Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor, along with our esteemed Chairman, Senator Roth, a Senate Finance Committee bill to extend a package of expired tax provisions. Unfortunately, dealing with this group of expired tax items has become a routine annual event for the Committee and for the Congress. This bill extends universally popular items such as the credit for increasing research activities, the Work Opportunity Credit, and the deduction for gifts of appreciated stock to private foundations through June of next year. It is my hope that 1999 will be the year that the entire group of ``extenders'' are finally made permanent. We thank Senator Roth for ensuring that the Finance Committee is heard on this matter. Our action is a reminder that the United States Congress does not act, on tax bills or any other measures, as a unicameral legislature. Indeed, this Finance committee measure improves in several ways on the bill passed by the House Ways and Means Committee yesterday: First, we extend the Trade Assistance Program from October 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999. This is an important program established in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 that provides training and income support for workers adversely affected by import competition. It is a commitment we have made to workers, and it ought to be kept. Second, the bill includes a provision that prevents the tax benefit of nonrefundable personal credits such as the $500 per child credit and the adoption credit from being eroded by the Alternative Minimum Tax. This was to have been included as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, but was dropped for some unknown reason as part of the final compromise. Without the ``fix'' included in this bill, we will trap many unsuspecting taxpayers who sit down to prepare their 1998 Federal income tax returns next spring. I applaud the work of the chairman and the committee in moving quickly to agree on this bill and, for the greater good, deferring action on a number of very important narrower items until next year.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor, along with our esteemed Chairman, Senator Roth, a Senate Finance Committee bill to extend a package of expired tax provisions. Unfortunately, dealing with this group of expired tax items has become a routine annual event for the Committee and for the Congress. This bill extends universally popular items such as the credit for increasing research activities, the Work Opportunity Credit, and the deduction for gifts of appreciated stock to private foundations through June of next year. It is my hope that 1999 will be the year that the entire group of ``extenders'' are finally made permanent. We thank Senator Roth for ensuring that the Finance Committee is heard on this matter. Our action is a reminder that the United States Congress does not act, on tax bills or any other measures, as a unicameral legislature. Indeed, this Finance committee measure improves in several ways on the bill passed by the House Ways and Means Committee yesterday: First, we extend the Trade Assistance Program from October 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999. This is an important program established in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 that provides training and income support for workers adversely affected by import competition. It is a commitment we have made to workers, and it ought to be kept. Second, the bill includes a provision that prevents the tax benefit of nonrefundable personal credits such as the $500 per child credit and the adoption credit from being eroded by the Alternative Minimum Tax. This was to have been included as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, but was dropped for some unknown reason as part of the final compromise. Without the ``fix'' included in this bill, we will trap many unsuspecting taxpayers who sit down to prepare their 1998 Federal income tax returns next spring. I applaud the work of the chairman and the committee in moving quickly to agree on this bill and, for the greater good, deferring action on a number of very important narrower items until next year.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished Chairman, Senator Roth, and other colleagues in introducing a bill to improve the home health interim payment system. Prior to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), home health agencies were reimbursed on a cost basis for all their costs, as long as they maintained average costs below certain limits. That payment system provided incentives for home health agencies to increase the volume of services delivered to patients, and it attracted many new agencies to the program. From 1989 to 1996, Medicare home health payments grew at an average annual rate of 33 percent, while the number of home health agencies increased from about 5,700 in 1989 to more than 10,000 in 1997. In order to constrain the growth in costs and usage of home care, the BBA included provisions that would establish a Prospective Payment System (PPS) for home health care, a method of paying health care providers whereby rates are established in advance. An interim payment system (IPS) was also established while the Health Care Financing Administration works to develop the PPS for home health care agencies. The home health care industry is dissatisfied with the IPS. The resulting concern expressed by many Members of Congress prompted us to ask the General Accounting Office (GAO) to examine the question of beneficiary access to home care. While the GAO found that neither agency closures nor the interim payment system significantly affected beneficiary access to care, I remain concerned that the potential closure of many more home health agencies might ultimately affect the care that beneficiaries receive, particularly beneficiaries with chronic illness. The bill we are introducing today adjusts the interim payment system to achieve equity and fairness in payments to home health agencies. It would reduce extreme variations in payment limits applicable to old agencies within states and across states and would reduce artificial payment level differences between ``old'' and ``new'' agencies. The bill would provide all agencies a longer transition period in which to adjust to changed payment limits. Clearly, since the bill may not address all the concerns raised by Medicare beneficiaries and by home health agencies, we should revisit this issue next year. A thorough review is needed to determine whether the funding mechanism for home health is sufficient, fair and appropriate, and whether the benefit is meeting the needs of Medicare beneficiaries. America's home health agencies provide invaluable services that have given many Medicare beneficiaries the ability to stay home while receiving medical care. An adjustment to the interim payment system and delay in further payment reductions will enable home health agencies to survive the transition into the prospective payment system while continuing to provide essential care for beneficiaries.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to New York's Dr. Michael K. Simpson who last year completed ten years of service as President of Utica College at Syracuse University and is now President of the American University in Paris. While at Utica, Dr. Simpson taught international relations, contemporary French politics, international law, the political economics of multinational corporations, macro- and microeconomics, and American foreign policy. He has also been a visiting professor at the Maxwell School of Citizenship at Syracuse University and director of Syracuse's study center in Strasbourg, France. In addition to his broad academic experience, Dr. Simpson has dedicated himself to the people of Oneida County, New York. As the community representative and chairperson of the Health and Hospital Council of the Mohawk Valley from 1987-1992, he lead that Council toward developing a hospital consolidation plan for four area hospitals. That succeeded in making quality health-care more accessible and affordable to local residents. Since 1988 he has been a trustee of The Savings Bank of Utica. I have had the privilege to speak at three commencements in which Michael Simpson participated--at his graduation from Fordham College in 1970 when he earned his bachelor's degree, at Syracuse University in 1983 upon receipt of his M.B.A., and during his tenure as Utica College President. With great admiration and gratitude I commend Dr. Simpson for his commitment to excellence in education and his service to his fellow citizens of New York. I wish him all the best on his sojourn in Paris.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished Chairman, Senator Roth, and other colleagues in introducing a bill to improve the home health interim payment system. Prior to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), home health agencies were reimbursed on a cost basis for all their costs, as long as they maintained average costs below certain limits. That payment system provided incentives for home health agencies to increase the volume of services delivered to patients, and it attracted many new agencies to the program. From 1989 to 1996, Medicare home health payments grew at an average annual rate of 33 percent, while the number of home health agencies increased from about 5,700 in 1989 to more than 10,000 in 1997. In order to constrain the growth in costs and usage of home care, the BBA included provisions that would establish a Prospective Payment System (PPS) for home health care, a method of paying health care providers whereby rates are established in advance. An interim payment system (IPS) was also established while the Health Care Financing Administration works to develop the PPS for home health care agencies. The home health care industry is dissatisfied with the IPS. The resulting concern expressed by many Members of Congress prompted us to ask the General Accounting Office (GAO) to examine the question of beneficiary access to home care. While the GAO found that neither agency closures nor the interim payment system significantly affected beneficiary access to care, I remain concerned that the potential closure of many more home health agencies might ultimately affect the care that beneficiaries receive, particularly beneficiaries with chronic illness. The bill we are introducing today adjusts the interim payment system to achieve equity and fairness in payments to home health agencies. It would reduce extreme variations in payment limits applicable to old agencies within states and across states and would reduce artificial payment level differences between ``old'' and ``new'' agencies. The bill would provide all agencies a longer transition period in which to adjust to changed payment limits. Clearly, since the bill may not address all the concerns raised by Medicare beneficiaries and by home health agencies, we should revisit this issue next year. A thorough review is needed to determine whether the funding mechanism for home health is sufficient, fair and appropriate, and whether the benefit is meeting the needs of Medicare beneficiaries. America's home health agencies provide invaluable services that have given many Medicare beneficiaries the ability to stay home while receiving medical care. An adjustment to the interim payment system and delay in further payment reductions will enable home health agencies to survive the transition into the prospective payment system while continuing to provide essential care for beneficiaries.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today this nation takes time to honor the deeds of some of our bravest public servants, the men and women who make up this country's federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and departments. These officers are the guardians of our safety, the protectors of our hearths and homes. Often in harm's way, they are the ever-vigilant heroes of our communities, towns and cities. These words particularly ring true when they are applied to the eight New York City Police Department officers who are among those honored here today. In July 1997, Officers Joseph Dolan, Michael Keenan, David Marinez, Mario Zorovic, Sergeant John English, Jr., Lieutenant Owen McCaffrey, Deputy Inspector Raymond McDermott, and Captain Ralph Pascullo prevented two men from attempting to blow up a portion of New York City's subway system with homemade pipe bombs. These eight officers spearheaded a team that entered the apartment where these two men lived. Once inside, the officers disabled these men and recovered four unexploded pipe bombs. Their bravery and professionalism undoubtedly saved countless lives and prevented a bloody catastrophs. I am extremely proud of these men and take great pride in calling them New York City's finest.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished Chairman, Senator Roth, and other colleagues in introducing a bill to improve the home health interim payment system. Prior to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), home health agencies were reimbursed on a cost basis for all their costs, as long as they maintained average costs below certain limits. That payment system provided incentives for home health agencies to increase the volume of services delivered to patients, and it attracted many new agencies to the program. From 1989 to 1996, Medicare home health payments grew at an average annual rate of 33 percent, while the number of home health agencies increased from about 5,700 in 1989 to more than 10,000 in 1997. In order to constrain the growth in costs and usage of home care, the BBA included provisions that would establish a Prospective Payment System (PPS) for home health care, a method of paying health care providers whereby rates are established in advance. An interim payment system (IPS) was also established while the Health Care Financing Administration works to develop the PPS for home health care agencies. The home health care industry is dissatisfied with the IPS. The resulting concern expressed by many Members of Congress prompted us to ask the General Accounting Office (GAO) to examine the question of beneficiary access to home care. While the GAO found that neither agency closures nor the interim payment system significantly affected beneficiary access to care, I remain concerned that the potential closure of many more home health agencies might ultimately affect the care that beneficiaries receive, particularly beneficiaries with chronic illness. The bill we are introducing today adjusts the interim payment system to achieve equity and fairness in payments to home health agencies. It would reduce extreme variations in payment limits applicable to old agencies within states and across states and would reduce artificial payment level differences between ``old'' and ``new'' agencies. The bill would provide all agencies a longer transition period in which to adjust to changed payment limits. Clearly, since the bill may not address all the concerns raised by Medicare beneficiaries and by home health agencies, we should revisit this issue next year. A thorough review is needed to determine whether the funding mechanism for home health is sufficient, fair and appropriate, and whether the benefit is meeting the needs of Medicare beneficiaries. America's home health agencies provide invaluable services that have given many Medicare beneficiaries the ability to stay home while receiving medical care. An adjustment to the interim payment system and delay in further payment reductions will enable home health agencies to survive the transition into the prospective payment system while continuing to provide essential care for beneficiaries.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence brings to the floor the conference report on the intelligence authorization bill. While I commend the Committee for bringing this legislation to the floor, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss a bill that the committee did not act on this year: the government Secrecy Reform Act (S. 712). This legislation stems from the unanimous recommendation of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy. Senator Jesse Helms and I, and Representatives Larry Combest and Lee Hamilton (all Commissioners), introduced the Government Secrecy Act in May 1997. The bill sets out a new legislative framework to govern our secrecy system. Our core objective is to ensure that secrecy proceed according to law. The proposed statute can help ensure that the present regulatory regime will not simply continue to flourish without any restraint and without meaningful oversight and accountability. A trenchant example of the need for reform in this area came last week by way of the Assassination Records Review Board. The Board has now completed its congressionally mandated review and release of documents related to President Kennedy's assassination. It has assembled at the National Archives a thorough collection of documents and evidence that was previously secret and scattered about the government. The Review Board found that while the public continues to search for answers over the past thirty-five years: [T]he official record on the assassination of President Kennedy remained shrouded in secrecy and mystery. The suspicions created by government secrecy eroded confidence in the truthfulness of federal agencies in general and damaged their credibility. Credibility eroded needlessly, as most of the documents which the Board reviewed were declassified. And at considerable cost, as it represents the best-known and most notorious conspiracy theory now extant: the unwillingness on the part of the vast majority of the American public to accept that President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone. Conspiracy theories have been with us since the birth of the Republic. This one seems to have only grown. A poll taken in 1966, two years after release of the Warren Commission report concluding that Oswald had acted alone, found that 36 percent of respondents accepted this finding, while 50 percent believed others had been involved in a conspiracy to kill the President. by 1978 only 18 percent responded that they believed the assassination had been the act of one man; fully 75 percent believed there had been a broader plot. The numbers have remained relatively steady since; a 1993 poll also found that three- quarters of those surveyed believed (consistent with the film JFK, released that year) that there had been a conspiracy. It so happens that I was in the White House at the hour of the President's death (I was an assistant labor secretary at the time). I feared what would become of him if he were not protected, and I pleaded that we must get custody of Oswald. But no one seemed to be able to hear. Presently Oswald was killed, significantly complicating matters. I did not think there had been a conspiracy to kill the president, but I was convinced that the American people would sooner or later come to believe that there had been one unless we investigated the event with exactly that presumption in mind. The Warren Commission report and the other subsequent investigations, with their nearly universal reliance on secrecy, did not dispel any such fantasies. In conducting this document-by-document review of classified information, the Board reports that ``the federal government needlessly and wastefully classified and then withheld from public access countless important records that did not require such treatment.'' How to explain this? Beginning with the concept that secrecy should be understood as a form of government regulation. This was an insight of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy, which I chaired, building on the work of the great German sociologist Max Weber, who wrote some eight decades ago: The pure interest of the bureaucracy in power, however, is efficacious far beyond those areas where purely functional interests make for secrecy. The concept of the `official secret' is the specific invention of bureaucracy, and nothing is so fantastically defended by the bureaucracy as this attitude, which cannot be substantially defended beyond these specifically qualified areas. What we traditionally think of in this country as regulation concerns how citizens are to behave. Whereas public regulation involves what the citizen may do, secrecy concerns what that citizen may know. And the citizen does not know what may not be known. As our Commission stated: ``Americans are familiar with the tendency to overregulate in other areas. What is different with secrecy is that the public cannot know the extent or the content of the regulation.'' Thus, secrecy is the ultimate mode of regulation; the citizen does not even know that he or she is being regulated! It is a parallel regulatory regime with a far greater potential for damage if it malfunctions. In our democracy, where the free exchange of ideas is so essential, it can be suffocating. And so the Commission recommended that legislation must be enacted. The Majority and Minority Leaders have been persuaded on the necessity of such legislation and are cosponsors of the bill. On March 3, 1998, we engaged in a colleague on the bill with the two Leaders, along with myself, Senators Helms, Thompson, Glenn, Shelby, and Kerrey. At that time we all agreed on the importance of considering the bill in this session. The Majority Leader stated, ``I hope that this process of committee consideration can be completed this spring and that we can expeditiously schedule floor time for legislation addressing this important issue. The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, chaired by Senator Thompson, considered the bill and approved it unanimously on July 22. In its report to accompany the bill, the Committee had this important insight: Our liberties depend on the balanced structure created by James Madison and the other framers of the Constitution. The national security information system has not had a clear legislative foundation, but . . . has been developed through a series of executive orders. It is time to bring this executive monopoly over the issue to an end, and to begin to engage in the same sort of dialogue between Congress and the executive that characterizes the development of government policy in all other means. We are not proposing putting an end to government secrecy. Far from it. It is at times terribly necessary and used for the most legitimate reasons--ranging from military operations to diplomatic endeavors. Indeed, much of our Commission's report is devoted to explaining the varied circumstances in which secrecy is most essential. Yet, the bureaucratic attachment to secrecy has become so warped that, in the words of Kermit Hall, a member of the Assassination Records Review Board, it has transformed into ``a deeply ingrained commitment to secrecy as a form of patriotism.'' Secrecy need not remain the only norm--particularly when one considers that the current badly overextended system frequently fails to protect its most important secrets adequately. We must develop what might be termed a competing ``culture of openness''--fully consistent with our interests in protecting national security, but in which power and authority are no longer derived primarily from one's ability to withhold information from others in government and the public at large. Unfortunately, the Intelligence Committee did not take up this bill. Part of the delay was a result of the tardy administration response to the changes made by the Governmental Affairs Committee. A formal letter on the bill was not delivered until September 17. In addition, this letter sought the removal of the ``balancing test'' contained in the bill, a change that the administration had not previously sought. Nevertheless, we were on the threshold of reaching agreement on the bill. The Intelligence Committee has been reviewing the bill informally, and I hope the Chairman will agree that the difference between us are not that great, and that we can pass the bill early in the 106th Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the letter expressing the administration views on the bill be printed in the Record at this point, along with comments on the letter made in a joint letter by the National Security Archives and the Federation of American Scientists, and a letter by Representative Lee Hamilton.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today the United States Congress acts to authorize the placement of a statute of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi-- Mahatma Gandi--on Federal land across the street from the Indian embassy in Washington D.C. Such a tribute to Mahatma Gandhi, often called the father of the Indian nation, would serve as a fitting tribute to Indian democracy which has survived--in fact, thrived-- despite enormous challenges. It will stand as a symbol of the growing strength of the bonds between our two countries. The Government of India has offered a statute of Gandhi as a gift to the United States. In order to place it on Federal land, an act of Congress is required. This bill will fulfill just that purpose, and I thank the Senator from Florida, Mr. Mack and the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes for joining me in this endeavor. It is particularly appropriate that a statute of Mahatma Gandhi be selected as a symbol of our ties. The effects of Gandhi's non-violent actions and the philosophy that guided him, were not limited to his country, or his time. Perhaps less known is that Gandhi drew inspiration from an American. While in South Africa, Gandhi read Thoreau's essay ``Civil Disobedience,'' which confirmed his view that an honest man is duty-bound to violate unjust laws. He took this view home with him, and in the end the British raj gave way to an independent Republic of India. Then Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. repatriated the idea, and so began the great American civil rights movement of this century. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. has written of the singular influence Gandhi's message of non-violent resistance had on him when he first learned of it while studying at Crozier Theological seminary in Philadelphia. He would later describe Gandhi's influence on him in, ``Stride Toward Freedom'': As I read I became deeply fascinated by [Gandhi's] philosphy of non-violent resistance . . . as I delved deeper into the philosophy of Gandhi, my skepticism concerning the power of love gradually diminished, and I came to see its potency in the area of social reform . . . prior to reading Gandhi, I had concluded that the love ethics of Jesus were only effective in individual relationships . . . but after reading Gandhi, I saw how utterly mistaken I was. . . . It was in this Gandhian emphasis on love and non- violence that I discovered the method for social reform that I had been seeking for so many months . . . I came to feel that this was the only morally and practically sound method open to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom . . . this principle became the guiding light of our movement. Christ furnished the spirit and motivation and Gandhi furnished the method. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed that Gandhi's philosophy of non- violent resistance was the ``guiding light'' of the American civil rights movement. As Dr. King explained, ``Gandhi furnished the message.'' A statue of Gandhi, given as a gift from the Government of India, on a small plot of Federal land along Massachusetts Avenue in front of the Indian embassy, will stand not only as a tribute to the shared values of the two largest democracies in the world, but will also pay tribute to the lasting influence of Gandhian thought on the United States.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I first want to thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, for his insistence that the Internet Tax Freedom Act be considered by the Finance Committee before any action on this floor. I recognize and applaud all of the effort that has gone into the other proposals dealing with this subject, and in particular we should acknowledge the work of Senators Wyden, McCain, Dorgan, Graham, Lieberman, and Gregg. Since June of 1997, the chairman and I sought referral of this legislation to give the Finance Committee the opportunity to consider the important tax and trade issues related to the Internet, which by some estimates will grow to $300 billion of commercial transactions annually by the year 2000. The bill was finally referred to the Finance Committee on July 21st of this year. That referral to the Finance Committee was consistent with Senate precedents. In recent years, the Finance Committee has had jurisdiction over at least two other pieces of legislation with direct impact on state and local taxes. Both the ``source tax'' bill that was of great interest to Senators Bryan, Reid, and Baucus, prohibiting states from taxing the pensions of former residents, and Senator bumpers' mail order sales tax proposal, requiring mail order companies to collect and remit sales taxes due on goods shipped across state lines, were referred to the Finance Committee. The legislation before us today also deals directly with international trade. It requests that the administration continue to seek trade agreements that keep the Internet free from foreign tariffs and other trade barriers. As reported by the Finance Committee, this bill would establish trade objectives designed to guide future negotiations over the regulation of electronic commerce--issues clearly within the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. A few comments on the substance of this legislation. I am not entirely persuaded that there is a pressing need for a federal moratorium on the power of state and local governments to impose and collect certain taxes, but it seems clear that such a moratorium does enjoy a great deal of support. The two-year moratorium period in the Finance Committee bill and the three-year period agreed to as a floor amendment during this debate is surely preferable to the six-year provision in the Commerce Committee bill. There is some question whether such a moratorium is actually necessary. New York is proof that States do not need a directive from Congress to act on this matter: Governor Pataki and the New York State legislature have agreed on a bill exempting Internet access services from State or local sales, use, and telecommunications taxes. The Governor's legislation also makes it clear that out-of-state businesses will not be subject to State or local taxes in New York solely because they advertise on the Internet. I am pleased that the Finance Committee's bill preserves the right of States or local governments to collect tax with respect to transactions occurring before July 29, 1998 (the date of Finance Committee action). Further, I am pleased that language has been added on the floor that goes beyond the Finance Committee bill and ``grandfathers'' any existing State and local taxes on Internet activity occurring during the period of the moratorium. With respect to the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce established, a membership of 16, almost half of that in the House bill, is manageable and is more likely to lead to meaningful recommendations. An item of particular interest to me is the requirement in that the Commission examine the application of the existing Federal ``communications services'' excise tax to the Internet and Internet access. We need to know more about how and whether that tax should apply to new technology. This bill is not perfect, but on balance I believe it deserves our support. I urge its adoption and hope it can be enacted this year.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague Senator Chafee to introduce the ``Federal Employee Flexibility Act of 1998,'' a bill to provide Federal employees with the commuting benefits that were created in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, known as TEA-21, and are now available for private sector employees. This Act is part of an ongoing effort that we started over seven years ago in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act to introduce pricing and economic incentives into our national transportation policy. Traditionally, U.S. transportation policy has favored new highway construction over repair and maintenance and auto travel over transit and other modes. Our tax code also reflected this bias by providing large incentives to employers to offer their employees tax-free parking spaces, while making it less attractive to provide transit or cash benefits in lieu of parking. The Finance Committee first set out to tackle this problem in the National Energy Policy Act of 1992. That Act capped non-taxable monthly parking benefits at $155, increased monthly transit benefits from $21 to $60, and added an annual COLA adjustment for both. However, because of the ``constructive receipt'' principle in the tax code, under the 1992 Act, an employer could not offer his employees the tax-free commuting benefits in lieu of taxable salary. In other words, if an employer offered to provide his employees non- taxable $65 monthly transit passes but lower their salaries by $65 a month, and any employee chose to keep the salary--maybe they walk to work--under the ``constructive receipt'' principle, the transit passes for the other employees would lose their tax-free status. This made the transit benefit program of only limited attractiveness to employers since they could only offer it as part of a negotiated increase in salary, not as a benefit in lieu of existing salary. Likewise, Federal tax code allowed an employer to offer tax-free parking up to a value of 4170 per month per employee. However, if an employer gave just one employee a choice between parking and some other taxable benefit--such as increased salary--the parking of all other employees in the company became taxable. The result--employers have had no incentive to offer employees the opportunity to ``cash out'' their parking, perhaps taking an increase in salary and using mass transit or carpooling. That hidden pro-parking bias in the tax code has likely resulted in far too many employees choosing to drive to work over riding transit and other modes. The tax title of TEA-21 now contains the proper language and offsets in place to eliminate this ``constructive receipt'' requirement--and increase the transit benefit from its current $65 to $100 in 2002. It means that employers who provide the transit benefit in lieu of salary will pay less in payroll taxes, while employees will receive a benefit worth a full $65, instead of taxable income of $65. Likewise employers can now offer employee cash instead of a tax-free parking parking space, and we hope reduce the number of employees who drive to work. The measure is ``paid for,'' in Budget Act parlance, by a one-year freeze in the COLA adjustments for parking benefits, currently at $175 per month, and transit benefits. But, unfortunately, the job is not quite done. Federal employees will not be able to benefit from the increased flexibility available to private sector employees, unless Federal compensation law is modified. Current Federal law provides that a Federal employee may not receive additional pay unless specifically authorized by law. Therefore, a Federal employee could not ``cash out'' a parking space at work, and instead receive cash or other benefits. This has particularly unfortunate consequences here in Washington, one of the most congested cities in the country, with an enormous Federal workforce, the great majority of whom drive single-occupancy vehicles to work every day. The simple bill that Senator Chafee and I introduce today would add ``taxable cash reimbursement for the value of an employer-provided parking space'' to the list of benefits Federal employees can receive. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this bill and that we can act swiftly on this bill in the next session of Congress.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, many years ago Eugene L. McCabe came to Washington seeking financial support for his new North General Hospital in Harlem. By then people living in Harlem, like many in our cities, suffered from hospital cutbacks and closings. They were in desperate need of affordable and reliable medical care. The AIDS and crack epidemics overburdened what few local facilities there were. But where others saw despair, Eugene saw hope and opportunity. He founded North General as a community hospital specializing in the treatment of diabetes, cancer, and hypertension--common afflictions in urban areas. Still, North General did not become overnight what Kenneth Raske, president of the Greater New York Hospital Association, called a wonderful hospital. It took Eugene's dedication, vision, and compassion to see it through. When told his hospital would fail because there was no money to be made, he worked harder. The hospital became his life's passion. He appealed to banks, businesses, and political leaders for support. And he made good on his promise. North General became a thriving hospital that has never lost touch with its community. It remains the only minority-run hospital in New York State. Located at 121st Street and Madison Avenue, North General Hospital stands as a memorial to Eugene McCabe and his dedication to improving the lives of others. With his passing much will be said of him. Those who worked with him remember a leader--self-assured and inspiring--who, despite popular motivations and trends, compelled himself and others to make affordable and quality health care a reality for many who might otherwise have gone without it. Those who loved him remember his smile, his helpfulness, and his gracious presence. Eugene McCabe's life was a blessing and we are grateful to have been touched by it. I ask that the obituary from The New York Times be printed in the Record. The obituary follows: [From the New York Times, Oct. 1, 1998] Eugene L. McCabe, 61, Founder of Harlem Community Hospital (By Barbara Stewart) Eugene L. McCabe, a management consultant who founded and was president of North General Hospital, a thriving, minority-operated community hospital in Harlem, died there yesterday. He was 61. The cause was breast cancer, his family said. ``He was indefatigable in putting it together,'' said Mario M. Cuomo, who, as Governor, approved many of the grants and loans to build North General. ``His strength was his will and his total commitment.'' North General, a 200-bed hospital on 121st Street and Madison Avenue, is the only minority-operated hospital in the state. Most of its trustees are black. The hospital specializes in treatment for diabetes, cancer and hypertension, which occur widely among low-income blacks. It recently built 300 units of condominium housing for low- and middle-income residents of Harlem. ``It is a wonderful hospital,'' said Kenneth Raske, president of the Greater New York Hospital Association. ``And Gene did it through sheer dogged persistence and sharp business acumen.'' When another specialized hospital moved out of Harlem in the late 1970's, Mr. McCabe, along with Randolph Guggenheimer, a lawyer, developed the idea for North General: a community hospital to serve the impoverished, medically deprived area. ``It became his passion, his life work,'' said Livingston S. Francis, chairman of the board of North General. Mr. Cuomo, who described the hospital's creation as ``a miracle,'' said it took all of Mr. McCabe's persuasive powers to talk him and others into approving the necessary loans. At the time, many small community hospitals, overwhelmed with the unexpected demands of AIDS patients and crack addicts, were being closed. ``It didn't make financial sense,'' Mr. Cuomo said. ``But he made a case for that hospital. He was always entreating. He was never offensively pushy, but he was insistent.'' As a result of Mr. McCabe's entreaties in Albany, Washington and New York City, the state appropriated $150 million to build the hospital. From the start, it was rooted in the community. At one early point, the union asked the hospital workers to continue working despite a missed pay period, Mrs. Guggenheimer said. With the help of banks, local businesses and politicians, it pulled through several financial crises. As president of the new hospital, Mr. McCabe drew on the resources of the staff in unexpected ways, Mr. Francis said. Nurses helped choose color schemes, and engineers installed lighting and laid floors--tasks that would ordinarily be done by outside workers. The process was repeated seven years ago, when North General moved into its current facility, a modern brick building on 121st Street and Madison Avenue, with a bright interior decorated with art selected by staff members. ``The hospital,'' Mr. Cuomo said, ``was his.'' Mr. McCabe, who grew up in New Haven, graduated from Southern Connecticut State University. He is survived by this wife, the former Elsie Crum, who is the president of the Museum for African Art in SoHo; their 1- year-old twins, Eugene and Erin, and a son, Kevin, from a previous marriage.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to the growing chorus of people proclaiming, ``Thank God for baseball!'' In this otherwise tumultuous year, the national pastime is back. Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa broke Ruthian (and Marisian!) records, Cal Ripken voluntarily ended his heroic streak of 2,632 consecutive games played (a record which may never be broken) and, most importantly, the New York Yankees and the incomparable Joe Torre are back on top. Well done! While New Yorkers have grown accustomed to the success of the Bronx Bombers, 1998 is truly a departure from anything we've witnessed of late. The numbers astound. Their 114 regular season victories are the most in baseball since the 1906 Chicago Cubs. Bernie Williams took the batting title, and on May 17 David Wells hurled the first perfect game by a Yankee pitcher since Don Larsen's masterpiece in game five of the 1956 World Series. (I was an aide to Governor Harriman at the time.) On Friday night, after a three-hour rain delay, the Yankees swept the prodigiously talented Texas Rangers 3-0 in their first-round American League playoff series. Sadly, the season is not without its concerns. Darryl Strawberry, the embattled talent who so bravely and admirably turned his life and career around these past few years, was diagnosed last week with colon cancer. The Yankees outfielder/designated hitter underwent surgery Saturday and the prognosis of a full recovery is excellent. Our prayers are with him. Tonight, in the Bronx, the Yankees will host the Cleveland Indians in the first game of the American League Championship Series, the winner to face the Atlanta Braves or San Diego Padres in the World Series. No doubt Darryl Strawberry will be in the hearts and minds of the entire team and city, as the Yankees continue their most remarkable season. Just two years ago, the Yankees won the World Series, and I was honored to ride in a motorcade down Broadway with Joe DiMaggio, the original Yankee Clipper. In all likelihood another parade is in the offing.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Senate has just passed an enormous milestone in the composition of the American judiciary with the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the appointment to the second circuit court of appeals. It is a fine day for New York, I might say specifically for the Bronx, a fine day for the judiciary. I thank our distinguished Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator Hatch, Senator Leahy, and the majority leader, Mr. Lott, and his colleague, Mr. Daschle, and, of course, my colleague, Senator D'Amato. It was 7 years ago in March that I had the honor to nominate Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the southern district of New York. President Bush placed her name in nomination, and she was sworn in directly on October 1992. Her subsequent experience on the bench has been admirable. In 5\1/2\ years, she has presided over 500 cases and has been overturned only 6 times. She has presided over cases of enormous complexity with skill and confidence that would befit the editor of the Yale Law Journal and a person who rose from the most simple circumstances in south Bronx to the eminence she is now assured. I thank the Senate, I thank all those involved, and I thank, not least, my friend from Arkansas for yielding me this time.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am opposed to implementing section 110 of the Immigration Reform Act of 1996. Its implementation would create widespread chaos and lead to untold congestion at our Northern borders' checkpoints, potentially creating havoc with our largest trading partner, Canada. Each year, more than eight million trucks cross the eastern United States-Canada border carrying a variety of goods to market. In addition, the Eastern Border Transportation Coalition estimates that over 57 million cars cross that border each year. Sixty percent of these are day trips--people crossing the border to go to work or school, attend cultural events or to shop. The remaining forty percent of auto border crossings were by vacationers. If implemented, an automated entry-exit system along the northern border would hamper both trade and tourism. This is not inconsequential. The United States-Canadian trade relationship is the largest in the world, totalling $272 billion in 1995. Compare this to $256 billion in trade for the entire European Union during that same period and one gets an idea of how important this relationship is and why it must remain unfettered by chaotic checkpoints.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on November 21, 1998, Mrs. Florence Brumer of Utica, New York, will celebrate her 90th birthday. She is fortunate to reach this milestone not only in good health and high spirits, but in the company of her husband of 64 years, Lou, and their two children and four grandchildren, all of their spouses, and one great-grandchild. A lifelong educator, Mrs. Brumer has touched many lives and been an inspiration to those around her. She received a bachelor's degree in education from New York University and a master's degree from the Teacher's College at Columbia University. She went on to spend over forty years as a teacher and curriculum supervisor in the New York City school system. When she retired in 1966, she moved upstate to Utica and became the city's most ardent promoter. An article in the local newspaper several years ago highlighted the Brumers' rave reviews of Utica's social and cultural life, which coming from Manhattan natives were particularly strong endorsements. One of the most remarkable aspects of Flo Brumer's life is her vigor and enthusiasm for a wide variety of activities. A cancer survivor, she was a pioneer in the crusade against smoking back in the days when there was no such thing as a ``smoke-free environment.'' Well into retirement, she donned sneakers and began the sport later known as ``mall-walking.'' She has a great passion for political discussions, instilled in her, perhaps, at the table of her uncle, William I. Sirovich, who served as a member of the U.S. Congress (D-NY) from 1927- 39. And as a bridge fanatic, she continues to play and win regularly while trying to recruit new partners. Reaching one's 90th birthday is a notable occasion in and of itself, but to do so with such vitality and cheer is a truly great accomplishment. I offer her my heartiest congratulations and best wishes and close with a particularly apt Irish blessing: May joy and peace surround you Contentment latch your door, And happiness be with you now, And bless you evermore.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a small, but important, provision included in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Title IX clarifies existing law by making it permissible for colleges and universities to offer voluntary, age-based retirement incentives to tenured faculty in addition to their regular retirement benefits. The inclusion of the Faculty Retirement Incentive Act in the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act will provide a ``safe harbor'' for colleges and universities by clarifying that the early retirement incentives are permitted by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The faculty retirement incentive provision will benefit colleges and universities, as well as those faculty who choose to participate. As officials for the American Association of University Professors have stated, this provision will ``provide greater flexibility in faculty retirement planning, offer a substantial retirement benefit to those professors who choose to retire under the terms of an incentive plan, and leave other professors whole in their choice to continue their careers.'' At the beginning of the 105th Congress, Senator Ashcroft and I introduced legislation similar to the age-based retirement incentives language the House included in its Higher Education reauthorization bill. I was very pleased to learn of the diligent effort of those on the House Education and Work Force Committee to add this provision to their bill. I thank the members of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee for working with Senator Ashcroft and me on this issue. I especially thank Chairman Jeffords and Senator Kennedy for their thoughtful consideration of this measure and for allowing it to remain in the bill during conference. Lastly, I express my appreciation to Senator Ashcroft for working closely with me on getting the Faculty Retirement Incentive bill into law.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I was delighted to see that the Senate passed S. 2392 (``The Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act'') yesterday. I introduced this legislation with Senators Robert F. Bennett (R-UT) and Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT) on July 30, 1998. This ``Good Samaritan'' legislation is intended to promote the open sharing of information about Y2K solutions by protecting those who share information in good faith from liability claims based on the dissemination of that information. I want to make it clear that this legislation does not address liability that may arise separately from actual Y2K failures of systems or devices. The head of the President's Council on Y2K, John Koskinen, said that passing this bill is one of the most important things that we could do on the Y2K front. I agree. Over two years ago I stated ``that the year 2000 problem is indeed serious, and that fixing it will be costly and time-consuming. The problem deserves the careful and coordinated attention of the Federal Government, as well as the private sector, in order to avert major disruptions on January 1, 2000.'' On July 31, 1996 I sent President Clinton a letter expressing my views and concerns about Y2K. I warned him of the ``extreme negative economic consequences of the Y2K Time Bomb,'' and suggested that ``a presidential aide be appointed to take responsibility for assuring that all Federal Agencies, including the military, be Y2K compliant by January 1, 1999 [leaving a year for `testing'] and that all commercial and industrial firms doing business with the federal government must also be compliant by that date.'' January 1, 1999 is quickly approaching. I believe the ``Good Samaritan'' legislation that my colleagues passed last night will play a significant role in helping private firms and the government in addressing the computer problem. I am hopeful that we will have this problem in check come the year 2000, but, as the Duke said of Waterloo, it will be ``close run thing.''

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, three years ago, a quiet, law- abiding American family found itself suddenly and unavoidably caught up in the story of one of the most notorious criminal manhunts of the last quarter century in the United States. At this time, my constituents David R. Kaczynski and his wife Linda E. Patrik were confronted with a terrible dilemma. Published news reports led them to suspect they knew the identity of the ``Unabomber,'' the elusive criminal whose letter bombs had killed three people and injured several others over a 17-year period. Upon reading the Unabomber's ``manifesto'' published in the New York Times and Washington Post in September of 1995, Mr. Kaczynski and Ms. Patrik, residents of Schenectady, New York, came to the awful realization that the Unabomber might be David's brother, Theodore J. Kaczynski, whose letters they believed closely resembled the Unabomber's ``manifesto.'' David Kaczynski, a social worker, and Ms. Patrik, a professor of philosophy at Union College, understandably feared that disclosure of their suspicions might ultimately lead to the execution of David's brother for the crime of murder. Even so--and as painful as it was for them--they considered it their duty to notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which they did. Soon thereafter, Theodore Kaczynski was arrested in a small cabin in Montana, bringing to an end the Unabomber's long reign of violence. In January 1998, Theodore Kaczynski entered a plea agreement with federal prosecutors resulting in his sentence of life in prison without parole. Earlier this year, David Kaczynski and Linda Patrik received a $1 million reward from the FBI for the information they supplied. And it was characteristic of these fine citizens that they immediately pledged, after taxes and attorneys' fees, to pay every cent of the reward to the Unabomber's victims and their families. For over two years, David Kaczynski, his family, and his attorney spent countless hours involved in efforts associated with the investigation, capture, and trial of Theodore Kaczynski. Now they are attempting to do the right and noble thing by pledging the reward money to help those injured by a deeply troubled member of their family. It would be ironic and I believe unjust if the federal government were to diminish this selfless act by taxing the Kaczynskis or those to whom they have agreed to pay the reward monies. Therefore we are introducing a bill today to increase the amount available to the Unabomber's victims and their families by exempting from federal taxation all amounts donated to the victims, as well as attorney's fees incurred in the matter. Mr. President, surely this is the least we can do to express our gratitude to David Kaczynski and Linda Patrik, and our sorrow and condolences to the victims and their families. I hope all Senators will support this simple but much-needed measure.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, three years ago, a quiet, law- abiding American family found itself suddenly and unavoidably caught up in the story of one of the most notorious criminal manhunts of the last quarter century in the United States. At this time, my constituents David R. Kaczynski and his wife Linda E. Patrik were confronted with a terrible dilemma. Published news reports led them to suspect they knew the identity of the ``Unabomber,'' the elusive criminal whose letter bombs had killed three people and injured several others over a 17-year period. Upon reading the Unabomber's ``manifesto'' published in the New York Times and Washington Post in September of 1995, Mr. Kaczynski and Ms. Patrik, residents of Schenectady, New York, came to the awful realization that the Unabomber might be David's brother, Theodore J. Kaczynski, whose letters they believed closely resembled the Unabomber's ``manifesto.'' David Kaczynski, a social worker, and Ms. Patrik, a professor of philosophy at Union College, understandably feared that disclosure of their suspicions might ultimately lead to the execution of David's brother for the crime of murder. Even so--and as painful as it was for them--they considered it their duty to notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which they did. Soon thereafter, Theodore Kaczynski was arrested in a small cabin in Montana, bringing to an end the Unabomber's long reign of violence. In January 1998, Theodore Kaczynski entered a plea agreement with federal prosecutors resulting in his sentence of life in prison without parole. Earlier this year, David Kaczynski and Linda Patrik received a $1 million reward from the FBI for the information they supplied. And it was characteristic of these fine citizens that they immediately pledged, after taxes and attorneys' fees, to pay every cent of the reward to the Unabomber's victims and their families. For over two years, David Kaczynski, his family, and his attorney spent countless hours involved in efforts associated with the investigation, capture, and trial of Theodore Kaczynski. Now they are attempting to do the right and noble thing by pledging the reward money to help those injured by a deeply troubled member of their family. It would be ironic and I believe unjust if the federal government were to diminish this selfless act by taxing the Kaczynskis or those to whom they have agreed to pay the reward monies. Therefore we are introducing a bill today to increase the amount available to the Unabomber's victims and their families by exempting from federal taxation all amounts donated to the victims, as well as attorney's fees incurred in the matter. Mr. President, surely this is the least we can do to express our gratitude to David Kaczynski and Linda Patrik, and our sorrow and condolences to the victims and their families. I hope all Senators will support this simple but much-needed measure.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I understand that the amendment is acceptable to our distinguished managers. I earlier indicated if that would be the case, I would ask that the yeas and nays be vitiated, and I do that now.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I ask that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask that Senators Chafee, Kennedy, and D'Amato be added as cosponsors.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I would like to amplify the comments of my colleague from New York on aircraft noise. I strongly endorse increasing travel opportunities and lower air fares for the traveling public, especially in upstate New York where we have some of the highest air fares in the country.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I introduce the Enhancing Family Life Act of 1998, a bill inspired by an extraordinary set of proposals by one of our nation's most eminent social scientists, Professor James Q. Wilson. On December 4, 1997, I had the honor of hearing Professor Wilson--who is an old and dear friend--deliver the Francis Boyer Lecture at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). The Boyer Lecture is delivered at AEI's annual dinner by a thinker who has ``made notable intellectual or practical contributions to improved public policy and social welfare.'' Previous Boyer lecturers have included Irving Kristol, Alan Greenspan, and Henry Kissinger. In his lecture, Professor Wilson argued that ``two nations'' now exist within the United States. He said: In one nation, a child, raised by two parents, acquires an education, a job, a spouse, and a home kept separate from crime and disorder by distance, fences, or guards. In the other nation, a child is raised by an unwed girl, lives in a neighborhood filled with many sexual men but few committed fathers, and finds gang life to be necessary for self- protection and valuable for self-advancement. Sadly, this is an all-too-accurate portrait of the American underclass, the problems of which have been the focus of decades of unsuccessful welfare reform and crime control efforts. We have tried a great many ``solutions,'' as Professor Wilson notes: Congress has devised community action, built public housing, created a Job Corps, distributed Food Stamps, given federal funds to low-income schools, supported job training, and provided cash grants to working families. Yet still we are faced with two nations. Professor Wilson explains why: ``[t]he family problem lies at the heart of the emergency of two nations.'' He notes that as our families become weaker--as more and more American children are born outside of marriage and raised by one, not two, parents--the foundation of our society becomes weaker. This deterioration helps to explain why, as reported by the Census Bureau today, the poverty rate for American children is almost twice that for adults aged 18 to 64 (19.9 percent for children versus 10.9 percent for adults). And it grows increasingly difficult for government to address the problems of that ``second nation.'' Professor Wilson even quotes the Senator from New York to this effect: ``If you expect a government program to change families, you know more about government than I do.'' Even so, Jim Wilson, quite characteristically, has fresh ideas about what might help. On the basis of recent scholarly research, and common sense, he urged in the Boyer lecture that we refocus our attention on the vital period of early childhood. I was so impressed with his lecture that afterward I set about writing a bill to put his recommendations into effect. The Enhancing Family Life Act of 1998 contains four key elements, all of which are related to families. First, it supports ``second chance'' maternity homes for unwed teenage mothers. These are group homes where young women would live with their children under strict adult supervision and have the support necessary to become productive members of society. The bill provides $45 million a year to create such homes or expand existing ones. Second, it promotes adoption. The bill expands the number of children in foster care eligible for federal adoption incentives. Too many children drift in foster care; we should do more to find them permanent homes. The bill also encourages states to experiment with ``per capita'' approaches to finding these permanent homes for foster children, a strategy Kansas has used with success. Third, it funds collaborative early childhood development programs. Recent research has reminded us of the critical importance of the first few years of a child's life. States would have great flexibility in the use of these funds; for example, the money could be used for pre-school programs for poor children or home visits of parents of young children. It provides $3.75 billion over five years for this purpose. Finally, the legislation creates a new education assistance program to enable more parents to remain home with young children. A parent who temporarily leaves the work force to raise a child would be eligible for an educational grant, similar to the Pell Grant, to help the parent enter, or re-enter, the labor market with skills and credentials necessary for success in today's economy once the child is older. Mr. President, this bill is a starting point. It is what Professor James Q. Wilson and I believe just might make a difference. We would certainly welcome the comments of others. And I would commend to the attention of Senators and other interested persons the full text of Professor Wilson's lecture ``Two Nations,'' which is available from my office or from the American Enterprise Institute. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the legislation be included in the Record.