Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I agree with the Senator. One of the important recommendations of the Commission was a proposal for a statute establishing a general classification regime and creating a national declassification center. The four Congressional members of the Commission, Representatives Combest and Hamilton, Senator Helms, and I, proposed just such a statute last May, the Government Secrecy Act, S.712.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Last year the number of officials with the authority to classify documents originally decreased by 959 to 4,420. Presumably, this should reduce the number of classifications, but the number of classifications increased by nearly two-thirds, over 5.7 million. There cannot be 5.7 million secrets a year which, if revealed, would cause ``damage'' to the national security. To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart's decision regarding the Pentagon Papers, when everything is secret, nothing is secret.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Such efforts are welcome and should be encouraged. However, to ensure that they are carried out across the government and in a sustained manner, our Commission proposed that legislation be adopted.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. If the Report of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy is to serve any large purpose, it is to introduce the public to the thought that secrecy is a mode of regulation. In truth, it is the ultimate mode, for the citizen does not even know that he or she is being regulated. Normal regulation concerns how citizens must behave, and so regulations are widely promulgated. Secrecy, by contrast, concerns what citizens may know. The citizen is not told what may not be known. With the arrival of the New Deal agencies in the 1930s, it became clear that public regulation needed to be made more accessible to the public. In 1935, for example, the Federal Register began publication. Thereafter all public regulations were published and accessible. In 1946, the Administrative Procedure Act established procedures by which the citizen can question and even litigate regulation. In 1966, the Freedom of Information Act, technically an amendment to the original 1946 Act, provided citizens yet more access to government files. The Administrative Procedure Act brought some order and accountability to the flood of government regulations that at time bids fare to overwhelm us. Even so, ``over-regulation'' is a continuing theme in American life, as in most modern administrative states. Secrecy would be such an issue, save that secrecy is secret. Make no mistake, however. It is a parallel regulatory regime with a far greater potential for damage if it malfunctions.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. That is correct--there has been only one other statutory inquiry into this subject. This was the Commission on Government Security, established in 1955 by the 84th Congress, known as the Wright Commission for its Chairman, Lloyd Wright, past President of the American Bar Association. This was a distinguished bipartisan body, which included in its membership Senators John C. Stennis of Mississippi and Norris Cotton of New Hampshire, along with Representatives William M. McCulloch of Ohio and Francis E. Walter of Pennsylvania. The Commission report, issued 40 years ago, is a document of careful balance and great detail. The Commission was concerned with classification as a cost. Free inquiry, like free markets, is the most efficient way to get good results. The Commission set forth a great many proposals ranging from Atomic Energy to Passport Security, but its legislative proposals were concise: the proposal to outlaw by statute ``disclosures of classified information. . . by persons outside as well as within the Government'' was quickly perceived as prior restraint: press censorship. The response was swift and predictable. The recommendation was criticized strongly in articles and editorials in a variety of newspapers, notably by James Reston. And the Commission's recommendations were dropped.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Government Secrecy Act will provide a framework for our secrecy system which can limit the number of documents initially classified and significantly reduce the backlog of already classified documents. It sets standards for declassification whereby information may not remain classified for longer than 10 years unless the head of the agency which created the information certifies to the President that the information requires continued protection. Information not declassified within 10 years may not remain classified for more than 30 years without another certification. It requires that a balancing test be established in making classification and declassification decisions so that officials must weigh the benefit from public disclosure of information against the need for initial or continued protection of the information under the classification system. The bill also establishes a national declassification center to coordinate and oversee the declassification policies and practices of the Federal Government to ensure that declassification is efficient, cost-effective, and consistent. I thank the Majority Leader for raising his concerns. It is my sincere intention to work with the Majority Leader and other interested Senators to perfect this legislation, so that we might pass it in the coming months.

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, today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has reported the Resolution of Ratification to NATO enlargement. It is appropriate at this time to inform my colleagues of my intention to offer a condition to the Resolution of Ratification when it comes to the Senate for debate linking NATO expansion with economic expansion. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the senior Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner. The former Majority Leader, Howard Baker, Jr., our colleague Sam Nunn, Brent Scowcroft, and Alton Frye recently wrote an article for The New York Times in which they assert that ``Linking NATO expansion to the expansion of the European Union would underscore the connection between Europe's security and its economy--and offer certification that entrants to NATO could afford to meet its defense obligations.'' It is our contention that Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic face no security threats, so strengthening their economies and democratic institutions should be their first priority. All three of the candidates are eager to join the European Union (EU), which has now decided to begin accession negotiations with them. NATO's decision at Madrid to invite these countries to negotiate for membership preceded the EU offer to negotiate accession. The EU's offer affords the Senate an opportunity to lend support to these countries' bid for EU membership, without accepting any presumption that entry into the EU guarantees admission to NATO. A provision to link admission to NATO with admission to the EU will encourage expeditious negotiations by the EU, and will allow the three countries to concentrate their full resources on economic modernization, rather than diverting precious resources to military expenditures. I ask that the text of the condition be printed in the Record. The text of the condition follows: At the end of section of the resolution (relating to conditions), add the following: ( ) Deferral of ratification of nato enlargement until admission of poland, hungary, and czech republic to the european union.-- (A) Prohibition.--The President shall not deposit the United States instrument of ratification prior to the latest date by which Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have acceded to membership in the European Union and have each engaged in initial voting participation in an official action of the European Union. (B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph may be construed as an expression by the Senate of an intent to accept as a new NATO member any country other than Poland, Hungary, or the Czech Republic if that country becomes a member of the European Union after the date of adoption of this resolution.

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.''

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to submit a resolution seeking to right a 50 year wrong. I am joined by the distinguished senior Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar, and 37 of my colleagues. Having served as our Ambassador to the United Nations, I am painfully aware of the paradox facing Israel at the United Nations. Israel is a state which was created by the United Nations, and yet for 50 years has been treated as a step-child--or worse--in its dealings at the United Nations. Never was that more apparent than the sad period when the General Assembly equated Zionism with racism. It took a long 16 years to repeal, but after great effort it was done. Today, I hope we can begin a similar effort to end a Cold War anomaly. 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. This effort could mirror that of the effort to repeal the odious General Assembly Resolution 3379, equating Zionism with racism. That effort was led by Chaim Herzog. He came to Washington in 1987 for the first state visit by a President of Israel to the United States in history. I took the floor of the Senate to introduce a Joint Resolution following word-for-word an Australian measure calling for the repeal of Resolution 3379. The Senate and the House of Representatives adopted the resolution unanimously, in time for Chaim Herzog to address a Joint Meeting of Congress on November 10, 1987--on the 12th anniversary of his defense of Israel at the United Nations in opposition to Resolution 3379. President Reagan signed the resolution on November 17. Finally, there was an American policy. We meant to repeal General Assembly Resolution 3379. Both the Zionism resolution and the rejectionist Arab Front would soon lose their major support with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The General Assembly overwhelmingly repealed Resolution 3379 on December 16, 1991. The fight had taken 16 years. We won that battle but one cold war anachronism remains at the United Nations. 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 the State of Israel. A hundred years ago the Zionist Congress first articulated the Zionist dream. Fifty years ago the United Nations General Assembly endorsed the Zionist dream. 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. I can think of no more fitting congressional tribute to this vision than our country taking its rightful place in the forefront of the effort to allow Israel to participate fully in international affairs, to be counted as a legitimate member among the nations of the world. Again, I thank my colleagues for supporting the measure. In particular I thank Senator Lugar for his strong support in this effort. I hope that this will begin an effort which will finally bring Israel completely within the fold of the United Nations.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, next Wednesday, February 18, marks an auspicious occasion: Michael B. Robertson--a constituent--will turn 50. He will become a quinquagenarian. Individuals often approach this milestone with some trepidation. That need not be, for as Sir Richard Steele wrote, ``Age in a virtuous person, of either sex, carries in it an authority which makes it preferable to all the pleasures of youth.'' Now, Steele was all of 38 or 39 when he wrote that in 1711, but I can attest to the sentiment, having become a septuagenarian last March. More important, we learn from Leviticus 25:10 that ``Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you.'' Michael Robertson was born in Scotland in 1948. But he ``left fair Scotland's strand'' at the age of six and moved with his family to the United States. He obtained a bachelor of arts degree in English from Wilkes University in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania in 1969. From there, as a young man, he headed west, following the advice of Horace Greeley (actually, it was the advice of John Babsone Lane Soule, in an article published in the Terre Haute Express in 1851). His car and his funds made it to Los Angeles. He had to find work, and ended up taking a job in the mailroom of Carson/Roberts Advertising. His superiors quickly recognized his innate ability and work ethic, and promoted him to copywriter. Soon thereafter, he was an associate creative director with Young & Rubicam, eventually returning to the East Coast. Onward and upward in the highly competitive business of advertising to his present position as executive creative director of Bates USA, where he is responsible for the overall creative product of a $1.1 billion agency. Mr. Robertson, I might note, is a neighbor of sorts. His office is in the venerable Chrysler Building, a few floors below the suite which is my New York City office. He has a lovely family, including a daughter, Megan (just recently married); a son, Brendan (a strapping young man presently in college); and another daughter, Charlotte (a star fourth- grader at the Nightingale-Bamford School). His wife, Linda, is quite accomplished in her own right: she produced the television commercials commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations. I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. President, to join with Michael Robertson's family and friends too numerous to count in wishing him a very happy fiftieth birthday. May it truly be a jubilee.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, 1848 was one of the busiest years of the 19th Century in Europe. Everywhere kings were abdicating, ministers fleeing, mobs roving. In London, Karl Marx and Frederich Engels composed a pamphlet entitled Manifesto of the Communist Party. Revolution was all the rage. But the real revolution was taking place in a small brick chapel in a village in upstate New York where people had begun to think of a revolution unlike anything known--equal rights for women. The American movement for women's rights began in Waterloo, New York nearly 150 years ago when five women met at the home of Jane and Richard Hunt. There, Elizabeth Cady Stanton of Seneca Falls, Mary Ann McClintock of Waterloo, Marta Coffin Wright of nearby Auburn, Lucretia Coffin Mott of Philadelphia and Mrs. Hunt planned the first women's rights convention held at the Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls. It was also there that they wrote the ``Declaration of Sentiments,'' a document which can certainly be regarded as the Magna Carta of the women's movement. Modeled on our Declaration of Independence, the ``Declaration of Sentiments'' proclaimed that: All men and women are created equal: That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This unprecedented declaration called for broad societal changes aimed at eliminating discriminatory restrictions on women in all their spheres of life. A woman's right to a higher education, the right to own property and the right to retain her own wages--all these and more were proclaimed in this landmark document endorsed at the Seneca Falls Convention on July 19 and 20, 1848. Perhaps most importantly, the convention was the catalyst for the 19th Amendment. There, Elizabeth Cady Stanton made what was at the time a most radical proposal. She called for extending the franchise to women. Ameila Bloomer, publisher of Lily, the first prominent women's rights newsletter, eloquently defended Stanton's call and articulated the importance of the vote: In this country there is one great tribunal by which all theories must be tried, all principles tested, all measures settled: and that tribunal is the ballot box. It is the medium through which public opinion finally makes itself heard. Deny to any class in the community the right to be heard at the ballot-box and that class sinks at once into a state of slavish dependence, of civil insignificance, which nothing can save from becoming subjugation, oppression and wrong. It was fully 72 years before the Nation heeded their call for the vote for women. It took but 10 months in 1980, however, to establish a Women's Rights Historic Park at Seneca Falls and Waterloo, commemorating this call. Then-Senator Javits and I proposed a bill that created an historic park within Seneca Falls to commemorate the early beginnings of the women's movement and to recognize the important role Seneca Falls has played in the movement. The park consists of five sites: the 1840's Greek Revival home of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, organizer and leader of the women's rights movement; the Wesleyan Chapel, where the First Women's Rights Convention was held; Declaration Park with a 100 foot waterwall engraved with the Declaration of Sentiments and the names of the signers of Declaration; and the M'Clintock house, home of MaryAnn and Thomas M'Clintock, where the Declaration was drafted. On June 27 last, my friend and colleague, Senator D'Amato and I introduced S. Con. Res. 35, a resolution that urges the United States Postal Service to issue a commemorative postage stamp to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Women's Rights Convention. It is only fitting that a stamp be issued commemorating this historic anniversary and highlighting the importance of continuing this struggle for equal rights and opportunity for women in areas such as health care, education, employment, and pay equity. Today Senator D'Amato and I, in concert with Representative Louise M. Slaughter of Rochester, introduce legislation which would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the development of a Women's Rights Historic Trail stretching from Boston, Massachusetts to Buffalo, New York. Mr. President, the contributions made by women in that region are many. This is hallowed ground that needs to be celebrated. It would include such sites as the Susan B. Anthony House and voting place in Rochester; the Women's Rights National Historical Park; the National Women's Hall of Fame and the Elizabeth Cady Stanton House in Seneca Falls; the Harriet Tubman House and memorial in Auburn; and the Eleanor Roosevelt home in Hyde Park. The women of Seneca Falls challenged America to social revolution with a list of demands that touched upon every aspect of life. Testing different approaches, the early women's rights leaders came to view the ballot as the best way to challenge the system, but they did not limit their efforts to this one issue. Fifty years after the convention, women could claim property rights, employment and educational opportunities, divorce and child custody laws, and increased social freedoms. By the early 20th century, a coalition of suffragists, temperance groups, reform-minded politicians, and women's social welfare organizations mustered a successful push for the vote. Today Congress honors Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, along with Susan B. Anthony, as revolutionary leaders of the women's movement by placing a statue of them in the Capitol Rotunda next to statues of other leaders in our Nation's history such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr. An historic trail would be a living monument to women's history, bringing to life the numerous pioneers so often left out of our textbooks. In ``The Ladies of Seneca Falls: The Birth of the Women's Rights Movement'', Miriam Gurko writes: Most histories contain, if anything, only the briefest allusion to the woman's rights movement in the nineteenth century--perhaps no more than a sentence to include it in the general upsurge of reform. Here and there the name of a woman's rights leader might be mentioned, generally that of Susan B. Anthony, sometimes Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The rest might never have existed so far as the general run of historical sources is concerned. One of the most important social forces of our time is women's struggle to achieve equality, and, as such, it is incumbent upon us to pay tribute to its many heroes. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. May I add, not only honest but a courageous man. In some 21 years on the Senate floor I have not heard a more refreshing and inspiriting statement. It is not surprising coming from the Senator from Utah, but it is all the more amazing. There are few places in this world today where such a statement could be made and praised. It is a tribute to you, sir; also a tribute to the U.S. Army, I believe. But we will not get into that. I thank you for your remarks, sir.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it is an honor to speak following the statement by our revered, sometime President pro tempore, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, a man who has brought to our Chamber a sensibility concerning the Constitution that, I would argue, is unequaled since those awful days that led to the Civil War, days in which his lucidity and courage could have produced a very different outcome. We have a matter before us of equal consequence. I would offer the personal judgment that in the history of the Constitution, there has never come before us an issue considering the relations between the executive and the legislative branches as important as this one. It is a course of a peculiar inexplicability that this Chamber is empty--the distinguished Presiding Officer from Utah, our President pro tempore sometime from West Virginia and myself--empty because of a particular politics that for a long time said this was a desirable measure and enacted it and now faces the court saying, ``But it's unconstitutional.'' The courts, I dare to say, at the level of those asides that are well known in our judicial history, the court is also saying, ``Don't you know your Constitution? Don't you understand what is at stake for you?'' The courts are not themselves directly involved here, but they are trying to tell us, in brilliant decisions by Judge Jackson, now by Judge Hogan, singularly literate decisions. Judge Hogan begins his historical analysis, if you will, with a citation from Gibbon's ``Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'': The principles of a free constitution are irrecoverably lost when the legislative power is nominated by the executive. That is how he saw the decline of the Roman Senate, inexorably followed by the decline of Roman civilization. That is what we are dealing with here today. As Senator Byrd has so forcefully stated, George Washington, whose birthday we observe on Monday, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, in his later writings put it as explicitly as only he could do with that clarity and simplicity he had. Washington said: From the nature of the Constitution, I must approve all the parts of a Bill or reject it in toto. That could not be more plain. And we find the courts saying to us--I don't presume to say this is obiter dicta, but I can see the courts pleading: ``Senators, do you not know what is at stake?'' As for the claims of efficiency and economy and this and that-- legitimate claims--but the court refers in this particular decision, Judge Hogan refers to a wonderful passage from Chadha, which was so true about the original understandings of the political and Government process of the founders. He said in the Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, a decision in 1983--as I recall, it is on the one- House veto--the court said: The fact that a given law or procedure is efficient, convenient and useful in facilitating functions of government standing alone will not save it if it is contrary to the Constitution. Convenience and efficiency are not the primary objectives or the hallmarks of democratic government. That was the great perception of our founders. In the Federalist Papers, which Senator Byrd has so generously mentioned, they ask openly, given the fugitive and turbulent existence of earlier republics, the Roman Republic, what makes you think this Republic will work? They said, fair question, but we have a new science of politics. It is a science that does not assume virtue in men, it assumes conflict, and it provides for the resolution of conflict by equal and opposing forces. It does not fear debate. It welcomes it, it assumes self- interest on the part of regions, of sectors in the economy, of groups in the population. No fear. And here is a central idea which was part of our amicus brief and which we find, I think, echoed in Judge Hogan's remarks, which I don't assert but I offer the thought. When we put together on the Senate floor a bill--I will say a Finance Committee bill, as I am now ranking member, was one time chairman of Finance--we think of balancing interests, conflicting or often unrelated, but there are 100 Members of this Chamber. They represent 50 States and 550 different points of view. We accommodate them. We provide for this interest and for that interest and hope and, I think, in the main see that the public interest is served by the opportunities of governing. If you were to take one of those provisions out or two or three, it would be quite possible you would not have the votes to pass the bill. There could be a filibuster, or there simply could not be the 51 votes. However, with the line-item veto, the President can subsequently take out such provisions such that the statute books will contain a law which never could have passed the U.S. Congress. How say we, the statute books will have a law that could not have passed the Congress? Here it is, this is the arrangement. The courts are so clear on this, and I so look forward to a final decision by the Supreme Court. It is interesting, if I may say, just to give an illustration of the compound interests of people involved, on the one hand we have two plaintiffs here, the City of New York, et al. The City of New York being the Greater New York Hospital Association, those great hospitals and the union of hospital employees which work there. The city, great science centers, ordinary persons who clean floors and care for patients. They are one group. Across the continent, another group, the Snake River Potato Growers, Incorporated--about 30 farmers. They grow potatoes. They have an interest. It was in a bill, and it was taken out. That interest, I think, would have had real effect on the decision how to vote of the two Senators in this Chamber who represent those potato growers. So you have radiologists and potato growers and people who scrub floors and people who go beyond the limits of conceivable knowledge in the biological and medical sciences. All these interests are always represented here, and only here. Congress makes the laws. The President is required to see that they are faithfully executed. But, sir, and in closing, if nothing else will bring this Chamber to its wits, perhaps this will. The President's power under this line-item veto is likely rarely to be directly exercised. It will be threatened. A President will say to a Senator, ``You know, I would so very much like to be of assistance to Utah as regards irrigation and other matters which are so important to me, but there's a foreign policy matter which also is important to me. And cannot I expect, in the spirit of exchange and understanding, that I will have your support here in return for my choice not to veto a measure now enacted by Congress?'' It will go on over and over again. It is the formula for executive tyranny. Sir, within this day, one of the most learned, experienced men I know in Washington said, ``If LBJ,'' meaning Lyndon B. Johnson, ``had had this power, we would have had Nero.'' I mean no disrespect; I was a member of President Johnson's subcabinet, and served him as well as I could do. But you have to have experienced Lyndon Johnson close up, without this power, to know what the powers of persuasion of a President can be. But given this power, you produce an imbalance in your constitutional system which the founders pleaded with us not to do. They produced a system that has worked well. We are the oldest continuous constitutional government on Earth. If we wish to change the Constitution there is a way to do that, too, but not through statute. And that is what the court has now for the second time ruled, and I hope that the Supreme Court will agree. I would particularly like to thank Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, who stepped right up to this issue when many people suggested he not do. And most particularly, to the counsel who have served us pro bono so well: Michael Davidson; Charles J. Cooper; Paul A. Crotty, former Corporation Counsel of the City of New York; Louis R. Cohen, Lloyd N. Cutler, Alan Morrison. And finally, sir, any number of professors of law have offered their counsel. Most particularly Laurence H. Tribe, of the Harvard Law School, and Michael J. Gerhardt, the dean of Case Western Reserve Law, have been unstinting in their willingness to advise us in a matter they consider just as important as we do. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for its courtesy. I thank my leader, my beloved and revered leader, Senator Byrd. I yield the floor. Exhibit No. 1 [United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civ. No. 97-2393 (TFH)] City of New York, et al., plaintiff, v. William J. Clinton, et al., defendant

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, 1848 was one of the busiest years of the 19th Century in Europe. Everywhere kings were abdicating, ministers fleeing, mobs roving. In London, Karl Marx and Frederich Engels composed a pamphlet entitled Manifesto of the Communist Party. Revolution was all the rage. But the real revolution was taking place in a small brick chapel in a village in upstate New York where people had begun to think of a revolution unlike anything known--equal rights for women. The American movement for women's rights began in Waterloo, New York nearly 150 years ago when five women met at the home of Jane and Richard Hunt. There, Elizabeth Cady Stanton of Seneca Falls, Mary Ann McClintock of Waterloo, Marta Coffin Wright of nearby Auburn, Lucretia Coffin Mott of Philadelphia and Mrs. Hunt planned the first women's rights convention held at the Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls. It was also there that they wrote the ``Declaration of Sentiments,'' a document which can certainly be regarded as the Magna Carta of the women's movement. Modeled on our Declaration of Independence, the ``Declaration of Sentiments'' proclaimed that: All men and women are created equal: That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This unprecedented declaration called for broad societal changes aimed at eliminating discriminatory restrictions on women in all their spheres of life. A woman's right to a higher education, the right to own property and the right to retain her own wages--all these and more were proclaimed in this landmark document endorsed at the Seneca Falls Convention on July 19 and 20, 1848. Perhaps most importantly, the convention was the catalyst for the 19th Amendment. There, Elizabeth Cady Stanton made what was at the time a most radical proposal. She called for extending the franchise to women. Ameila Bloomer, publisher of Lily, the first prominent women's rights newsletter, eloquently defended Stanton's call and articulated the importance of the vote: In this country there is one great tribunal by which all theories must be tried, all principles tested, all measures settled: and that tribunal is the ballot box. It is the medium through which public opinion finally makes itself heard. Deny to any class in the community the right to be heard at the ballot-box and that class sinks at once into a state of slavish dependence, of civil insignificance, which nothing can save from becoming subjugation, oppression and wrong. It was fully 72 years before the Nation heeded their call for the vote for women. It took but 10 months in 1980, however, to establish a Women's Rights Historic Park at Seneca Falls and Waterloo, commemorating this call. Then-Senator Javits and I proposed a bill that created an historic park within Seneca Falls to commemorate the early beginnings of the women's movement and to recognize the important role Seneca Falls has played in the movement. The park consists of five sites: the 1840's Greek Revival home of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, organizer and leader of the women's rights movement; the Wesleyan Chapel, where the First Women's Rights Convention was held; Declaration Park with a 100 foot waterwall engraved with the Declaration of Sentiments and the names of the signers of Declaration; and the M'Clintock house, home of MaryAnn and Thomas M'Clintock, where the Declaration was drafted. On June 27 last, my friend and colleague, Senator D'Amato and I introduced S. Con. Res. 35, a resolution that urges the United States Postal Service to issue a commemorative postage stamp to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Women's Rights Convention. It is only fitting that a stamp be issued commemorating this historic anniversary and highlighting the importance of continuing this struggle for equal rights and opportunity for women in areas such as health care, education, employment, and pay equity. Today Senator D'Amato and I, in concert with Representative Louise M. Slaughter of Rochester, introduce legislation which would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the development of a Women's Rights Historic Trail stretching from Boston, Massachusetts to Buffalo, New York. Mr. President, the contributions made by women in that region are many. This is hallowed ground that needs to be celebrated. It would include such sites as the Susan B. Anthony House and voting place in Rochester; the Women's Rights National Historical Park; the National Women's Hall of Fame and the Elizabeth Cady Stanton House in Seneca Falls; the Harriet Tubman House and memorial in Auburn; and the Eleanor Roosevelt home in Hyde Park. The women of Seneca Falls challenged America to social revolution with a list of demands that touched upon every aspect of life. Testing different approaches, the early women's rights leaders came to view the ballot as the best way to challenge the system, but they did not limit their efforts to this one issue. Fifty years after the convention, women could claim property rights, employment and educational opportunities, divorce and child custody laws, and increased social freedoms. By the early 20th century, a coalition of suffragists, temperance groups, reform-minded politicians, and women's social welfare organizations mustered a successful push for the vote. Today Congress honors Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, along with Susan B. Anthony, as revolutionary leaders of the women's movement by placing a statue of them in the Capitol Rotunda next to statues of other leaders in our Nation's history such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr. An historic trail would be a living monument to women's history, bringing to life the numerous pioneers so often left out of our textbooks. In ``The Ladies of Seneca Falls: The Birth of the Women's Rights Movement'', Miriam Gurko writes: Most histories contain, if anything, only the briefest allusion to the woman's rights movement in the nineteenth century--perhaps no more than a sentence to include it in the general upsurge of reform. Here and there the name of a woman's rights leader might be mentioned, generally that of Susan B. Anthony, sometimes Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The rest might never have existed so far as the general run of historical sources is concerned. One of the most important social forces of our time is women's struggle to achieve equality, and, as such, it is incumbent upon us to pay tribute to its many heroes. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Isidore Schwartz, a Polish immigrant to the United States and World War II veteran who is reported to have been the first man to repair mechanical watches in combat during his four years of dedicated service to the United States Army. Mr. Schwartz learned the trade of watch repair through a Work Progress Administration program during the Depression, a skill which he later used to assist the United States military. Upon induction into the army, Isidore Schwartz, wishing to use all of his talents to help the war effort, brought the necessary instruments for repairing mechanical watches. Originally, he merely intended to perform favors for the men with whom he served. His ability to repair military mechanical watches in combat developed into a skill recognized and sought after by the Army. Mr. Schwartz's talent was discovered during an inspection tour of an infantry company. The Commanding Officer of the Company asked Mr. Schwartz's Commanding Officer if he had a watchmaker. The Commanding Officer called Mr. Schwartz over and presented him with several malfunctioning military watches. Working out of a modified bus, Isidore Schwartz successfully repaired the watches. Word spread to the War Department that Private Schwartz had the ability to perform the important function of military watch repair in combat. Had it not been for Mr. Schwartz's initiative during his service, these military watches would have been shipped for repair under hazardous war time conditions. Isidore Schwartz's contribution to the war effort was not limited to the repair of mechanical watches in combat as he used his ingenuity to perform similar important tasks. One accomplishment was the repair of a lieutenant's eyeglasses which were severely bent out of shape. In the process of straightening the frame, hinges broke on both sides making the glasses unwearable. Despite lacking the necessary parts to perform the repair, Mr. Schwartz, using a small brass rod and a jeweler's file created the necessary hinges thus successfully completing the repair. It is this creativity and dedication to helping fellow soldiers and the United States Army which makes the actions of Private Schwartz deserving of recognition and commendation. Through our recognition of Mr. Schwartz's achievements, we are reminded of the tremendous contribution immigrants have made in the shaping of our nation. This diverse group of extraordinary, enterprising, and self-sufficient individuals have continuously served to strengthen the United States. The great desire of America's immigrants to contribute combined with a passion to improve their new home has allowed the United States to assume the position of world leader. We are forever grateful for their strength and courage. The quiet, yet significant actions of Isidore Schwartz during his four years of military service in Northern Ireland and North Africa exemplify his commitment and dedication to the United States of America. It is with great pleasure that I join his many friends in the Bronx who will be honoring Mr. Schwartz this summer for being the first man to repair mechanical watches in combat.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. On September 28, 1996, the Senate passed the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, a 749-page bill with 24 separate titles. Included in that unwieldy legislation was the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, a far-reaching measure designed to curtail illegal immigration and prevent criminals from entering our country. This legislation, hurried to passage in the final days of a legislative session, has proven to be overly punitive in a number of cases, including that of Jesus Collado. On April 7, Jesus Collado, a 43-year-old legal resident of the United States, returned to this country after vacationing in the Dominican Republic, his homeland. Upon arrival at John F. Kennedy airport in New York, Mr. Collado was detained by INS officers who kept him handcuffed and made him sit on the floor of a room in the airport for nearly 24 hours. INS officials had determined Mr. Collado excludable because the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act made the misdemeanor on his criminal record a deportable offense. Twenty-three years ago, when Mr. Collado was 19-years old, he was convicted of a class A misdemeanor, having sexual relations with a minor, his 15-year- old girlfriend. I should note here that their relationship was a consensual one. Mr. Collado was sentenced to a year's probation, which he served. He has not been in trouble with the law since. Whatever I or my colleagues think about his teenage indiscretion, the fact remains that he is not a serious criminal who should be excluded from entering the United States. Yet, as I mentioned, on April 7 last, Mr. Collado was arrested upon arrival in New York and was held without bail for 201 days at the INS Detention Facility at the York County Prison in York, Pennsylvania. The Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act was meant to keep serious criminals out of the United States. It was not meant to exclude those who have resided here legally for a quarter century because of a misdemeanor committed as a teenager. Might I add that Lamar Smith, the chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee seems to agree with me. In Anthony Lewis' December 22, 1997 column in the New York Times, Mr. Smith remarked that Jesus Collado's case ``obviously tugs at your heart. Clearly this is an instance where humanitarian considerations should be taken into account. I believe in redemption and I believe it should be granted generously.'' Ultimately, the Immigration and Naturalization Service must be given discretion in the implementation of this Act. But Mr. Collado and his family need relief now. Today I am introducing private relief legislation for Mr. Collado to establish that his misdemeanor is not grounds for inadmissibility, deportation or denial of citizenship. Representative Nydia Velazquez, who has worked tirelessly on Mr. Collado's behalf, has introduced a similar measure in the House of Representatives. I urge the Senate to act on this matter swiftly so that the Collado family may get on with their lives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and Anthony Lewis' column be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. On September 28, 1996, the Senate passed the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, a 749-page bill with 24 separate titles. Included in that unwieldy legislation was the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, a far-reaching measure designed to curtail illegal immigration and prevent criminals from entering our country. This legislation, hurried to passage in the final days of a legislative session, has proven to be overly punitive in a number of cases, including that of Jesus Collado. On April 7, Jesus Collado, a 43-year-old legal resident of the United States, returned to this country after vacationing in the Dominican Republic, his homeland. Upon arrival at John F. Kennedy airport in New York, Mr. Collado was detained by INS officers who kept him handcuffed and made him sit on the floor of a room in the airport for nearly 24 hours. INS officials had determined Mr. Collado excludable because the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act made the misdemeanor on his criminal record a deportable offense. Twenty-three years ago, when Mr. Collado was 19-years old, he was convicted of a class A misdemeanor, having sexual relations with a minor, his 15-year- old girlfriend. I should note here that their relationship was a consensual one. Mr. Collado was sentenced to a year's probation, which he served. He has not been in trouble with the law since. Whatever I or my colleagues think about his teenage indiscretion, the fact remains that he is not a serious criminal who should be excluded from entering the United States. Yet, as I mentioned, on April 7 last, Mr. Collado was arrested upon arrival in New York and was held without bail for 201 days at the INS Detention Facility at the York County Prison in York, Pennsylvania. The Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act was meant to keep serious criminals out of the United States. It was not meant to exclude those who have resided here legally for a quarter century because of a misdemeanor committed as a teenager. Might I add that Lamar Smith, the chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee seems to agree with me. In Anthony Lewis' December 22, 1997 column in the New York Times, Mr. Smith remarked that Jesus Collado's case ``obviously tugs at your heart. Clearly this is an instance where humanitarian considerations should be taken into account. I believe in redemption and I believe it should be granted generously.'' Ultimately, the Immigration and Naturalization Service must be given discretion in the implementation of this Act. But Mr. Collado and his family need relief now. Today I am introducing private relief legislation for Mr. Collado to establish that his misdemeanor is not grounds for inadmissibility, deportation or denial of citizenship. Representative Nydia Velazquez, who has worked tirelessly on Mr. Collado's behalf, has introduced a similar measure in the House of Representatives. I urge the Senate to act on this matter swiftly so that the Collado family may get on with their lives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and Anthony Lewis' column be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today with good news. We have at long last seen a measure of justice in a case which brings back memories of an awful time in our nation's history. In 1953 Dr. Beatrice Braude, a linguist, was wrongfully dismissed from her position at the United States Information Agency and was subsequently blacklisted by the Federal government as a result of accusations of disloyalty to the United States. The accusations were old. Two years earlier the State Department's Loyalty Security Board had investigated and unanimously voted to dismiss them. The Board sent a letter to Dr. Braude stating ``there is no reasonable doubt as to your loyalty to the United States Government or as to your security risk to the Department of State.'' Despite this, her name was not cleared. Dr. Braude was terminated one day after being praised for her work and informed that she would probably be promoted. She was told that her termination was due to budgetary constraints, but the truth was that she was selected for termination because of the old--and answered-- charges against her. Because she did not know the real reason for her dismissal, she was denied certain procedural rights, including the right to request a hearing. Over time she grew suspicious. When she was unable, over the course of several years, to secure employment anywhere else in the Federal government--even in a typing pool despite a perfect score on the typing test--she became convinced that she had been blacklisted. The Privacy Act of 1974 enabled her to obtain her government files and confirm her suspicions. She invested much time and energy fighting to regain Federal employment and restore her reputation. She was partially successful. In 1982, at the age of 69, she was hired as a language instructor in the CIA. Sadly, she still had not been able to clear her name by the time of her death in 1988. The irony of the charges against Dr. Braude is that she was an anti-communist, having witnessed first- hand Communist-sponsored terrorism in Europe while she was an assistant cultural affairs officer in Paris and, for a brief period, an exchange officer in Bonn during the late 1940's and early 1950's. Mr. President, I have reviewed the charges against Dr. Braude before on the floor of the Senate, but I think that they merit repeating because they are illustrative of that dark era and are instructive to us even today. There were a total of four charges. First, she was briefly a member of the Washington Book Shop on Farragut Square that the Attorney General later labeled subversive. Second, she had been in contact with Mary Jane Keeney, a Communist Party activist employed at the United Nations. Third, she had been a member of the State Department unit of the Communist-dominated Federal Workers' Union. Fourth, she was an acquaintance of Judith Coplon. With regard to the first charge, Dr. Braude had indeed joined the Book Shop shortly after her arrival in Washington in 1943. She was eager to meet congenial new people and a friend recommended the Book Shop, which hosted music recitals in the evenings. I must express some sensitivity here: my F.B.I. records report that I was observed several times at a ``leftist musical review'' in suburban Hampstead while I was attending the London School of Economics on a Fulbright Fellowship. Dr. Braude was aware of the undercurrent of sympathy with the Russian cause at the Book Shop, but her membership paralleled a time of close U.S.-Soviet collaboration. She drifted away from the Book Shop in 1944 because of her distaste for the internal politics of other active members. Her membership at the Book Shop was only discovered when her name appeared on a list of delinquent dues. It appears that her most sinister crime while a member of the book shop was her failure to return a book on time. Dr. Braude met Mary Jane Keeney on behalf of a third woman who actively aided Nazi victims after the war and was anxious to send clothing to another woman in occupied Germany. Dr. Braude knew nothing of Keeney's political orientation and characterized the meeting as a transitory experience. With regard to the third charge, Dr. Braude, in response to an interrogatory from the State Department's Loyalty Security Board, argued that she belonged to an anti-Communist faction of the State Department unit of the Federal Workers' Union. Remember that the Loyalty Security Board investigated these charges and exonerated her. The fourth charge, which Dr. Braude certainly did not--or could not-- deny, was her friendship with Judith Coplon. Braude met Coplon in the summer of 1945 when both women attended a class Herbert Marcuse taught at American University. They saw each other infrequently thereafter. In May 1948, Coplon wrote to Braude, then stationed in Paris and living in a hotel on the Left Bank, to announce that she would be visiting shortly and needed a place to stay. Dr. Braude arranged for Coplon to stay at the hotel. Coplon stayed for 6 weeks, during which time Dr. Braude found her behavior very trying. The two parted on unfriendly terms. The friendship they had prior to parting was purely social. Mr. President, Judith Coplon was a spy. She worked in the Justice Department's Foreign Agents Registration Division, an office integral to the FBI's counter-intelligence efforts. She was arrested early in 1949 while handing over notes on counterintelligence operations to Soviet citizen Valentine Gubitchev, a United Nations employee. Coplon was tried and convicted--there was no doubt of her guilt--but the conviction was overturned on a technicality. Gubitchev was also convicted but was allowed to return to the U.S.S.R. because of his quasi- diplomatic status. Judith Coplon was a spy. Beatrice Braude was not. We know that Judith Coplon was not alone as a Soviet spy; though there were not as many as one might have imagined given the American response. In 1956, Edward A. Shils captured the overreaction to Communist activities in the United States in his fine, small study, The Torment of Secrecy: The Background and Consequences of American Security Policy. ``The American visage began to cloud over,'' Shils wrote. ``Secrets were to become our chief reliance just when it was becoming more and more evident that the Soviet Union had long maintained an active apparatus for espionage in the United States. For a country which had never previously thought of itself as an object of systematic espionage by foreign powers, it was unsettling.'' The larger society, Shils continued, was ``facing an unprecedented threat to its continuance.'' In these circumstances, ``The fantasies of apocalyptic visionaries * * * claimed the respectability of being a reasonable interpretation of the real situation.'' A culture of secrecy took hold within American government, while a hugely divisive debate raged in the Congress and the press. The public now divided. There were those who perceived of treason on every hand, and so we witnessed the spectacle of Senator Joseph McCarthy making such accusations of George C. Marshall. Charges and counter-charges of Communist conspiracies proliferated. A balanced history of this period is now beginning to appear, but at the time, the American government and the American public was confronted with possibilities and charges, at once baffling and terrifying. A fault line appeared in American society that contributed to more than one political crisis in the years that followed. The first fact is that a significant Communist conspiracy was in place in Washington, New York, and Los Angeles, but in the main those involved systematically denied their involvement. This was the mode of Communist conspiracy the world over. The second fact is that many of those who came to prominence denouncing Communist conspiracy, accusing suspected Communists and ``comsymps,'' clearly knew little or nothing of such matters. And in many instances, just as clearly were not in the least concerned. And so while there were spies like Coplon who were caught, there were also innocent people who, having been accused, were unable to remove the stain. Dr. Braude is one such. My involvement in Dr. Braude's case dates back to early 1979, when she came to me and my colleague at the time, Senator Javits, and asked us to introduce private relief legislation on her behalf. In 1974, after filing a Freedom of Information Act request and finally learning the true reason for her dismissal, she filed suit in the Court of Claims to clear her name and seek reinstatement and monetary damages for the time she was prevented from working for the Federal government. The Court, however, dismissed her case on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired. On March 5, 1979, Senator Javits and I together introduced a bill, S. 546, to waive the statute of limitations on Dr. Braude's case against the U.S. government and to allow the Court of Claims to render judgment on her claim. The bill passed the Senate on January 30, 1980. Unfortunately, the House failed to take action on the bill before the 96th Congress adjourned. In 1988, and again in 1990, 1991, and 1993, Senator D'Amato and I re- introduced similar legislation on Dr. Braude's behalf. Our attempts met with repeated failure. Until at last, on September 21, 1993, we secured passage of Senate Resolution 102, which referred S. 840, the bill we introduced for the relief of the estate of Dr. Braude, to the Court of Claims for consideration as a congressional reference action. The measure compelled the Court to determine the facts underlying Dr. Braude's claim and to report back to Congress on its findings. The Court held a hearing in November 1995 and on March 7, 1996 Judge Roger B. Andewelt issued his verdict that the USIA had wrongfully dismissed Dr. Braude and intentionally concealed the reason for her termination. He concluded that such actions constituted an equitable claim for which compensation was due. Forty-three years after her dismissal from the USIA and 8 years after her death, the Court found in favor of the estate of Dr. Braude. Justice Department attorneys reached a settlement with lawyers representing Dr. Braude's estate concerning the monetary damages. In due time, $200,000 in damages were appropriated by Congress. I am happy to report that Beatrice Braude's estate has just received a check from the Department of Justice. Fully forty-five years after her wrongful dismissal and ten years after her death, Beatrice Braude's reputation has been restored and the United States government has paid her estate for the damages it inflicted during a dark period of our history. The money will be donated to Hunter College, the institution from which Dr. Braude received her bachelor's degree. Happily, students at Hunter College are now learning a more balanced history of the Cold War. We are now not in the least concerned about the infiltration of the government by ideological enemies. With the end of the Cold War we are able to learn much more of the facts of the Communist threats we faced. Our response to that threat was certainly mixed and I am pleased that we have been able to set the matter of Beatrice Braude to right. Senator D'Amato and I wish to express our profound gratitude to Joan L. Kutcher and Christopher N. Sipes of Covington & Burling, two of the many lawyers who have handled Dr. Braude's case on a pro bono basis over the years. It is thanks to their tireless dedication that history has been made and Dr. Braude's name has been cleared. I ask that an article appearing in the January 26, 1998 issue of the Washington Post, ``45 Years Later, U.S. Pays Up,'' be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Washington Post, Jan. 26, 1998] Update on The News (By Cindy Loose) 45 years later, u.s. pays up It has taken awhile for the $200,000 U.S. government check for Beatrice ``Bibi'' Braude to show up--45 years, reckoned from the time she was fired from the United States Information Agency, where she translated French newspapers. It has been 23 years since the Freedom of Information Act opened government files and she was able to confirm her suspicions: that the Office of Security recommended that she be fired, citing a report from an FBI informant that Braude was in contact with a communist in November 1946 and that she had visited a leftist book store. A decade has passed since Braude died at the age of 75. Most of the government officials involved in her firing are also dead. Braude was among 1,500 federal employees dismissed for similar associations and accusations from 1953 to 1956, and 6,000 others resigned under pressure of security and loyalty inquiries, according to experts. No one, however, fought back as long and as hard as Braude. A lawsuit she filed bounced around various courts for years until the U.S. Claims Court ruled that the statute of limitations had run out. She then persuaded New York Sens. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D) and Alfonse D'Amato (R) to sponsor legislation that mandated review of the case by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The Justice Department fought the case, saying that the government should not be judged by today's standards and that perhaps Braude had failed to find employment for years because she was a woman, and over age 40. However, Judge Roger B. Andewelt ruled about two years ago that Braude was a loyal American who had been unlawfully persecuted and that she had an ``equitable claim'' based on tort law, which recognizes moral wrongdoing. He ordered the Justice Department to negotiate an award with attorneys from Covington and Burling, a D.C. law firm that continued to fight Braude's case pro bono after her death. The lawyers settled on $200,000, and in November, Congress approved the funds as part of a spending bill for the Justice Department. Braude's brother, 79-year-old Theodore Braude, said he was told last week that the check to be paid to Braude's estate is in the mail. ``Immediately on receipt it will be copied and framed,'' Braude said. ``The most important thing is that her name was cleared, that the government admitted an injustice. That makes a whole lot of us feel better.''

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, nearly a year-and-a-half since I wrote President Clinton urging him to appoint a high level aide to handle the Year 2000 Computer Problem, I am encouraged that the President has made this issue a top priority, and named John Koskinen to chair a Presidential Year 2000 Council. The President's council has many similarities to the Commission/Task Force that would have been created by my bill, S. 22, which I introduced on the first day of the 105th Congress (1/21/97). This all has come about in no small part because of the tireless efforts of Representative Steve Horn and his House Government Reform Subcommittee. I look forward to working closely with Mr. Koskinen. Having spent two years studying, and warning of, the lagging progress of the agencies on this issue, I should warn Mr. Koskinen that with fewer than two years remaining, he faces what looks to be the 13th labor of Hercules.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today's New York Times has confirmed what many on the forefront of fixing the Year 2000 Computer Problem have already learned. Namely, that the problem is not just a programming glitch within software (programs run on the computer), but a larger crisis of identifying and renovating hardware (the computer itself). As the Times story relates: ``The problem was first thought to be a programming glitch. But as the F.A.A. is demonstrating, the line between hardware and software is not so clear, because of computer instructions, called micro-code, that are built in and are more basic than the programs the computer runs. In some instances, the answer may be the wholesale replacement of computers that might otherwise have run for years. Early indications are that many airlines will also throw out numerous computers.'' Like many private sector businesses, the FAA is finding that it may have to replace the interrelated computer systems themselves--in this case, systems that provide for the safety of air flight in America. While some programmers at the FAA believe the systems can be debugged without replacing them, the company which built the hardware, IBM, has recommended replacing the machines. There is a lesson to be learned here. Consultants confronted with this problem have told me this all along. The problem is deeper than the programs. It deals with the micro-code beneath the programs. This micro-code is in everything from our telecommunications systems to the personal computer on your desk--essentially the infrastructure of the company or agency. Thus, we peel back another layer of the onion. The FAA is taking multiple approaches to its fix: a combination of debugging and replacement. On the one hand, debugging old systems risks that they won't be fully tested until after the year 2000. On the other hand, replacing them costs millions upon millions. When the maker of the machines--in this case IBM--recommends replacement, and a failed effort to debug the machines could mean lives lost in air accidents across the country, I would prefer we lean heavily on the replacement approach. With fewer than two years until January 1, 2000, this lesson must be learned quickly and throughout the Federal Government. A few Chief Information Officers who are ahead of the curve on this issue are similarly discovering they not only have to fix the application codes, but they also have to make their infrastructure--telecommunication systems, micro-computers, and electrical components--year 2000 compliant. In the few months ahead, agencies must be ready and willing to admit the extent of their problems, and find solutions that will be balanced between debugging and replacement. At the same time, we in Congress must be ready and willing to assist agencies in what is beginning to look a lot like a matter of damage control. I ask that today's Times article, ``F.A.A. to Fix and Replace Aging Computers,'' be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the New York Times, Jan. 29, 1998] F.A.A. to Fix and Replace Aging Computers (By Matthew L. Wald) Washington, Jan. 28--The Federal Aviation Administration said today that it would hunt down and remove the ``year 2000'' bugs from 40 crucial, aging air traffic control computers, and then throw out the computers themselves. One team at the F.A.A. has promised to have the bugs fixed within 90 days. The leader of a second team announced today that the agency would replace the computers anyway, at a cost of about $100 million, because of uncertainty over whether the software changes can ever be tested adequately. But since there is also uncertainty over whether all the computers can be replaced within the next 23 months, the de-bugging will continue. Around the world, the issue, known in data processing as ``Y2K,'' is perplexing companies because computers that record the date as a 2-digit number will conclude that the year after 1999 is 1900. The problem was first thought to be a programming glitch. But as the F.A.A. is demonstrating, the line between hardware and software is not so clear, because of computer instructions, called micro-code, that are built in and are more basic than the programs the computer runs. In some instances, the answer may be the wholesale replacement of computers that might otherwise have run for years. Early indications are that many airlines will also throw out numerous computers. George L. Donohue, associate administrator of the F.A.A. for research and acquisitions, said, ``Some of the software people now say that even if you think you've fixed all the micro-code, there's no way to be sure.'' But, speaking today at an air traffic control conference, Dr. Donohue said that trying simultaneously to de-bug the system and replace it was a good ``belt and suspenders approach,'' because it was impossible to be sure the F.A.A. could replace the aging computers in the next 23 months. Drucella Andersen, a spokeswoman for the agency, said, ``We're trying to do both because it gives us the highest assurance and insurance.'' Just last week the F.A.A. invited reporters to tour a ``war room'' where a team of software engineers is coordinating the de-bugging of 297 interrelated computer systems that make up the National Airspace System. The machines are at the heart of the 20 air traffic control centers that handle high-altitude, long-distance flights, and officials said they were confident that their replacement would not be necessary. The software changes are projected to cost $91 million, and involve 22 million lines of software. The International Business Machines Corporation, which made the computers, warned the F.A.A. last fall that it no longer had the engineers or software tools to find the bugs, and recommended replacing the machines. Dr. Donohue said the computers were about 14 years old, which he termed old by the standards of private industry but young for the F.A.A. The agency's budget does not include the estimated $100 million to replace the computers, but officials said they could delay other modernization projects.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield the floor and say I spent 35 years getting this building built. I leave it to others to describe how it should be named.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise for the simple purpose of simply informing the Senate of a very happy occasion in the very near future. It will be the dedication of the Ronald Reagan International Trade Building at 16th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, the largest Federal building, as it happens, in the city and the completion, after 60 or 70 years--70 years of the Federal Triangle proposal which was begun by Andrew Mellon under the Presidency of Herbert Hoover for whom the Commerce Building across from 16th Street is named. The Ronald Reagan Building was--it should be noted that he signed the bill on August 21, 1987, the Federal Triangle Development Act. I had offered the measure here. It passed, very happily, and authorized the construction of an international, cultural and trade center on that site--a billion dollars worth of real estate. The site was cleared in 1928 and remained a parking lot until now. I remember writing a proposal for President Kennedy on the redevelopment of Pennsylvania Avenue--a parking lot of surpassing ugliness. But then in 1995, with the building up and about to be running, Congresswoman Andrea Seastrand, who represented the District in which the President lives, introduced a bill to name it for him. Senator Dole cosponsored it here. It was passed unanimously, I should think, in both bodies. And on December 22, 1995, in a very fine ceremony in the Oval Office, President Clinton signed that bill. Speaker Gingrich, Mr. Dole, Mr. Daschle, the Vice President, and the Senator from New York were there. Alas, Representative Seastrand had a vote and could not come. The building is a 2-century building. It will be there for a very long while. We own the land. It will save money because we will move people from rented space to Government space in the same manner that the Judiciary Building now flanks Union Station but it is a congressional building. It is on Federal land. It is a lease-to-own project. In about 25 years we will have it. We are already paying less rent than we were paying in rented space because we own the land. It is a handsome building. It is a triumphal building. The architectural critic of the Washington Post, Benjamin Forgey, has given it his very warm endorsement. It has a great atrium. As you walk in it, you see the names, Ronald Reagan and International Trade Organization Building--the Ronald Reagan Building, and in it the National Trade Center. You know you are at a special place designed for, authorized, and built by a very special man, and now to be named for that man in a ceremony that I hope will be joyous, celebratory, and on the edge sad as we consider the condition of our former President, but proud that he was just that. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Georgia. Mr. JOHNSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. April 28 or May 5.