Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished manager to withhold the request.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this is a simple proposal to obtain numbers about a Federal program as regards the respective States. As a member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works for the last 22 years, I served as chairman, at one point, and handled a number of highway bills, as we call them, transportation bills, and have been involved with negotiations with the House in these matters. One of the subjects that comes forward continuously is the payments by respective State residents, or persons passing through a State, into the highway trust fund. This was established in 1956 by President Eisenhower, under his administration, on the recommendation of a commission headed by General Clay, with the previous Speaker, Mr. Wright of Texas, as one of the persons animating the effort in the Congress. There was a source of funding for the Interstate and Defense Highway Program. Indeed, there was, and we have very successfully finished that program and we continue to fund transportation projects across the Nation with those revenues as they come in. Now, in 1986 we established the airport and airway trust fund. It is a ticket tax and other taxes. It brings considerable revenue, as anyone who has recently ridden on the Washington-New York shuttle can attest. In fiscal year 1998, we estimate that $4.5 billion was collected in ticket taxes. However, we have no State-by-State analysis of the dollar contributions. Inevitably and properly, the moneys are used by the Federal Aviation Administration to provide airport projects around the Nation, but with no accounting for the relative contributions of the different States with the thought that there be some proportionality as to the return to the States. I say ``some''--nothing precise, nothing is proposed in this amendment to make such a proportionality requirement. Indeed, it is not desired. Public policy on transportation should follow the needs of transportation, and yet it is reasonable to assume that Senators and Representatives will expect some relationship between what their State provides and what it receives. That may now take place; it may not take place. The answer is we don't know. The most normal function of government when it collects a tax is to record the origins and the specifics of the revenue stream. There will be some difficulty doing this. It is tricky. A good number of airline tickets are now purchased on the Internet as opposed to travel agents or at the airport. These are methodological problems which the Treasury is entirely capable of dealing with through sampling and other devices. This amendment quite specifically says, ``as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this act and annually thereafter,'' that the Secretary of the Treasury will report to the Secretary of Transportation. The term ``as soon as practicable'' gives the Treasury the leeway it requires to get these numbers and break them down. It is routine government. It is good government. It is an opportunity to avoid a great deal of misunderstanding and discord in the committees involved and on the floor as we ask how appropriate, and in a general sense, how fair the use of these funds is--the allocation of these funds once they have been obligated through taxation. Accordingly, I hope the Senate can approve this amendment. Mr. President, I respectfully inquire of the managers whether this straightforward measure could be accepted and spare the Senate the time.

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.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to commend to the Senate a most timely and informative article which appeared in the New York Times on August 11, 1998. Written by Todd S. Purdum, the article provides a useful overview of the twenty year history of the independent counsel law and interviews seven of the attorneys who have served in this capacity since the adoption of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Most of those interviewed cite problems with the way the independent counsel process currently works and provide specific recommendations for improvement. Those of us in the Congress will soon have an opportunity to review this matter in greater detail for, as you may know, its current provisions, reauthorized and amended by the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994, P.L. 103-270, June 30, 1994, will expire on June 30, 1999, unless reauthorized. I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record and I thank my good friend Clifton Daniel of New York for calling it to my attention.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

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

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. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of my colleagues the generous gift by the Mailman Foundation to the Columbia University School of Public Health (CSPH). This represents the largest single gift ever made to a school of public health. CSPH is one of our nation's first schools of public health and is currently celebrating its 75th anniversary. In its recent history, CSPH has distinguished itself on the local, national, and global levels in a variety of public health areas. The Mailman Foundation endowment will help to strengthen and expand areas such as: (1) access to and quality of health care; (2) prevention of childhood poverty; (3) the enhancement of women's reproductive health, including STD prevention services, and reduction in pregnancy-related deaths in developing countries; (4) the identification of environmental factors such as air and water quality as a cause of disease; (5) the prevention of community and household violence; and (6) AIDS research and treatment. In addition to these important areas of program and research support, the gift will also be used to provide financial aid to students and for faculty support. The family-run Mailman Foundation was created by the late Joseph Mailman, the founder of Mailman Corporation, one of the earliest conglomerates in North America. The Foundation has been an important benefactor to numerous institutions devoted to education, medicine, and the arts. I commend the Mailman Foundation for its remarkable act of philanthropy and for recognizing Columbia's leadership in the field of public health. This gift to Columbia University's internationally known graduate school, now known as the Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health, will advance the cause of health promotion and disease prevention, through education, research, and direct service.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to commend to the Senate the stirring tale of Jack Ratz, a New Yorker who recently published a remarkable book, Endless Miracles. Mr. Ratz, who resides with his wife, Doris, in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Mill Basin, is one of the last survivors of the flourishing Jewish community of Latvia, which lost all but 300 of its 35,000 members during the Holocaust. Jack Ratz's memoirs is an eloquent refutation to those who would dare to trivialize, distort, or even deny the Holocaust's important lessons. His book well reflects the affirmative message that Jack Ratz shares with New York City school children during his regular visits to the city classrooms. As the survivors of the Holocaust succumb to old age there are fewer and fewer eyewitnesses to this tragedy. Jack Ratz has provided an invaluable service with his moving account of the Latvian Holocaust experience. I ask to have printed in the Record a recent article in the New York City Jewish Week about Jack Ratz and ``Endless Miracles.'' The article follows: [From the Jewish Week, Aug. 14, 1998] Memories and Miracles (By Nancy Beiles) During a recent trip to Riga, Latvia, Jack Ratz visited a museum commemorating Latvian Holocaust victims, and was drawn to a series of photos of camp inmates hanging on the wall. One in particular caught his attention--a black-and-white photo of a 16-year-old boy, head shaven, wearing work clothes decorated with the Star of David and the number 281. ``I asked the guard, `Who are those people?' He said, `they died a long time ago,' recalled Ratz, of Mill Basin, a Latvian-born Holocaust survivor. ``I told him I know three of those people. Two were father and son and yes, they were killed. But the photo of the young fellow on the right--he is talking to you. He is me.'' Ratz had come to Riga to say Kaddish for members of his family killed in the Rumboli Forest in 1941, and to visit the old ghetto where he and his father lived before being sent off to a series of work and concentration camps. ``All of a sudden I saw a picture of myself hanging on the wall and a flash of memories came rushing back to me of 55 years ago,'' Ratz recalls, tearfully. ``I could only cry. I found myself hanging on the wall with all the dead people. Of the 35,000 Jews who lived in Latvia at the time of German occupation in 1941, Ratz is one of just 300 who survived. Because of the scarcity of Latvian survivors, their particular experience during the Holocaust is rarely recounted. ``Very few Latvian Jews escaped because the general population was not sympathetic to aiding the Jews,'' says William Schulman, director of the Holocaust Resource Center at Queensborough Community College. `The Germans made use of the Latvians to guard the Jews and persecute them, to send them to their death. So there are very few memoirs of survivors.'' Ratz, who is retired from the television repair business, and his American-born wife, Doris, are and trying to fill that gap in Holocaust memory. The four years he and his father spent in labor and concentration camps and their subsequent liberation forms the basis for `Ratz's newly-published memoir, ``Endless Miracles'' (1998; Shengold Publishers Inc.). Ratz's account caught the attention of Moshe Sheinhaum, president of Shengold Publishers, precisely because it explores episodes of the Holocaust that are not often talked about. ``I've published over 70 books on the Holocaust and this is one of the most exciting,'' says Sheinbaum. ``Very little has been done about Riga.'' Starting with historical background about the Jewish community in Latvia, the book's emotional beginning describes the first Nazi programs in Riga that would eventually spiral into genocide. Shortly after the Germans arrived in Latvia in 1941, displacing the Russians, who had occupied Latvia just a year earlier, they created two Jewish ghettos. One was for able-bodied men, the other for women, children and the disabled. Just 14 at the time, Ratz could have stayed with his mother and younger siblings, but he decided to ``take a chance,'' he says, and go with his father. This is the first of the ``endless miracles'' Ratz describes--fortuitous decisions that saved his life. After he and his father went to the Jewish workers' ghetto, over the course of a few weeks the Nazis executed all the women, children, elderly and disabled men from the other ghetto-- including Ratz's mother and siblings--in grisly mass executions in the Rumboli Forest. With no chance to grieve, Ratz writes, ``Even our mourning was cut short. We were forced to return to work immediately under penalty of instant death.'' The subsequent years are an accumulation of sorrows and terror. Ratz and his father were first sent to Lenta, a work camp near Riga, then to Salaspils, a death camp, back to Lenta and from there to Stuthoff, another death camp, and Burgraben. During these four years, Ratz and his father managed to stay alive by luck--for example, being in the second half of a line from which the Nazis take the first half to kill, and by what Ratz says can only be attributed to God's grace. Unlike many survivors, who lost not only their loved ones but also their faith somewhere in the camps, Ratz's faith stayed intact. It was his belief in God that allowed him to weather those years and survive. ``If I would not believe in God, I would not be alive today,'' he says. ``By believing it, I felt I survived. God actually picked up his hand and showed me the way.'' One time, that way meant masquerading as a skilled craftsman with his father so they could be eligible for a work slot in a factory near Stuthoff outside of the firing range. On another occasion, it meant stealing cigarettes from guards to trade for food from more recent arrivals who were not yet starved. The loaf of bread that was bartered for two cigarettes helped Ratz and his father ward off hunger a little longer. Ratz links his experience during those years to that of Jews throughout history, dating back to biblical times--Jews who were persecuted and whose faith was tested. Ratz, whose Hebrew name is Isaac, says that when his father first went with him to the ghetto in Riga, his father identified with Abraham, sensing that he too was being called upon to sacrifice his son, his Isaac. For his part, Ratz appears in the book as a latter-day Joseph. Like the biblical figure who gave food from the Egyptian storehouses to his hungry brothers during a famine, Ratz, himself weak and hungry, whenever possible retrieved food to give to people in the camps who were hovering ever closer to starvation. On one occasion, he managed to salvage scraps of food from refuse bins in a camp kitchen where he worked; another time, Ratz accidentally discovered a dead horse from which he was able to give to people what was a rare commodity in the camps: meat. ``God also showed me how to help people instead of how Hitler destroyed people,'' Ratz explains. In Ratz's book, the brutality of the camps springs to life most poignantly in small details that are often overlooked by historians. He tells of sand irritating his throat because the Nazis would use potatoes still caked with soil for the inmates' soup and of relishing the straw matting on the bunks in one camp because he had just come from a camp where he and three others slept on a single wooden board. And he describes his father sewing his few valuables into his hernia belt so that he would have something to trade for food when all else failed. In 1945, when the Russians finally liberated Ratz and his father, the freedom was initially hollow. ``You have to be lucky how you're liberated also,'' Ratz says. ``To be liberated by Russians was not freedom.'' Unlike the survivors liberated by Americans or British who were immediately assigned to ``displaced persons'' camps and given medical treatment, those freed by the Russians were left to fend for themselves. ``We were all free, but we did not know what to do or where to go,'' Ratz writes. The Russian zone is described by Ratz as chaotic. When it became clear the Russians were not making any arrangements to treat the sick, some newly-free Jews stole to bring those in need of medical care to a hospital. Those Germans from the camps who eluded imprisonment tried to disguise themselves as Jews so that the Russians would not capture them. Ratz chillingly recounts seeing guards from the camp, now wearing prisoners' uniforms, hiding in a crowd. Speaking to the Soviet soldiers in Russian, he pointed them out and watched as the soldiers shot them on the spot.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it is with great pride, with my distinguished colleague Senator D'Amato, I introduce the ``Kate Mullany Historic Site Act,'' a bill to designate the Troy, New York home of pioneer labor organizer Kate Mullany as a National Historic Site. A similar measure introduced in the House of Representatives this year by Congressman Michael R. McNulty has engendered a great deal of support and cosponsorship by over 100 members. Like many Irish immigrants settling in Troy, Kate Mullany found her opportunities limited to the most difficult and low-paying of jobs, the collar laundry industry. Troy was then known as ``The Collar City''-- the birthplace of the detachable shirt collar. At the age of 19, Kate stood up against the often dangerous conditions and meager pay that characterized the industry and lead a movement of 200 female laundresses demanding just compensation and safe working conditions. These protests marked the beginning of the Collar Laundry Union, which some have called ``the only bona fide female labor union in the country.'' Kate Mullany's courage and organizing skills did not go unnoticed. She later traveled down the Hudson River to lead women workers in the sweatshops of New York City and was ultimately appointed Assistant Secretary of the then National Labor Union, becoming the first women ever appointed to a national labor office. On April 1, 1998, Kate Mullany's home was designated as a National Historic Landmark by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and on July 15 First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton presented citizens of Troy with the National Historic Landmark plaque in a celebration. Given the recent attention to the contributions of Kate Mullany, I am quite pleased to introduce this bill with my colleague Senator D'Amato today.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it is with great pride, with my distinguished colleague Senator D'Amato, I introduce the ``Kate Mullany Historic Site Act,'' a bill to designate the Troy, New York home of pioneer labor organizer Kate Mullany as a National Historic Site. A similar measure introduced in the House of Representatives this year by Congressman Michael R. McNulty has engendered a great deal of support and cosponsorship by over 100 members. Like many Irish immigrants settling in Troy, Kate Mullany found her opportunities limited to the most difficult and low-paying of jobs, the collar laundry industry. Troy was then known as ``The Collar City''-- the birthplace of the detachable shirt collar. At the age of 19, Kate stood up against the often dangerous conditions and meager pay that characterized the industry and lead a movement of 200 female laundresses demanding just compensation and safe working conditions. These protests marked the beginning of the Collar Laundry Union, which some have called ``the only bona fide female labor union in the country.'' Kate Mullany's courage and organizing skills did not go unnoticed. She later traveled down the Hudson River to lead women workers in the sweatshops of New York City and was ultimately appointed Assistant Secretary of the then National Labor Union, becoming the first women ever appointed to a national labor office. On April 1, 1998, Kate Mullany's home was designated as a National Historic Landmark by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and on July 15 First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton presented citizens of Troy with the National Historic Landmark plaque in a celebration. Given the recent attention to the contributions of Kate Mullany, I am quite pleased to introduce this bill with my colleague Senator D'Amato today.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with my friend and colleague Senator D'Amato, a bill that would extend the authorization for the Upper Delaware River Citizens Advisory Committee and authorize the construction of a visitors center. The Upper Delaware is a 73 mile stretch of free flowing water between Hancock and Sparrowbush, New York along the Pennsylvania border. The area is home to the Zane Gray Museum and to Roebling's Delaware Aqueduct, which is believed to be the oldest existing wire cable suspension bridge. The Upper Delaware is an ideal location for canoeing, kayaking, rafting, tubing, sightseeing, and fishing. In 1987 the Secretary of the Interior approved a management plan for the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River which called for the development of a visitors center at the south end of the river corridor. It would be owned and constructed by the National Park Service. In 1993 New York State authorized a lease with the Park Service for the construction of a visitor center on State-owned land in the town of Deerpark in the vicinity of Mongaup. This bill allows the Secretary to enter into such a lease and to construct and operate the visitor center. Mr. President, the many thousands of visitors to this wonderful river would benefit greatly from a place to go to find out about the recreational opportunities, the history, and the flora and fauna of the river. This bill would move that process along to its conclusion. It would also continue the Citizens Advisory Council that ensures that the views and concerns of local residents are kept in mind when management decisions are made. My colleague from New York and I ask for the support of other Senators, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with my friend and colleague Senator D'Amato, a bill that would extend the authorization for the Upper Delaware River Citizens Advisory Committee and authorize the construction of a visitors center. The Upper Delaware is a 73 mile stretch of free flowing water between Hancock and Sparrowbush, New York along the Pennsylvania border. The area is home to the Zane Gray Museum and to Roebling's Delaware Aqueduct, which is believed to be the oldest existing wire cable suspension bridge. The Upper Delaware is an ideal location for canoeing, kayaking, rafting, tubing, sightseeing, and fishing. In 1987 the Secretary of the Interior approved a management plan for the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River which called for the development of a visitors center at the south end of the river corridor. It would be owned and constructed by the National Park Service. In 1993 New York State authorized a lease with the Park Service for the construction of a visitor center on State-owned land in the town of Deerpark in the vicinity of Mongaup. This bill allows the Secretary to enter into such a lease and to construct and operate the visitor center. Mr. President, the many thousands of visitors to this wonderful river would benefit greatly from a place to go to find out about the recreational opportunities, the history, and the flora and fauna of the river. This bill would move that process along to its conclusion. It would also continue the Citizens Advisory Council that ensures that the views and concerns of local residents are kept in mind when management decisions are made. My colleague from New York and I ask for the support of other Senators, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, Kirk O'Donnell, succinctly described by Albert R. Hunt in the Wall Street Journal as ``one of the ablest and most honorable people in American politics,'' died suddenly, much too young, this past Saturday. He epitomized the honor and dignity to which all of us engaged in the political life of our Nation should aspire. He served for more than 7 years as chief counsel to then-Speaker Thomas P. ``Tip'' O'Neill, Jr. He has been active in politics even since, as indeed he was in the years before Washington too. I knew Kirk from my earliest days in the Senate. He and his lovely wife Kathy have dined with Liz and me at our home. His cousin, Lawrence O'Donnell, served in my office for many years as chief of staff and as the staff director of the Finance Committee when I became Chairman in 1993. Our thoughts certainly are with Kathy, her children, and the O'Donnell family as they cope with this sudden, terrible news. To begin, one must know that Kirk was a fellow Irishman and the great and indispensable achievement of the Irish is that they made it American to be ethnic. On the contribution of the Irish I have written: What did the Irish do? First, they stayed in the cities, remaining highly visible. Next, they kept to their faith. Thus the Roman Catholic Church became a major American institution. Then they went into politics. Kirk O'Donnell, embodied all of these noble traits. He began his political career in 1970, working on Kevin H. White's campaign for governor of Massachusetts. That bid failed, but when Mr. White later became mayor of Boston, he hired Kirk to run the Fields Corner Little City Hall, in essence, a field station of the city hall. In the words of Speaker O'Neill, ``All politics is local'' and this grassroots view of Massachusetts, coupled with Kirk's astute political sense, made him an ideal choice when the Speaker needed a new counsel here in Washington. It is then that I first came to know Kirk O'Donnell. He was an Irish- American who saw early on the danger of the financial support which some others were providing the IRA. In 1977, Tip O'Neill, Hug Carey, Edward M. Kennedy, and I joined together at Kirk O'Donnell's initiative to oppose such activities. We issued a joint appeal on St. Patrick's Day, 1977, which stated: We appeal to all those organization engaged in violence to renounce their campaigns of death and destruction and return to the path of life and peace. And we appeal as well to our fellow Americans to embrace this goal of peace, and to renounce any action that promotes the current violence or provides support or encouragement for organizations engaged in violence. Now, finally, one of the oldest conflicts in Europe has the potential of healing and being resolved. A courageous agreement has been reached in Northern Ireland and is being implemented. The United States played a role in reaching this agreement. And the seeds for American support of a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Northern Ireland were sown in the late 1970's, when principled people such as Kirk O'Donnell stood up to say that violence was not the answer to this problem. Mr. President it is with great sorrow that I have risen today to thank Kirk O'Donnell for his lifetime of public service and again to offer my sincere condolences to his family. At this point, I ask to have printed in the Record the obituaries from the New York Times and the Boston Globe, as well as a tribute to Kirk O'Donnell by Albert R. Hunt, which appeared in The Wall Street Journal. The material follows: [From The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 10, 1998] The Loss of a Talented, Decent and Honorable Man (By Albert R. Hunt) Kirk O'Donnell, one of the ablest and most honorable people in American politics, died suddenly last weekend at the altogether too young age of 52. Even in grieving, it's somehow hard not to think how different the Clinton presidency might have been if Kirk O'Donnell had been a top White House adviser starting in 1993. He combined the best virtues of the old and the new politics. Raised in the rough-and-tumble environs of Boston tribal warfare, he never saw politics as anything but a contact sport. But he always practiced it with decency and civility. He was a great student of political history, which better enabled him to appreciate contemporary changes. There was a pragmatism to Kirk O'Donnell that never conflicted with his commitment and total integrity. Success never changed him. He founded the influential Center for National Policy (his successor as its chair was Madeleine Albright) and then became a partner in the high- powered law firm of Vernon Jordan and Bob Strauss. But his values and devotion to family, friends and country were remarkably constant. ``He was a big oak tree of a friend,'' notes Stanley Brand, a Washington lawyer, of the former Brown University football star, a description which Mr. O'Donnell used to joke, was an ``oxymoron.'' He cut his political teeth working for Mayor Kevin White in Boston in the mid-70s, running the neighborhood city halls, developing an appreciation of the relationships between common folks and government that would serve him well for the next quarter century. Then there were more than seven years as chief counsel to House Speaker Tip O'Neill. There was an exceptional triumvirate of top aides to the speaker: Leo Diehl, his longtime colleague who was the link to the past and the gatekeeper who kept away the hangers-on; Art Weiss, although only in his twenties, unrivaled as a policy expert; and Kirk O'Donnell, in his early thirties, who brought political, legal and foreign policy expertise to the table, always with superb judgment. Though it may seem strange in today's Congress, he commanded real respect across the aisle. ``Kirk was really a tough, bright opponent; he was a great strategist because he didn't let his emotions cloud his judgment,'' recalls Billy Pitts, who was Mr. O'Donnell's Republican counterpart working with GOP House Leader Bob Michel. ``But he always was a delight to be around and his word was gold.'' When the Democrats were down, routed by the Reagan revolution in 1981, it was Kirk O'Donnell who put together a strategy memorandum advising the party to lay off esoteric issues and not to refight the tax issues but to focus on social security and jobs. It was the blueprint for a big Democratic comeback the next year. When then-Republican Congressman Dick Cheney criticized the speaker for tough partisanship, Mr. O'Donnell immediately turned it around by citing a book that Rep. Cheney and his wife had written on House leaders that praised the same qualities that he now was criticizing. Few operated as well at that intersection of substance and politics, or understood both as well. He played a major role in orchestrating a powerful contingent of Irish-American politicians, including the speaker, to oppose pro-Irish groups espousing violence. ``Kirk put the whole Irish thing together,'' the speaker said. He was staunchly liberal on the responsibility of government to care for those in need of equal rights. But he cringed when Democrats veered off onto fringe issues, and never forgot the lessons learned running neighborhood city halls in his 20s. Family values to Kirk O'Donnell wasn't a political buzzword or cliche, but a reality of life; there never has been a more loving family than Kirk and Kathy O'Donnell and their kids, Holly and Brendan. The Clinton administration made job overtures to Kirk O'Donnell several times but they were never commensurate with his talents. He should have been either Chief of Staff or legal counsel from the very start of this administration. He would have brought experience, expertise, maturity, judgment, toughness--intimate knowledge of the way Washington works-- that nobody else in that White House possessed. But sadly, that's not what this president sought. For Kirk O'Donnell wouldn't have tolerated dissembling. He never was unfaithful to those he worked for but ``spinning''--as in situational truths--was foreign to him. When working for the speaker or Michael Dukakis in 1988, he would dodge, bob, sometimes talk gibberish but never, in hundreds of interviews with me, did he ever dissemble. The contrast between this and someone like Dick Morris, who Mr. Clinton continuously turned to, is striking. This was brought home anew when Mr. Morris, the former top Clinton aide, wrote a letter seeming to take issue with a column I wrote a few weeks ago. For starters, he erroneously denied that he suggested Hillary Clinton is a lesbian. More substantially, Mr. Morris says that Mr. Clinton called him when the Lewinsky story broke and had him do a poll to gauge reaction. He did that and told Mr. Clinton the public wouldn't accept the truth. Although Mr. Morris turned over what he says is that poll to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, some of us question whether the survey was genuine. The infamous political consultant swears he sampled 500 people, asked 25 to 30 questions and did it all out of own pocket for $2,000. If true, it was a slipshod survey upon which the president reportedly decided to stake his word. (Only days later, Mr. Clinton swore at a private White House meeting that he hadn't spoken to Mr. Morris in ages.) There was no more an astute analyst of polls than Kirk O'Donnell. He would pepper political conversations with survey data. But because he understood history and had such personal honor he always understood a poll was a snapshot, often valuable. But it never could be a substitute for principle or morality or integrity. Those were currencies of his professional and personal life. These no longer are commonplace commodities in politics, which is one of many reasons that the passing of this very good man is such a loss.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise with the same purpose as my colleague and friend from Nebraska, to thank the Senator from Connecticut for saying what needed saying, and saying it in a manner that gives us hope at a time of profound despond. In the aftermath of the President's speech on August 17, I commented that it was not adequate. But it was not until just this moment that the full measure of that inadequacy was presented to us in the context of the needs of the Nation, of the profound moral consequences that will arise not just from what has happened but from what might happen if we do not proceed with the measure of moral compass, but also with a capacity to understand we are all sinners. I say to my friends from Nebraska and from Connecticut, I am the oldest of the three of us and, therefore, have sinned the most. On that you may be sure. But we have to resolve this. The Senator did not call for any immediate, precipitous action. We have a process in place--imperfect in so many respects, but in place--and in time, not distant time, a point of decision will come to the Congress, a decision will come to the Congress, and it will be for us to discharge our sworn duty. We take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic--foreign and domestic, sir, which acknowledges that we can be our own worst enemies if we do not hew to our best standards, knowing that we are all imperfect but have an obligation to do our very best. In the words of Lord Mansfield in a case heard in London in 1772 (Somersett v. Stewart, 12 Geo. 3), the issue was a profoundly moral one. A man had a slave in England he wished returned to Jamaica to sell. That would have been legal under American law at the time. It was not legal under English law. In an epic statement, Mansfield said, ``Fiat justitia, ruat coelum''--``Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.'' But it also could be indicated, ``If justice is done with sufficient regularity and moderation, the heavens need not fall. They might even rejoice in the nation that has shown a capacity for redemption and self-renewal.'' So I wish to state my profound gratitude for what you have said and done, and hope we will listen to your wise counsel. I might just say it was in so many ways representative of the very best of our Old and New Testament heritage. I yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I join my revered friend the senior Senator from Virginia in this matter and would begin by reminding the Senate that in the debate on expanding NATO to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, he forcefully made the point that the administration was already talking about a further expansion to the Baltic States. That would be a thumb in the eye of the Russians. The language from the Committee report which Senator Warner has just read implies that the Senate has come to agreement on the matter when it clearly has not. Estonia and Latvia have large Russian minority populations and all three have tenuous relationships with Russia. Yet it seems to be working, considering these three independent nations were held ``captive''--subsumed by the Soviet Union--for three-quarters of a century. Latvia recently dismantled a Soviet radar station, and there are some accommodations being made for minorities in these nations. Expanding NATO to include the Baltics would be provocative in the extreme, as the Russians have made so clear. The Russians who would like to continue to make reforms in their troubled country have said: ``Don't do this.'' Those leaders who seek the greatest liberalization of Russian society have said ``Heavens, don't give this weapon to the enemies of democracy and market enterprise. Don't put us in a situation where nuclear war in Central Europe is not to be dismissed as an outlandish improbability.'' I remarked yesterday, in a statement supporting the International Monetary Fund replenishment that the situation of the Soviet military is alarming to the point of despair. In Krasnoyarsk, General Alexander Lebed, who is now governor there, has, by reports published in Moscow, undertaken to pay the Soviet strategic forces located in his Krai. The people with their hands on the triggers of the nuclear missiles are not being paid. I suggest the first rule of government is: Pay the Army. In a situation that is unstable, to take this posture regarding Nato expansion is to invite misunderstanding and worse. Mr. President, there is nothing we can do to change the report language, but I would like to make the point that it has not been decided that any of the Baltic states should join Nato. I do not think that the term ``accelerate the Baltic States integration into NATO''-- accelerate: faster than planned--such a term is not appropriate. If it were possible in conference for the distinguished chairman and the ranking member to see that this does not become part of the conference report itself or the accompanying statement of managers, I think that would serve stability in Central Europe and the security of the United States. I will make no accusations. The Senator from Virginia and I simply say: Do not casually get into a situation that will be thoroughly misread and deeply resented by the people we most want to have as our friends in Moscow. And particularly not on a day when the President himself is there. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see no other Senator seeking recognition, so I respectfully suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I thank the distinguished manager of the legislation and my colleague and friend from Oklahoma for his courtesy. Mr. President, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill before us addresses a matter of the utmost urgency: the need to replenish the resources of the International Monetary Fund. Title VI of the bill provides $14.5 billion--the amount of the United States' quota increase--which will augment the general funds available to the IMF. The need for this measure is undeniable: the Fund's resources have been seriously depleted as a result of the Asian financial crisis--specifically, the $36.1 billion in assistance committed to Indonesia, Thailand, and Korea--and now nearly drained by ominous developments in Russia. Not to mention the potential ``contagion'' effect. The bill also approves the United States' $3.36 billion contribution to the New Arrangements to Borrow--a new fund that will provide additional resources to respond to financial crises of such consequence that they threaten the stability of the international monetary system. Unfortunately, we have entered a period in which crises of such magnitude are upon us. Action on the IMF funding request is surely overdue. The President sought these funds in his requested supplemental appropriation for Fiscal Year 1998. The Senate readily agreed, approving the IMF funding amendment offered by the distinguished floor manager, the Senator from Kentucky, by a resounding vote of 84-16. That was on March 26. Regrettably and incomprehensibly, the measure was then dropped in conference at the urging of the House. It is now more than five months later, with no action by the other body, and global financial markets are in yet more precarious positions. I spoke this morning with our esteemed Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Rubin, who reiterated the importance of immediate action on this legislation. There is no end in sight to the Asian financial crisis, which began more than a year ago in Thailand. The President today is in Russia, which is on the brink of financial collapse. These events, particularly those in Russia in recent days, ought to convince us that this is not the time to put into jeopardy the IMF as an active participant in world financial matters. It is true that the Russian economy is small. As pointed out in Saturday's New York Times, the drop last week in the value of stocks on the Tokyo Stock Exchange--some $241 billion--was roughly the size of the entire annual output of the Russian economy at present exchange rates. Western Europe's exports to Russia account for well under 0.4 percent of their GDP. And for the United States, the amount is minuscule. Total U.S. exports to Russia in 1997 reached $3.4 billion, a mere 0.04 percent of our GDP. But it would be a serious mistake to minimize the potential impact of the current crisis in Russia. As The Financial Times pointed out last weekend, in its August 29-30, 1998 issue, Events in Moscow have moved with bewildering speed. The rouble and stock market are plunging, and there is a run on the banks. Most of the reformers seem to be out of the government, replaced by politicians who can be relied on only to set policies to meet the desires of Russia's oligarchs. . . . However, it is already clear that the impact of this crisis will be greatly disproportionate to Russia's size. At worst, the crisis could trigger a new round of contagion, sending western stock markets crashing, and the world into recession . . . And yet, the economic consequences of the current turmoil in Russia are not nearly as serious as the potential political consequences, which may have profound implications for the people of Russia--and indeed for the entire globe in this nuclear age. For instance, Dr. Murray Feshbach, who warned so presciently in the early 1980s about the troubles afflicting the Soviet Union, continues to document frightening Russian public health problems. The life expectancy of Russian men dropped from 62 years in 1989 to 57 years in 1996. There is no historical equivalent. It has increased slightly in the last year, but remains at appalling levels. A century ago, a 16 year-old Russian male had a 56 percent chance of surviving to age 60. In 1996, a 16 year-old Russian male had only a 54 percent chance of surviving to age 60. Two percent less than he would have had he been born a century earlier! The military is not spared the problems afflicting the Russian economy or the health of its citizens. Last month, an army major in central Russia took to the streets with a tank to protest the failure to pay wages. The first rule of government is pay the army. Russian soldiers are reduced to begging for food. The decrepit state of the military leaves Russia, for the most part, undefended. Except, Sir, for nuclear weapons, of which it has over 20,000. A recent National Security Blueprint, issued by President Boris Yeltsin on December 17, 1997, is a remarkable document. It is a 14,500- word assessment of Russian national security published openly in an official paper. It acknowledges the ethnic tensions which exist in Russia and notes how the weak economy exacerbates those forces. It states: The critical state of the economy is the main cause of the emergence of a threat to the Russian Federation's national security. This is manifested in the substantial reduction in production, the decline in investment and innovation, the destruction of scientific and technical potential, the stagnation of the agrarian sector, the disarray of the monetary and payments system, the reduction in the income side of the federal budget, and the growth of the state debt. It goes on to warn: The negative processes in the economy exacerbate the centrifugal tendencies of Russian Federation components and lead to the growth of the threat of violation of the country's territorial integrity and the unity of its legal area. The ethnic egotism, ethnocentrism, and chauvinism that are displayed in the activities of a number of ethnic social formations help to increase national separatism and create favorable conditions for the emergence of conflict in this sphere. (Emphasis supplied.) Mr. President, the IMF, with its emphasis on economic reform, has a role to play here. Now is not the time to call into question the United States' commitment to that institution. We can debate whether the amounts provided in this bill will be enough. Indeed, a persuasive article in this morning's Washington Post by Susan Eisenhower, chairman of the Center for Political and Strategic Studies here in Washington, states: Simply put: The IMF multiyear ``bailouts'' were enough to obligate Russia to implement Western-designed programs, but not enough to do the job. Total Western assistance to Russia has been a fraction of what West Germany has spent in East Germany since unification. It may be time for us to concede that the situation in Russia merits a much more aggressive assistance program, on the order of the Marshall Plan that was so effective in reviving Western Europe. Fifty years ago, from 1948-1952, the United States gave about $3 billion a year to fund the Marshall Plan. A comparable contribution in round numbers, given the current size of the United States economy, would be about $100 billion a year for five years. And yet, the United States' total bilateral assistance to Russia in the five-year period from fiscal years 1992 through 1996 was merely $3.1 billion. Certainly the 20,000 nuclear weapons in Russia's hands ought to persuade us that a more serious approach to Russia's economic problems is required. Without question, the first order of business must be the passage of this legislation, to secure funding for the IMF. And after that, we ought to begin a serious debate on what more can and should to be done. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the unanimous passage of S. 1700, a bill to designate the headquarters of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, located at 451 Seventh Street, SW, as the ``Robert C. Weaver Federal Building.'' I am proud to offer my tribute to a brilliant and committed public servant the late Dr. Robert C. Weaver, advisor to three Presidents, director of the NAACP, and the first African-American Cabinet Secretary. He was also a dear friend, dating back some 40 years. A native Washingtonian, Bob Weaver spent his entire life broadening opportunities for minorities in America and working to dismantle America's deeply entrenched system of racial segregation. He first made his mark as a member of President Roosevelt's ``Black Cabinet,'' an informal advisory group promoting educational and economic opportunities for blacks. I first met Bob in the 1950s when we worked for Governor Averell Harriman. He served as Deputy Commissioner of Housing for New York State in 1955, and later became State Rent Commissioner with full Cabinet rank. Our friendship and collaboration would continue through the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations. By 1960, Bob was serving as President of the NAACP. President Kennedy, impressed with Bob's insights and advice, soon appointed him to head the Housing and Home Finance Agency in 1961--the highest Federal post ever occupied by an African-American. When President Johnson succeeded in elevating HHFA to Cabinet level status in 1966, he didn't need to look far for the right man to head the new Department of Housing and Urban Development--Bob Weaver became the nation's first African-American Cabinet Secretary. Later, he and I served together on the Pennsylvania Avenue Commission. Following his government service, Dr. Weaver was, among various other academic pursuits, a professor at Hunter College, a member of the School of Urban and Public Affairs at Carnegie-Mellon, a visiting professor at Columbia Teacher's College and New York University's School of Education, and the president of Baruch College in Manhattan. When I became director of the Joint Center for Urban Studies at MIT and Harvard, he generously agreed to be a member of the Board of Directors. Dr. Weaver had earned his undergraduate, master's, and doctoral degrees in economics from Harvard; he wrote four books on urban affairs; and he was one of the original directors of the Municipal Assistance Corporation, which designed the plan to rescue New York City during its tumultuous financial crisis in the 1970s. After a long and remarkable career, Bob passed away last July at his home in New York City. The nation has lost one of its innovators, one of its creators, one of its true leaders. For Bob led not only with his words but with his deeds. I was privileged to know him as a friend. I think it is a fitting tribute to name the HUD Building after this great man.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, tonight the United States Senate has prevented a disaster on the Northern border of the United States by passing S. 1360, the Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1997. I am proud to be a co-sponsor. On September 28, 1996, the Senate passed the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, a 749-page bill with twenty-four separate titles. One small section of that bill, buried deep in the text, has been the subject of much consternation in northern New York. The provision, known as Section 110, requires the Immigration and Naturalization Service to develop a system to document the entry and departure of every alien entering and leaving the United States. Contrary to Congressional intent, the legislative language does not recognize the current practice of allowing most Canadian and American nationals to cross the border without registering any documents. Such an oversight is not uncommon in this type of omnibus bill that is hurried to passage in the final days of a legislative session. If implemented, an automated entry-exit control system along the northern border would likely result in long delays at the border, hampering tourism and trade. This is not an inconsequential matter. The United States-Canadian trade relationship is the world's largest, totaling $272 billion in 1995. Compare this to $256 billion in trade with the entire European Union and $188 billion in trade with Japan during that same period. The unnecessary border crossing delays which would surely result from the implementation of Section 110 would negatively affect our dynamic trading relationship with our Northern neighbor and would wreak havoc with the flow of traffic at the border. Each year, more than eight million trucks cross the eastern United States-Canada border carrying a variety of goods to market. Additionally, the Eastern Border Transportation Coalition has estimated that 57 million cars crossed that region in 1995. Sixty percent of these were day trips--people crossing the border to go to school or work, attend cultural events, shop, visit friends, and the like. The remaining forty percent of auto border crossings were by vacationers making significant contributions to both nations' economies. Might I note that visitors from the U.S. comprise the largest single group of vacationers in Canada and Canadians are the largest single non-U.S. group of vacationers in Florida. It was not the intent of Congress to interfere with the vibrant trading relationship that we enjoy with our Canadian friends. On December 18, 1996, Representative Lamar S. Smith and then-Senator Alan K. Simpson sent a letter to Canadian Ambassador Raymond Chretien to assure him of this fact, writing that ``we did not intend to impose a new requirement for border crossing cards or I-94's on Canadians who are not presently required to possess such documents.'' Thankfully, tonight this ambiguity has been resolved by this body. By passing this bill and exempting land border crossings from the automated entry-exit control system created under Section 110, we have prevented what could have been a catastrophe at the Canadian border.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, my colleague Senator Kerrey, with whom I am pleased to cosponsor this Sense of the Senate resolution, has it exactly right. The payroll tax is regressive. The statistic he quoted bears repeating. Among families that pay payroll taxes 80 percent pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes. If--and I say if--we are going to have a tax cut look no further than the payroll tax. Albert Hunt, writing in today's Wall Street Journal, agrees, noting that for most families it is ``the most onerous levy. . ..'' Even excluding interest income, the Social Security Trust Funds will generate $698 billion of surpluses over the next 10 years. That is just about enough to finance the 2 percentage point reduction in the payroll tax that Senator Kerrey and I have proposed in our comprehensive Social Security rescue plan. In contrast, the operating budget will only have a $32 billion surplus over the next 10 years--and no significant surplus until 2006. Finally, maybe we shouldn't be considering any tax cuts. Those surpluses can easily evaporate, even in the absence of a recession. Growth of one percent for the next two or three years --rather than the 2 percent projected by CBO--just about wipes out surpluses for the next several years.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, for eight years Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi has battled the military junta in an indomitable, peaceful way which deserves the admiration of us all. For five of these years she was held under house arrest. This is no longer the case, though events of the last week show that her freedom continues to be limited, as is the freedom of all Burmese citizens. Last Friday, Aung San Suu Kyi began a journey to meet with members of her National League for Democracy in Nyaungdon township, outside of the capital. She never made it. The thugs who run the military junta blocked her passage. She spent six days in her car surrounded by soldiers who prevented her from crossing a bridge about 30 miles outside of the capital. These actions were rightly criticized by many of the foreign ministers attending the annual meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), including our own Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright. As Keith B. Richburg reported in the Washington Post yesterday, ``the foreign ministers of six nations and the European Union confronted a top Burmese official today with a blunt message: No harm must come to the Nobel Peace Prize winner.'' I think it is clear that we in the Senate share this sentiment. We hold the leaders of the military junta in Burma responsible for the safety of Aung San Suu Kyi. Period. She has demonstrated uncommon restraint and valor in her often tense encounters with the junta. This last week has been no exception. She sat in her car for days, yet when she spoke, she did so firmly and without rancor. She called for dialogue between the NLD and the junta and consistently speaks of upholding the rule of law. She has recently called for the true parliament of Burma--the one elected in 1990--to be convened by August 21. Perhaps this will be an opportunity for the junta to step aside. The junta has failed miserably. Burma is a country rich in resources which has been run into the ground by an irresponsible junta. Its elected leaders have been censored, jailed, and worse. The junta has no legitimacy and should step aside and let the rightful and elected government of Burma take control. The people of Burma made clear their preference. Eight years is long enough to wait.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Robert F. Bennett (R-UT) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) today as original cosponsors of President Clinton's ``Year 2000 (Y2K) Information Disclosure Act.'' This 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 exchanges of information. As the President stated in his speech at the National Academy of Sciences on July 14, 1998, the purpose of this legislation is to ``guarantee that businesses which share information about their readiness with the public or with each other, and do it honestly and carefully, cannot be held liable for the exchange of that information if it turns out to be inaccurate.'' The open sharing of information on the Y2K problem will play a significant role in preparing the nation and the world for the millennial malady. I urge the prompt and favorable consideration of this legislation. There is no time to waste.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce today the Clean Gasoline Act of 1998, a bill to establish a nationwide, year- round cap on the sulfur content of gasoline. My bill presents an opportunity to make tremendous progress in improving our national air quality through a simple, cost-effective measure. Today, 70 million people--30 percent of the nation's population--live in counties which exceed heatlh-based ozone standards. For just a few pennies a gallon, we can make our urban environment appreciably better. Sulfur in gasoline contaminates catalytic converters so that they remove less of the nitrogen oxide (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrocarbons (HC) contained in tailpipe emissions. These pollutants elevate the levels of particulate matter (PM) and contribute to ground-level ozone. By reducing the amount of sulfur allowed in gasoline sold nationwide, my bill will substantially improve air quality, especially in America's largest cities. The current average sulfur content in U.S. gasoline is approximately 330 parts per million (ppm), and ranges as high as 1,000 ppm. the Clean Gasoline Act will impose a year-round cap of 40 ppm on the sulfur content of all gasoline sold in the United States. Under my bill, refineries will also have the option of meeting an 80 ppm cap, provided that they maintain an overall average sulfur content of no more than 30 ppm. Imposing limits on the sulfur content of gasoline will achieve tremendous--and virtually immediate--air quality benefits. The emissions reductions achieved by lowering gasoline sulfur levels to 40 ppm would be equivalent to removing 3 million vehicles from the streets of New York, and nearly 54 million vehicles from our roads nationwide. California imposed a similar cap on gasoline sulfur beginning in 1996, resulting in significant air quality gains. Japan has already established a 50 ppm gasoline standard, and the European Union currently has a gasoline sulfur standard of 150 ppm--which will drop to 50 ppm beginning in the year 2005. The gasoline sulfur cap established by my bill will apply year-round. A seasonal cap is insufficient because the damage done to catalytic converters by sulfur poisoning is not fully reversible by typical driving--meaning that vehicle emission controls would be re-poisoned every year when high-sulfur gasoline returned to the market. In the absence of national standards, travel over state boundaries could disable emissions controls. The current high-sulfur content of U.S. gasoline will also preclude the introduction of the next generation of fuel efficiency technologies--most notably fuel cells and direct-injection gasoline engines. U.S. citizen will not have access to these advanced technologies--unless we adopt low sulfur gasoline standards. Mr. President, I believe our task is clear. A national low sulfur gasoline standard will result in considerable health and environmental benefits. It will maximize the effectiveness of currently available vehicle emissions technology, and will enable the introduction of the next generation of vehicle technology into the U.S. market. Refineries can reduce the sulfur content of gasoline using existing technology that is already being used to supply markets in California, Japan, and the European Union. Our national fleet is already comprised of world- class vehicles. It is time for us to provide this fleet with world- class fuel. I urge my colleagues to join my cosponsors and me in supporting this important legislation.