Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. If you think of the prospect of retirement benefits, and that is real, but something that is not always recognized--I know the Senator understands it--only 62 percent of the beneficiaries of Social Security at this moment are retirees. The rest are survivors or persons who have been disabled, and that can be someone 24 years old or 35 years old. This is a system that is not just devoted to the elderly. Keeping it is essential, and we can do it. I cannot tell you how much I am honored by you associating yourself with this proposal.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I see my friend from Nebraska on the floor. I wonder if he would like to speak at this point, in which event I yield such time as he may require.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, if I could say to my friend from Delaware, that is when I became convinced the Soviet Union would not last through the 20th century. When a person of Arkady N. Shevchenko stature defects, it means the system is not working. And it did not work. But when it came apart, there is a proposition in which Owen Harries, in a very fine article in The National Interest, cites British historian Martin Wight who observed that ``Great Power status is lost, as it is won, by violence. A Great Power does not die in its bed.'' Of all the extraordinary events of the 20th century, nothing is more important, more striking than the fact that the Soviet Union and that whole world empire died in bed. There was virtually no bloodshed. The only bloodshed that really took place occurred within the remaining Russian Federation, with its many different languages and regions, when you began to get things like Chechnya and the appearance of a Russian army that clearly was not capable of fairly elementary military operations. I say that is a beleaguered and troubled society. And one that could have resisted, in the first instance, the Polish defection. They could have resisted others. They had an army; they had an air force; they had nuclear strategic and tactical weapons. They did not, Owen Harries argued--a man, I must say, of impeccable conservative credentials--that there was an implicit understanding that we would not take advantage of what the Soviet Union was allowing to happen to their empire. They gave up everything they had hoped for from 1917. They collapsed. And they recognized their failure. Again, we had been picking up things like that in the mid-1970s. Murray Feshbach, a distinguished demographer here at the Bureau of the Census, noted that life expectancy for Soviet males was declining. It wasn't working. It was all a lie. If I could relate one more event as a bit of an anecdote but not without some interest. Our distinguished Ambassador at the time has related it as well. In 1987, I was in Moscow on a mission of possible importance. It had to do with the infiltration of our new Embassy with listening devices and things like that. We were treated with great courtesy. We were presented a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier. We visited Lenin's tomb. We were shown Lenin's apartment. I was struck; behind Lenin's desk there were four bookshelves, two shelves of English books and two of French. Now, I expect they were put there for the delectation of George Bernard Shaw and Lady Astor in the 1930s, but still there they were. And I recognized that I had met three of those authors. I can not say I was intimate with them, but I had met them. Two days later we called on Boris Yeltsin, who was then a candidate member of the politburo. This was August, and he had the duty to stay in town in August while the rest were off in the Crimean. To be friendly, I said, well, we were in Lenin's apartment looking over his books and I knew three of those people. Isn't that interesting? And it was very clear, as the U.N. Ambassador said, that Yeltsin had never heard of any of these authors and could care less; he hadn't read a book since he had left technical school. There was not a person left in the politburo who believed any of that. I say to my friend from Delaware, Yeltsin said to me, ``I know who you are. I know where you are from. And what I want to know is how am I supposed to run Moscow with 1929 rent controls?'' This was the level of ideological discourse. It was a sick society, wounded. It collapsed, died. And what is left is fragile, and they have just formally proclaimed both their vulnerability and their determination that if NATO is expanded, the no- first-use principle, which saved mankind in the 20th century, is over because all they have to defend themselves are nuclear weapons. It is a curiously ironic outcome that at the end of the cold war we might face a nuclear Armageddon. I leave it there. I have nothing more to add at this moment. But I ask, Madam President, if I might have excerpts printed from the Russian National Security Blueprint in the Congressional Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I, too, yield.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, I would like to first thank my friend from Virginia. We have reached across the aisle to collaborate on two amendments which we will offer at the appropriate time. Today we are engaged in just some preliminary observations. I will begin with the current event of one of the more interesting aspects of life in Moscow at this moment, which is that it is in so many ways much more open than the United States. Their archives are open, and their national security plans are open. I do not doubt there are closed elements as well. But on December 17, the Russian Federation issued Presidential edict, No. 1300, entitled ``The Russian National Security Blueprint.'' This is the kind of document that we would not have gotten from Moscow in the past. We can think of the famous NSC-68, which was drafted early in 1950 and was so powerfully influential in our affairs for many years. NSC-68 remained secret for 30 years. By contrast, the Presidential edict, No. 1300, was published in Moscow's official gazette on December 26, 9 days after it was issued. It is a disturbing document; yet, in many ways it is an admirable one in the clarity with which it sets forth the exceptional difficulties facing the Russian Federation at this point. It speaks in its first paragraph that: The Russian Federation National Security Blueprint is a political document reflecting the aggregate of officially accepted views regarding the goals and state strategy in the sphere of assuring the security of the individual and the state from external and internal threats of a political, economic, social, military, manmade, ecological, informational, or other nature in the light of existing resources and potential. It speaks of internal threats in the context of the convulsions that have occurred in that country within the past decade. The forces which played such a fundamental role in breaking up the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. It is a sober assessment of the threats to Russian security. Madam President, in this debate it should be recorded that the national security document, the guiding principles of the Russian Federation, states right up front: The prospect of NATO expansion to the east is unacceptable to Russia since it represents a threat to its national security. That was drafted, or agreed to, on December 17 and published December 26. It is a formidable document and an extraordinarily candid one. It speaks to the ethnic problems, it speaks to the economic decline, it speaks to poverty, it speaks to unemployment, and it speaks to the nature of the Russian defense forces. They acknowledge that large portions of their borders are undefended. They acknowledge that their traditional conventional weapons systems are deteriorated, if not in fact disfunctional. And they say--and this is the most difficult part--that they do have nuclear weapons and, if necessary, they will use them. This is not the type of posture that we had hoped for, after the long arms control efforts from President Eisenhower's time to START II. I was one of the Senate observers to the START II talks and the present Russian Ambassador to the United States, who wrote a very important article recently in the Washington Post, was one of the negotiators then. With START, for the first time we agreed to build our nuclear forces down. Previous agreements had really legitimated the respective nations' plans to increase their nuclear forces. We reached that historic moment, and have been able to build on that important achievement. Since then, other historic treaties have also been achieved, allowing eminent Senators, such as the Senator from Delaware, to bring to this floor the Chemical Weapons Agreement, a very powerful, far-sighted document. But now the Russian government says, under the circumstances, we have nothing left but nuclear weapons. We are in serious difficulty. The prospect of NATO expansion to the east is unacceptable. The term is ``unacceptable.'' It is not a calculating document. May I make this point twofold? I would like to go back just a bit. There is not one of us in this body who has not paid some heed to the affairs of the Soviet Union over time and the world of communism over time. Yet rather early on it began to occur to some of us that all was not well in that arrangement and that it was not going to remain permanent as was often presumed. Just a short while ago, Arkady Shevchenko documented--and his obituary appeared in the principal national papers. Arkady Shevchenko was the second ranking official at the United Nations during the time when I had the honor to be our Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Shevchenko was a protege of Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei A. Gromyko. He was on anyone's short list to succeed Gromyko. He held one essentially attractive position after another. There he was, the Under Secretary General responsible for the Security Council, about as important a position as you will get in any diplomatic service and particularly in that of the Soviet Union. Whilst I was at that post in New York, Shevchenko defected to the United States. It was a very closely held matter. He simply passed a note in a book in the General Assembly library, that he was thinking of defecting. He was a man at the top of his form. In the manner of the espionage craft, we established that he had defected and then left him in place for some two and one half years, where he remained in his position as Under Secretary General whilst providing us information. In Moscow they began to sense something was the matter and they began to think a defector was in place. It even got to the point where the Soviet Ambassador here in Washington, Anatoly Dobrynin, another person of great stature in the Soviet system, came under suspicion as the source of the security leaks. Finally, they worked it out. That is not too hard. You give three messages to three different people and you see which one the United States gets. Shevchenko had to defect. He later moved to Washington, where I got to know him. I had known him somewhat at the United Nations, but I got to know him better here. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the obituary for Arkady N. Shevchenko be printed in the Record, which is a way of saying goodbye to someone who chose democracy.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. A tiny border on the Arctic sea.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise on this great day in honor of Ireland's legendary saint and pay special tribute to two venerable New York City institutions bearing his name. St. Patrick's Old Cathedral, dedicated in 1815, and St. Patrick's Old Cathedral School, opened in 1822, have served the citizens of New York for nearly two centuries. Throughout the Cathedral and School's history, Old St. Patrick's priests, nuns, parishioners and students have contributed so very much to the betterment of New York City. Most famously, Saint Patrick's parishioners and their erstwhile leader Bishop John Hughes helped define the course of American immigration in the 1830's when they refused to let nativists prevent Catholics, mostly poor Irish at the time, from establishing themselves in New York City. Their heroic efforts included an 1835 standoff in front of Saint Patrick's in which an anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant mob gathered to destroy the Cathedral. The Cathedral stood, and with it America's first large immigrant population. Nearby, Saint Patrick's Old Cathedral School has served as a lead model for many of New York City's parochial schools. Founded by the Sisters of Charity, the schoolhouse on Mott Street has offered for 176 years the hope and opportunity of a strong education to tens of thousands of mostly poor, immigrant students. Recently, I had the good fortune to revisit Saint Patrick's Old Cathedral and the Old Cathedral School and am delighted to report that these institutions remain remarkably unchanged in their caring mission and spirit. The good works abound under the leadership of a newly appointed pastor, Father Keith Fennessy. I look forward to working with him and others in celebrating next year's two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Lorenzo Da Ponte's birth. Da Ponte, who was Mozart's librettist, was a parishioner, and his funeral mass was celebrated at Old St. Patrick's. Unfortunately, Da Ponte, like Mozart, ended up in a mass grave. Next year provides the nation a chance to celebrate the life of one of the greatest librettists, and one of the most influential Italian-Americans in our history. I eagerly anticipate my return to Old St. Patrick's for these events. By serving the surrounding neighborhoods, Saint Patrick's Old Cathedral and Saint Patrick's Old Cathedral School remain as vital as they were almost two centuries ago. Thus, I extend my gratitude to these institutions for their vital work on this great day of thanks for their patron saint, St. Patrick.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

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

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to provide access to health insurance for individuals between the ages of 55-65. These individuals are too young for Medicare, not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, and in many cases, are forced into early retirement or pushed out of their jobs in corporate downsizing. The ``Medicare Early Access Act'' is based on the President's three- part initiative announced on January 6, 1998. The bill is a targeted, self-financing proposal to give older Americans under 65 new options to obtain health insurance coverage. Many of these Americans have worked hard all their lives, but, through no fault of their own, find themselves uninsured just as they are entering the years when the risk of serious illness is increasing. This legislation attempts to bridge the gap in coverage between years when persons are in the labor and the age--(65) when they become eligible for Medicare. The bill has three parts: (1) It enables persons between ages 62 and 64 to buy into Medicare by paying a full premium; (2) it provides displaced workers over age 55 access to Medicare by offering a similar Medicare buy-in option; and (3) it extends COBRA coverage to persons 55 and over whose employers withdraw retiree health benefits. A more detailed description of the proposal is attached.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to provide access to health insurance for individuals between the ages of 55-65. These individuals are too young for Medicare, not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, and in many cases, are forced into early retirement or pushed out of their jobs in corporate downsizing. The ``Medicare Early Access Act'' is based on the President's three- part initiative announced on January 6, 1998. The bill is a targeted, self-financing proposal to give older Americans under 65 new options to obtain health insurance coverage. Many of these Americans have worked hard all their lives, but, through no fault of their own, find themselves uninsured just as they are entering the years when the risk of serious illness is increasing. This legislation attempts to bridge the gap in coverage between years when persons are in the labor and the age--(65) when they become eligible for Medicare. The bill has three parts: (1) It enables persons between ages 62 and 64 to buy into Medicare by paying a full premium; (2) it provides displaced workers over age 55 access to Medicare by offering a similar Medicare buy-in option; and (3) it extends COBRA coverage to persons 55 and over whose employers withdraw retiree health benefits. A more detailed description of the proposal is attached.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

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

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in support of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998. This important legislation addresses the perils of environmental degradation and, to a limited extent, the pressures of third world debt. As some of the other co-sponsors of this legislation have noted, tropical forests around the globe are disappearing at an alarming rate. Economic pressures are nearly always the underlying cause. Rural populations constrained by poverty engage in destructive short-term exploitation of timber. Growing populations result in growing land use pressures, often causing large tracts of forested land to be clear cut and converted to agricultural uses. Yet in most cases, there are opportunities to redirect development toward a sustainable course. The legislation we are introducing today responds to some of these opportunities, by establishing a new program for debt-for-nature swaps between the United States and the tropical developing countries of Africa and Asia. The Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 builds upon the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative (EAI) first established under the Bush Administration. The EAI created a system by which Latin American and Caribbean governments could restructure some of their official debt to the United States, on the condition that funds be established in local currency to support environmental conservation. The idea of linking debt to conservation, often referred to as ``debt-for-nature swaps,'' was first articulated in 1984 by Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, then a vice president of the World Wildlife Fund. In early 1986, Costa Rica announced the first transaction based on this premise. The Costa Rican plan involved a debt-for-equity swap in which the Northeast Bank of Minnesota was allowed to exchange $10 million in Costa Rican debt titles for an equity position in Portico, a local door manufacturing industry with considerable export potential. Local currency bonds provided by the central bank of Costa Rica were used to purchase nearly 5,000 hectares of forest, which was held in trust by the government to ensure sustainable forest management practices. Since the 1986 Costa Rica transaction, the idea of converting commercial debt into local currency instruments for conservation projects has gained momentum, and more than a dozen countries in Latin America have approved similar projects. Costa Rica has gone on to negotiate other debt-for-nature swaps with the governments of Sweden and the Netherlands. The success of these projects in Costa Rica, and elsewhere in Latin America, make them models for potential projects elsewhere on the globe. The Tropical Forest Conservation Act is designed to spur new debt- for-nature exchanges in areas outside of Latin America--namely, in the tropics of Asia and Africa. The new conservation projects which are established as a result of this legislation will benefit from the lessons learned through the earlier Latin American projects. Two important lessons are illustrated by the Costa Rican experience. First, experience has taught us the importance of the local organization administering the conservation program. Non-governmental organizations sometimes lack the technical and administrative expertise necessary for effective management of a large conservation effort. In Costa Rica, the debt-for-nature program has been carried out through the National Park Foundation. The respectability of this foundation, and its commitment to environmental education, ecological tourism and scientific research largely contributed to its successful administration of the conservation projects in its charge. We must ensure that the organizations administering the conservation efforts established through this legislation have the requisite knowledge and technical expertise to manage their charges effectively. Second, a cautionary note is in order regarding limitations on the magnitude of these projects. Ultimately, debt-for-nature exchanges imply that the local government must print local currency bonds, and eventually these will increase a country's money supply--thus creating inflationary pressures. At the request of the Costa Rican government, the Nature Conservancy commissioned a study to assess the potential inflationary impact of debt-for-nature swaps. This study concluded that if Costa Rica were to spend $50 million in local currency generated by debt-for-nature exchanges each year, the inflationary impact would be less than 0.5 percent. Although this figure may appear negligible, inflationary pressures may become significant if a large fraction of a nation's debt is involved in a debt-for-nature exchange. By incorporating the lessons we have learned through earlier debt- for-nature projects in Latin America, I am confident that we will ensure the success of such exchanges in tropical developing countries of Asia and Africa. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this important legislation, which will help third world nations to develop in a sustainable, environmentally-minded fashion. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to lend their support to this effort.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Eric Breindel, a proud son of New York who was taken from us all too suddenly and all too soon this past Saturday. Eric lived life at a hectic pace, almost as if he knew that his years would be so painfully limited that he would do well to fill as much meaning and involvement as he could into every single day. The Talmud teaches that fools measure their lives in years, while wise people measure them in days. Eric was wise in this respect as he was in so many others. As I noted in his funeral on Monday, ``I taught him for two years at Harvard and learned from him for the next twenty.'' His passion for the truth, for justice, for democracy, were all well reflected in the editorial pages of the New York Post, where he presided for eleven madcap years as the editorial page editor. I ask unanimous consent to place in the Congressional Record his obituary from The New York Times and the Post's tribute to this brilliant journalist and passionate American. The obituaries follow: [From the New York Post, March 8, 1998] Eric Breindel, 1955-1998 Eric Breindel once said that life granted few gifts greater than the ability to influence the political debate in the greatest city in the world. He exercised that, influence for 10 years as the editor of this column, and his horribly untimely death yesterday at the age of 42 robs this city and this nation of one of its wisest young men. He was, first and forever, a patriot. He fiercely contested the claims of those who blamed America for all of the planet's woes. And he was particularly unforgiving of those Americans who served foreign ideologies and interests during times of grave crisis--and who lied about it all after the emergencies had passed. As might be expected of the son of Holocaust survivors, he had a profound understanding of the importance of a strong state of Israel--not only for Jews, and not only as an abiding symbol of enlightenment in a section of the world often sorely in need of such guidance, but also for the furtherance of American political, economic and military global interests. His patience with those who failed to view issues in wide-- indeed, often global--terms was slight. He knew that what might happen in Tokyo today could have an impact in Times Square tomorrow and it was with such understanding that he crafted the content of these pages. Readers need not agree with his views--indeed, often it seemed that many did not--to concede that they were strongly held, lucidly and respectfully presented and not at all given to equivocation. It is true that Eric Briendel was very much out of step with conventional political and social wisdom. He understood this; indeed, he was quietly proud of it. In an age given to the promotion of self-esteen--at the expense of actual accomplishment--he championed hard work and individual enterprise. He knew that, these days, equality of outcome is meant to trump equality of opportuinity--but he wouldn't accept it. He was equally unforgiving of double standards when it came to public conduct--even when race, ethnicity and gender were at issue. And while he never ducked controversy, he understood that public affairs are conducted by people who had feelings--and families. He tried not to wound, and in this he succeeded more often than not. The decade-plus during which he edited these pages were among the most tumultuous in New York's history. It was the time of Howard Beach and Tawana Brawley, of Crown Heights and Yusuf Hawkins. There were three mayors and two governors and no end of governmental crises and political scandal and strife. Through it all, New Yorkers knew where to turn for finely crafted, literate and insightful commentary. Eric Breindel is gone now, at much too young an age. New York is the poorer for it. And for us at The Post, who had the honor and the pleasure of knowing him, enjoying his company, learning from him, gossiping with him--we share the sorrow of his family and will always treasure the memory of our dear friend.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I wish to salute my distinguished colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Chairman Chafee of Rhode Island, Senator Baucus of Montana, and Senator Warner of Virginia, for their leadership and vision in crafting ISTEA II. I also wish to salute my fellow New Yorker, Senator D'Amato and Senator Sarbanes of Maryland, for their outstanding work on the transit title of this bill and the careful compromise they were able to fashion. Finally, I congratulate Senator Roth of Delaware, for all his skill on crafting the tax title to ISTEA II. In 1991, Congress developed the principles for the first highway bill to mark the post-Interstate era. That previous era had seen development of a nationwide, multi-lane, limited access highway system, as first envisioned at the General Motors Futurama exhibit at the 1939 World's Fair, and then funded by a dedicated tax proposed by President Eisenhower and approved by Congress in 1956. Those principles were designed to address the fundamental imbalance in national transportation investment, and in so doing, promote intermodalism, improve mobility and access to jobs, protect the environment, increase participation by local communities, and enhance transportation safety. ISTEA spurred the Federal government and the States to invest their transportation dollars in whatever modes were most efficient for moving people and goods and to solicit the input of local communities in planning those investments. The result was a dramatic increase in investment in maintenance and rehabilitation of existing roads and bridges, in mass transit, and in creative approaches to our transportation needs, from bicycle and pedestrian paths to ferry boats. I am proud to see that the bill we will pass today is true to those principles, retaining ISTEA I's major environmental programs such as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program and the Transportation Enhancements Program, as well as creating a new innovative finance program that will help fund projects across the nation. This bill is good for New York, providing the State with over $14 billion in highway and transit funds over the next six years. I also salute the EPW Committee for including a program to develop magnetic levitation projects in this country. Maglev was first conceived in 1960 by a young Brookhaven scientist, James Powell, as he sat mired in traffic on the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge. But it is the Germans and Japanese who are building it. It promises to be the most important development in transportation technology since the airplane and we must not be left behind. I want to close with a word about mass transit. One of the most important things that ISTEA I accomplished was to begin the work of repairing the damage done to our cities by the Interstate Highway System. American cities were cruelly split, their character and geography changed forever, with interstate highways running through once-thriving working class neighborhoods from Newark to Detroit to Miami. Homes and jobs were dispersed to the outlying suburbs and beyond. The physical and economic damage is still with us today. But our cities have used ISTEA funds to repair the damage where they could, using funds for transit--even bike and pedestrian paths--instead of more road building. Under the flexibility granted to them under ISTEA I, States transferred $3.6 billion from highways to transit, spurring improvements in transit systems all across the country. This bill will continue a strong investment in transit, and improve and expand transit commuting benefits for employees. Mass transit is vital to the economic health of our cities, which remain the primary generators of wealth in the United States. Mass transit enables our cities to thrive by retaining their physical density, richness, and character. Without mass transit, urban life and culture disperse and eventually disappear, leaving all Americans poorer indeed.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. There are just some days you have nothing but luck around here. Might I just thank the managers for having agreed to the amendment. I am sure Senator Specter would want to be associated with this. I make the point for the record that in our present legislation, the Secretary of Transportation is directed to choose one maglev project to proceed. Senator Specter and I feel that there is no reason we should not have more than one, if that makes sense. If there are alternative engineering techniques that should be tested, the Secretary agrees more than one is the way to proceed in an experimental mode. I note, sir, that magnetic levitation was invented on the Bronx- Whitestone Bridge in February of 1960. A nuclear engineer by the name of Powell, working at Brookhaven, was on his way back to MIT from a visit, and between the time the car slowed down in that ``permanent'' traffic jam and the time he paid his toll, he thought up maglev. The Germans are now in the process of building a route from Hamburg to Berlin, which will be open in 2005 and make the trip in 55, 58 minutes. The Japanese have much the same technology. We have nothing. In ISTEA I we authorized $1 billion for this newest mode of transportation since the airplane. It is an extraordinary phenomenon. It travels easily at 270 miles an hour, will go to 350--no friction, no exhaust. We invented it; the Germans and the Japanese are building it. In the 6 years of ISTEA, with the $1 billion authorized, no Secretary of Transportation took any effort, any energy, any initiative. That is a formula for failure, failure in Government. We hope that this will not continue. We have authorized an equal amount in this bill, but we had better pull up our socks here or we are going to find ourselves with the most important transportation technology of the next century manufactured elsewhere--important here. I just add, because the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia is on the floor, that this type of transportation is uniquely suited for the generation of electricity and powerplants that is then distributed along the system. It does not have to--you do not have your powerplant within the train or within the car or within the plane. It is simply electricity moving along magnets--elemental. Simple as a thing can be, a great American invention so far ignored by our Department of Transportation, which I am sorry to say is still in the four-lane highway mode and does not seem to be able to get out of it. But that is a personal view. I do not want to associate it with Senator Specter--just mine. I thank the Chair, and I thank the managers of the bill. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, Senator Specter, for himself and the Senator from New York, submitted amendment No. 1838. I ask that that now be the pending business.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, might I rise in the spirit of the chairman's wish and the Senate's clear interest that we move ahead and get this work done. It is almost finished. This is an absolutely indispensable title. It provides the money for the programs that have been authorized so far. I will make two points. One is that the amendment was reported out of the Committee on Finance unanimously. Once again, the chairman has brought us to a bipartisan unanimous position, and I personally thank him for accepting the provision that gives equal treatment to mass transit commuters, as well as those who receive parking benefits from their employers. This is an excellent measure, Mr. President. It is not without certain serendipity that the managers of the underlying bill, the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Montana, are also members of the Finance Committee. So we are here in perfect accord, and I hope we can proceed directly to approving this amendment, although I understand we have an agreement that an amendment will be offered shortly by the Senator from Florida. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise simply to congratulate the Senator from Kansas on this amendment, which I hope will be accepted. I can attest that in my own State of New York this kind of difficulty has arisen. I think the amendment will have an important effect in bringing about agreed solutions as against agitated--how do I say--contested solutions. So I thank the Senator. If I could, I ask that I be added as a cosponsor, and yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, January 4 of this year marked the eightieth birthday of a constituent, Robert B. Sloane. This Friday, March 13, Bob Sloane's friends and family will gather to celebrate his entry into his ninth decade. Having recently earned the title of septuagenarian, I wish him hearty congratulations on this senescent achievement. Bob Sloane was born in Brooklyn, NY and has always been a resident of our fair state. He was graduated from New York University's School of Dentistry at the age of 21 and spent the next two years living on Roosevelt Island as a resident. And then began World War II. Bob Sloane entered what was then the United States Army Air Force serving for four years both at home and in the South Pacific. While stationed on the island of Guam, he received orders to construct a fence around the periphery of the camp. In charge of a number of young men he instructed them to build the fence in the hard, coral ground of the island. The fence was a disaster, toppled by a tap from his commanding officer. And down came the single line order signed by the commanding general: Captain Robert B. Sloane is hereby immediately relieved of his duty as utility officer for this command. Bob Sloane's skills were clearly that of an oral surgeon and not a constructor of embattlements. He left the U.S. Army Air Force in 1945 having attained the rank of captain and returned to civilian life. He spent the next four decades ministering to the oral health of the residents of the state of New York and raising his four children. Bob Sloane is now well into his second career as a painter. He has been the subject of a number of shows and wields his brush at classes at the National Academy of Design, School of Fine Art as well at his studios in New York City and Warwick, NY. I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. President, to join with Bob Sloane's family and friends in wishing him a very happy eightieth birthday.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today marks the 39th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising, a time when many Tibetan citizens gave their lives to defend their freedom and to prevent the Dalai Lama from being kidnapped by the Chinese army. For those who stand with the Tibetan people, it is a day to consider what can be done to lend support to their aspirations. Every year on this day, Tibetan around the world mark the event by conducting peaceful protests against the continued Chinese occupation of Tibet. A vital part of those gatherings is the annual message from the Dalai Lama. The statements show his Nobel prize to be well deserved, as they demonstrate his commitment to a peaceful resolution of this conflict. I ask that the statement by the Dalai Lama for this anniversary be printed in the Record. Address by the Dalai Lama, March 10, 1998 Great changes are talking place all over the world at the dawn of a new millennium. While there are instances of new conflicts breaking out, it is encouraging that we are also able to witness the emergency of a spirit of dialogue and reconciliation in many troubled parts of the world. In some ways, this twentieth century could be called a century of war and bloodshed. It is my belief that humanity in general has drawn lessons from the experiences gained during this century. As a result, I believe the human community has become more mature. There is, therefore, hope that with determination and dedication we can make the next century a century of dialogue and non-violent conflict resolution. Today, as we commemorate the thirty-ninth anniversary of our freedom struggle, I wish to express my sincere appreciation and great respect for the resilience and patience shown by the Tibetan people in the face of tremendous odds. The current situation in Tibet and the lack of any substantive progress in resolving the Tibetan problem is no doubt causing an increasing sense of frustration among many Tibetans. I am concerned that some might feel compelled to look for avenues other than peaceful resolutions. While I understand their predicament, I wish to firmly reiterate once again the importance of abiding by the non-violent course of our freedom struggle. The path of non-violence must remain a matter of principle in our long and difficult quest for freedom. It is my firm belief that this approach is the most beneficial and practical course in the long run. Our peaceful struggle until now has gained us the sympathy and admiration of the international community. Through our non-violent freedom struggle we are also setting an example and thus contributing to the promotion of a global political culture of non-violence and dialogue. The sweeping changes across the globe have also embraced China. The reforms, initiated by Deng Xiaoping, have altered not only the Chinese economy, but also the political system, making it less ideological, less reliant on mass mobilization, less coercive, and less stifling for the average citizen. The government is also notably far less centralized. Moreover, the post-Deng Xiaoping leadership in China seems to have become more flexible in its international policy. One indication of this is China's greater participation in international fora and cooperation with international organizations and agencies. A remarkable development and achievement has been the smooth transfer of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty last year and Beijing's subsequent pragmatic and flexible handling of issues concerning Hong Kong. Also recent statements from Beijing on restarting cross-strait negotiations with Taiwan reflect apparent flexibility and softening of its stance. In short, there is no doubt that China today is a better place to live in than 15 or 20 years ago. These are historic changes that are commendable. However, China continue to face grave human rights problems and other formidable challenges. It is my hope that the new leadership in China, with this renewed confidence, will have the foresight and courage to provide greater freedom to the Chinese people. History teaches us that material progress and comfort alone are not the full answer to the needs and yearnings of any human society. In stark contrast to these positive aspects of the development in China proper, the situation in Tibet has sadly worsened in recent years. Of late, it has become apparent that Beijing is carrying out what amounts to a deliberate policy of cultural genocide in Tibet. The infamous ``strike hard'' campaign against Tibetan religion and nationalism has intensified with each passing year. This campaign of repression (initially confined to monasteries and nunneries) has now been extended to cover all parts of the Tibetan society. In some spheres of life in Tibet, we are witnessing the return of an atmosphere of intimidation, coercion and fear, reminiscent of the days of the Cultural Revolution. In Tibet human rights violations continue to be wide- spread. These abuses of rights have a distinct character, and are aimed at preventing Tibetans as a people from asserting their own identity and culture and their wish to preserve it. This Buddhist culture inspires the Tibetan people with values and concepts of love and compassion that are of practical benefit and relevance in daily life and hence the wish to preserve it. Thus, human rights violations in Tibet are often the result of policies of racial and cultural discrimination and are only the symptoms and consequences of a deeper problem. Therefore, despite some economic progress in Tibet, the human rights situation has not improved. It is only by addressing the fundamental issue of Tibet that the human rights problems can be overcome. It is an obvious fact that the sad state of affairs in Tibet is of no benefit at all either to Tibet or to China. To continue along the present path does nothing to alleviate the suffering of the Tibetan people, nor does it bring stability and unity to China, which are of overriding importance to the leadership in Beijing. Also, one of the main concerns of the Chinese leadership has been to improve its international image and standing. However, its inability to resolve the Tibetan problem peacefully has been tarnishing the international image and reputation of China. I believe a solution to the Tibetan issue would have far-reaching positive implications for China's image in the world, including in its dealings with Hong Kong and Taiwan. With regard to a mutually-acceptable solution to the issue of Tibet, my position is very straightforward. I am not seeking independence. As I have said many times before, what I am seeking is for the Tibetan people to be given the opportunity to have genuine self-rule in order to preserve their civilization and for the unique Tibetan culture, religion, language and way of life to grow and thrive. My main concern is to ensure the survival of the Tibetan people with their own unique Buddhist cultural heritage. For this, it is essential, as the past decades have shown clearly, that the Tibetans be able to handle all their domestic affairs and to freely determine their social, economic and cultural development. I do not believe that the Chinese leadership would have any fundamental objections to this. Successive Chinese leaderships have always assured that the Chinese presence in Tibet is to work for the welfare of the Tibetans and to ``help develop'' Tibet. Therefore, given a political will, there is no reason why the Chinese leadership cannot start addressing the issue of Tibet by entering into a dialogue with us. This is the only proper way to ensure stability and unity, which the Chinese leadership asserts are their primary concern. I take this opportunity to once again urge the Chinese leadership to give serious and substantive considerations to my suggestions. It is my firm belief that dialogue and a willingness to look with honesty and clarity at the reality of Tibet can lead us to a viable solution. It is time for all of us to ``seek truth from facts'' and to learn lessons derived from a calm and objective study of the past and to act with courage, vision and wisdom. The negotiations must aim to establish a relationship between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples based on friendship and mutual benefit; to ensure stability and unity; and to empower the Tibetan people to exercise genuine self-rule with freedom and democracy, thus allowing them to preserve and cultivate their unique culture as well as to protect the delicate environment of the Tibetan plateau. These are the principle issues. However, the Chinese government is making consistent efforts to confuse the real issues at stake. They allege that our efforts are aimed at the restoration of Tibet's old social system and the status and privileges of the Dalai Lama. As far as the institution of the Dalai Lamas is concerned, I stated publicly as early as 1969 that it is for the people of Tibet to decide whether this institution is to continue or not. In my own case, I made it clear in a formal public statement in 1992 that when we return to Tibet, I will hold no positions in any future Tibetan government. Moreover, no Tibetan, whether in exile or within Tibet, has a desire of restoring Tibet's old social order. It is, therefore, disappointing that the Chinese government continues to indulge in such baseless and distorted propaganda. This is not helpful in creating a conducive atmosphere for dialogue, and I hope that Beijing will refrain from making such allegations. I also would like to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to the many governments, parliaments, non- governmental organizations, Tibet support groups and individuals, who continue to be deeply concerned with the repression in Tibet and urge to resolve the question of Tibet through peaceful negotiations. The United States has set a precedence of appointing a Special Coordinator for Tibetan Affairs in order to facilitate dialogue between us Tibetans and the Chinese government. The European and Australian parliaments have recommended similar initiatives. Last December, the International Commission of Jurists issued its third report on Tibet, entitled Tibet: Human Rights and the Rule of Law. These are timely initiatives and most encouraging developments. Moreover, the growing empathy, support and solidarity from our Chinese brothers and sisters in China as well as those overseas for the fundamental rights of the Tibetan people and for my ``Middle-Way Approach'' are of particular inspiration and a source of great encouragement for us Tibetans. Furthermore, on this occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of India's independence I wish to express on behalf of the Tibetan people our heart-felt congratulations and reiterate our immense appreciation and gratitude to the people and government of India, which has become a second home to the majority of the Tibetans in exile. India represents not only a safe haven for us Tibetan refugees, but is also for us a country whose ancient philosophy of Ahimsa and deep- rooted democratic tradition have inspired and shaped our values and aspirations. Moreover, I believe India can and should play a constructive and influential role in resolving the Tibetan problem peacefully. My ``Middle-Way Approach'' is in line with the basic Indian policy vis-a- vis Tibet and China. There is no reason why India should not be actively engaged in encouraging and promoting dialogues between Tibetans and the Chinese government. It is clear that without peace and stability on the Tibetan plateau, it is unrealistic to believe that genuine trust and confidence can be restored in the Sino- Indian relationship. Last year we conducted an opinion poll of the Tibetans in exile and collected suggestions from Tibet wherever possible on the proposed referendum, by which the Tibetan people were to determine the future course of our freedom struggle to their full satisfaction. Based on the outcome of this poll and suggestions from Tibet, the Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies, our parliament in exile, passed a resolution empowering me to continue to use my discretion on the matter without seeking recourse to a referendum. I wish to thank the people of Tibet for the tremendous trust, confidence and hope they place in me. I continue to believe that my ``Middle Way Approach'' is the most realistic and pragmatic course to resolve the issue of Tibet peacefully. This approach meets the vital needs of the Tibetan people while ensuring the unity and stability of the People's Republic of China. I will, therefore, continue to pursue this course of approach with full commitment and make earnest efforts to reach out to the Chinese leadership. With my homage to the brave men and women of Tibet, who have died for the cause of our freedom, I pray for an early end to the suffering of our people and for peace and welfare of all sentient beings.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to call our attention to a most significant event to be held next week. On March 10, 1998, New York University will honor the generosity and vision of Henry Hart Rice with the first ever Henry Hart Rice Urban Policy Forum on ``The Revitalization of New York City.'' The moderator will be Dr. Mitchell L. Moss who has fittingly been named the Henry Hart Rice Professor of Urban Policy and Planning, a newly endowed chair at New York University. In addition to honoring the remarkable legacy and vision of Mr. Rice, this new chair, according to University President, L. Jay Oliva, ``will play a major role in supporting undergraduate programs in urban policy that will be available to students from all schools of the University.'' The study of urban policy is vital to the future of New York and our nation. Appropriate that it is carried out by as vital and lively an institution as NYU. But let us not lose sight of our history as we look forward. For the longest while we in New York defined ourselves by spectacular public works. The Croton Aqueduct, 1842--pick and shovel all the way for 41 miles to 42nd Street. We built Central Park in two years--more gunpowder than was used at Gettysburg. The Empire State Building --a public work really--14 months. Steam power. But the plain fact is that we have developed a civic culture in which prestige more often goes to those who prevent the city from developing than to those who enable it. The time has come to ask how this came about, and how it might be reversed. Thus, it is with great anticipation that we look to Professor Moss, the esteemed participants in the Henry Hart Rice Urban Policy Forum, and the committed leaders at NYU, to lead us toward this end.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to name the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) headquarters here in Washington after Dr. Robert C. Weaver, adviser to three Presidents, director of the NAACP, and the first African-American Cabinet Secretary. I am pleased that Senators Kerry and Moseley-Braun are co-sponsors of my bill. I would point out that Senator Kerry was poised to introduce similar legislation; in fact, he sent out a Dear Colleague on the subject last November. But he graciously deferred to me, and I am most appreciative. Bob Weaver was my friend, dating back more than 40 years to our service together in the Harriman administration. He passed away last July at his home in New York City after spending his entire life broadening opportunities for minorities in America. I think it is a fitting tribute to name the HUD building after this great man. Dr. Weaver began his career in government service as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's ``Black Cabinet,'' an informal advisory group promoting educational and job opportunities for blacks. The Washington Post called this work his greatest legacy, the dismantling of a deeply entrenched system of racial segregation in America. Indeed it was. Dr. Weaver was appointed Deputy Commissioner of Housing for New York State in 1955, and later became State Rent Administrator with Cabinet rank. It was during these years working for New York Governor Averell Harriman that I first met Bob; I was Assistant to the Secretary to the Governor and later, Acting Secretary. Our friendship and collaboration continued under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. In 1960, he became the president of the NAACP, and shortly thereafter would become a key adviser to President Kennedy on civil rights. In 1961, Kennedy appointed Dr. Weaver to head the Housing and Home Finance Agency, an entity that later became the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In 1966, when President Johnson elevated the agency to Cabinet rank, Dr. Weaver was, in Johnson's phrase, ``the man for the job.'' He thus became its first Secretary, and the first African-American to head a Cabinet agency. 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. Last July, America--and Washington in particular (for he was a native Washingtonian)--lost one of its innovators, one of its creators, one of its true leaders. For Dr. Robert Weaver led not only with his words but with his deeds. I was privileged to know him as a friend. He will be missed but properly memorialized, I think, if we can pass this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my bill, and a July 21, 1997 editorial in the Washington Post, and a July 19, 1997 obituary from the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, in this morning's New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman has written a powerful critique of what he calls ``fumbling on NATO expansion.'' In it he refers to a letter in the spring issue of The National Interest from George F. Kennan who warns that NATO expansion is an historic blunder. Ambassador Kennan's letter came in response to an article by Owen Harries, editor of The National Interest, on ``The Dangers of Expansive Realism'' in the current, winter issue of The National Interest. It is surely a rare moment when three respected commentators on foreign affairs, and in Ambassador Kennan's case, a participant of historic standing, each of quite distinctive points of view, come together in such strong agreement. In an article in The New York Times of February 5th, 1997, Ambassador Kennan stated that ``expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post- cold-war era.'' I ask that the column by Thomas L. Friedman, the letter by George F. Kennan, the article by Owen Harries, and the article by Ambassador Kennan in The New York Times be printed in the Record. [From the New York Times, March 3, 1998] Ohio State II (By Thomas L. Friedman) Last week the Senate Foreign Relations Committee put on a shameful performance. Senators Jesse Helms, Joe Biden & Co. rolled over like puppies having their bellies rubbed when Clinton officials explained their plans for NATO expansion by dodging all the hard questions. It's too bad CNN couldn't entice the Clinton team to go out to Ohio State again and hold a town meeting on NATO expansion. If they had, it would sound like this: Student: ``I've got a question for Secretary of Defense Cohen. When you were here before, you had a hard time defining what the endgame would be if we bombed Iraq. What's the endgame of NATO expansion? I mean, if we just admit Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, all we will be doing is redividing Europe slightly to the east. And if we actually do what you advocate, expand NATO to the Baltic States, up to Russia's border, we will be redividing NATO, since the British, French and Germans are not ready to go that far because they know it would be treated by Russia as a strategic threat.'' Secretary Cohen: ``Son, we've got our endgame on NATO figured out just like we do on Iraq. It's called kick the can down the road and hope it all works out in the end.'' Student: ``National security adviser Berger, you now say NATO expansion will only cost $1.5 billion over 10 years, when just last year the Pentagon said it would be $27 billion over 13 years, and the Congressional Budget Office said it could be $125 billion over 15 years. How come NATO expansion gets cheaper every day it gets closer to a Senate vote? And how does it get cheaper when France says it won't pay a dime and the Czech Republic doesn't own a single advanced fighter jet, so it will need to buy a whole new air force?'' Mr. Berger: ``Our NATO numbers were prepared by the same accountants who said the U.S. budget was balanced. I rest my case.'' Student: ``Secretary Albright, you say we have to bomb Iraq, because Saddam has all these weapons of mass destruction. But the Russians have 7,500 long-range nuclear missiles, loose warheads falling off trucks and a bunch of Dr. Strangelove scientists looking for work. And we have a Start 2 nuclear reduction treaty that the Russians have signed but not implemented because of resistance in the Russian Parliament to NATO expansion. How could you put a higher priority on bringing Hungary into NATO than working with Russia on proliferation?'' Albright: ``Oh, please. You want to blame everything on NATO expansion, like it's El Nino.'' Student: ``I'm sorry, Madame Secretary, but that's not an answer. You keep dodging this question. You can say that the Russians can't stop NATO expansion. And you can say that it's worth risking a new cold war to bring these three countries into NATO. But you can't deny that NATO expansion has contributed to Russia's refusal to ratify the Start 2 treaty, which is an enormous loss to U.S. national security.'' War veteran: ``Secretary Cohen, I thought we fought the cold war to change Russia, not to expand NATO. But now that we've changed Russia and should be consolidating that, you want to expand NATO?'' Secretary Cohen: ``NATO expansion is not directed against Russia. It's meant to secure the new democracies in East Europe.'' Heckler: ``If it's meant to secure democracy in new democracies, isn't the most important new democracy Russia? And why is your P.R. campaign for NATO expansion being funded by U.S. arms sellers, who see NATO expansion as market expansion for their new weapons?'' Student: ``I just got the spring issue of The National Interest magazine. It contains a letter from George Kennan, the architect of America's cold-war containment of the Soviet Union and one of our nation's greatest statesmen. Kennan says NATO expansion is a historic blunder. What do you all know that he doesn't?'' Mr. Berger: ``I have the greatest respect for Mr. Kennan, but our team has its own Russia expert, Strobe Talbott, who speaks Russian, has written books about Russia, and some of his best friends are Russians. He couldn't possible be anti- Russian, and he's for NATO expansion.'' Student: ``Excuse me, but didn't Talbott write the first memo to Secretary of State Christopher opposing NATO expansion, because. . . .'' Bernard Shaw: ``Sorry to interrupt. We've got to close.''