continuously served to strengthen the United States.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to tell the story of the Dushaj family. Several years ago Pranvera and Zenun Dushaj left their native Albania and were granted political asylum in the United States. They settled in the Bronx, New York where they found a place to live and both found jobs. Unfortunately, at the time they left Albania they could not bring their two young daughters, Edrina and Lisela, with them. They had to stay behind with their grandmother. As soon as they were eligible, the Dushaj family applied for permission to bring their children to the United States. The family came to my office last year seeking assistance in getting the I-730 petitions approved. Last fall, the Immigration and Naturalization Service granted the petitions for both daughters. All was set. The Dushaj children could now join their parents in this country. All they needed were immigrant visas, but therein lay the problem. Because of recent fighting and the threat of terrorist activity, consular services at our Embassy in Albania were all but shut down, providing only emergency services to American citizens. The embassy was no longer able to process the needed visas. I note that this was occurring this March just as the conflict with Serbia was coming to a head. The Dushaj children were stuck in Albania and their parents were quite concerned. To make matters worse, they lived in Bijram-Curri, a city in the Tropoja region which is less than half an hour from the Kosovo border. Albanians were being instructed to contact the American Embassy in Italy or Greece to obtain visas. This presented a problem for the Dushaj family. With the start of the NATO bombing campaign, it became nearly impossible to get from Albania to Italy, either by sea or air, and anti-American demonstrations outside our embassy in Athens made the Dushaj family reluctant to send their four and six year old daughters to Greece. Fortunately, Zenun Dushaj has a cousin in Turkey and my office was able to work with the Dushaj family to have our embassy in Ankara accept jurisdiction in this matter. In April, Edrina and Lisela left Albania. Soon thereafter, they arrived at our embassy in Ankara where they applied for immigrant visas. They filled out the proper forms, underwent the necessary medical exams, provided the necessary documentation, and shortly thereafter their visa applications were processed. I am very happy to report that on May 21, the Dushaj children landed in New York and were reunited with their parents. Pranvera and Zenun could not be more thrilled as their family starts a new life together in America. I am also proud that like so many immigrants before them, they will start that life in New York. Many thanks are owed to Marisa Lino, our Ambassador in Albania, who I know is working under very trying conditions, and especially to Jacqueline Ratner, our Consul in Turkey. Ms. Ratner not only recognized that this was a situation where she could make something good happened, she followed up and sheparded the Dushaj children through the application process. I have no doubt that it was her fine work that made this happy outcome possible. I also note the courage, ingenuity, and tenacity of the Dushaj parents and all their relatives in Albania and Turkey. They fought to bring these children to this country and no matter how desperate things looked, they never gave up hope. Most of all Mr. President, I would just like to say to Edrina and Lisela, welcome to America.