Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to inform the Senate of a celebration being held later this evening in New York's historic Gracie Mansion. New York City's Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and his wife Donna Hanover will be joining the America-Israel Friendship League and the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York in hosting a gala dinner celebrating the State of Israel's Golden Jubilee. It is most appropriate that the city with the largest Jewish population in the world is hosting this official celebration of Israel's fiftieth anniversary. The members of the Senate are familiar with the important work of the America-Israel Friendship League (AIFL), a national, non-sectarian organization committed to maintaining and strengthening the historic, mutually supportive relationship between the peoples of the United States and Israel. Founded in 1971, the AIFL's activities generate bi- partisan support in reaching out to our citizens of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds in an effort to educate Americans and Israelis about the common interests they share. With a membership and leadership comprised of political, religious, labor, business, and community activists of all faiths, the diversity of the AIFL's membership makes its efforts even more extraordinary. The distinguished publisher Mortimer Zuckerman currently serves as the League's president, one of New York's leading attorneys Kenneth Bialkin serves as chairman of the board, and the talented Ilana Artman is the League's executive vice president. As a non-sectarian, people-to-people organization, the AIFL is devoted to fostering cultural and economic ties between the United States and Israel and to strengthening the unique friendship between our country and the only democracy in the entire history of the Middle East. Throughout Israel's first half century. the people of Israel have struggled to survive in a hostile region. Enduring five wars, they have most recently embarked on an historic journey in search of peace. The United States' support for Israel is grounded in an appreciation of the shared values and principles that are at the foundation of American and Israeli societies. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that, like the United States, is founded on the rights and privileges that guarantee a free society: elected government; freedom of speech; freedom of the press; an independent judiciary; and the rule of law. There have been just fourteen free elections in the entire history of the Middle East: all fourteen have been held in the State of Israel since 1948. To promote the unique friendship between these two great democracies, the AIFL has successfully mobilized a coalition of Americans of all ages and backgrounds to participate in a broad range of cultural and educational programs. Three of our most revered former members--Frank Church, Hubert Humphrey, and Jacob Javits--played major roles in creating the League in 1971, and I can testify to how strongly they believed in the League's mission and responsibilities. I ask that a report on tonight's dinner be printed in the Record. Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and the American-Israel Friendship League Join in Major New York City 50th Anniversary Celebration Mayor Rudolph W. Giulinai and the American-Israel Friendship League announce that a gala celebration of Israel's 50th anniversary will be held at Gracie Mansion on Wednesday evening, June 17, 1998. Mayor Giuliani, who serves with Edgar Bronfman as co-chair of New York City's Official Host Committee for Israel's Fiftieth Birthday, has agreed to open his home for a gala dinner marking 50 years of US-Israel friendship and joint achievements. The evening's guests will include leaders of the US and Israeli governments; faith communities; industry and community organizations. ``I am particularly proud to host this special event, in celebration of Israel's historic 50th Anniversary and in commemoration of our shared traditions of democracy,'' said Mayor Giuliani. ``This exciting gala will be an important part of New York City's celebration of Israel's important milestone birthday.'' The dinner will celebrate Israel's accomplishments and will recognize and honor US and Israeli individuals, organizations and companies for their joint achievements. The United States and Israel have a long record of cooperation on strategic, scientific research, economic development and education projects. These initiatives have generated remarkable breakthroughs and have had a major impact on medical research, international communications, agriculture, computer and high technology, and many other areas. ``It will be an exciting evening'' said Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Publisher of the New York Daily News and President of the American-Israel Friendship League. ``The Gracie Mansion gala will bring together a cross section of society, people of all parties and stripes, from both sides of the ocean, coming together in New York City in celebration of the strength of US-Israel friendship and cooperation.'' ``The dinner will be a festive occasion with an important message,'' said Kenneth J. Bialkin, Partner of the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, and chairman of the AIFL's Board of Directors. ``It will highlight the mutual benefits to both the United States and Israel of our close, long-standing relationship. It is an association based on common values, on shared interests and on genuine friendship between our two peoples.'' The American-Israel Friendship League is a national, non- sectarian organization committed to maintaining and strengthening the historic bonds between the people of the United States and Israel. Founded in 1971, the League's activities generate bi-partisan support in reaching out to all faiths, ethnic backgrounds, all age groups and political persuasions in an effort to educate Americans and Israelis about the common interests that they share.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I offer a resolution which speaks to many of the issues now facing the Tibetan people in their long struggle. This has been threatened for a half-century now, but there are efforts underway to resolve these issues. This resolution puts the Congress on record in support of these goals. Begin with the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), which has closely followed the situation in Tibet since the Dalai Lama was forced to flee into exile. In 1959, 1960, and 1964, the ICJ examined Chinese policies in Tibet and reported its findings to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The 1960 report made the important international legal determination that ``acts of genocide had been committed in Tibet in an attempt to destroy the Tibetans as a religious group . . .'' and concluded that Tibet was at least ``a de facto independent State'' prior to 1951. Now the ICJ has returned to the issue of Tibet and produced another important report. It finds that repression in Tibet has increased since 1994. This is an assessment which my daughter Maura shares after having visited Tibet and having worked closely for many years with Tibetan refugees who continue to make the dangerous journey over the Himalayan mountains to flee persecution in their homeland. In 1996 she returned from Tibet to report, . . . in recent months Beijing's leaders have renewed their assault on Tibetan culture, especially Buddhism, with and alarming vehemence. The rhetoric and the methods of the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s have been resurrected-- reincarnated, what you will--to shape an aggressive campaign to vilify the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama, of course, remains unstained, but it is time for the Chinese to consider a policy of ``constructive engagement'' of their own--with the Tibetans. The recent ICJ report calls on the People's Republic of China to enter into discussions with the Dalai Lama or his representatives on a solution to the question of Tibet. Mr. President, for many years now, the United States Congress has been calling for exactly this. I hope that while the President is in China, he will be able to convey the importance of this issue to secure a commitment from the Government of the People's Republic of China to begin such discussions with the Tibetans. In 1979, Deng Xiaoping stated that ``except for the independence of Tibet, all other questions can be negotiated.'' The Dalai Lama has repeatedly stated his unambiguous willingness to begin substantive negotiations with the Chinese without preconditions, and that the issue of independence need not be on the agenda. This is not a concession easily made by the leader of the Tibetan people who, as the ICJ concluded in 1960, enjoyed de facto independence before the Chinese take-over. Nonetheless, he has made the offer sincerely, and repeatedly, and deserves a sincere response. The United States can help elicit such a response. In addition to the opportunity posed by the upcoming visit by the President, we now have a Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues, Gregory B. Craig, whom Secretary Albright appointed to achieve just such a result. A special coordinator is something that our beloved Claiborne Pell proposed in the 103d Congress and I am glad we have been able to achieve another one of his aspirations. Having a Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues will better enable the Administration to facilitate a dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government. Finally, Mr. President, atheists are rarely involved in choosing divine leaders, but the Chinese Communist Party has not only involved itself in the selection of the eleventh Panchen Lama, but Chinese officials have asserted that it is the party's sole right to make the selection, and they have detained the boy the Dalai Lama recognized as the next Panchen Lama. This resolution calls attention to this odious infringement on religious freedom. The Tibetans--I think I am correct in saying--above all value their ability to practice religion. Religion infuse every aspect of Tibetan culture. We cannot begin to comprehend the affront to Tibetans of having an important religious figure detained and declared illegitimate by the Communist Party. Add to that affront that another boy is produced by the Party and proclaimed as the religious leader. This resolution calls for the release of 9-year old Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the boy selected by the Dalai Lama as the next Panchen Lama, who has been under detention for 3 years. The Senate has always maintained strong support for the Tibetan cause. This resolution continues that tradition. I especially wish to thank my colleague, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, for his outstanding leadership on this issue. We are also joined in this effort by Senators Leahy, Mack, Wellstone, and Feingold. I thank them for their support.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today a unanimous Senate will state in clear and simple terms that we will no longer abide by the discrimination faced by Israel at the United Nations. I speak of the fact that Israel is excluded from a United Nations regional group. Israel is the only one of the 185 member states of the United Nations barred from membership in a regional group. The United Nations member states have organized themselves by regional groups since before Israel joined the United Nations in 1949. Membership in a United Nations regional group confers eligibility to sit on the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, as well as other United Nations councils, commissions, and committees. For the first time, the Senate provides notice of its intention to work to end this Cold War anachronism. One sorry throwback to an era when the institutionalized isolation of Israel was a given in international affairs--the ugly ``gentlemen's agreement'' that excludes Israel and only Israel from membership in any United Nations Regional Group. Israel, and only Israel, can never sit on the United Nations Security Council. Israel, and only Israel, can never serve on the United Nations Economic and Social Council, where her expertise is so sorely missed. Israel, and only Israel, is less than a full member of the very international organization which bravely voted on November 29, 1947 to create it. Today we call for Israel's admission to a United Nations Regional Group. This must be a goal of our government's foreign policy and a priority of reform efforts at the United Nations. That such legislation is necessary is a reminder that, despite the unparalleled success of the Zionist movement in its first hundred years, the state created half a century ago, as the fruit of this ideal, still requires support from its friends to overcome this institutional prejudice. It is a fitting tribute to this vision that our country will take its rightful place in the forefront of the effort to allow Israel to participate fully in international affairs and to be counted as a legitimate member among the nations of the world. I am joined in this effort by 54 cosponsors. I thank my colleagues for their support and in particular the distinguished senior Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar, for his leadership.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, some while ago it was announced that the German publishing firm of Bertelsmann had purchased Random House, the legendary New York publisher founded in the 1920s by Bennett Cerf and Donald Klopfer. The brilliance of the authors published over the years was exceeded only by that of the young editors that gave their works such superb attention. One of these was Jason Epstein. It was my great fortune to have him as an editor of three books which Random House published--``Coping: On the Practice of Government,'' ``The Politics of A Guaranteed Income,'' and, with Frederick Mosteller, ``On the Equality of Educational Opportunity.'' These were wonderfully produced, no less wonderfully edited--500 or more pages each. Thereafter, they were marketed with what I can only think of as loving care. The subjects were anything but reader friendly, as you might say, but Random House was author friendly and American letters are profoundly in its debt. Recently, in the April 6 issue of the New Yorker, The Talk of the Town began with a wonderful reminiscence by Jason Epstein of his early years at Random House. I ask that it be printed in the Record. [From the New Yorker, Apr. 6, 1998] (By Jason Epstein) Ink--Can the Bertelsmann Deal Take Publishing Back to Its Roots? On the morning last week that the purchase of Random House by Bertelsmann was announced, I happened to pass the office of my colleague Bob Loomis and noticed the framed copy of the Random House interoffice phone directory for 1958 that Bob keeps on his bookshelf. The directory is about the size of a postal card and lists some ninety names, including Bob's and mine along with those of Bennett Cerf and his partner Donald Klopfer, the founders of Random House, whose offices were then on the parlor floor of the old Villard mansion, on Madison and Fiftieth. We occupied the north wing. The Archdiocese owned the central portion, which is now the entrance of the Palace Hotel, as well as the south wing, which now houses Le Cirque 2000. Loomis and I joined Random House in the late nineteen- fifties. Though we took our publishing responsibilities seriously, we did not think of ourselves as businessmen but as caretakers of a tradition, like London tailors or collectors of Chinese porcelain. Bennett Cerf set the tone, and it was his habit to run from office to office sharing the jokes he had just heard over the phone from his Hollywood friends. Several times a day Bennett interrupted meetings between editors and authors in this fashion. Some authors were delighted. But I remember an afternoon when a baffled W.H. Auden asked if we could finish our conversation at Schrafft's across the street. This was, I believe, the last time he set foot in the Random House offices. For me in those years, book publishing seemed more a sport than a business--a sport that required skill and strict attention to the rules, especially the rule that we had to make enough money to stay in the game. But if we wanted to make real money in a real business we knew that we should forget about afternoons with Auden, Faulkner, and Dr. Seuss and go down to Wall Street. But this was unthinkable. It was always a pleasure when one of our books became a best-seller, but what counted more was a book that promised to become a permanent part of the culture. Random House published many books that became both. The editor's job was different then from what it is now. Now layer upon layer of marketing specialists, sales executives, and business managers separate the editor from the bookseller. At the Villard mansion, we made these publishing decisions ourselves. For years, I would begin my day in the mailroom opening orders from booksellers, so that I had the feel of the marketplace literally at my fingertips. That time was magical and we never expected it to end, even after Bennett and Donald took the company public, acquired Knopf, and, in 1966, sold out to RCA. By the mid-seventies the publishing industry had changed profoundly. The old downtown neighborhoods where booksellers had once rented inexpensive space and knew their customers by name had largely vanished. Readers now bought their books in mall chain stores. The bookseller in Pittsburgh or Portland whom Loomis or I might once have called to recommend a first novel had been out of business for years. Publishers now spoke to their customers through marketing specialists doing their best to fit the increasingly undifferentiated product supplied by the editors into the still less differentiated slots provided by the retail chains. Many worthy titles couldn't be fitted to these new circumstances at all and disappeared. In recent years the mall shops specializing in best-sellers have been largely replaced by so-called superstores, with much larger inventories of books. But the link between writer and marketplace which had once been the editor's function has all but vanished. The Random House phone book is now the size of a small city directory. Loomis and I are still listed, but after forty years nearly everything else about book publishing has changed. What had been a craft is now an irrational accretion of improvisational adjustments to historic accidents, a largely fossilized organism that can no longer be deconstructed. Its future depends on how well its remaining energies can be directed toward new technological possibilities. I am delighted to say that these possibilities already exist. The widespread distribution of printed books via the Internet is a reality a mere two and a half years after the appearance of Amazon.com. The eventual shape of Internet bookselling is not yet fully evident, but it is evident enough to foreshadow a much more direct--and economical--link between writer and reader than has existed in modern times. The choice of a career in book publishing may seem bleak at the moment, but if I were starting out today I might give it a try. To publish a book that may make the world a little more intelligible or decent can be almost as satisfying as writing one. And soon it might just be possible to carry on this work with even greater confidence than Loomis and I shared forty years ago.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today is a bittersweet day at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City where the annual commencement ceremony will include an unprecedented presentation of a posthumous honorary doctorate to Mordechai Strigler, the talented editor of the Yiddish Forward who died last week at the age of 76. I rose almost a year ago today to share with the Senate the news of the Forward's centenary. This remarkable newspaper, which once helped hundreds of thousands of new immigrants learn about their new homeland, now prints Yiddish, Russian and English weekly editions. The Yiddish edition has gone from a daily press run of 250,000 copies to a weekly run of 10,000, but has retained much of the literary excellence and social conscience that has so characterized the Forward during its storied history. Mordechai Strigler was born in 1921 in Zamosc, Poland, and was sent to study in a yeshiva at age 11. In 1937 he began work as a rabbi and teacher in Warsaw. When the Germans occupied Poland in 1939, he tried to escape to Russia, but was caught at the border. He spent a few months at the Zamosc ghetto with his parents and then five years in several concentration camps. In Buchenwald, he was a member of the Resistance and served as a covert teacher for the children incarcerated there. He was liberated on April 11, 1945. After the war, he began writing furiously and prolifically for the next 53 years until his death. He chronicled the slave-labor camps and death factories in a six-volume Yiddish series called ``Oysgebrente Likht'', which means ``Extinguished Candles''. In 1955, Strigler published two volumes called ``Arm in Arm with the Wind,'' a historical novel about Jewish life in Poland in the 17th and 18th centuries. His newspaper career began in Warsaw just before the war and flourished in Paris after the war. In France, he served as editor of Unzer Vort (Our world), a Yiddish daily. While in New York, he was offered the editorship of the Kemfer, a position he held until 1995. He published such classic Yiddish writers as Abraham Reizen, H. Leivik, Chaim Grade, and Jacob Glatstein. In 1978, Strigler was awarded the Itzak Manger Prize in Jewish Literature, one of the most distinguished prizes in the field. He became editor of the Yiddish Forward in 1987, following the retirement of Simon Weber, and he remained at its helm until last month. ``The death of Strigler marks not only a sad transition for his colleagues in the Yiddish, Russian, and English editions of the Forward but also a milestone in the area of Yiddish-language journalism and the literature of the Holocaust,'' the English-language Forward said in an obituary. I ask to have printed in the Record the English edition of the Forward's moving editorial tribute to this talented journalist. Mordechai Strigler Mordechai Strigler, the editor of the Yiddish Forward who died Sunday at the age of 76, was one of the giants. Born at Zamosc, Poland, he became famous at a young age as a genius of Talmud. He was apprenticed to the greatest sages of his time. He was at the barricades in Warsaw when the Germans invaded. He fled toward Russia, but was captured by the Nazis, who cast him into concentration camps. His parents and three of his seven sisters perished. He himself was in, among other camps, Maidenek, Skarhisko and Buchenwald, where he was a member of the Resistance and where on liberation he was spotted by Meyer Levin, who wrote about his heroism in his memoir ``In Search''. Levin told of Strigler gathering children secretly in the barracks and teaching them Yiddish and Hebrew. He had lost his pre-war manuscripts during the war. It is said that upon liberation he began writing furiously. He continued until weeks before he died. He turned out cycles of poetry and novels, as well as biblical commentaries and analysis of rabbinic responsa and thousands of items of journalism--editorials, dispatches, criticism and feuilletons. Moving to Paris immediately after the war, he became editor of Unzer Vort and joined the Labor Zionist movement. As editor of the Yiddisher Kemfer and, later, the Yiddish Forward as well, he maintained a courteous and gentle exterior, but it belied an extraordinary toughness. No matter how others around him might fume, he would go on doing what he thought was right. His achievements are well known. He touched Jews the world over, inspired his colleagues and set a standard to which all the editors of the Forward, in Yiddish, Russian, and English, look up. Yet for all these achievements, there was a dimension to Mordechai Strigler that remained a mystery, even to many of us who worked in the same editorial rooms with him for years. It had to do with his spiritual journey. Had history taken a different turn, it is as a Torah sage that he might be remembered today. But the Holocaust shook his faith and led him to quarrel with God. He emerged to write poetry and fiction. He entered the political fray for the labor faction. Hope came to him from the establishment of the Jewish state, which became, along with Jewish unity, his abiding passion. After he reached America, he began corresponding with a young woman in Jerusalem, Esther Bonni, a scientist. When they finally met in Israel, a romance developed and marriage followed. After the birth of their daughter, Leah, the glimmer of Strigler's spiritual life began to shine again. Leah talked at his funeral of Strigler's enduring attachment to text and of his powers as a teacher. He was obsessed with the accuracy of citations of Torah and Talmud, so that whenever she asked a question, he would insist on checking sources, even though he almost always knew the references by heart. In recent years, his intimates relate, he had occasion to lay tefillin. Even then it was said that he had not again become a believer but was merely observing a mitzvah. Yet as he lay dying at Roosevelt Hospital, his daughter read to him for days from the Bible, holding the text in one hand and here father's hand in the other. His daughter and wife sang prayers in Yiddish and Hebrew, which for precious moments brought him out of his coma. This is how this editor who had lived and chronicled and tragedies and triumphs of our century spent his last days--called back to consciousness, however fleetingly, by the languages of the Jews.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to share with the Senate the sorrowful news that Rabbi Moshe Sherer, one of American Jewry's leading communal leaders, passed away yesterday afternoon at the age of 76. Rabbi Sherer was the President of Agudath Israel of America for over 30 years and has served as a reasoned, wise voice whose counsel was widely respected in the Yeshivot of his beloved Brooklyn and the halls of government in lower Manhattan, Albany, Washington, and Jerusalem. I first met Rabbi Sherer in the early days of the Kennedy Administration when he came to Washington on behalf of Aguduth Israel. I quickly learned to admire his sagacity and rely on his insightful counsel and abiding integrity. For over thirty-five years he was a treasured mentor and a trusted friend. World Jewry has lost one of its wisest statesmen. American Orthodoxy has lost a primary architect of its remarkable postwar resurgence. All New Yorkers have lost a man of rare spiritual gifts and exceptional creative vision. While the Senate convenes today, tens of thousands of Jews are gathering in Brooklyn, New York to bid a reverential farewell to this exceptional teacher and rare leader. New York's Governor George Pataki, New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and New York City Council Speaker Peter Vallone are among the distinguished public officials participating in the funeral. Rabbi Sherer passed away only hours before the President of the Senate, Vice President Al Gore, addressed Agudath Israel's 76th anniversary dinner in New York. He spoke for the Senate and for all Americans when he eulogized the Rabbi as ``a remarkable force for the understanding and respect and growth of Orthodox Jewry over the past fifty years'', whose ``contributions to spreading religious freedom and understanding have been truly indispensable in defending and expanding those same rights for all Americans in all faiths.'' I know I speak for the entire Senate when I express my condolences to his widow Deborah, his loving children Mrs. Rachel Langer, Mrs. Elky Goldschmidt and Rabbi Shimshon Sherer, his bereaved colleagues at Agudath Israel, and all who mourn the loss of this unusual man of conscience and conviction. I ask that a brief obituary of Rabbi Sherer, as prepared by Agudath Israel, be printed in the Record. The obituary follows: Rabbi Moshe Sherer, 76, widely acknowledged as the elder statesman of the American Orthodox Jewish community, was a leader of Agudath Israel of America, a major national Jewish Orthodox organization, for over half a century, including more than thirty years as the organization's president. He also was appointed in 1980 as chairman of the Agudath Israel World Organization, an international confederation of Agudath Israel organizations in a host of countries around the globe. A prime catalyst of the American Orthodox Jewish community's remarkable growth in size and strength since the Holocaust, the American-born Rabbi Sherer empowered the evolution of an organization that one member of the Jewish establishment in 1941 called ``a sickly weed'' into a major and effective force on the American political and communal scene. He took Agudath Israel from a small group of activists to a formidable movement--with tens of thousands of members and supporters; branches across the country; and a Washington office that advocates for a host of issues of concern to the American Orthodox Jewish community, from religious rights to moral matters, from nonpublic education to the welfare of Jews in lands of oppression. He also helped establish Agudath Israel's celebrated Jewish youth groups and summer camps, and pioneered the organization's current role as a leading force in the provision of social and educational services in the New York area. Rabbi Sherer's earliest work on behalf of the Jewish community--the efforts that first evoked the larger non- Orthodox Jewish establishment's opprobrium--was the grassroots, and largely illegal, organization and transport of food shipments to starving Jews in Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe in 1941. His efforts also produced affidavits for European Jewish refugees that helped them immigrate to the United States. After the end of World War II, he and Agudath Israel continued to assist European Jews--survivors interned in Displaced Person camps--with foodstuffs and religious items, and helped facilitate the immigration and resettlement of Jewish refugees on these shores. In ensuing decades, Rabbi Sherer spearheaded Agudath Israel's efforts on behalf of endangered Jews behind the Iron Curtain and in places like Syria and Iran. In 1991, years of clandestine activity on behalf of Soviet Jews culminated in his establishment of an office in Moscow to coordinate Agudath Israel's activities in Russia. Under his leadership, Agudath Israel also played an important role in providing social welfare and educational assistance to Israeli Jews, and in advocating for Israel's security needs. Ignoring the pessimistic predictions about Orthodox Jewry made by sociologists and demographic experts in the 40s and 50s, Rabbi Sherer went on to help engineer a remarkable change in the scope, image and influence of the American Orthodox Jewish world. A staunch advocate of Jewish religious education as early as the 1960s, he helped establish the principle in numerous federal laws--like the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965--and state laws that, to the full extent constitutionally permissible, children in non- public schools were entitled to governmental benefits and services on an equitable basis with their public school counterparts. He thereby allied himself with Catholic school advocates and again rankled the larger American Jewish establishment. In 1972, his efforts on behalf of education led to his being named national chairman of a multi-faith coalition of leaders representing the 5 million non-public school children in the United States. Under his leadership, Agudath Israel helped foster the phenomenal growth of Jewish adult education as well. This past September, the Agudath Israel-sponsored celebration of the most recent completion of the ``Daf Yomi'' page-a-day Talmud study program drew over 70,000 Jews to central locations nationwide.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I concur in the judgment of our distinguished chairman on the important question of the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance and I thank him for insisting that it be made clear for the record, as indeed has been done thanks to the distinguished Presiding Officer. Mr. President, S. 1415, the tobacco legislation now before the Senate, was ordered referred to the Committee on Finance on May 13, 1998. It was so referred because the Senate Parliamentarian determined that the bill is in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. That action preserved the jurisdiction over tax legislation for which the Finance Committee has been responsible for 181 years. The Record should be clear that this is indeed a tax bill. The Parliamentarian has so determined; the Joint Committee on Taxation has concurred. One may refer to certain provisions of this legislation as ``annual payments,'' ``lookback assessments,'' or ``fees,'' but they are taxes. As Richard Cardinal Cushing said, ``When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.'' Call it whatever you like, but this bill raises taxes on tobacco, and we're not fooling anybody to suggest otherwise. And as I have said, taxes have been the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance for going on two centuries now. In the case of excise taxes, which figure prominently in this bill, the Finance Committee's jurisdiction has been recognized since 1817, the year after the Committee was established. That was the 14th Congress. George W. Campbell of Tennessee, was Chairman; Senator Rufus King, of New York, was Ranking Member. Likewise our jurisdiction over income taxes has been recognized since the first income tax was enacted in 1861. And the Standing Rules of the Senate have explicitly provided for our jurisdiction over ``revenue measures generally''--tax bills--since 1946, the year that the jurisdictions of all Senate Committees were first set forth in the Rules. I might add that our jurisdiction over international trade matters, which also arise in this bill, is equally clear and equally longstanding. Our revered Chairman, Senator Roth, last week insisted--with the full support of our Committee Members--that this legislation be considered by the Finance Committee before it went to the floor. It was referred to us on Wednesday, and we marked it up on Thursday. The vote to report favorably the Finance Committee amendments was 13-6. The Finance Committee made several important improvements to the bill. First, we converted the assorted ``payments'' and ``assessments'' to taxes. Second, we approved an increase of $1.50 per pack in the tax on tobacco, to be phased in over three years. Third, we struck from the bill a tax on exports that was a clear violation of Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. And finally, we adopted an amendment by Senator D'Amato to require that health plans provide coverage for minimum hospital stays and reconstructive surgery associated with the treatment of breast cancer. Some of these changes have now been included in the pending Commerce Committee substitute. Owning to the parliamentary situation, some of the other Finance Committee amendments will require separate votes. But thanks to our Chairman, the essential point has been made; the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance has been preserved and affirmed. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to recognize Francis Albert Sinatra, a man whose voice brought wonder and joy to the lives of millions. Natural, original, the ultimate. These are just a few words to describe Mr. Sinatra's voice. A talent such as Mr. Sinatra's is rare, once in a lifetime. We are all very fortunate to have had the opportunity to experience Mr. Sinatra's voice and charisma. Francis Albert Sinatra was born December 12, 1915, in a tough, working-class neighborhood of Hoboken, N.J. The son of Italian immigrants, Mr. Sinatra's determination, perseverance, and belief in himself lead him to stardom. A dramatic American success story. Mr. Sinatra's signature songs included ``Night and Day,'' ``Mack the Knife,'' ``Old Man River,'' ``New York, New York,'' ``Come Fly With Me,'' ``Strangers in the Night''--and, of course, ``My Way.'' Indeed, he did do it his way and for that we all must be grateful. Pete Hamill astutely described the world's love and attachment to Sinatra in New York magazine in 1980. He wrote, ``Sinatra's endurance has become a rallying point for many people who feel that their sacrifices and hard work are no longer honored, their values demeaned, their musical tastes ignored and sneered at. . ..They had overcome poverty and survived two world wars; they had educated their children and given them better lives; and sometimes their children didn't even care. But it should never be forgotten that Frank Sinatra was the original working class hero. Mick Jagger's fans bought records with their allowances; Sinatra's people bought them out of wages.'' Mr. Sinatra received the Kennedy Center honor in 1983 and was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Reagan in 1985. And on May 14, 1997, the Congress awarded him the Congressional Gold Medal in ``recognition of his outstanding and enduring contributions through his entertainment career and humanitarian activities, and for other purposes.'' I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of this resolution. Mr. Sinatra recorded more than 200 albums, from Big Band to vocal American music. He won nine Grammy Awards. In 1954, he won the Oscar for his role in ``From Here to Eternity.'' Francis Albert Sinatra is an American phenomenon. He entertained the world for more than half a century. His songs have become classics, and belong to him alone. He was a man who chose not to hide his ethnic identity, but to flaunt it in an era when such things were not done. In so doing, he opened a path that allowed other ethnic entertainers to retain their own heritage and pride. In this, the American century, Frank Sinatra in many ways embodied the American spirit, and as our century comes to a close, we must acknowledge the loss of a unique American character, of his endurance, and his talent, and for this we mourn his passing, and praise his legacy.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, as the Senate will know, the Government of India has announced that two further underground nuclear tests occurred at 3:51, eastern daylight time, this morning. These follow the three underground explosions announced on Monday. Now, this might at first seem a reckless act on the part of the Government of India. But, sir, I would call attention to a statement in an Associated Press report which reads, ``The Government said its testing was now complete and it was prepared to consider a ban on such nuclear testing.'' Sir, this could be a statement of transcendent importance. It would be useful at this time, when tempers--and I use the word ``temper''-- are rising in the West, to recall the outrage when France carried out a series of underwater tests in the South Pacific in Mururoa Atoll on September 5, 1995, to the indignation of many other nations, but thereupon signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty the following year. And, sir, it has not only signed that treaty, it has ratified it. The United States was among the convening nations in 1996 that signed the treaty, but this Senate has not ratified the treaty. The People's Republic of China followed much the same course in completing a series of tests and then agreeing to the test ban treaty. Just now the press is reporting all manner of administration officials are distressed that the Central Intelligence Agency did not report indications that these tests were about to take place and that somehow we were taken off guard. But I repeat a comment I made to Tim Weiner of the New York Times yesterday that it might help if the American foreign relations community would learn to read. The BJP Party, the Bharatiya Janata Party--now in office for essentially the first time--leads the ruling coalition and has long been militantly asserting that India was going to be a nuclear power like the other great powers of the world. It is the second most populous nation. In the election platform--technically, a manifesto in the Indian-English usage--issued before the last election, the BJP had this to say: ``The BJP rejects the notion of nuclear apartheid and will actively oppose attempts to impose a hegemonistic nuclear regime. . . We will not be dictated to by anybody in matters of security requirements and in the exercise of the nuclear option.'' This is hugely important, as is indicated by the enormous ground swell of support in India itself in the aftermath of Monday's explosion. In the platform put together by the coalition that now governs in India, there is a statement, not quite as assertive, but not less so. This is the National Agenda for Governance, issued 18 March 1998. It says, ``To ensure the security, territorial integrity and unity of India we will take all necessary steps and exercise all available options. Toward that end we will re-evaluate the nuclear policy and exercise the option to induct nuclear weapons.'' That is an Indian- English term, ``induct,'' as in induction into the military. It means to bring them into an active place in the Nation's military arsenal. Now, the President, who is in Germany, announced today that we would impose the sanctions required under law, the Glenn amendment of 1994, directed against non-declared nuclear nations that begin nuclear testing. This is the law and the Indians knew it perfectly well, even if we have, perhaps, been insufficiently attentive to bringing to their minds the implications of the law. Chancellor Kohl--Germany being a large supplier of aid to India --was with President Clinton when this was said. We should not underestimate the degree to which this might just arouse further resentment in India. The law is there, but also the resentment is there. In this National Agenda for Governance that I just recited, there are a number of platform ``planks,'' you might say principles. The second on economy reads: ``We will continue with the reform process to give a strong Swadeshi thrust to ensure that the national economy grows on the principle that India shall be built by Indians.'' Swadeshi is a turn of the century term of the independence movement meaning self- reliance, use indigenous materials, sweep imports out. They are not going to be as intimidated by sanctions as we may suppose. This is the first Hindu government in India in perhaps 800 years. We tend to forget that. When we go to visit India, distinguished persons are taken to view the Taj Mahal, the Red Fort, the India Gate. All those are monuments by conquerors --Islamic, then English. It is something we don't notice. They do. And after 50 years of Indian independence, founded by a secular government which denied all those things, there is now a Hindu government and its sensibilities need to be attended to if only as a matter of common sense. Do we want India in a system of nuclear arms control or don't we? I think we do. I think we ought to encourage them and explore the implications of the statement reported by the Associated Press. And while we are at it, it would do no great harm to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ourselves. I see my friend from Nebraska is on the floor. I look forward to a comment he might make.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend. I ask unanimous consent that the time from 1:45 p.m. to 2 o'clock be reserved for the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I much agree. May I say to my friend that I was Ambassador to India on May 18, 1974, when the Indians exploded a ``peaceful'' nuclear explosion, as they said, in India on the same testing grounds used this time. It fell on me to call on then Prime Minister Gandhi to express our concerns. I have to say that Secretary Kissinger was mild; he toned down the indignation that came from the Department of State in his draft statement. I did say to Mr. Gandhi on that occasion, speaking for myself, without instructions, that India had made a great mistake, that it was the No. 1 country in south Asia, the hegemonic country in South Asia, Pakistan No. 3, if you like, then you go down to the Maldives, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka; but in 25 years time there would be a Mongol general in Islamabad with a nuclear capacity, saying, I have got four bombs and I want the Punjab back and I want this region or that region, the Kashmir, or else I will drop them on what was then Bombay, New Delhi, Madras and Calcutta. Well, something like that is happening and we better see that it doesn't go forward. So to explore the Indian offer here, suggesting the offer, seems to me, a matter of huge importance. We could see the end of the cold war, followed by a nuclear proliferation of a kind we never conceived. We can see China, North Korea, and Pakistan arming in nuclear modes against India and Russia and us looking at an Armageddonic future that we had felt was behind us.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Of the New York Times.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Well, I would say to my gallant, able friend that the Intelligence Committee could do worse than inviting some of the administration officials who are so indignant that the CIA didn't tell them what was going to happen up to say: have you read any Indian newspaper recently? Do you happen to know what the largest democracy in the world is and who they elected in the last election? Have you looked into their party platforms.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I ask for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Bob Kerrey, Bond, Kennedy, Durbin and DeWine in introducing the ``Children's Hospital Education and Research Act of 1998.'' This legislation recognizes the value of supporting medical training. it establishes an interim source of funding for financing residency training expenses for free-standing children's hospitals until a permanent source of funding for all medical education is developed. Medical education is one of America's most precious public resources. It is a public good--a good from which everyone benefits, but for which no one is willing to pay. As a public good, explicit and dedicated funding for residency training programs must be secured so that the United States will continue to lead the world in the quality of its health care system. This legislation provides for such dedicated funding for residency training programs in children's hospitals. I have introduced legislation--S. 21--which creates a medical education trust fund to support all accredited medical schools and teaching hospitals. Additionally, I requested that specific language be inserted in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 charging the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare to: . . . make recommendations regarding the financing of graduate medical education (GME), including consideration of alternative broad-based sources of funding for such education and funding for institutions not currently eligible for such GME support that conduct approved graduate medical residency programs, such as children's hospitals. Children's hospitals have a vitally important mission providing patient care, medical training and research in the face of an increasingly competitive health system. I am pleased to support Senator Kerrey's bill and look forward to working with him and other members of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare as we seek stable and sufficient funding for medical education.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Bob Kerrey, Bond, Kennedy, Durbin and DeWine in introducing the ``Children's Hospital Education and Research Act of 1998.'' This legislation recognizes the value of supporting medical training. it establishes an interim source of funding for financing residency training expenses for free-standing children's hospitals until a permanent source of funding for all medical education is developed. Medical education is one of America's most precious public resources. It is a public good--a good from which everyone benefits, but for which no one is willing to pay. As a public good, explicit and dedicated funding for residency training programs must be secured so that the United States will continue to lead the world in the quality of its health care system. This legislation provides for such dedicated funding for residency training programs in children's hospitals. I have introduced legislation--S. 21--which creates a medical education trust fund to support all accredited medical schools and teaching hospitals. Additionally, I requested that specific language be inserted in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 charging the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare to: . . . make recommendations regarding the financing of graduate medical education (GME), including consideration of alternative broad-based sources of funding for such education and funding for institutions not currently eligible for such GME support that conduct approved graduate medical residency programs, such as children's hospitals. Children's hospitals have a vitally important mission providing patient care, medical training and research in the face of an increasingly competitive health system. I am pleased to support Senator Kerrey's bill and look forward to working with him and other members of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare as we seek stable and sufficient funding for medical education.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. There is on the floor now Senator Dorgan, and I yield 5 minutes to my friend.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill which, of course, creates the IRS Oversight Board and follows exactly the proposal made by the report of the National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service: ``A Vision for the New IRS.'' This exceptional document is the work of an extraordinarily able public and private group, including the distinguished Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Nebraska, who is managing this legislation today. Their report called for the inclusion of the Secretary or Deputy Secretary on the board. The Secretary of the Treasury is not a bureaucrat, sir. He is the second-ranking member of the American Government; third if you want to include the Vice President. At any given moment there is the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury. Their predecessors begin with Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, and the sequence since has been extraordinary. Now, I speak from personal experience. I have known every Secretary of the Treasury since the Honorable C. Douglas Dillon of New Jersey, who served President Kennedy so well and then stayed on with President Johnson--Secretary Dillon; Henry Fowler; Joseph Barr; David Kennedy; John Connally; George Shultz; William Simon; Michael Blumenthal; William Miller; Donald Regan; James A. Baker, III; Nicholas Brady; Lloyd Bentsen--our own Lloyd Bentsen--and now Robert E. Rubin. They have been among the principal officers of the American Government. And a board that includes such is an important institution. Absent that, sir, it is inevitably one of the myriad advisory commissions which do useful work but are never and cannot be central to the concerns of the American Government. The House of Representatives voted 426-4 for a bill that included the Secretary for the obvious reason that absent his membership or her membership on the board, nothing comes back to the Secretary with the force of his or her own endorsement. The board does not know what only the Secretary can know. If you prefer the model of a corporate board and the chief executive officer, do so. I prefer the model of American Government with a Cabinet officer chosen in a two-century succession, chosen by an elected President, confirmed by the U.S. Senate, responsible for this high and solemn responsibility. If the Secretary is on the board, the board will know things it cannot otherwise learn. And the Treasury Department in turn will have the advice and counsel of persons, we hope, not next year but 50 years from now and will continue to think of this as a public service of importance and consequence. The Secretary of the Treasury is a world figure. This very moment our Secretary is on his way to London to again engage in the increasingly institutionalized international economic deliberations which are so important to the world. If he is on this board, it becomes an important one; if he is not, it becomes a marginal advisory committee. The idea that there are concerns that a board might have, that private members might have, which the Secretary would not have, does not speak well to our understanding of the centuries of occupants of this high office. Nor, sir, does it address a slight matter, but little noted in this debate, which is the information we received from the Treasury Department that in a given year there are some $195 billion in taxes owed but not paid. Anyone who wishes to describe ours as a tyrannical, unfeeling, and ruthless tax collection administration might ponder how it comes about that $195 billion a year--$2 trillion a decade--of legitimately owed taxes go unpaid. That will be a part of the responsibility of this panel as well, and properly so, so let us do what the wise judgment of the Commission proposed that we do. We are here in response to that effort. Let us do what clearly is in the interests of this institution and include the Secretary, as the Finance Committee did in the measure now before the Senate. I see my friend from Florida. Is there any Member wishing to speak in favor of the amendment?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, my friend will not mind adding Senator Grassley and Senator Kerrey, whose work on the original Commission brings us here today.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, January 1, 2000 is just over 600 days away. The century date change, or Y2K for short, is a matter of large and serious consequence. In testimony before the Senate Commerce, Committee, Federal Reserve Board Governor Edward Kelley Jr. estimated that U.S. businesses will spend at least $50 billion on Y2K conversion, with the worldwide repair cost potentially exceeding $300 billion. The century date change is also an issue of surpassing difficulty for the Internal Revenue Service. IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti recently stated in a USA Today interview: The most compelling thing by far is fixing the computers so they don't stop working on Jan. 1, 2000. . . . If we don't fix (them), there will be 90 million people 21 months from now who won't get refunds. The whole financial system of the United States will come to a halt. It's very serious. It no only could happen, it will happen if we don't fix it right. In testimony before the Finance Committee last year, Linda Willis of the General Accounting Office suggested that ``the IRS [may be] the largest civilian year 2000 conversion, at least in the country, and possibly in the world.'' She also testified that the Y2K problem could be ``catastrophic'' if not addressed. The century date change is the highest technology priority at the IRS; more than 550 employees are at work on Y2K conversion-related activities. The IRS will spend approximately $1 billion to become Y2K compliant. Unfortunately, the IRS has begun to experience complications in its Y2K conversion efforts. On January 23, the Associated Press reported that ``about 1,000 taxpayers who were current in their tax installment agreements were suddenly declared in default,'' caused by ``an attempt to fix a Year 2000 issue in one of the IRS computers.'' In addition, last year's Taxpayer Relief Act included hundreds of changes in the tax laws, requiring diversions of scarce IRS computer programming resources and causing a 3 month delay in the Agency's Y2K efforts. The Y2K problem is more complex than it may seem. The IRS computers are outdated; the reprogramming must be done in obsolete computer languages that are no longer taught in schools. Mr. President, it was with these challenges in mind that Senator Kerrey and I offered this amendment to briefly delay some of the effective dates in the Finance Committee's IRS Restructuring legislation in order to allow time for the Y2K conversion to be completed. This amendment has been drafted based on Commissioner Rossotti's recommendations, and has been modified after consultations with the Majority. The amendment would delay the effective date on a list of provisions from date of enactment until after the century date change. Regrettably, we were unable to reach agreement with the majority on additional effective date delays that Commissioner Rossotti has recommended. I fear we will come to regret this. Mr. President I hope that in conference we will examine these effective dates again, and that we will agree to change those that risk interfering with Commissioner Rossotti's Y2K conversion program. I thank the chair and yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, in yesterday's Wall Street Journal Edward Yardeni, chief economist and managing director of Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, wrote that there is 60 percent chance that the year 2000 (Y2K) computer bug will cause a recession and that the U.S. may experience a $1 trillion drop in nominal GDP and a $1 trillion loss in stock market capitalization. A trillion dollar drop. I do not know if these predictions will come true, but I do know the millennial malady is real. In his op-ed, Mr. Yardeni encourages States to follow the advice of Bank of England governor Eddie George, who says the British government should freeze all regulatory and legislative changes that would burden the computers of financial institutions already struggling to fix their Y2K problem. In a similar gesture, Commissioner Rossotti has asked that provisions in the IRS restructuring bill be delayed until after the year 2000. This delay would allow the IRS to solve the year 2000 problem before changes to the tax code are implemented. The Commissioner has sent us a six-page letter detailing how he would phase in such changes. Commissioner Rossotti knows what he is talking about, and I hope we will listen to him. This past Sunday, May 3, 1998, the front page of the Washington Post called attention to another important aspect of Y2K--the legal blame game. At issue: who should pay the cost of the millennium bug. If a date-related computer failure prevents an airline from flying, for example, who will make up the millions of dollars in lost ticket revenue? Should the airline just swallow the cost itself, or are its computer and software suppliers liable? How about individual programmers? Or the insurance companies that cover those parties? The article states that there are pending lawsuits on Y2K and that the suits are the first in what legal specialists predict could be a wave of litigation that eventually could prove more expensive and time- consuming than the worldwide effort to fix the problem in the first place. According to the article, preliminary estimates for litigation and settlement costs range from $100 billion to $1 trillion. As a member of the recently established Special Committee on the year 2000 technology problem, I hope that we will have the opportunity to take a closer look into the legal issues surrounding the Y2K problem. These articles illustrate the serious and far-reaching effects of the millennium bug. I have referred to Y2K as the ``13th labor of Hercules.'' People have begun to realize the magnitude of this problem. We must all work together to ensure the proper functioning not only of our Government, but of the economy. I ask that yesterday's Wall Street Journal op-ed, ``Y2K--An Alarmist View'' and the Washington Post's story, ``Year 2000 Bug Could Bring Flood of Lawsuits'' be printed in the Record. The material follows: [From the Wall Street Journal, May 4, 1998] Y2K--An Alarmist View (By Edward Yardeni) Concerns about the Year 2000 Problem--often called ``Y2K''--have focused on the cost and difficulty of finding and eliminating the software glitch in time. Most older mainframe computer software systems, many personal computers and millions of embedded semiconductor chips could malfunction or even crash on Jan. 1, 2000, simply because they read only the last two digits of the year, and may interpret it as meaning 1900. But I believe most people are not yet aware of the magnitude of the problem we face. A survey released in March by the Information Technology Association of America indicates that 44% of responding companies have already experienced Y2K-related failures under operating conditions, and 67% report failures under test conditions. The entire Y2K problem will not be solved. We must prepare for the possibility of business failures and the collapse of essential U.S. government services, including tax collection, welfare payments, national defense and air traffic control. situation worsened I am a Y2K alarmist, having previously predicted a 40% likelihood of recession in the wake of Y2K computer crashes. Despite many warnings, the situation has only worsened: The recession odds are now up to 60% in my estimation, and there is even a possibility of a depression. The time has come to mobilize against Y2K as if for a war. While we work to minimize government and business exposure to Y2K, we must also begin preparing to soften the inevitable disruptions that will occur when the millennium bug bites. Our global and domestic markets for financial securities, commodities, products and services depend completely on the smooth functioning of the vast information technology infrastructure. Information technology has helped create modern versions of the division of labor, like just-in-time manufacturing, outsourcing and globalization. Imagine a world in which these systems are either impaired or completely broken. Suddenly, people will be forced to do without many goods and services that cannot be produced without information technology. The likely recession could be at least as bad as the one during 1973-74, which was caused mostly by a disruption in the supply of oil. Information, stored and manipulated by computers, is as vital as oil for running modern economies. If information is harder to obtain, markets will allocate and use resources inefficiently. Market participants will be forced to spend more time and money obtaining information that was previously available at little or no cost. How much could GDP fall? In the U.S., it dropped 3.7% from peak to trough during 1973-74. We should prepare for a similar fall in 2000. Furthermore, a 2000 recession is bound to be deflationary. The U.S. may experience a $1 trillion drop in nominal GDP and a $1 trillion loss in stock market capitalization. Why am I so sure that we will fail to have all our information-technology systems ready and that the disruptions will be severe enough to cause a major global recession? Fixing and responding to Y2K requires a cooperative and collective approach, which has yet to be adopted by businesses and nations facing the millennial malady. There is currently no global Y2K battle plan. Each company and government agency is responsible for fixing Y2K on its own. Even worse, there is no global campaign to increase awareness of Y2K, and very few national efforts to alert the public. Preventing disaster will depend on launching a centralized international effort to direct several crucial damage-control initiatives. British Prime Minister Tony Blair plans to put the Y2K matter before the Group of Eight at its May meeting in Birmingham, England. This should be an occasion for concerted action. An international Year 2000 Alliance must emerge from the meeting--which should include all 29 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development--to deal comprehensively with the worldwide Y2K problem. U.S. government reports indicate that the Pentagon has a ``tight schedule for meeting its massive Y2K challenge,'' and the situation in other nuclear countries is no better. The military leaders of the G-8 states, especially the U.S. and Russia, must jointly assess the risk of an accidental nuclear missile launch or a provocative false alarm. They must rapidly develop a fail-safe joint communication and intelligence network to eliminate any such risks. The international alliance should establish Y2K ``sector alliances'' to deal with the bug on an industry-by-industry basis. The top priority should be to ensure the world-wide supply of electricity, water and other utilities. Contingency plans for rationing utility use should be prepared. Nothing should divert government or business resources from fixing the millennium bug. The Y2K Alliance should encourage states to follow the example of Bank of England governor Eddie George, who says the British government should freeze all regulatory and legislative changes that would burden the computers of financial institutions already struggling to fix their Y2K problem. Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien is informing his cabinet that Y2K should be their top priority. The Y2K Alliance should consider requiring all nonessential employees to stay home during the first week of January 2000. Financial markets might have to be closed during this period. This global Y2K holiday would give information- technology personnel an opportunity to stress-test their systems with a slow ``reboot,'' rather than under peak load conditions. They could first test the integrity of basic utility services. Then they could bring their own systems on-line in a phased sequence that can pinpoint weak links. The Year 2000 Alliance should further require all members to fund a Y2K emergency budget with an initial minimum balance of $100 billion. This money should be spent on both last-ditch efforts to repair or replace key computer systems around the world and to implement contingency plans once the weakest links have been identified. The funds may also be needed to purchase strategic stockpiles of fuel, food and medicine. The alliance should direct and supervise current efforts by governments and companies to fix or minimize their Y2K problems. Currently, each organization with a Y2K liability establishes a triage process to identify ``mission-critical'' systems. But there are no objective standards to determine what is mission-critical. As a result, Y2K fixers are free to reclassify mission-critical systems as noncritical. For example, the number of U.S. government mission-critical systems dropped from 8,589 to 7,850 in just the three-month period ending Feb. 15; much of the reclassification was done by the Department of Defense. As the deadline approaches, the pressure will only increase for organizations to define down their systems, making it seem they have made greater progress. Only improved monitoring and verification can prevent such dangerous fudging. Cooperative approach Those responsible for dealing with Y2K must decide whether to fix their noncritical systems or to let them fail in 2000. But without a cooperative or collective approach, it is likely that some entities will kill supposedly noncritical systems that are actually mission-critical to some of their external, and even internal, dependents. Therefore we need to know if the products, services, information, incomes and payments we rely on have been doomed by the triage decisions of those who provide them. If so, we might already be toast in 2000 and not know it in 1998 or even in 1999.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to offer my congratulations, on the occasion of the Centennial of the oldest social work training program in the nation, to the Columbia University School of Social Work. Evolving from a summer program organized by the Charity Organization in New York, the School of Social Work has a long history of pioneering research, informed advocacy, and exceptional professional training. It is a remarkable accomplishment that social workers have played key roles in every major social reform movement, from settlement houses to labor reform, to the New Deal, to civil rights and voter registration. Many of the things we take for granted today--Social Security, child- labor laws, the minimum wage, the 40-hour work week, Medicare--came about because social workers saw injustice, acted, and inspired others. Throughout the century, Columbia's faculty, students, and alumni have worked tirelessly to address both the causes and symptoms of our most pressing social problems. National movements, such as the White House Conference on Children and the National Urban League, have emerged from projects undertaken by the School's faculty and administrators in cooperation with professional and community organizations. The entire nation has benefited from the research and work of people such as Eveline Burns (Social Security); Mitchell I. Ginsberg (Head Start); Richard Cloward (welfare rights and voter registration); Alfred Kahn and Sheila B. Kamerman (cross-national studies of social services); and David Fanshel (children in foster care). As the School, and indeed the social profession, move into their second centuries, they will be challenged to respond to social change, new social problems, family change, and evolving societal commitments. Now more than ever, we will need well-trained and dedicated social workers to work with troubled children and families, organize communities for change, conduct cutting-edge research, administer social programs, and alleviate society's most intractable problems. It is with appreciation and admiration that I extend my best wishes to the Columbia University School of Social Work on its Centennial and look forward to its future activity and achievement.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes. I am not surprised. We pay our bills--or we ought to pay our bills. As I said, it would be unseemly to bring a measure of this kind to the floor saying, ``Let's manage these matters better,'' and not manage to pay for it. That is welcome news, and the Senator has my cooperation on that, to be sure. Finally, Mr. President, I am going to ask Senator Kerrey to manage the legislation on our side. As I said, he was co-chairman of the National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service. Their superb report, ``A New Vision for the IRS,'' which was issued last June--11 months ago--has led to the work we are doing now, which we bring to the floor with pride and with the expectation that we will be successful. On that note, sir, I yield the floor. Mr. JOHNSON addressed the Chair.