Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I suggest that we seek to reach an agreement for the Russians to come and bring with them all their codes and their classified communications modes, learn what our early warning system is, tell us what they will of theirs, perhaps be open about its own weaknesses, which are so great. These are the people who still have the fate of mankind in their hands, and they haven't been paid in 6 months. What they talk about, evidently, is the need for money. How in God's name we cannot provide it I fail to see. The maintenance of our nuclear system in the course of a half century cost $5.5 trillion. I sometimes forget this, but in my years on the Finance Committee, I have learned that a billion minutes ago, Saint Peter was just 30 years dead. A billion is a large number. A trillion is beyond our capacity. They are asking thousands of millions. Very little. I hope Beijing might want to join. I would invite Islamabad and New Delhi, places which are unstable and have nuclear devices. Out of that, Mr. President, out of this immediate crisis, we might find a longrun institution or institutions--they need not be here, exclusively--they can be in many places--in which we would monitor one another's nuclear activity while, pray God, we develop it down, and relearn the confidence-building measures that were so important in the cold war. That telephone between the Kremlin and the White House made more of a difference than we probably know. It is this kind of thing. I note to my dear friends--and I will get complete agreement--this body has known fewer persons with a greater understanding of the cold war than Senator Sam Nunn and the late Senator Henry Jackson who, in the early 1980s, brought up the concept of a joint early warning system. And then the MX was deployed, and we moved from essentially a deterrence position on nuclear matters, a second-strike, if you will, to a first- strike capacity, such that the Soviet systems had to be constantly alarmed. Now, maybe that idea of Senators Nunn and Jackson will come, come at last. I would hope for two things. And I do not want to impose, and I do not want to presume, but I will do. This is not a time for too much delicacy. I would hope that our chairman and vice chairman--I make that point: the Intelligence Committee and, I believe, the Ethics Committee have a chairman and vice chairman; all the rest is majority rule around here, which is fine, but this is bipartisan--if they might find it possible to visit Moscow and talk with members of the Duma there where the START II treaty, which we took all the 1980s to negotiate, lies unratified. And our plans for START III are, accordingly, on hold. They might go or they might invite--some action from the Congress, I think, is in order. And it would be no harm to point out to the Russian Government that they now have a legislative branch. And if it acts in ways that are not always agreeable to the executive, well, that is not an unknown phenomena. It has been going on for two centuries in the United States. It is an important and necessary initiative we ought to somehow pursue. One final point. I hope my friends will not feel I am trespassing on their--our concerns, as I am a member and am honored to be a member of the committee--the Pentagon is too much disposed to discuss this matter in secret session. This is a time for more openness. This is a time the American people can be trusted with information which the Russian authorities already have. One of the phenomenons of the cultural secrecy which has developed over the last century is that the U.S. Government is continuing to keep information from us which our adversaries know perfectly well. It is only we who do not know. This has done a perceptible harm to American democracy. We have no idea how distant it is from the beginning of the century when Woodrow Wilson could proclaim, as a condition of peace to conclude the First World War, ``open covenants openly arrived at.'' Now, mind you, that same President Wilson, to whom I am devoted, in the day after he asked for a declaration of war, he sent a series of 17 bills, which were rolled together and called the Espionage Act. It provided for prior restraint, as lawyers call it, censorship of the press. First Henry Lodge, on this floor, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said, ``Yes, I think that is a good idea.'' The next day he came back and said, ``You know, I don't think it's a good idea. The press should be free in this country.'' President Wilson wrote the bill manager on the House side, and said, ``Please keep it.'' It was not kept. But it was assumed it was kept, so much so that when the Pentagon Papers were released, the executive branch of our Government just assumed that was a crime and proceeded to prevent their publication and find out more about the person who had released them. And the next thing you know, we had an impeachment hearing in the Federal Government--a crisis that all grew out of secrecy and presumptions of secrecy. I would hope--I doubt there is anybody in the Pentagon listening, but I see the chairman and vice chairman listening--I would hope they would say we could have an open briefing. The American people will respond intelligently to dangers of which they are appropriately apprised. And this surely is one. But, sir, I have spoken sufficiently. I beg to say one last thing. On the House side, our colleague and friend, Representative Stephen Horn of California, has been very active producing ``report cards'' on the status of the different departments of the Government and keeping it up regularly. As the Senator from Connecticut observed, the Social Security Administration got A's all along. Others have not. It would not be a bad idea for the chairmen and ranking members of our standing committees to review Representative Horn's report cards and keep an eye on the departments that report to them. Other than that, I think I have spoken long enough. I do not think, however, I have sufficiently expressed my admiration and at times awe of the performance of our chairman and vice chairman. The Senate is grateful, is in their debt. So is the Nation. The Nation need not know that; it just needs to pay attention to their message, sir. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Feb. 10, 1999] ``I Had a Funny Feeling in My Gut''--Soviet Officer Faced Nuclear Armageddon (By David Hoffman) Moscow--It was just past midnight as Stanislav Petrov settled into the commander's chair inside the secret bunker at Serpukhov-15, the installation where the Soviet Union monitored its early-warning satellites over the United States. Then the alarms went off. On the panel in front of him was a red pulsating button. One word flashed: ``Start.'' It was Sept. 26, 1983, and Petrov was playing a principal role in one of the most harrowing incidents of the nuclear age, a false alarm signaling a U.S. missile attack. Although virtually unknown to the West at the time, the false alarm at the closed military facility south of Moscow came during one of the most tense periods of the Cold War. And the episode resonates today because Russia's early- warning system has fewer than half the satellites it did back then, raising the specter of more such dangerous incidents. As Petrov described it in an interview, one of the Soviet satellites sent a signal to the bunker that a nuclear missile attack was underway. The warning system's computer, weighing the signal against static, concluded that a missile had been launched from a base in the United States. The responsibility fell to Petrov, then a 44-year-old lieutenant colonel, to make a decision: Was it for real? Petrov was situated at a critical point in the chain of command, overseeing a staff that monitored incoming signals from the satellites. He reported to superiors at warning- system headquarters; they, in turn, reported to the general staff, which would consult with Soviet leader Yuri Andropov on the possibility of launching a retaliatory attack. Petrov's role was to evaluate the incoming data. At first, the satellite reported that one missile had been launched-- then another, and another. Soon, the system was ``roaring,'' he recalled--five Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles had been launched, it reported. Despite the electronic evidence, Petrov decided--and advised the others--that the satellite alert was a false alarm, a call that may have averted a nuclear holocaust. But he was relentlessly interrogated afterward, was never rewarded for his decision and today is a long-forgotten pensioner living in a town outside Moscow. He spoke openly about the incident, although the official account is still considered secret by authorities here. On the night of the crisis, Petrov had little time to think. When the alarms went off, he recalled, ``for 15 seconds, we were in a state of shock. We needed to understand, what's next?'' Usually, Petrov said, one report of a lone rocket launch did not immediately go up the chain to the general staff and the electronic command system there, known as Krokus. But in this case, the reports of a missile salvo were coming so quickly that an alert had already gone to general staff headquarters automatically, even before he could judge if they were genuine. A determination by the general staff was critical because, at the time, the nuclear ``suitcase'' that gives a Soviet leader a remote-control role in such decisions was still under development. In the end, less than five minutes after the alert began, Petrov decided the launch reports must be false. He recalled making the tense decision under enormous stress--electronic maps and consoles were flashing as he held a phone in one hand and juggled an intercom in the other, trying to take in all the information at once. Another officer at the early- warning facility was shouting into the phone to him to remain calm and do his job. ``I had a funny feeling in my gut,'' Petrov said. ``I didn't want to make a mistake. I made a decision, and that was it.'' Petrov's decision was based partly on a guess, he recalled. He had been told many times that a nuclear attack would be massive--an onslaught designed to overwhelm Soviet defenses at a single stroke. But the monitors showed only five missiles. ``When people start a war, they don't start it with only five missiles,'' he remembered thinking at the time. ``You can do little damage with just five missiles.'' Another factor, he said, was that Soviet ground-based radar installations--which search for missiles rising above the horizon--showed no evidence of an attack. The ground radar units were controlled from a different command center, and because they cannot see beyond the horizon, they would not spot incoming missiles until some minutes after the satellites had. Following the false alarm, Petrov went through a second ordeal. At first, he was praised for his actions. But then came an investigation, and his questioners pressed him hard. Why had he not written everything down that night? ``Because I had a phone in one hand and the intercom in the other, and I don't have a third hand,'' he replied. Petrov, who was assigned to the satellite early-warning system at its inception in the 1970s, said in the interview that he knew the system had flaws. It had been rushed into service, he said, and was ``raw.'' Petrov said the investigators tried to make him a scapegoat for the false alarm. In the end, he was neither punished nor rewarded. According to Petrov and other sources, the false alarm was eventually traced to the satellite, which picked up the sun's reflection off the tops of clouds and mistook it for a missile launch. The computer program that was supposed to filter out such information was rewritten. It is not known what happened at the highest levels of the Kremlin on the night of the alarm, but it came at a climactic stage in U.S.-Soviet relations that is now regarded as a Soviet ``war scare.'' According to former CIA analyst Peter Pry, and a separate study by the agency, Andropov was obsessed with the possibility of a surprise nuclear attack by the West and sent instructions to Soviet spies around the world to look for evidence of preparations. One reason for Soviet jitters at the time was that the West had unleashed a series of psychological warfare exercises aimed at Moscow, including naval maneuvers into forward areas near Soviet strategic bastions, such as the submarine bases in the Barents Sea. The 1983 alarm also came just weeks after Soviet pilots had shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007 and just before the start of a NATO military exercise, known as Able Archer, that involved raising alert levels of U.S. nuclear forces in Europe to simulate preparations for an attack. Pry has described this exercise as ``probably the single most dangerous incident of the early 1980s.'' Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise briefly to state my support for the amendment offered by my distinguished friend and fellow member of the Committee on Finance and simply to inform the Senate that the figures he gave amounting to $17.9 billion over a 10-year period have been formally provided to the Committee on Finance by the Joint Committee on Taxation. These are the final arbiters of our calculations in tax matters. So we are talking about real revenue which we can get simply by passing legislation, which we have already passed, and all of which has been proposed by the President's budget at one point or another. Characteristically, Senator Graham has had the good sense to advance an elemental but important proposition: this bill ought to be paid for. As Senator Graham argued a short while ago, it would be a shame if the first bill passed by the Senate in the 106th Congress were to commence a reversal of the fiscal discipline that produced the first Federal budget surplus in three decades. Perhaps memory is beginning to fail us. Thankfully, this Senator can still recall standing on this floor in 1993, during debate on the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of that year. It was not easy getting that great deficit reduction measure enacted, but it was the right thing to do. Its cumulative deficit reduction effect was some $1.2 trillion over five years--twice what we expected when it was enacted. We did the right thing then, and the right thing to do today is what the Senator from Florida has proposed. The offsets in his amendment are straightforward and ought to be non-controversial. The first would extend Superfund taxes; the second would reduce the carryback period for the foreign tax credit (a measure that passed the Senate in 1997 and again in 1998), and the third would reinstate the oil spill excise tax--which wants to be done in any event. All told these offsets total about $17 billion, enough to fully offset the costs of the bill. We grant that adoption of this amendment would create procedural difficulties, but surely these can be overcome on a piece of legislation that enjoys such broad support. In any event what is important here is the principle. I thank the Senator from Florida for pointing it out to us. I thank the Chair, my friend, and the managers for allowing this intervention.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, among the paintings hanging in the Blue Room of New York's City Hall is a full-length portrait of General Lafayette by Samuel F. B. Morse. The father of the telegraph (and noted member of the anti-Catholic ``Know-Nothings''), began his career as a portrait artist. For his commission, Morse received $100 and earned a reputation as a gifted painter. Before turning to invention, he would paint the portraits of a galaxy of New York worthies. The subject of one such portrait is known to opera lovers the world over--Lorenzo Da Ponte. He was, of course, the librettist of Mozart's masterpieces Don Giovanni, Nozze di Figaro, and Cosi Fan Tutte. What makes his life especially intriguing to an American is his career in New York. In a preface to a 1959 edition of his Memoirs (first published in 1830) Thomas G. Bergin observes By tradition, education, and experience, this European sophisticate would seem to be far removed from the American Psyche; but his deeper nature--eager, adventurous and basically evangelical--was well-adapted to the New World. Born March 10, 1749 in Ceneda, Italy, now Vittorio Veneto, Da Ponte arrived in New York in 1805 in his middle years and with what might seem to be his greatest work already behind him. Upon coming ashore, he was the self-proclaimed ``poet of the Emperor Joseph II, for Salieri, for Storace, for Mozart!'' He found work as a grocer on the Bowery, that great stretch of Manhattan teeming with all the varieties of 19th Century life. He soon fell in with the young Clement Clark Moore, founder of the General Theological Seminary and the (long anonymous) author of The Night Before Christmas. The two shared a love of language and books. Moore, amazed by Da Ponte's brilliance, introduced his friend to a literary group at Columbia College, of which he was a trustee. The group included the future Congressman Gulian Verplank. In time Da Ponte would become a major figure in New York society, dining with Livingstons, Hamiltons, Onderdoncks and the like. He became a professor of Italian, donated the first volume of Italian literature to the New York Public Library, and, with the help of his friends at Columbia, founded the Italian Opera. Don Giovanni was performed at the Park Theater in May 1826 and it may be said New York has never been the same. The scholar Arthur Livingston observes, ``There is no doubt all this was an important moment for the American mind. Da Ponte made Europe, poetry, painting, music, the artistic spirit, classical lore, a creative classical education, live for many important Americans as no one had done before.'' In 1838, his last year on earth, he was given absolution by John MacCloskey, New York's second Archbishop and America's first Cardinal. He died on August 17. Three days later, at Old St. Patrick's Cathedral at Mott and Prince Streets, he was honored with a ``hero's burial'' before a large and distinguished funeral party. As one account has it: Da Ponte was buried, probably in the tomb of a friend, to await reburial and a headstone at a later date. As far as is known, the reburial never took place, and the headstone was not installed. The overcrowded cemetery was closed in 1848, and all of its records (including Da Ponte's) were destroyed when Old St. Patrick's was gutted by fire eighteen years later. . . . Between 1909 and 1915, all the bodies were disinterred and moved, with or without identification, to Calvary Cemetery in Queens. And so, like Mozart, Da Ponte came to rest in an unmarked grave. This year provides an opportunity to rectify, at least in part, this sad and resonant ending. This seems a wondrous time to celebrate perhaps by some memorial in Old St. Patrick's, surely by performing Mozart's Requiem, K.626, composed in 1791. After his death, the New York Daily Express recorded: Signor Da Ponte came to America, where he has resided 32 years, chiefly in this city; and to his indefatigable exertions, commanding talents, and profound literary attainments, are we mainly indebted for the taste everywhere diffused on our country for the music and language of his native land. He has been the Cadmas to whom we owe an unpayable debt for these inappreciable gifts. We are in his debt to this day, and surely 1999 is year to acknowledge it. I ask that the obituary from the New York Daily Express be printed in the Record. The obituary follows: [From the New York Daily Express, August 20, 1838] City Affairs Death of Daponte--Signor Lorenzo Daponte being a resident of this City died here on Friday at the advanced age of 90. His celebrated opera, written for Mozart, has given him a name all over the world. The Sunday Morning News states that he was a Venetian and native of Cenda--educated from the Church, and then afterwards from his fine poetic talents and passion for music, that he became a prominent person in the Court of Emperor Joseph II of Austria. Under his special protection, he formed a close relationship with the celebrated Mozart, which led to the production of those admired Operas, Giovanni, the Marriage of Figaro, and c., which the poetry of Daponte is no less eternized by its own beauties than by the divine music by which it is embalmed. After the decease of Mozart, who died in his friend Daponte's arms, the poet went to London, and there for years was intimately associated with the early efforts to introduce a more perfect Italian Opera. From there, Signor Daponte came to America, where he has resided 32 years, chiefly in this city; and to his indefatigable exertions, commanding talents, and profound literary attainments, are we mainly indebted for the taste every where diffused in our country for the music and language of his native land. He has been the Cadmas to whom we owe an unpayable debt for these inappreciable gifts. His memory will endure; for his disinterested labors and passionate devotion to the arts which he cultivated. As a Latin and Hebrew Scholar, he had perhaps no equal or superior here. Notice.--The numerous Italians of this City, countrymen of the venerable Daponte, deeply impressed with the honor which the character and labors of the deceased have reflected on their own and their adoptive country, will assemble at his late residence, No. 91 Spring Street, precisely at 6 o'clock p.m. this day whence his remains will be conveyed to the Cathedral, and a requiem performed by distinguished Italian artists of this City, previous to the interment of the corpse in the Catholic burying ground.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, I speak to the matter of prudence. Charles L. Black, Jr. begins his masterful account Impeachment: A Handbook with a warning: ``Everyone must shrink from this most drastic of measures. . . . [t]his awful step.'' For it is just that. The drafters of the American Constitution had, from England and from Colonial government, fully formed models of what a legislature should be, what a judiciary should do. But nowhere on earth was there a nation with an elected head of an executive branch of government. Here they turned to an understanding of governance which marks the American Constitution as a signal event in human history--what the Framers called ``the new science of politics.'' What we might term the intellectual revolution of 1787. The victors in the Revolution could agree that no one, or not many, wanted another monarchy in line with the long melancholy succession since Rome. Yet given what Madison termed ``the fugitive and turbulent existence of . . . ancient republics,'' who could dare to suggest that a modern republic could hope for anything better? Madison could. And why? Because study had produced new knowledge, which could now be put to use. This great new claim rested upon a new and aggressively more ``realistic'' idea of human nature. Ancient and medieval thought and practice were said to have failed disastrously by clinging to illusions regarding how men ought to be. Instead, the new science would take man as he actually is, would accept as primary in his nature the self-interestedness and passion displayed by all men everywhere and, precisely on that basis, would work out decent political solutions. This was a declaration of intellectual independence equal to anything asserted in 1776. Until then, with but few exceptions, the whole of political thought had turned on ways to inculcate virtue in a small class that would govern. But, wrote Madison, ``If men were angels, no government would be necessary.'' We would have to work with the material at hand. Not pretty, but something more important: predictable. Thus, men could be relied upon to be selfish; nay, rapacious. Very well: ``Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.'' Whereupon we derive the central principle of the Constitution, the various devices which in Madison's formulation offset ``by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives.'' Impeachment was to be the device whereby the Congress might counteract the ``defect of better motives'' in a President. But any such behavior needed to be massive and immediately threatening to the state for impeachment ever to go forward. Otherwise a quadrennial election would serve to restitute wrongs. Further, they had a model for this process in the impeachment of Warren Hastings which had begun in April of 1786 with Edmund Burke presenting twenty-two ``Articles of Charge of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The debate in the House of Commons continued into 1787 and was reported in the Pennsylvania Gazette. Burke was hardly a stranger to the Americans at Philadelphia. He had championed the cause of the American colonies during the Revolution, and was now doing much the same as regards the governance of British India. He accused the Governor General of the highest crimes possible against, inter alia, the peoples of India. At Philadelphia, the standard for impeachment was discussed only once--on Saturday, September 8, 1787. At that point in the convention, the draft of the clause in the Constitution pertaining to impeachment referred only to ``treason and bribery.'' Here are Madison's notes of the debate that day: The clause referring to the Senate, the trial of impeachments against the President, for Treason & bribery, was taken up. Col. MASON. Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined. As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments. He mov.d to add after ``bribery'' ``or maladministration.'' Mr. GERRY seconded him. Mr. MADISON So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate. Mr. GOV.r MORRIS, it will not be put in force & can do no harm. An election of every four years will prevent maladministration. Col. MASON withdrew ``maladministration'' & substitutes ``other high crimes & misdemeanors ag.st the State.'' The convention later replaced the word ``State'' with ``United States.'' And on September 12, 1787, the Committee of Style--which had no authority to alter the substantive meaning of the text--deleted the words ``against the United States.'' Thus the Framers clearly intended that a President should be removed only for offenses ``against the United States.'' It may also be concluded that the addition of the words ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' was intended to extend the impeachment power of Congress so as to reach ``great and dangerous offences,'' in Mason's phrase. The question now before the Senate is whether the acts that form the basis for the Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton rise to the level of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' Which is to say, ``great and dangerous offences'' against the United States. Over the course of 1998, as we proceeded through various revelations, thence to Impeachment and so on to this trial at the outset of 1999, I found myself asking whether the assorted charges, even if proven, would rise to the standard of ``great and dangerous offences'' against the United States. More than one commentator observed that we were dealing with ``low crimes.'' Matters that can be tried in criminal courts after the President's term expires. Early in his address to the Senate our distinguished former colleague Dale Bumpers made this point: Colleagues, you have such an awesome responsibility. My good friend, the senior Senator from New York, has said it well. He says a decision to convict holds the potential for destabilizing the Office of the Presidency. The former Senator from Arkansas was referring to an article in The New York Times on December 25th in which I said this: We are an indispensable nation and we have to protect the Presidency as an institution. You could very readily destabilize the Presidency, move to a randomness. That's an institution that has to be stable, not in dispute. Absent that, do not doubt that you could degrade the Republic quickly. This could happen if the President were removed from office for less than the ``great and dangerous offences'' contemplated by the Framers. In Grand Inquests, his splendid and definitive history of the impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase in 1804, and of President Andrew Johnson in 1868, Mr. Chief Justice Rehnquist records how narrowly we twice escaped from a precedent that would indeed have given us a Presidency (and a Court) subject to ``tenure during the pleasure of the Senate.'' It is startling how seductive this view can be. In 1804 it was the Jeffersonians, including Jefferson himself, who saw impeachment as a convenient device for getting rid of a Justice of the Supreme Court with whose opinions they disagreed. Not many years later Radical Republicans sought the same approach to removing a President with whom they disagreed over policy matters. It could happen again. Impeachment is a power singularly lacking any of the checks and balances on which the Framers depended. It is solely a power of the Congress. Do not doubt that it could bring radical instability to American government. We are a blessed nation. But our blessings could be our ruin if we do not see how rare they are. There are two nations on earth, the United States and Britain, that both existed in 1800 and have not had their form of government changed by force since then. There are eight--I repeat eight--nations which both existed in 1914 and have not had their form of government changed by violence since then: the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden, and Switzerland. Senators, do not take the imprudent risk that removing William Jefferson Clinton for low crimes will not in the end jeopardize the Constitution itself. Censure him by all means. He will be gone in less than two years. But do not let his misdeeds put in jeopardy the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill that is aimed at averting much of what has happened over nearly two months of this year and all of the last by amending Title 28 of the United States Code. Modeled on our existing Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act of 1940 that forbids civil lawsuits being filed by or against our men and women while they are in uniform, my bill seeks to protect future sitting Presidents from the ravages of civil litigation arising from acts taken or deeds done before they assumed office. I do not do this to insulate our current President but to accept an invitation Justice Stevens and his colleagues extended to us nearly two years ago in the case of Jones versus Clinton when the Supreme Court held that a sitting President could be sued civilly for acts he allegedly committed before assuming office. In that opinion, Justice Stevens wrote that it was up to Congress, not the Supreme Court, to afford a sitting President more protection from civil lawsuits. But this bill is not about President Clinton. For as Edmund Burke observed when analyzing the causes of the political discontents of the 1760s in England ``this system has not arisen soley from the ambitions of Lord Butte . . . we should have been tried with it if the Earl of Butte had never existed.'' As Justice Robert Jackson pointed out over forty years ago, the Presidency concentrates this nation's Executive authority in a single person whose choice the entire nation has a part, making him the force of public hope and expectations and whose decisions so far overshadow any other that ``almost alone he fills the public eye and ear.'' The Founders fashioned this kind of Presidency because they wanted to focus, not spread, executive responsibility in the hands of a single, constitutionally indispensable, individual. They realized that any interference with a President's ability to carry out his public responsibilities is constitutionally equal to interfering with the ability of the entire Congress or the whole Judiciary to carry out their public obligations. Moreover, the Presidency is the only office that the Constitution requires to be always functioning. It knows no recesses or terms. Because of this and the singular import of a President's duties, the diversion of his energies by litigation raises unique risks to the effective functioning of our government. As Thomas Jefferson warned in a June 20, 1807, letter to George Hay in the midst of Aaron Burr's trial in Richmond, unfettered litigation can pull a sitting President from pillar to post and keep him constantly trudging from north to south and east to west, withdrawing him from his constitutional duties. On the other hand, I do not believe in the ancient prerogatives of the monarchs who asserted ``the King can do no wrong.'' We rejected this when we formed our republic over 200 years ago. Under my bill, a litigant can still file his or her claim and exercise his or her discovery rights. This will preserve the litigant's claims and evidence but stay his or her ability to conduct a full-blown trial. This can be done after a sitting President leaves office. Then, like any other citizen, he will be subject to the full sway of our courts and their processes. I do not want to truncate anyone's legal rights or privileges, and my bill does not do so. Rather, it aims to balance these rights with our country's vital need for a focused Chief Executive not being dragged from pillar to post.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my friend and colleague, Senator Bingaman, a bill to allow the use of sampling in determining the populations of the states for use in reapportionment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 1976 amendments to the Census Act do not permit sampling in determining these populations. We believe sampling is vital to achieving the goal of the most accurate census possible, and to a fair and accurate redistricting. The Bureau of the Census proposes to count each census tract by mail and then by sending out enumerators until they have responses for 90 percent of the addresses. The Bureau proposes to then use sampling to infer who lives at the remaining ten percent of addresses in each tract based on what they know of the 90 percent. This would provide a more accurate census then we get by repeatedly sending enumerators to hard- to-count locations and would save $500 million or more in personnel costs. The Census plan is supported by the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council, which was directed by Congress in 1992 to study ways to achieve the most accurate population count possible. The NRC report finds that the Bureau should ``make a good faith effort to count everyone, but then truncate physical enumeration after a reasonable effort to reach nonrespondents. The number and character of the remaining nonrespondents should then be estimated through sampling.'' Mr. President, the taking of a census goes back centuries. I quote from the King James version of the Bible, chapter two of Luke: ``And it came to pass in those days that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed (or enrolled, according to the footnote) * * * And all went to be taxed, everyone into his own city.'' The early censuses were taken to enable the rule or ruling government to tax or raise an army. The first census for more sociological reasons was taken in Nuremberg, in 1449. So it was not a new idea to the Founding Fathers when they wrote it into the Constitution to facilitate fair taxation and accurate apportionment of the House of Representatives, the latter of which was the foundation of the Great Compromise that has served us well ever since. The Constitution says in Article I, Section 2: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years of the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall direct by law. Those who cite this as saying the Constitution requires an ``actual enumeration'' should consider whether the phrase is being taken out of context. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of sampling. Rather the Court has ruled on the census laws last amended in 1976. I also note that we have not taken an ``actual enumeration'' the way the Founding Fathers envisioned since 1960, after which enumerators going to every door were replaced with mail-in responses. The Constitution provides for a postal system, but did not direct that the census be taken by mail. Yet we do it that way. Why not sample if that is a further improvement? Sampling would go far toward correcting one of the most serious flaws in the census, the undercount. Statistical work in the 1940's demonstrated that we can estimate how many people the census misses. The estimate for 1940 was 5.4 percent of the population. After decreasing steadily to 1.2 percent in 1980, the 1990 undercount increased to 1.8 percent, or more than four million people. More significantly, the undercount is not distributed evenly. The differential undercount, as it is known, of minorities was 5.7 percent for Blacks, 5.0 percent for Hispanics, 2.3 percent for Asian-Pacific Islanders, and 4.5 percent for Native Americans, compared with 1.2 percent for non-Hispanic whites. The difference between the black and non-black undercount was the largest since 1940. By disproportionately missing minorities, we deprive them of equal representation in Congress and of proportionate funding from Federal programs based on population. The Census Bureau estimates that the total undercount will reach 1.9 percent in 2000 if the 1990 methods are used instead of sampling. Mr. President, I have some history with the undercount issue. In 1966 when I became Director of the Joint Center for Urban Studies at MIT and Harvard, I asked Professor David Heer to work with me in planning a conference to publicize the non-white undercount in the 1960 census and to foster concern about the problems of obtaining a full enumeration, especially of the urban poor. I ask unanimous consent that my foreword to the report from that conference be printed in the Record, for it is, save for some small numerical changes, disturbingly still relevant. Sampling is the key to the problem and we must proceed with it so that we have one accurate census count for all purposes, all uses. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record and I hope my colleagues will support it.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my friend and colleague, Senator Bingaman, a bill to allow the use of sampling in determining the populations of the states for use in reapportionment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 1976 amendments to the Census Act do not permit sampling in determining these populations. We believe sampling is vital to achieving the goal of the most accurate census possible, and to a fair and accurate redistricting. The Bureau of the Census proposes to count each census tract by mail and then by sending out enumerators until they have responses for 90 percent of the addresses. The Bureau proposes to then use sampling to infer who lives at the remaining ten percent of addresses in each tract based on what they know of the 90 percent. This would provide a more accurate census then we get by repeatedly sending enumerators to hard- to-count locations and would save $500 million or more in personnel costs. The Census plan is supported by the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council, which was directed by Congress in 1992 to study ways to achieve the most accurate population count possible. The NRC report finds that the Bureau should ``make a good faith effort to count everyone, but then truncate physical enumeration after a reasonable effort to reach nonrespondents. The number and character of the remaining nonrespondents should then be estimated through sampling.'' Mr. President, the taking of a census goes back centuries. I quote from the King James version of the Bible, chapter two of Luke: ``And it came to pass in those days that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed (or enrolled, according to the footnote) * * * And all went to be taxed, everyone into his own city.'' The early censuses were taken to enable the rule or ruling government to tax or raise an army. The first census for more sociological reasons was taken in Nuremberg, in 1449. So it was not a new idea to the Founding Fathers when they wrote it into the Constitution to facilitate fair taxation and accurate apportionment of the House of Representatives, the latter of which was the foundation of the Great Compromise that has served us well ever since. The Constitution says in Article I, Section 2: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years of the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall direct by law. Those who cite this as saying the Constitution requires an ``actual enumeration'' should consider whether the phrase is being taken out of context. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of sampling. Rather the Court has ruled on the census laws last amended in 1976. I also note that we have not taken an ``actual enumeration'' the way the Founding Fathers envisioned since 1960, after which enumerators going to every door were replaced with mail-in responses. The Constitution provides for a postal system, but did not direct that the census be taken by mail. Yet we do it that way. Why not sample if that is a further improvement? Sampling would go far toward correcting one of the most serious flaws in the census, the undercount. Statistical work in the 1940's demonstrated that we can estimate how many people the census misses. The estimate for 1940 was 5.4 percent of the population. After decreasing steadily to 1.2 percent in 1980, the 1990 undercount increased to 1.8 percent, or more than four million people. More significantly, the undercount is not distributed evenly. The differential undercount, as it is known, of minorities was 5.7 percent for Blacks, 5.0 percent for Hispanics, 2.3 percent for Asian-Pacific Islanders, and 4.5 percent for Native Americans, compared with 1.2 percent for non-Hispanic whites. The difference between the black and non-black undercount was the largest since 1940. By disproportionately missing minorities, we deprive them of equal representation in Congress and of proportionate funding from Federal programs based on population. The Census Bureau estimates that the total undercount will reach 1.9 percent in 2000 if the 1990 methods are used instead of sampling. Mr. President, I have some history with the undercount issue. In 1966 when I became Director of the Joint Center for Urban Studies at MIT and Harvard, I asked Professor David Heer to work with me in planning a conference to publicize the non-white undercount in the 1960 census and to foster concern about the problems of obtaining a full enumeration, especially of the urban poor. I ask unanimous consent that my foreword to the report from that conference be printed in the Record, for it is, save for some small numerical changes, disturbingly still relevant. Sampling is the key to the problem and we must proceed with it so that we have one accurate census count for all purposes, all uses. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record and I hope my colleagues will support it.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I join today with my colleagues Senators Roth, Kennedy and Jeffords to introduce The Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. This bill would address some of the barriers and disincentives that individuals enrolled in Federal disability programs face in returning to work. Many persons with disabilities need the health coverage that accompanies their eligibility for cash benefits. (Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) beneficiaries are also covered under Medicare. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries receive Medicaid coverage). Disability is determined based on an inability to sustain gainful work activity, which is measured by an earned income threshold. Under current law, as they return to work and earn income, beneficiaries lose their cash benefits and, subsequently, their health coverage. The risk of losing health benefits may deter disabled individuals from returning to work and, instead, encourage them to continue to receive cash benefits despite their ability to work. Less than one percent of SSDI and SSI beneficiaries leave the programs and return to work each year. A survey released by the National Organization on Disability showed that, currently, only 29 percent of all disabled adults are employed full-time or part-time, compared to 79 percent of the non-disabled adult population.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Chairman and Ranking Members of the Committee on Small Business and the Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem--Christopher S. Bond, John F. Kerry, Robert F. Bennett, and Christopher J. Dodd,--and Senator Olympia Snowe--in introducing the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act. I began warning about the Y2K problem three years ago. Since that time, people have begun to listen and progress has been made on the Y2K front. The Federal Government and large corporations are expected to have their computers functioning on January 1, 2000. Good news indeed. But small businesses and state and local governments are lagging behind in fixing the millennium computer problem. Last week, Chairman Bennett, Senator Dodd, and I introduced the Y2K State and Local Government Assistance Programs Act of 1999. This bill provides a matching grant for states to work on the millennium computer problem. Failure of state computers could have a devastating effect on those individuals who rely on essential state-administered poverty programs, such as Medicaid, food stamps, and child welfare and support. These individuals cannot go a day, a week, or a month if these programs are not working properly. Similarly, the collapse of small businesses' computer systems could have the same paralyzing effect on society as a collapse of state and local government's computer systems. The Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act, which we are introducing today, will assist small businesses in preparing for the year 2000. It expands the Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan program to provide guaranteed loans to small businesses to address the Y2K problem. This bill raises the government guaranties of the existing 7(a) program by ten percent. For Y2K 7(a) loans of more than $100,000, the government will guarantee 85 percent, and for such loans of $100,000 or less, the government will guarantee 90 percent. The increase in the loan guarantee is to encourage lenders to make Y2K- related loans to small businesses. And the numbers show that small businesses need a great deal of assistance. A Wells Fargo Bank survey in December of 1998 found that ``Y2K is not a priority for most small business owners and for as many as one-third of all owners who are vulnerable to the millennium bug, it is not a priority.'' The report goes on to say that ``it is likely that over one million small employers, and perhaps as high as 1.5 million, exposed to the Y2K problem will enter the next century having taken no preventive measures.'' The GartnerGroup found that as of the third quarter of 1998, small companies have just five percent of their computers remediated, and only 30 percent of small businesses have begun testing. The GartnerGroup expects that 50 percent to 60 percent of small companies will experience at least one mission critical system failure. We must not let this happen. Historically the fin de siecle has caused quite a stir. Prophets, prelates, monks, mathematicians, and soothsayers warn Anno Domini 2000 will draw the world to its catastrophic conclusion. I am confident that the Y2K problem will not play a part in this. But we must continue to work on this problem with purpose and dedication. Benjamin Disraeli wrote: ``Man is not the creature of circumstances. Circumstances are the creatures of men.'' We created the Y2K problem and we must fix it.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Chairman and Ranking Members of the Committee on Small Business and the Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem--Christopher S. Bond, John F. Kerry, Robert F. Bennett, and Christopher J. Dodd,--and Senator Olympia Snowe--in introducing the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act. I began warning about the Y2K problem three years ago. Since that time, people have begun to listen and progress has been made on the Y2K front. The Federal Government and large corporations are expected to have their computers functioning on January 1, 2000. Good news indeed. But small businesses and state and local governments are lagging behind in fixing the millennium computer problem. Last week, Chairman Bennett, Senator Dodd, and I introduced the Y2K State and Local Government Assistance Programs Act of 1999. This bill provides a matching grant for states to work on the millennium computer problem. Failure of state computers could have a devastating effect on those individuals who rely on essential state-administered poverty programs, such as Medicaid, food stamps, and child welfare and support. These individuals cannot go a day, a week, or a month if these programs are not working properly. Similarly, the collapse of small businesses' computer systems could have the same paralyzing effect on society as a collapse of state and local government's computer systems. The Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act, which we are introducing today, will assist small businesses in preparing for the year 2000. It expands the Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan program to provide guaranteed loans to small businesses to address the Y2K problem. This bill raises the government guaranties of the existing 7(a) program by ten percent. For Y2K 7(a) loans of more than $100,000, the government will guarantee 85 percent, and for such loans of $100,000 or less, the government will guarantee 90 percent. The increase in the loan guarantee is to encourage lenders to make Y2K- related loans to small businesses. And the numbers show that small businesses need a great deal of assistance. A Wells Fargo Bank survey in December of 1998 found that ``Y2K is not a priority for most small business owners and for as many as one-third of all owners who are vulnerable to the millennium bug, it is not a priority.'' The report goes on to say that ``it is likely that over one million small employers, and perhaps as high as 1.5 million, exposed to the Y2K problem will enter the next century having taken no preventive measures.'' The GartnerGroup found that as of the third quarter of 1998, small companies have just five percent of their computers remediated, and only 30 percent of small businesses have begun testing. The GartnerGroup expects that 50 percent to 60 percent of small companies will experience at least one mission critical system failure. We must not let this happen. Historically the fin de siecle has caused quite a stir. Prophets, prelates, monks, mathematicians, and soothsayers warn Anno Domini 2000 will draw the world to its catastrophic conclusion. I am confident that the Y2K problem will not play a part in this. But we must continue to work on this problem with purpose and dedication. Benjamin Disraeli wrote: ``Man is not the creature of circumstances. Circumstances are the creatures of men.'' We created the Y2K problem and we must fix it.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, at a time when we risk the ever coarsening of our pubic affairs, we would do well to remember a man whose service to this country was distinguished as no other for civility and elegance. I ask that this tribute to Clark M. Clifford by Sander Vanocur be printed in the Record. The tribute follows Tribute to Clark Clifford (By Sander Vanocur at the Washington National Cathedral, November 19, 1998) The following anonymous poem was sent to Clark Clifford's daughters, Joyce and Randall, by their sister, Faith, who could not be here today: Think of stepping on shore and finding it Heaven, Of taking hold of a hand and finding it God's, Of breathing new air, and finding its celestial air, Of feeling invigorated and finding it immortality, Of passing from storm and tempest to an unbroken calm, Of waking up, and finding it Home. In the secular sense, Clark Clifford found that home in Washington more than fifty years ago. And having found that home, let it be said that while he was here, he graced this place. It was a much different place when he and Marny came here, smaller in size but larger in imagination, made larger in imagination by World War II. It may have been, then and for a good time after, as John F. Kennedy once noted, a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm. But it was also at least then, a place where dreams could be fashioned into reality. Being an intensely political city, dreams, as always, had to be fashioned by reality. And it was in this art of political compromise where Clark Clifford flourished. He was known as the consummate Washington insider. Quite often the term was used in the pejorative sense. It should not have been. If you believe as he did in what George Orwell meant when he wrote that in the end everything is political, it should be a cause for celebration rather than lamentation that he played the role, for if he had not played this role who else of his generation could have played it quite so well, especially when the time came to tell a President of the United States, who was also a very old friend, that the national interests of this nation could no longer be served by our continuing involvement in Vietnam? We know of his public triumphs. Some of use also know of his personal kindnesses. Many years ago, at a very bleak period in both my personal and professional life--you know in this city it is bleak when your phone calls are not returned by people you have known for years--there were two individuals in this city who faithfully returned my calls. One was Ben Bradlee. The other was Clark Clifford. When Clark first invited me to his office during this bleak period to offer encouragement and guidance, he closed the door, took no phone calls, sat behind his desk, his hands forming the legendary steeple and listened and advised. On that first visit to his office I looked down on his desk where there appeared to be at least fifty messages, topped by what seemed to be inaugural medallions. I thought to myself on that first visit that Clark Clifford had put the world on hold just to listen to me. But the third time I came to his office, it occurred to me that it was just possible those messages had been there for twenty years. Clark Clifford's final years were not what he would have wished for himself nor what his friends would have wished for him and for his family. They seemed to echo the first lines in Chapter Nine of Henry Adam's novel ``Democracy,'' perhaps the best novel ever written about this city. The lines are: ``Whenever a man reaches to the top of the political ladder, his enemies unite to pull him down. His friends become critical and exacting.'' On this occasion, I cannot speak of this enemies, but I can say that his friends will not be critical or exacting. We will think, instead, of Othello's words just before he dies: ``Soft you; a word or two before you go. ``I have done the state some service, and they know it-- ``No more of that. I pray you, in your letters, ``When you shall these unlucky deeds relate. ``Speak of me as I am; nothing extenuate. ``Nor set down aught in malice.'' We who loved Clark Clifford will do that and more. We will say now and henceforth: Clark Clifford did the state some service and we know it.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep gratitude to a constituent, Michael O'Hurley-Pitts, for his distinguished record of public service and to wish him well as he ventures North to Toronto in pursuit of new challenges and opportunities. As a young man, Michael served admirably as a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division and as an Airborne Ranger with the 1st Battalion (RANGER), 75th Infantry. No ordinary soldier, Michael was decorated with the Bronze Star Medal for Valor in combat and received numerous awards, including the Army Commendation Medal and the Army Achievement Medal with Three Oak Leaf Clusters. Following his tenure in the military, Michael continued to devote himself to the service of others. He became the Executive Director of the Children's Rights Council, contributed to parenting education programs in Washington DC, and championed the cause of peace and justice in his native-born Ireland. He also came to Capitol Hill, where he established himself as a respected congressional aide and counsel. It was through his work on behalf of two venerable New York institutions, St. Patrick's Old Cathedral and St. Patrick's Old Cathedral School, that I first learned of Michael's talents and commitment to public service. As St. Patrick's Old Cathedral Development Officer, Michael has been hugely successful in ensuring that its rich history is preserved and that the School's tradition of excellence continues into its third century. Saturday, January 16, 1999, marked the culmination of those efforts-- a grand celebration of the famed Irish Brigade soldiers of the Civil War, many of whom were immigrants and first-generation Irish-American parishioners of St. Patrick's Old Cathedral. The event included a Requiem Mass, a reenactment of their 1861 march to join Union forces, and a benefit concert by Irish legend Tommy Makem to be broadcast to a national audience by PBS on St. Patrick's Day weekend. While detained and unable to attend as I had hoped, I have learned that the celebration was magnificent and that there is strong interest in making it an annual event. Mission accomplished. I was saddened to hear that New York will soon lose the gifts of Michael O'Hurley-Pitts, but I wish him the best as he prepares for new challenges in Canada. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today with bittersweet feelings to pay tribute to a dear friend, Leo Cherne. Leo died on January 12, 1999 at the age of 86. What a huge loss we mourn, but what an exemplary life we commemorate. Indeed, I think it safe to say Leo Cherne's life helped to redeem the 20th century. I met Leo in 1954 when I became director of public relations for the International Rescue Committee (IRC). Leo, an enormously successful lawyer, economist, and businessman, had become chairman of the IRC in 1951 (after joining the board of directors in 1946). He took over for Reinhold Niebuhr, one of this century's greatest theologians. Leo served as chairman for over forty years. Then, indefatigable as he was, he served as chairman emeritus until his death. Under Leo's stewardship, the IRC grew into the largest refugee relief and resettlement organization in the world. His commitment to refugees and human rights was steadfast, and made a difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of forsaken people over the last half century. I guess he took to heart Niebuhr's observation that ``Life has no meaning except in terms of responsibility.'' Leo co-founded the Research Institute of America in 1936; it grew out of his efforts to advise businessmen on how to comply with the new Social Security law. He served as its executive director for approximately 50 years. At the end of World War II he accompanied General Douglas MacArthur to Japan to assist with economic recovery there. In 1953, Leo--a fierce anti-Communist--excoriated Senator Joseph McCarthy for his demagoguery and disregard for civil rights. In 1956, when Soviet tanks rumbled into Budapest to crush the Hungarian uprising, Leo was at the border to help desperate Hungarians flee their country, and to bear witness. He advised presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to George Bush. He served as a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from 1973 to 1991. In 1984, President Reagan conferred upon Leo the highest award a civilian can receive: the United States Medal of Freedom. President Reagan's citation stated, Since the 1930s, Leo Cherne has stepped forward with brilliance, energy and moral passion, and helped this nation overcome countless challenges. His lifetime devotion to aiding his country and to serving the cause of human freedom, especially through his work on behalf of refugees, reflects the strong and generous character of a man who deserves the respect and gratitude of all Americans. In 1989 Elie Wiesel nominated Leo for the Nobel Peace Prize; he deserved that too. He did receive France's Legion of Honor award, Germany's Commander Cross, and the United Nations' Gold Medal of Peace. All the while he was an accomplished sculptor! His bust of Abraham Lincoln was in the White House. His bust of Eleanor Roosevelt is in the White House. His bust of John Kennedy is in the Berlin square Kennedy made famous with his ``Ich Bin Ein Berliner'' speech. One bust, of Robert Frost, resides in the Department of the Interior, while another, of Albert Schweitzer, is in the Smithsonian. How fondly I recall, when I was with the IRC, the evenings Leo and I would spend at the White Horse Tavern after work! We recited the poem Dylan Thomas wrote to his father, who was dying, ``Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night'': Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Though wise men at their end know dark is right, Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night. Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight, And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way, Do not go gentle into that good night. Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light. And you, my father, there on the sad height, Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray. Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Leo did not ``go gentle into that good night.'' He fought pronounced illnesses for many years while he continued to live a productive life. He raged against the ``dying of the light'' with the same tenacity he showed fighting totalitarianism as one of our very best ``Cold Warriors''. My wife, Liz, and I miss Leo dearly. Leo is survived by his his brother, Jack Cherne, and by his daughter, Gail Gambino, and his granddaughter Erica Lynn Gambino. All are in our thoughts and prayers. The contributions he made to society cannot be overstated and are not likely to be duplicated. He was a giant among men.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to establish a cultural zone commemorating the Harlem Renaissance, one of this country's greatest cultural, literary, and musical movements. Pioneered by W.E.B. Dubois, Alain Locke, and James Weldon Johnson, the Harlem Renaissance was at the forefront of this country's intellectual, literary, and artistic development in the 1920s. Langston Hughes, Zora Neale Hurston, Claude McKay, Countee Cullen, Jean Toomer, and Wallace Thurman were among this movement's most gifted writers. The Harlem Renaissance also included the music of Duke Ellington, the theatrical productions of Eubie Blake and Noble Sissle, and the rich nightlife of the Cotton Club, the Savoy, and Connie's Inn. This bill empowers the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the National Park Service, to conduct a study to determine how best to memorialize this great movement and to preserve and maintain its rich history. Working and cooperating with the appropriate state and local authorities, I am confident that we can properly recognize and preserve one of this country's foremost cultural, literary, and historical periods. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and my distinguished colleague from New York, Mr. Schumer, to introduce three tax measures designed to strengthen our commitment to enhancing the prospects for long-term economic growth in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and a fourth piece of legislation to ensure fair funding for its Children's Health Insurance Program. Twice this decade, Congress has imposed significant tax increases on companies doing business in Puerto Rico. Those tax increases in 1993 and 1996, agreed to in the context of broader deficit reduction and minimum wage legislation, substantially altered the economic relationship between the United States and the possessions. The legislation I introduce today will address several of the economic concerns caused by those tax increases and restore incentives for employment, investment, and business opportunities. Federal tax incentives for economic activity in Puerto Rico are nearly as old as the income tax itself. Under the Revenue Act of 1921, U.S. corporations that met two gross income tests were deemed ``possessions corporations'' exempt from tax on all income derived from sources outside the United States. The possessions corporation exemption remained unchanged until 1976. Section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code, added by the Tax Reform Act of 1976, maintained the exemption for income derived by U.S. corporations from operations in a possession. It also exempted from tax the dividends remitted by a possessions corporation to its U.S. parent. However, to prevent the avoidance of tax on investments in foreign countries by possessions corporations, the 1976 Tax Reform Act eliminated the exemption for income derived outside the possessions. In 1993, Congress imposed significant limitations on Section 936. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 subjected Section 936 to two alternative limitations (the taxpayer may choose which limitation applies). One limitation is based on factors that reflect the corporation's economic activity in the possessions. The other limitation is based on a percentage of the credit that would be allowable under prior-law rules. The staff of the Joint Tax Committee estimated that the 1993 Act changes would raise $3.75 billion over five years. While Congress substantially limited tax incentives for companies doing business in Puerto Rico in 1993, the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 effectively repealed remaining federal tax incentives, subject to a 10-year transition rule for taxpayers with existing investments in Puerto Rico. The Joint Tax Committee staff estimated the 1996 changes would raise $10.5 billion over ten years. In committee report language accompanying the 1976 Act, Congress recognized that the Federal government imposes upon the possessions various requirements, such as minimum wage requirements and requirements to use U.S. flag ships in transporting goods between the United States and various possessions, that substantially increase the labor, transportation and other costs of establishing business operations in Puerto Rico. In the 1990s, in light of trade agreements such as NAFTA and increased economic competition from low-wage Caribbean countries, these concerns are particularly acute. Traditionally, Puerto Rico has been excluded from or underfinanced in many federal programs because, it has been argued, the island does not pay income taxes to the Federal government. For example, Puerto Rico has only minimal Federal participation in the Medicaid program. In 1998, Puerto Rico's Medicaid program received approximately $170 million in federal funds, whereas it could have received approximately $500 million if it were treated as a state. Clearly, Congress should not adopt a double standard of taxing Puerto Rico's economic activity while denying funding for federal programs. Mr. President, the first of the bills I introduce today, while not designed to reinstate prior law, seeks to build on the temporary wage credit that is currently provided in the Internal Revenue Code. The bill removes provisions that limit, in taxable years beginning after 2001, the aggregate taxable income taken into account in determining the amount of the credit. Employers would generally be eligible for a tax credit equal to 60 percent of wages and fringe benefit expenses for employees located in Puerto Rico. New as well as existing employers would be rewarded for providing local jobs. Instead of expiring at the end of 2005, the credit would terminate three years later for tax years starting after 2008. Thus, businesses would have a 10 year period in which to take advantage of these incentives. A second proposal addresses the inequitable treatment of Puerto Rico under the tax credit for increasing research activities (the R&D tax credit). The R&D credit has never applied to qualified research conducted in Puerto Rico and the other U.S. possessions. Until recently, U.S. companies paid no taxes on Puerto Rico source income. As a result, there were no tax consequences to Puerto Rico's exclusion from the R&D credit. With the phasing out of section 936, applying the R&D credit to research expenditures in Puerto Rico has become a matter of fairness, and this legislation would ensure eligibility for companies operating in the possessions. The Government of Puerto Rico has made research and development a centerpiece of its new economic model, and Puerto Rico's 1998 Tax Incentives Act created a deduction for research and development expenses incurred for new or improved products or industrial processes. While the immediate cost of extending the R&D credit to Puerto Rico is minimal (in 1998, the Joint Tax Committee estimated the total five year revenue loss at $4 million), the long term benefits for Puerto Rico's diversifying economy could be significant. The third bill addresses a provision of the tax law a portion of which expired on September 30, 1998. The Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands mandate that all federal collections on insular products be transferred (``covered- over'') to those unincorporated jurisdictions of our Nation. Further, the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act provides that collections on all imported rum be transferred to the treasuries of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. In 1984, because of a dispute concerning the use of the tax cover-over mechanism in Puerto Rico, the cover-over was limited to an amount of $10.50 per gallon tax on rum, rather than the full $13.50 per gallon tax. The disputed practice was discontinued many years ago. In 1993, Congress enacted a temporary increase in the rum cover-over, to $11.30, effective for five years. That provision expired on September 30, 1998, and the rum cover-over dropped back to $10.50. The legislation would restore the cover-over to the full amount of the excise tax collected on rum ($13.50 per proof gallon), as mandated in the basic laws regarding those jurisdictions and in the Caribbean Basin Initiative. Last September, the Congressional Budget Office estimated such a proposal would cost $350 million over 5 years and $700 million over 10 years. Additionally, the proposal provides that, for a five-year period, 50 cents per gallon of the cover-over to Puerto Rico would be further transferred to the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust. The Conservation Trust, created for the protection of the natural resources and environmental beauty of Puerto Rico, was established by the Department of the Interior and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 1968. The Trust was initially funded through an oil import fee. More recently, it was primarily financed through Section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code. The Trust lost more than 80 percent of its funding as a consequence of the decision to phase-out section 936 and eliminate the Qualified Possession Source Investment Income provision in the tax code. The proposal to transfer a portion of the restored cover-over for five years to capitalize the Trust is projected to result in a permanent endowment. Lastly, I introduce a bill to provide sufficient funding for Puerto Rico and the Territories' Children's Health Insurance Programs (CHIP). The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 established CHIP as a grant to states to cover uninsured low-income children. We provided approximately $20 billion in the first five years. The original allocation formula would have provided only 0.25 percent of the funding to Puerto Rico and the Territories. Recognizing that this allocation provided insufficient funding for CHIP programs in Puerto Rico and the Territories, Congress increased their allotments by $32 million in the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1999. However, this increase was provided for Fiscal Year 1999 only. This bill would increase the allotments for Puerto Rico and the Territories for future years such that funding would equal about one percent of the total grant funding. Puerto Rico and the Territories account for about 1.52 percent of the nation's population. This would increase funding in Fiscal Year 2000 to $34.2 million. I urge my colleagues' support for this modest but significant legislation. In an era of open borders, expanding trade, and increasingly interlinked economic ties, the United States should not punish Puerto Rico by selectively applying some laws while denying the benefits of others. Economic conditions in Puerto Rico warrant special consideration. While the United States is enjoying the benefits of an historically unprecedented period of economic expansion, unemployment among Puerto Rico's 3.5 million inhabitants remains high at 12.5 percent. The needs of Puerto Rico, and the importance of this provision, were magnified by the devastation recently caused by Hurricane Georges. Mr. President, now is the time to reinforce our close economic relationship with Puerto Rico. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join me in working toward swift passage of these measures. Finally, Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of the four measures be printed in full in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I introduce this bill to repeal an unprecedented provision--unprecedented until the 104th Congress--to tamper with the constitutional protection of habeas corpus. The provision reads: (d) An application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim-- (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. In 1996 we enacted a statute which holds that constitutional protections do not exist unless they have been unreasonably violated, an idea that would have confounded the framers. Thus, we introduced a virus that will surely spread throughout our system of laws. Article I, section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution stipulates, ``The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.'' We are mightily and properly concerned about the public safety, which is why we enacted the counter-terrorism bill. But we have not been invaded, Mr. President, and the only rebellion at hand appears to be against the Constitution itself. We are dealing here, sir, with a fundamental provision of law, one of those essential civil liberties which precede and are the basis of political liberties. The writ of habeas corpus is often referred to as the ``Great Writ of Liberty.'' William Blackstone (1723-80) called it ``the most celebrated writ in English law, and the great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal imprisonment.'' I repeat what I have said previously here on the Senate floor: If I had to choose between living in a country with habeas corpus but without free elections, or a country with free elections but without habeas corpus, I would choose habeas corpus every time. To say again, this is one of the fundamental civil liberties on which every democratic society of the world has built political liberties that have come subsequently. I make the point that the abuse of habeas corpus--appeals of capital sentences--is hugely overstated. A 1995 study by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics determined that habeas corpus appeals by death row inmates constitute 1 percent of all Federal habeas filings. Total habeas filings make up 4 percent of the caseload of Federal district courts. And most Federal habeas petitions are disposed of in less than 1 year. The serious delays occur in State courts, which take an average of 5 years to dispose of habeas petitions. If there is delay, the delay is with the State courts. It is troubling that Congress has undertaken to tamper with the Great Writ in a bill designed to respond to the tragic circumstances of the Oklahoma City bombing 1995. Habeas corpus has little to do with terrorism. The Oklahoma City bombing was a Federal crime and has been tried in Federal courts. Nothing in our present circumstance requires the suspension of habeas corpus, which was the practical effect of the provision in that bill. To require a Federal court to defer to a State court's judgment unless the State court's decision is ``unreasonably wrong'' effectively precludes Federal review. I find this disorienting. Anthony Lewis has written of the habeas provision in that bill: ``It is a new and remarkable concept in law: that mere wrongness in a constitutional decision is not to be noticed.'' We have agreed to this; to what will we be agreeing next? I restate Mr. Lewis' observation, a person of great experience, long a student of the courts, ``It is a new and remarkable concept in law: that mere wrongness in a constitutional decision is not to be noticed.'' Backward reels the mind. On December 8, 1995, four former U.S. Attorneys General, two Republicans and two Democrats, all persons with whom I have the honor to be acquainted, Benjamin R. Civiletti, Jr., Edward H. Levi, Nicholas Katzenbach, and Elliot Richardson--I served in administrations with Mr. Levi, Mr. Katzenbach, Mr. Richardson; I have the deepest regard for them--wrote President Clinton. I ask unanimous consent that the full text be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to prohibit states from imposing the so called ``family cap'' as part of their Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) programs. The ``family cap'' is a policy under which a child born to a poor family on assistance is simply ignored when calculating the family's benefit--as if the child, this new infant, did not exist and had no needs. More than 20 states have imposed some version of this cap as part of their TANF programs. As I have said in previous debate on this subject, these children have not asked to be conceived, and they have not asked to come into the world. We have an elemental responsibility to them. And so states ought not deny benefits to these children because of the actions of their parents. We recently received the results of an evaluation of welfare reform in New Jersey, the first state to impose such a ``family cap.'' As it is only one study, one should be cautious about generalizing from the results. Still, it was striking to note according to the study, that over the four-year observation period ``[m]embers of the experimental group [i.e. those under a family cap] also experienced an abortion rate that was 14 percent higher than the control group [i.e. those not under a cap].'' Is that really the outcome that authors of the 1996 welfare law intended? Further, the evaluation notes of the New Jersey welfare reform effort, of which the cap as a component, that ``[w]e found no evidence that [the program] had any systemic positive impact on employment, employment stability, or earnings among AFDC recipients.'' That is, it did little to move welfare recipients to work, the ostensible objective of the 1996 welfare law. And so, with this bit of evidence to reinforce my original position, I propose today to end the family cap, and I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the legislation and its full text be included in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today, I introduce a bill to provide access to health insurance for individuals between the ages of 55-65. These individuals are too young for Medicare, not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, and in many cases, are forced into early retirement or pushed out of their jobs in corporate downsizing. The ``Medicare Early Access Act'' is based on the President's three- part initiative announced last January. The bill is a targeted proposal to give older Americans under 65 new options to obtain health insurance coverage. Many of these Americans have worked hard all their lives, but, through no fault of their own, find themselves uninsured just as they are entering the years when the risk of serious illness is increasing. This legislation attempts to bridge the gap in coverage between years when persons are in the labor force and the age (65) when they become eligible for Medicare. The bill has three parts: (1) It enables persons between ages 62 and 64 to buy into Medicare by paying a full premium; (2) It provides displaced workers over age 55 access to Medicare by offering a similar Medicare buy-in option; and (3) It extends COBRA coverage to persons 55 and over whose employers withdraw retiree health benefits. The program is largely self-financing and is substantially paid for by premiums from the beneficiaries themselves. There is a modest cost to the buy-in proposal for 62-65-year-olds because participants would pay the premium in two parts: most of the cost would be paid by the individual up front and a smaller amount would be paid after they turn 65 years-old. Medicare would in effect ``loan'' participants the second part of the premium until they reach 65, when they would make small monthly payments in addition to their regular Medicare Part B premium. The financing of the program is carefully walled off from the Medicare Part A and Part B Trust Funds, to ensure that it will not adversely impact the existing program. In 1998, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of this bill found no impact on the Medicare Part A or Part B Trust Funds. CBO also predicted that about 410,000 individuals would participate (or 33 percent more than first estimated by the Administration). Finally, CBO estimated that the post-65 premium that people ages 62-65 would pay would be only $10 per month per year--$6 per month, or $72 less per year, than the Administration estimated. Mr. President, the problem of health insurance for the near elderly is getting worse. Congress should act now to provide valuable coverage for these individuals. I ask unanimous consent that the summary and the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, in November 1998, Essence Magazine reported that between 1980 and 1995 the suicide rate among Black males ages 10 to 19 more than doubled. According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study, suicide is now the third leading cause of death among all youth aged 15-19, and the fourth leading cause of death among children aged 10-14 nationally. In many states the problem is even worse. For example, suicide is the number one killer of adolescents 15-19 years old in Alaska and of children 10 to 14 years old in Oregon. The majority of children and adolescents at risk for suicidal behavior are not seen by mental health specialists; therefore, primary health care providers and others in regular contact with young people must be available to respond to these troubled youngsters. The legislation introduced today proposes to focus on seriously emotionally disabled children and adolescents and their families. Adolescents with special health needs, those experiencing chronic physical, developmental, behavioral, or serious emotional problems and requiring additional health and related services such as assistance in moving from pediatric to adult health care, to post-secondary education and employment will be helped by this bill. The Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) located within the Department of Health and Human Services is best situated to implement this program. The Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) has roots that go back more than 80 years--to the creation of the Children's Bureau in 1912. This was the first government agency to act as an advocate for mothers, children, and adolescents. The Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant, the bureau's principle statutory responsibility, was originally enacted in 1935 as Title V of the Social Security Act. The MCHB is charged with providing leadership, partnership, and resources to advance the health of all mothers, infants, children, and adolescents-- including families with low income, those with diverse racial and ethnic heritages, those with special health care needs, and those living in rural or isolated areas without access to care. Title V encompasses a program of grants to the states and two federal discretionary grant programs: Special Projects of Regional and National Significance (SPRANS) and Community Integrated Service Systems (CISS). Funds are used to support research, training, newborn screening, maternal and child health improvements. CISS is only funded when the Title V annual appropriation exceeds $600 million) which occurred for the first time in 1992. The CISS program provides direct support to public and private groups committed to building integrated health delivery systems that provide comprehensive services in local communities. Most importantly, the State Title V programs are required to coordinate with other related Federal health, education, and social service programs. For example, MCH programs have provided the technical expertise and the service delivery systems to ensure that expanded Medicaid eligibility and benefits result in improved access to services and improved health status of pregnant women and children. The federal Title V mandate places a unique responsibility on state MCH agencies to assure that children with special health care needs are identified and receive the care they need. State programs are required to develop family-centered, community-based, coordinated care systems for children with special health care needs. Services for these children are most often provided through specialty clinics and through purchase of private office or hospital-based outpatient and inpatient diagnostic, treatment, and follow up services. Three-fourths of the State MCH programs have supported local ``one-stop shopping'' models integrating access to Title V, Medicaid, the WIC food program, and other health or social services at one site. In New York, MCH helps to fund or operate regional pediatric resource centers for children with special needs. These centers offer multidisciplinary team care, family support and service coordination and they are beginning to integrate this approach into private practice settings where children are now receiving their specialty medical care. Yet, even though these programs have had encouraging results, most states' health care systems are unable to address all the needs of these vulnerable children--and adolescent youth with special health needs are particularly at risk. And that is why this legislation is so important. Under current law, Title V is permanently authorized at $705 million. It was last extended in FY 1993 to conform to funding levels that went beyond the prior authorization level. This legislation would increase the current MCH Block Grant authorization level from $705 million to $840 million in FY 2000. Health care information and education for families with special health care needs is critical to the success of any integrated physical and mental health service program. The MCHB has begun family support efforts for families of children with special health care needs, and has a promising pilot program to build a national network of statewide family-run support services in FY 1999. The additional funding in this bill is intended to expand upon these family support efforts. With increased funding for the MCH Block Grant, SPRANS and CISS programs, the MCH Bureau will be well-positioned to collaborate successfully with other Federal and State partners to address this new project focus. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be inserted in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that would establish a Medical Education Trust Fund to support America's 144 accredited medical schools and 1,250 graduate medical education teaching institutions. These institutions are national treasures; they are the very best in the world. Yet today they find themselves in a precarious financial situation as market forces reshape the health care delivery system in the United States. Explicit and dedicated funding for these institutions, which this legislation will provide, will ensure that the United States continues to lead the world in the quality of its health care system. This legislation requires that the public sector, through the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and the private sector, through an assessment on health insurance premiums, contribute broad-based and fair financial support. My particular interest in this subject began in 1994, when the Finance Committee took up the President's Health Security Act. I was Chairman of the Committee at the time. In January of that year, I asked Dr. Paul Marks, M.D., President of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, if he would arrange a ``seminar'' for me on health care issues. He agreed, and gathered a number of medical school deans together one morning in New York. Early on in the meeting, one of the seminarians remarked that the University of Minnesota might have to close its medical school. In an instant I realized I had heard something new. Minnesota is a place where they open medical schools, not close them. How, then, could this be? The answer was that Minnesota, being Minnesota, was a leading state in the growth of competitive health care markets, in which managed care organizations try to deliver services at lower costs. In this environment, HMOs and the like do not send patients to teaching hospitals, absent which you cannot have a medical school. We are in the midst of a great era of discovery in medical science. It is certainly not a time to close medical schools. This great era of medical discovery is occurring right here in the United States, not in Europe like past ages of scientific discovery. And it is centered in New York City. This heroic age of medical science started in the late 1930s. Before then, the average patient was probably as well off, perhaps better, out of a hospital as in one. Progress from that point sixty years ago has been remarkable. The last few decades have brought us images of the inside of the human body based on the magnetic resonance of bodily tissues; laser surgery; micro surgery for reattaching limbs; and organ transplantation, among other wonders. Physicians are now working on a gene therapy that might eventually replace bypass surgery. I can hardly imagine what might be next. After months of hearings and debate on the President's Health Security Act, I became convinced that special provisions would have to be made for medical schools, teaching hospitals, and medical research if we were not to see this great moment in medical science suddenly constrained. To that end, when the Committee on Finance voted 12 to 8 on July 2, 1994 to report the Health Security Act, it included a Graduate Medical Education and Academic Health Centers Trust Fund. The Trust Fund provided an 80 percent increase in federal funding for academic medicine; as importantly, it represented stable, long-term funding. While nothing came of the effort to enact universal health care coverage, the medical education trust fund enjoyed widespread support. An amendment by Senator Malcolm Wallop to kill the trust fund by striking the source of its revenue--a 1.75 percent assessment on health insurance premiums--failed on a 7-13 vote in the Finance Committee. I continued to press the issue in the first session of the 104th Congress. On September 29, 1995, during Finance Committee consideration of budget reconciliation legislation, I offered an amendment to establish a similar trust fund. My amendment failed on a tie vote, 10 to 10. Notably, however, the House version of the reconciliation bill did include a graduate medical education trust fund. That provision ultimately passed both houses as part of the conference agreement, which was subsequently vetoed by President Clinton. The budget resolution for fiscal year 1997 as passed by Congress also appeared to assume that a similar trust fund was to be included in the Medicare reconciliation bill--a bill which never materialized. The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Representative Bill Archer, was largely responsible for the inclusion of trust fund provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 and the budget resolution for fiscal year 1997. He and I share a strong commitment to ensuring the continued success of our system of medical education. Indeed, Chairman Archer and I were both honored in 1996 to receive the American Association of Medical Colleges' Public Service Excellence Award. That is the history of this effort, briefly stated. Medical education is one of America's most precious public resources. Within our increasingly competitive health care system, it is rapidly becoming a public good--that is, a good from which everyone benefits, but for which no one is willing to pay. Therefore, it should be explicitly financed with contributions from all sectors of the health care system, not just the Medicare program as is the case today. The fiscal pressures of a competitive health market are increasingly closing off traditional implicit revenue sources (such as additional payments from private payers) that have supported medical schools, graduate medical education, and research until now. In its June, 1995 Report to Congress, the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission (ProPAC), created to advise Congress on Medicare Hospital Insurance (Part A) payment, summarized the situation of teaching hospitals as follows: As competition in the health care system intensifies, the additional costs borne by teaching hospitals will place them at a disadvantage relative to other facilities. The role, scale, function, and number of these institutions increasingly will be challenged. . . . Accelerating price competition in the private sector . . . is reducing the ability of teaching hospitals to obtain the higher patient care rates from other payers that traditionally have contributed to financing the costs associated with graduate medical education. ProPAC's June, 1996 Report to Congress confirmed that ``major teaching hospitals have the dual problems of higher overall losses from uncompensated care and less above-cost revenue from private insurers.'' The State of New York provides a good example of what is happening as health care markets become more competitive. Effective at the end of the 1996 calendar year, New York repealed a state law that set hospital rates. Hospitals must now negotiate their fees with each and every health plan in the state. Where teaching hospitals were once guaranteed a payment that recognized, to some degree, its higher costs of providing services, the private sector is free to squeeze down payments to hospitals with no such recognition. While the State of New York operates funding pools that provide partial support for graduate medical education and uncompensated care, it is largely up to the teaching hospitals to try to win higher rates than other hospitals when negotiating contracts with health plans. Some may succeed in doing so, but most will probably not. New York's state law was unique, but the same process of negotiation between hospitals and private health plant takes place across the country. Who, in this context, will pay for the higher costs of operating teaching hospitals? It is worth mentioning that the NY state funding pools for GME were established as a temporary, yet important source of support for GME until Federal law--like the bill I am introducing today--can be passed by Congress. While New York has historically recognized the value of supporting GME through the state funding pools, this source of funding is currently in jeopardy of not being reauthorized by the state legislature. It is obvious that teaching hospitals can no longer rely on higher payments from private payers to do so. Nor should they. The establishment of this trust fund, which explicitly reimburses teaching hospitals for the costs of graduate medical education, will ensure that teaching hospitals can pursue their vitally important patient care, training, and research missions in the face of an increasingly competitive health system. Medical schools also face an uncertain future. There are many policy issues that need to be examined regarding the role of medical schools in our health system, but two threats faced by medical schools require immediate attention. This legislation addresses both. First, many medical schools are immediately threatened by the dire financial condition of their affiliated teaching hospitals. Medical schools rely on teaching hospitals to provide a place for their faculty to practice and perform research, a place to send third and fourth-year medical school students for training, and for some direct revenues. By improving the financial condition of teaching hospitals, this legislation significantly improves the outlook for medical schools. The second immediate threat faced by medical schools stems from their reliance on a portion of the clinical practice revenue generated by their faculties to support their operations. As competition within the health system intensifies and managed care proliferates, these revenues are shrinking. This legislation provides payments to medical schools from the Trust Fund that are designed to partially offset this loss of revenue. As we begin the 106th Congress, the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare as established in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is debating its recommendations to assure the long-term solvency and viability of the Medicare program. One of the most important policy discussions the Commission has undertaken centers on Medicare's role in the funding of Graduate Medical Education. In order to remain the world leader in graduate medical education, we must continue to maintain Medicare's commitment to GME and to the nation's teaching hospitals. I urge the Commission to maintain GME support through the Medicare program in order to assure a stable, federal source of funding. Several Commission members have raised the alarming idea of subjecting GME to an annual appropriations process. I urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous notion. It would be a tragedy for our medical schools and teaching institutions. Pitting GME against other important federal priorities would likely result in a substantial reduction in the federal commitment to GME. None of the foregoing is meant to suggest that the new competitive forces reshaping health care have brought only negative results. To the contrary, the onset of competition has had many beneficial effects, the restraint of growth on average in health insurance premiums being the most obvious. But as Monsignor Charles J. Fahey of Fordham warned in testimony before the Finance Committee in 1994, we must be wary of the ``commodification of health care,'' by which he meant that health care is not just another commodity. We can rely on competition to hold down costs in much of the health system, but we must not allow it to bring a premature end to this great age of medical discovery, an age made possible by this country's exceptionally well-trained health professionals and superior medical schools and teaching hospitals. This legislation complements a competitive health market by providing tax- supported funding for the public services provided by teaching hospitals and medical schools. Accordingly, the Medical Education Trust Fund established in the legislation I have just reintroduced would receive funding from three sources broadly representing the entire health care system: a 1.5 percent tax on health insurance premiums (the private sector's contribution), Medicare and Medicaid (the latter two sources comprising the public sector's contribution). The relative contribution from each of these sources will be in rough proportion to the medical education costs attributable to their respective covered populations. Over the five years following enactment, the Medical Education Trust Fund provides average annual payments of about $17 billion. The tax on health insurance premiums (including self-insured health plans) raises approximately $5 billion per year for the Trust Fund. Federal health programs contribute about $12 billion per year to the Trust Fund: $8 billion of current Medicare graduate medical education payments and $4 billion in federal Medicaid spending. This legislation is only a first step. It establishes the principle that, as a public good, medical education should be supported by dedicated, long-term Federal funding. To ensure that the United States continues to lead the world in the quality of its medical education and its health system as a whole, the legislation would also create a Medical Education Advisory Commission to conduct a thorough study and make recommendations, including the potential use of demonstration projects, regarding the following: Alternative and additional sources of medical education financing; Alternative methodologies for financing medical education; Policies designed to maintain superior research and educational capacities in an increasingly competitive health system; The appropriate role of medical schools in graduate medical education; and Policies designed to expand eligibility for graduate medical education payments to institutions other than teaching hospitals, including children's hospitals. Mr. President, the services provided by this Nation's teaching hospitals and medical schools--groundbreaking research, highly skilled medical care, and the training of tomorrow's physicians--are vitally important and must be protected in this time of intense economic competition in the health system. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill and the text of the bill, respectively, be included in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing with my colleague Senator Chafee the CHIP Data and Evaluation Improvement Act of 1999. This legislation would ensure comparable data and an adequate evaluation of children's health coverage under the new Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Medicaid. In 1997, CHIP was established to provide health coverage for low- income uninsured children. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 provided $48 billion over ten years, mostly in the form of a block grant, for states to develop children's health insurance programs. New York and other states pioneered expanded children's health programs well before the enactment of CHIP. With new federal CHIP funding, more states are beginning to develop their own programs. To date, 48 states have CHIP plans that have been approved by the Health Care Financing Administration, with most just beginning to implement their programs. We await reports on the effectiveness of their efforts to cover the nation's uninsured children.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague, Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, in introducing legislation to establish a Federal Commission on Statistical Policy. Congressman Stephen Horn of California and Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York plan to introduce similar legislation in the House of Representatives. This legislation is similar to S. 1404, The Federal Statistical System Act of 1997, a bill which was favorably reported out of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs October 6 of last year by a 9 to 0 vote. This Senator first introduced legislation to study the Federal statistical system on September 25, 1996, for the 104th Congress, and again on January 21, 1997, for the 105th Congress. Over the past few years, I have testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management and the House Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology to explain this legislation. This bill represents more than 2 years of work and much bipartisan cooperation. The Federal Commission on Statistical Policy would consist of 16 Presidential and congressional appointees with expertise in fields such as actuarial science, finance, and economics. Its members would conduct a thorough review of the U.S. statistical system, and issue a report that would include recommendations on whether statistical agencies should be consolidated into a centralized Federal Statistical Service. Of course, we have an example of a consolidated statistical agency just across our northern border. Statistics Canada, the most centralized statistical agency among OECD countries, was established in November 1918 as a reaction to a familiar problem. At that time, the Canadian Minister of Industry was trying to obtain an estimate of the manpower resources that Canada could commit to the war effort. And he got widely different estimates from statistical agencies scattered throughout the government. Consolidation seemed the way to solve this problem, and so it happened--as it can in a parliamentary government-- rather quickly, just as World War I ended. In April of 1997, a member of my staff met in Ottawa with the Assistant Chief Statistician of Statistics Canada. He reported that Statistics Canada is doing quite well. Decisions about the allocation of resources among statistical functions are made at the highest levels of government because the Chief Statistician of Statistics Canada holds a position equivalent to Deputy Cabinet Minister. He communicates directly with Deputy Ministers in other Cabinet Departments. In contrast, in the United States, statistical agencies are buried several levels below the Cabinet Secretaries, so it is difficult for the heads of these statistical agencies to bring issues to the attention of high-ranking administration officials and Congress. Statistics are part of our constitutional arrangement, which provides for a decennial census that, among other purposes, is the basis for apportionment of membership in the House of Representatives. I quote from article I, section I: . . . enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall be Law direct. But, while the Constitution directed that there be a census, there was, initially, no Census Bureau. The earliest censuses were conducted by U.S. marshals. Later on, statistical bureaus in state governments collected the data, with a Superintendent of the Census overseeing from Washington. It was not until 1902 that a permanent Bureau of the Census was created by the Congress, housed initially in the Interior Department. In 1903 the Bureau was transferred to the newly established Department of Commerce and Labor. The Statistics of Income Division of the Internal Revenue Service, which was originally an independent body, began collecting data in 1866. It too was transferred to the new Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903, but then was put in the Treasury Department in 1913 following ratification of the 16th amendment, which gave Congress the power to impose an income tax. A Bureau of Labor, created in 1884, was also initially in the Interior Department. The first Commissioner, appointed in 1885, was Colonel Carroll D. Wright, a distinguished Civil War veteran of the New Hampshire Volunteers. A self-trained social scientist, Colonel Wright pioneered techniques for collecting and analyzing survey data on income, prices and wages. He had previously served as Chief of the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics, a post he held for 15 years, and in that capacity had supervised the 1880 Federal census in Massachusetts. In 1888, the Bureau of Labor became an independent agency. In 1903, it was once again made a Bureau, joining other statistical agencies in the Department of Commerce and Labor. When a new Department of Labor was formed in 1913, given labor an independent voice--as labor was ``removed'' from the Department of Commerce and Labor--what we now know as the Bureau of Labor Statistics was transferred to the newly created Department of Labor. And so it went. Statistical agencies sprung up as needed. And they moved back and forth as new executive departments were formed. Today, some 89 different organizations in the Federal government comprise parts of our national statistical infrastructure. Eleven of these organizations have as their primary function the generation of data. These 11 organizations are: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date Agency Department established ------------------------------------------------------------------------ National Agricultural Statistical Agriculture........... 1863 Service. Statistics of Income Division, IRS. Treasury.............. 1866 Economic Research Service.......... Agriculture........... 1867 National Center for Education Education............. 1867 Statistics. Bureau of Labor Statistics......... Labor................. 1884 Bureau of the Census............... Commerce.............. 1902 Bureau of Economic Analysis........ Commerce.............. 1912 National Center for Health Health and Human 1912 Statistics. Services. Bureau of Justice Statistics....... Justice............... 1968 Energy Information Administration.. Energy................ 1974 Bureau of Transportation Statistics Transportation........ 1991 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ need for legislation President Kennedy once said: Democracy is a difficult kind of government. It requires the highest qualities of self-discipline, restraints, a willingness to make commitments and sacrifices for the general interest, and also it requires knowledge. That knowledge often comes from accurate statistics. You cannot begin to solve a problem until you can measure it. This legislation would require the Commission to conduct a comprehensive examination of the current statistical system and focus particularly on whether to create a centralized Federal Statistical Service. In September 1996, prior to introduction of my first bill to establish a Commission to study the U.S. statistical system, I received a letter from nine former Chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) endorsing this legislation. Excluding two recent chairs, who at that time were still serving in the Clinton Administration, the signatories include virtually every living former chair of the CEA. While acknowledging that the United States ``possesses a first-class statistical system,'' these former Chairmen remind us that ``problems periodically arise under the current system of widely scattered responsibilities.'' They conclude as follows: Without at all prejudging the appropriate measures to deal with these difficult problems, we believe that a thoroughgoing review by a highly qualified and bipartisan Commission as provided in your Bill has great promise of showing the way to major improvements. The letter is signed by: Michael J. Boskin, Martin Feldstein, Alan Greenspan, Paul W. McCracken, Raymond J. Saulnier, Charles L. Schultze, Beryl W. Sprinkel, Herbert Stein, and Murray Weidenbaum. It happens that this Senator's association with the statistical system in the Executive Branch began over three decades ago. I was Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy and Planning in the administration of President John F. Kennedy. This was a new position in which I was nominally responsible for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I say nominally out of respect for the independence of that venerable institution, which as I noted earlier long predated the Department of Labor itself. The then-Commissioner of the BLS, Ewan Clague, could not have been more friendly and supportive. And so were the statisticians, who undertook to teach me to the extent I was teachable. They even shared professional confidences. And so it was that I came to have some familiarity with the field. For example, we had just received a report on price indexes from a committee led by a Nobel laureate, George Stigler. The Committee stressed the importance of accurate and timely statistics noting that: The periodic revision of price indexes, and the almost continuous alterations in details of their calculation, are essential if the indexes are to serve their primary function of measuring the average movements of prices. While the Final Report of the Advisory Commission To Study The Consumer Price Index (The Boskin Commission) focused primarily on the extent to which changes in the CPI overstate inflation, the Commission also addressed issues related to the effectiveness of Federal statistical programs and recommended that: Congress should enact the legislation necessary for the Departments of Commerce and Labor to share information in the interest of improving accuracy and timeliness of economic statistics and to reduce the resources consumed in their development and production. There is, of course, a long history of attempts to reform our nation's statistical infrastructure. In her invaluable book Organizing to Count, Janet L. Norwood, former Commissioner of the BLS, has described efforts to bring some order to the national statistical system, going back to a Commission appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury in 1903 and following through to a 1990 Working Group of the Cabinet Council for Economic Policy, chaired by Michael Boskin. One such effort occurred in July of 1933 when, by Executive Order, President Roosevelt set up a Central Statistical Board--organized by the Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins, and the sometime Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Isador Lubin. I say sometime because although Lubin headed the Bureau from 1933-1946, much of his time was spent ``on leave'' serving in various White House statistical assignments, including as a special statistical assistant to the President. In their fine history of the agency, The First Hundred Years of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Joseph P. Goldberg and William T. Moye write that the Board was then established by Congress ``in 1935 for a 5-year period to ensure consistency, avoid duplication, and promote economy in the work of government statistics.'' But in most cases little or no action has been taken on their recommendations. The result of this inaction has been an ever expanding statistical system. It continues to grow in order to meet new data needs, but with little or no regard for the overall objectives of the system. As Norwood notes in her book: The U.S. system has neither the advantages that come from centralization nor the efficiency that comes from strong coordination in decentralization. As presently organized, therefore, the country's statistical system will be hard pressed to meet the demands of a technologically advanced, increasingly internationalized world in which the demand for objective data of high quality is steadily rising. In this era of government downsizing and budget cutting, it is unlikely that Congress will appropriate more funds for statistical agencies. It is clear that to preserve and improve the statistical system we must consider reforming it, yet we must not attempt to reform the system until we have heard from experts in the field. The legislation establishes a Federal Commission on Statistical Policy for a three-year term. The Commission would consist of 16 members: eight of whom to be chosen by the President; four of whom by the Speaker of the House of Representatives in consultation with the Majority and Majority Leader; and four of whom by the President pro tempore of the Senate in consultation with the Majority and Minority Leader. In an initial 18-month period, the Commission would determine whether to consolidate the Federal statistical system, and would also make recommendations with respect to ways to achieve greater efficiency in carrying out Federal statistical programs. If the Commission recommends creation of a newly established independent Federal statistical agency, designated as the Federal Statistical Service, the Commission's report would contain draft legislation incorporating such recommendations. Over the full term of the Commission, it would also conduct comprehensive studies and submit reports to Congress that: Evaluate the mission of various statistical agencies and the relevance of such missions to current and future needs; Evaluate key statistics and measures and make recommendations on ways to improve such statistics better serve the intended major purposes; Review information technology and make recommendations of appropriate methods for disseminating statistical data; and Compare our statistical system with the systems of other nations. This legislation is only a first step, but an essential one. The Commission will provide Congress with the blueprint for reform. It will be up to us to finally take action after nearly a century of inattention to this very important issue. I ask unanimous consent the full text of the letter from nine former Chairmen of the Council of Economic Adviser, a summary of the bill, and the full text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills which will make significant reductions in the pollutants which most degrade our national air quality. The Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act of 1999 and the Clean Gasoline Act of 1999 would reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions through national ``cap and trade'' programs, and reduce the sulfur content in gasoline, respectively. We have come a long way since the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Since that last reauthorization effort, we have successfully reduced emissions of the pollutants we set out to regulate and tremendously expanded our understanding of the causes and effects of major environmental problems such as acid deposition, ozone pollution, decreased visibility, and eutrophication of coastal waters. We can be proud of these accomplishments, but we have along way to go yet. Since 1990 we have learned, for instance, that the sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions reductions required under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 are insufficient to prevent continued damage to human health and sensitive ecosystems. We have also learned that nitrogen oxides (NOX), which we largely ignored nine years ago, are significant contributors to our nation's many air quality deficiencies. And finally, we have demonstrated that legislation containing regulatory flexibility and market incentives is preferable to the traditional ``command and control'' approach. My bills seek to build upon this new body of knowledge by combining the best and most current scientific evaluation of our environmental needs with the most effective and efficient regulatory framework. The scientific data indicate that the 1990 Amendments did not go far enough to prevent continued human health and ecosystem damage from SO2 and NOX. We now know that ozone pollution, caused in large part by NOX emissions, can have a terrible effect on human respiratory functions. The Harvard University School of Public Health's 1996 study of ozone pollution established a strong link between ground level ozone pollution and 30,000-50,000 emergency room visits during the 1993 and 1994 ozone seasons. Ecosystems continue to suffer, too. The 1998 report of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) indicates that sulfate concentrations of surface waters in the Southern Appalachian Mountains have been increasing steadily for more than a decade, making for an increasingly inhospitable environment for trout and other fish species. There are other types of problems, too. Visitors to our nation's national parks and wilderness areas find that it is more difficult than ever before to enjoy these scenic vistas. It is becoming increasingly difficult to see through the haze which clogs the air in our national parks. Scientists have produced volumes of scientific literature on ozone, acid deposition, regional haze, and other air quality problems over the past decade. We now know much more about the causes of these problems than we did in 1990. We know that NOX emissions, which we underestimated as a cause of air pollution, in fact play an important role in the formation of ground level ozone, acide deposition, and nitrogen deposition. We know that sulfur dioxide not only contributes significantly to acid deposition, but also to reduced visibility in our great scenic vistas. The most recent NAPAP report reflects this changing body of knowledge. The NAPAP report notes that NOX make a highly significant contribution to the occurrence of acid deposition and nitrogen saturation on both land and water. According to NAPAP, a majority of Adirondack lakes have not shown recovery from high acidity levels first detected decades ago. Forests, streams, and rivers outside of New York, in the Front Range of Colorado, the Great Smoky Mountains of Tennessee, and the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains of California are also now showing the effects of acidification and nitrogen saturation. And mountains are not the only ecosystems affected. The Ecological Society of America, the nation's leading professional society of ecologists, issued a report in late 1997 which notes that airborne deposition of nitrogen accounts for a significant percentage of the nitrogen content of coastal water bodies stretching from the Gulf Coast up and around the entire length of the eastern seaboard. The Chesapeake Bay is believed to receive 27 percent of its nitrogen load directly from the atmosphere. For Tampa Bay, the figure is 28 percent. For the coastal waters of the Newport River in North Carolina, more than 35 percent. Clearly, any serious effort to address these problems must address NOX emissions and further reduce SO2 emissions. My bills address the major sources of NOX and SO2. The Acide Deposition and Ozone Control Act of 1998 would affect ``stationary sources'' of NOX and SO2, mainly electric utilities, and the Clean Gasoline Act of 1999 would affect ``mobile sources'', mainly cars and trucks, of NOx and other tailpipe emissions. Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act: Controlling Stationary Sources When we designed the SO2 Allowance Program in 1990, our task was simplified by the fact that over 85 percent of SO2 emissions originated in fossil fuel-fired electric utilities. Utility emissions account for just under 30 percent of total NOX emissions, a smaller share, but large enough to merit attention. My bill establishes a year-round cap-and-trade program for NOX emissions from the utility sector and mandates a further 50 percent cut in emissions of SO2 through the existing cap and trade program. Because of the human health risks of urban ozone pollution during the summer months, the Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act requires utilities to surrender two allowances for each ton of NOX emitted between May and September. During the remainder of the year, only one allowance is required to produce one ton of NOX emissions. In this way, utilities are encouraged to make the greatest reductions during the summer, when the collective risk to human health from these emissions is higher. In light of the impressive success and cost effectiveness of the cap and trade program which regulates SO2, the Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act is designed to build onto it as seamlessly as possible by establishing a ``Phase III'' under the existing program. Under the proposed Phase III, total utility emissions of SO2 would be reduced to just under 4.5 million tons per year, significantly reducing acid deposition and improving visibility in our Nation's scenic vistas. The Clean Gasoline Act of 1999: Addressing Mobile Sources This bill establishes a national, year-round cap on the sulfur content of gasoline sold in the United States. The bill would extend the so-called California gasoline sulfur standard nationwide. The benefits of reducing gasoline sulfur would be dramatic and virtually immediate. The presence of sulfur in gasoline increases vehicle emissions because sulfur poisons the catalytic converter used in the vehicle's emissions control system. Sulfur is a pollutant only: its presence (or absence) does not effect engine performance. In the 1970's, we fought to remove lead from gasoline to make possible the introduction of catalytic converters. Until recently, we did not appreciate that sulfur is a catalyst poison, too. All vehicles in the national fleet with catalytic converters--virtually all vehicles--produce higher levels of NOX because of the high levels of sulfur in the gasoline they burn. The cost of gasoline would rise under this bill--by a nickel a gallon at the retail level, at most. For a car driven 15,000 miles per year that achieves 15 miles per gallon, the cost of the Clean Gasoline Act would be $50 annually. Keep in mind, however, that gasoline prices, adjusted for inflation, are cheaper now than they have been at any time since 1950, the beginning point of our analysis. And the benefits to human health and the environment of reducing gasoline sulfur far outweigh this modest cost. A recent study by the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA-ALAPCO) found that reducing gasoline sulfur levels to 40 parts per million, the California standard, would bring an air quality benefit equivalent to removing nearly 54 million vehicles from our national fleet. New York City alone would have a benefit equal to removing 3 million vehicles from its streets. We must not pass up the opportunity to make such large gains in emissions reductions for such a minor cost. As I mentioned earlier, I am proud of what we accomplished in enacting the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The SO2 Allowance Program established by that legislation has achieved extraordinary benefits at program compliance costs less than half of initial projections. The efficacy of the approach is proven. The current science indicates, however, that we did not go far enough in 1990 in setting our emissions reduction targets. The bills I have introduced endeavor to build upon our accomplishments thus far, and to begin the work which remains to be done. I encourage my colleagues to join myself and Mr. Schumer in sponsoring the Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act of 1999, and to join myself and Mr. Levin, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Cleland, and Mr. Jeffords in sponsoring the Clean Gasoline Act of 1999. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the NIS Education Act. 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 offer a bill that is simple in both premise and purpose: build democratic leaders of the NIS for the future through education. The NIS Education Act will partially fund graduate education in the social sciences for 500 students from the NIS during the next five 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 the NIS Education Act 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 the NIS Education Act 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, 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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.