Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, let me first congratulate my friend and colleague on the thoughtfulness of his remarks and the cogency of his arguments. If I will now speak in opposition, it is first and foremost a procedural opposition and jurisdictional one, having to do with bills sent from the House of Representatives and held at the desk and not referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Chair. One further point. After a very great deal of effort and not inconsiderable amount of pain, we have brought the Federal budget into balance. I stood here in 1993, or rather my good friend, now Ambassador to China, Mr. Sasser, as chairman of the Budget Committee, stood here and I stood there as chairman of the Finance Committee, and in a very close and dramatic moment, we got the required 51 votes to enact what I have since acknowledged to be the largest tax increase in history. But it broke the back of the expectation that we could never handle our finances, that interest rates had to be high, the inflation premium attendant on the probability that we would end up monetizing the debt because we couldn't pay for it. Monetizing is a term by which you inflate the currency and lower the cost of the debt. We did it, and the deficit has gone down. We have this most extraordinary, unprecedented, somewhat difficult-to-comprehend situation of full employment, low inflation, low interest rates, high productivity. Fuller employment than we ever thought was compatible with the interest situation. We are in a new economic setting, and by March, I would think, the continued revenues to the Treasury would be such that the deficit will have disappeared. We have talked about the deficit, not always in the calmest tones, for a decade now. We finally balanced the budget, and what do we suddenly see? More and more proposals for cutting taxes through one form or another, losing revenue so we will get the deficit back again. Mr. President, the time is at hand, if I may say, to use the deficit to reduce the debt. We now spend almost as much money on interest payments as we do on defense. That is not a proportionate set of values of interests, of priorities. We ought to start reducing the debt. For every dollar of public debt that we reduce, we get $1 of private savings, private investment, which, in turn, will produce revenue, and on one hand, it will reduce costs of interest payments, and on the other hand, it will increase revenue. We are short of savings. I know the concern of the Senator from Georgia is savings, but at this moment, I would like to say we will take this up next year. This has not been referred to the Finance Committee. It is a House measure held at the desk in the last hours of the first session of the 105th Congress. I hope that we will put it off until next year when it will receive a goodly consideration. I can't say I know this to be Chairman Roth's intention, but I cannot doubt it is his intention, such as it is his manner in all these issues. But to say again, the measure before us would spend $4 billion over 10 years to increase the contribution limit for education IRA's from $500 to $2,500 per year, provide for tax-free build-up of the earnings in such accounts, and tax-free withdrawals for an array of expenses relating to elementary and secondary education. The bill comes to this floor directly from the House; it has not been considered by the Finance Committee. With great respect to the sponsor of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Georgia, I do not believe the Senate should take up this legislation at this time. It was just 3 months ago that we passed the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which included a net tax cut of $95 billion over 5 years and $275 billion over 10 years. At a cost of $38 billion over 10 years, that act created the education IRA and the Roth IRA, and significantly expanded existing IRA's and the tax benefits of State-sponsored prepaid college tuition plans. And now, we are asked to expand those recent IRA changes even further. As well intentioned as this legislation is, surely there are many other priorities that should take precedence if we are serious about doing something for education. Priorities that have been thoroughly considered in the Finance Committee and by the full Senate. One such priority is the income exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance, which is Section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code. It is probably the single-most successful tax incentive for education we have. In the tax bill that emerged from the Finance Committee in June, we made section 127 permanent and we applied it to graduate school. Unfortunately, when the tax bill came back from conference, this provision was limited to a 3-year extension only for undergraduates. Proponents of the pending legislation speak of a crisis in our elementary and secondary schools. There is no more compelling illustration of this than the state of the infrastructure of these schools. During the debate last summer on the tax and spending legislation, Senators Carol Moseley-Braun and Bob Graham brought the issue of crumbling schools to our attention, and they continue to be eager to address it. If we feel we must spend $4 billion, why not spend it to insure that schools have heat this winter? There are also tax policy concerns with this bill. First, complexity. Even as we hear ever louder calls to scrap the code, we have before us a bill that would create a maze of rules in attempting to define what constitutes a ``qualified elementary and secondary education expense.'' The bill states that qualified elementary and secondary school expenses include expenses for tuition, computers, and transportation required for enrollment or attendance at a K-12 institution, and for home schooling. There is no further definition. For example, would it be possible to withdraw money from these accounts to purchase the family car? I don't know, but you can't find the answer in the text of this bill. Under the bill, the ability to contribute funds for elementary and secondary education expenses is proposed to sunset after 2002. However, money contributed through 2002 could still be used for such expenses. It will be up to the taxpayer to track--and the IRS to examine--when funds were contributed, and whether they can be used for only elementary and secondary education, only higher education, or both. The administration estimates that 70 percent of the benefits of the bill go to the top 20 percent of income earners, taxpayers with annual incomes above $93,000. Tax benefits to taxpayers below that level are estimated to be nominal. If the proponents are truly concerned about the middle class, the tax benefits should be targeted there. In order to accomplish this, the income limits that apply to this bill would have to be lowered, and the ability to circumvent those limits would have to be prevented. Mr. President, I appreciate the good will of the sponsors of this legislation, which we will be happy to consider in the Finance Committee in the next season. But please let us not take up a tax bill, of all things, in the final days of this session. This is no time for this tax bill or any other tax bill. But if our friends in the majority insist on going forward, I believe they will find that Senators on this side--and doubtless on their side, too--will be ready with amendments by the dozens. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I thank the Chair for his courtesy, and I thank my friend. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was rejected.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, in a few moments the Senate will vote to confirm a most able candidate for U.S. District Judge for the Western District of New York. Charles Joseph Siragusa was western New York's most experienced prosecutor who became its most admired supreme court judge. We now have the opportunity to bring his considerable talents to the Federal bench. I had the honor of recommending Judge Siragusa to President Clinton on May 14, 1997. He enjoys the full support of my friend and colleague, Senator D'Amato, and the unanimous approval of the Committee on the Judiciary. Might I note that my judicial screening panel interviewed more than 20 applicants to fill the vacancy that resulted when Judge Michael A. Telesca took senior status. There were, as one might have expected, many splendid candidates. However, Judge Charles J. Siragusa stood out. Judge Siragusa has served with great distinction in the Seventh Judicial District. He was elected to the State supreme court in 1992, following 15 years as a prosecutor with the Monroe County district attorney's office. In that capacity he tried over 100 felonies and was involved in a number of significant criminal cases including the prosecution of Arthur J. Shawcross, a serial killer responsible for the deaths of 11 women. He received widespread recognition and praise for his work on that case. A native of Rochester, Judge Siragusa was graduated from LeMoyne College in DeWitt, NY, in 1969. He received his law degree from Albany Law School in 1976 and has been a member of the New York State Bar since 1977. Judge Charles J. Siragusa is a man of great intelligence and unwavering principle. I am confident that, upon confirmation, he will serve with honor and distinction.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I would very much like to thank the senior Senator from Alaska, the Chairman, for the graciousness with which he has yielded to me. I will not take long. I want to acknowledge that I am a cosponsor of this legislation. And in the interest of full disclosure, I will say there are two small projects in New York State that would be affected. But the proposition to be addressed once again, as the senior Senator from West Virginia has said, is that the Line Item Veto Act is unconstitutional, and we are already beginning to see the constitutional consequences, the extraordinary increase in the power of the Presidency as against the legislature that is implicit in the newly enhanced bargaining position of the President. If you want to change this power, which is very carefully set forth in article I of the Constitution, then amend the Constitution. But, Senators, listen to Senator Byrd. Listen, if I might just presume to say, to Justice John Paul Stevens. In the course of our challenge, which reached the Supreme Court last June, the Justices simply said, well, they don't have standing. However, in a powerful dissent, Justice Stevens, who was the only Justice to comment directly on the merits of the case, said they surely do have standing. He wrote of the Act: If the procedure were valid, it would deny every Senator and every Representative any opportunity to vote for or against the truncated measure that survives the exercise of the President's cancellation authority. Because the opportunity to cast such votes is a right guaranteed by the text of the Constitution, I think it clear that the persons who are deprived of that right by the Act have standing to challenge its constitutionality. Moreover, because the impairment of that constitutional right has an immediate impact on their official powers, in my judgment they need not wait until after the President has exercised his cancellation authority to bring suit. Finally, the same reason that the respondents have standing provides a sufficient basis for concluding that the statute is unconstitutional. Again, Justice Stevens said, not only do they have standing but the measure is unconstitutional. Two Federal judges have spoken to this issue: Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia--who took just 3 weeks from having heard the case to declare it unconstitutional--and then Justice Stevens. I can report that three new constitutional challenges have recently been filed and now consolidated, I believe is the term, in the District Court, and we will hear from the Supreme Court before this term is out, I should think. But in the first instance remember that the large issue here is that of the Constitution. We take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I had never thought, Mr. President, when I first took that oath that there were any ``domestic'' enemies to the Constitution, but now as I look about us, I recall that celebrated immortal line from Pogo: ``We have met the enemy and he is us.'' Now, there will be time to overcome that. For the moment I simply wish to thank the Senator from Alaska, the distinguished chairman, for an opportunity to express my view on this subject. I yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, Max Frankel, sometime head of the Washington Bureau of the New York Times and a wise and seasoned observer of American politics, wrote about campaign finance reform in his column in yesterday's New York Times magazine. I commend it to all Senators. We all know the one issue in campaign finance is money for television. Ease that by providing free television time--those are public airways--and as much about the problem goes away as will ever be managed in this vale of toil and sin. I ask that the article be printed in the Record. The article follows: Money: Hard, Soft and Dirty a sure-fire solution to the campaign finance mess would be to wipe out the big bucks of tv advertising The movement to clean up campaign financing is going nowhere for the simple reason that the reformers are aiming at the wrong target. They are laboring to limit the flow of money into politics when they should be looking to limit the candidates' need for money to pay for television time. It is the staggering price of addressing the voters that drives the unseemly money chase. You cannot run for major office nowadays without spending millions for television commercials that spread your fame, shout your slogans, denounce your opponents and counteract television attacks. A campaign costing $10 million for a governorship or seat in the Senate is a bargain in many states. Even with the priceless advantages of the White House at his command, President Clinton seems to have spent more than $250 million on television ads promoting his re-election last year. And he and his opponents invented breathtaking strategies to evade the post-Watergate laws against collecting and spending that kind of money. Not even the most determined investigators have uncovered the cost to taxpayers of the favors done for the donors of these vast sums. Surely no honest business, union or interest group would sanction large contributions if the investment did not pay off. Senators gathering $6 million for a re- election campaign must solicit $3,000 every day of their six years in office; just imagine how grateful they become when a single donor offers to cover a whole week of such beggary. It would be cheaper by far if Federal and state treasuries paid directly for the television time that candidates need to define themselves to the public--provided they purchased no commercial time of their own. Democracy would be further enhanced if television stations that sold time to special interest groups in election years were required, in return for the use of the public spectrum, to give equal time to opposing views. But so long as expensive television commercials are our society's main campaign weapons, politicians will not abandon the demeaning and often corrupt quest for ever more money from ever more suspect sources. That is why President Clinton gave only lip service to campaign finance reform during his first term. And though he claims to favor it now, he has dropped the essential element of free television time. Does anyone really believe that Al Gore wants to be held to the spending limits envisioned by the Watergate reforms of 20 years ago--a TV budget of a mere $100 million when he runs for President in two years? Would any rational Republican want such a limit for a campaign against an already widely known Vice President? Money flows toward power like water downhill, and so long as they need money, politicians will contrive to get it. All efforts to restrict the flow will only force it deeper underground. In the parlance of campaign finance, candidates are supposed to traffic only in ``hard'' money--money gathered and spent in amounts that are strictly limited and monitored. Responding to the high cost of television, however, both parties have conspired to greatly exceed the limits with ``soft'' money--contributions that national, state, county and local party organizations may collect and spend freely provided only that the television messages they produce are disguised to appear ``uncoordinated'' with any candidate's campaign. Reforms, led by Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold, thought they could restore restraint by simply outlawing soft money. But they soon realized that banning soft money would put a premium on ``slimy'' money--the money that candidates steer to like-minded interest groups, which then produce ``independent'' commercials and use them in support of favored candidates. So the reformers decided that the Government would have to police commercials to prevent the subterfuge, and they have convinced themselves that the Supreme Court would countenance such censorship. Fat chance. Yet even if the soft and slimy variants were prohibited, political money would reappear in liquid or vaporous form. The Annenberg Public Policy Center has compiled a catalogue of two dozen ``issue groups''--from the Americans for Limited Terms to Women for Tax Reform--that spent about $150 million for political ads in 1995-95, most of them targeted for or against specific candidates. These groups call themselves ``educational'' rather than political and are effectively beyond Government regulation. Most are also able to reward their donors with tax exemptions. Thus the ads for shrewdly positioned candidates who ``support the police'' or ``counteract global warming'' could tap into taxpayer subsidies of up to 40 percent. Similarly subsidized are the ``foundations'' that both parties have learned to create in election seasons to ``teach'' a certain kind of history or to ``register'' voters of a certain persuasion. Senators McCain and Feingold were once well aware of the folly of trying to dam up this flow of money without simultaneously reducing the politicians' need for it. Their original proposal called for television stations to compensate the public for the use of the airways by giving candidates a generous supply of free air time. But they were forced to drop that idea to get their bill to the Senate floor, a compromise that left them sponsoring a measure bound to make a bad situation even worse. When campaigning for a seat in Congress costs 10 or more times the amount earned by its occupant and when it takes half a billion to run for President, who can compete? Mainly the wealthy or those beholden to the wealthy. There is no point dreaming of a law that says ``you may not'' so long as the political system daily teaches the participants ``you must.'' Until the candidates for office in America are relieved of the costly burden of buying television time, the scandals will grow.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for yielding me this time.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it is again an honor and a privilege to join with one of the great constitutionalists in the history of the U.S. Senate, Robert C. Byrd, who has written the history of the Senate. I can so well remember the occasion on which that great volume was introduced. One of our finest American historians was present saying that it is difficult to understand and very hard to forgive that there has been so little scholarly attention given to this body, to the Congress, as against the Presidency, and suggesting that it is not hard to explain. There is only one President, and there are 435 of us--a more complicated subject that comes later in our historymaking. But I think it may be said that in the history of relations between the Congress and the Presidency there has never been an issue equal in importance to the constitutional challenge we face with the Line-Item Veto Act. I think of difficulties in the past. There have been clashes between the Executive and the legislative. There are meant to be, sir, I presume to tell you. Madison and Hamilton, when they explained the Constitution to the people of New York in that series of essays that became the Federalist Papers, said citizens might well ask. At that time people knew the history of classical Greece and Rome, and they knew how turbulent it was. Madison had the solicitous phrase of speaking of the ``fugitive existence'' of those republics. And they asked: What makes anyone suppose that we will have a better understanding, a better, a more durable existence than those of the past? And the answer was, ``We have a new science of politics.'' That was their phrase, `` * * * a new science of politics.'' Because in the past, theories of government depended on virtue in rulers. We have made up a different arrangement, an arrangement by which the opposing forces, the checks and balances, set off one group against another. And the result is that in the end you have outcomes that make up for--again, a wonderful line of Madison's--``the defect of better motives.'' And, in that regard the Framers very carefully defined in article I and article II this distinction. If I may say, again because it is so important, the framers of the Constitution presumed conflict. They did not assume harmony. They did not assume common interests. They assumed conflict. When they were asked, Why should we expect this Republic to survive given the ``fugitive existence'' of republics of classical Rome and Greece?, they replied ``Because we have a new science of politics.'' We can have one interest balance another interest. And they devised it because they knew there were conflicting interests. I believe it would surprise us, Mr. President, to know the extent to which--until the American Constitution came along--political theory assumed virtue and harmony in rulers and in government. We have seen it in our time, sir, in its most notorious form in the dictatorships of the proletariat in the Soviet Union, in the Republic of China, now in North Korea, if you like. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a wonderful way of saying rule by the virtuists, and rule by the virtuists turned out in reality to be rule by tyrants, by monsters. Indeed, Mr. Pol Pot is just now being interviewed by Mr. Thayer in the Far Eastern Review, and in the name of virtue, in the name of the people's republic, Mr. Pol Pot murdered perhaps as many as 2 million Cambodians. All in the name of virtue. Well, this Constitution does not assume virtue. It assumes self- interest. And it carefully balances the power by which one interest will offset another interest and in the outcome make up, again in that wonderful phrase of Madison, ``the defect of better motives.'' In the judgment of this Senator, shared of course by our revered leader in this regard, nothing could violate that constitutional design more clearly than the Line Item Veto Act. On January 2 of this year, the first business day after the Line Item Veto Act took effect, I joined Senator Byrd, Senator Levin, and our never-to-be-forgotten friend from the State of Oregon, the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Hatfield, in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of that Act on the ground that it violates article I, section 7, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, known as the presentment clause. Mr. President, the issue of this Act's constitutionality has now been commented upon by two Federal judges. In the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson took exactly 3 weeks from the date of oral argument to conclude that it is unconstitutional. He wrote in his April 10, 1997 opinion that by passing the Line Item Veto Act, ``Congress has turned the constitutional division of responsibilities for legislating on its head.'' The Justice Department appealed that decision, and we went to the Supreme Court where, in a manner that I think is generally understood, the Court is a little shy about getting into arguments between Members of Congress and the President. I could use the image, sir, that the Court likes to see someone before it with a broken arm saying, let me tell you how it happened to me and why. And they held that we did not have standing--seven Justices did. Justice Breyer thought we had standing. But most importantly, sir, Justice Stevens dissented. He said we did have standing, and what is more, that this measure is unconstitutional. He is the one Supreme Court Justice who has commented on the question of this statute's constitutionality. In his opinion he wrote: The same reason that the respondents have standing provides a sufficient basis for concluding that the statute is unconstitutional. I quote, Sir, from the case of Franklin D. Raines, Director, Office of Management and Budget, et al., Appellants, versus Robert C. Byrd, et al. Now, this is a constitutional question. There is another more subtle one. It goes directly to the constitutional intention of the separation of powers and the balance of powers, and that is the idea of the shift in power from the Congress to the executive that this legislation makes possible. In this morning's Washington Post there is an article about the President's recent exercise of this authority. And rather to my distress, if I may say it, a number of Senators on this floor and a number of Members on the House floor have discovered that there is politics being played in the White House. Politics, Mr. President? I am shocked to hear that there are politics in the Presidency. Of course, there are--ever have been. In today's story in the Post a very distinguished scholar, Stanley E. Collender, who is an expert on spending issues, says, ``The line-item veto is never going to be a deficit reduction tool and you would think they''--the Congress-- ``would have realized it when they gave it to the President. It's a raw exercise in power.'' Mr. President, if you want to shift power from the Congress to the executive, fine. Amend the Constitution. Do not abuse it by statute. And if it came to amending it, I am not sure we would. I talked earlier about the ``Federalist,'' which was written as essays in New York State newspapers in support of ratification by New York State of the Constitution, which was a very close matter. Rhode Island, as the distinguished sometime President pro tempore knows, was the last to ratify it. It took them years. But they didn't have Madison and Hamilton and Jay to read at the time, and we did. Now, there has just appeared a wonderful small volume called the New Federalist Papers, a twentieth century fund book written by Alan Brinkley, Nelson Polsby and Kathleen Sullivan. They try to make their essays about the length of the original Federalist. Nelson Polsby has a succinct and devastating essay on the line-item veto. Nelson Polsby, who happens to be a friend of many years, is Professor of Government at the University of California, Berkeley, and his many books include, most importantly in my view, his book ``Congress and the Presidency.'' And he writes here on the line item veto. He says: The line-item veto would make Congress severely dependent on Presidential good will. A shrewd President would not veto everything but would use the line-item veto selectively, in effect bribing legislators into cooperating. Americans have a stake in preserving the independent judgment of Congress on issues of public policy. This is not the way to do it. ``Americans,'' I say again, ``have a stake in preserving the independent judgment of Congress on issues of public policy. This is not the way to do it.'' I should say that Mark Hatfield, our coplaintiff, is using this text in his seminars back in Oregon just now. Early on in our deliberations--and I hope I will not take any liberty when I say it--a most distinguished and admired colleague, ``Mac'' Mathias, a Senator from Maryland, who was with us so long, when this first came up commented from his long experience, ``The President won't veto any great number of items. He will just let it be known that he can.'' And the conversation goes as follows: Senator, I know how much this radiation laboratory means to that fine hospital you have worked so hard to develop. I know how much it means to the health of the American people, to science, to medicine. But, you know, Senator, expanding NATO is a very important issue to me. And I hope that if I understand your needs, and I feel your needs, you will understand mine, and surely you will. Can we have that understanding as responsible persons in Government? Well, that kind of trading goes on and is meant to go on. That's what checks and balances are about. But not with the threat of an unconstitutional act to change a bill passed by this body and the other body and sent to the President, take something out of it, and the bill that in consequence never passed either body becomes law. That violates the Constitution's ``single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure,'' as the Court in INS versus Chadha called the presentment clause of article I. Now if you want to do that, fine. Amend the Constitution. But you cannot amend the Constitution by statute. I do not want to go on because there are so many distinguished persons in the Chamber, and the Senator from West Virginia, our teacher in these matters, is being very patient. But simply to say, as Mr. Collender says in this morning's Washington Post, this will never save any money. What will happen is, as Mr. Polsby says in his essay, it simply shifts power from the legislative branch to the executive branch. And it does so in a manner that Justice Stevens in the Supreme Court not 4 months ago said is unconstitutional. More I do not know what need be said. The Congress could do itself a great service by passing Senator Byrd's legislation. Then we would have a real test of political reality. Would that bill be signed or vetoed? We do not know, but one good way to find out is simply to adopt this direct and simple legislation. Mr. President, I will not go on, but I ask unanimous consent that at this point in my remarks, that there be printed in the Record the text of the four pages by Nelson W. Polsby on the line-item veto as published in the New Federalist Papers.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. If I might reply to my distinguished friend and chairman who asked, ``Who has agreed? If we assert this is unconstitutional, who has agreed?'' May I just read a passage from the opinion of the one Justice of the Supreme Court who has commented on the constitutionality question? It was John Paul Stevens, 26 June, 1997. Our complaint had been filed on January 2, the first business day of this year after the act took effect. He says: The line-item veto purports to establish a procedure for the creation of laws that are truncated versions of bills that have been passed by the Congress and presented to the President for signature. If the procedure were valid, it would deny every Senator and every Representative any opportunity to vote for or against the truncated measure that survives the exercise of the President's cancellation authority. Because the opportunity to cast such votes is a right guaranteed by the text of the Constitution, I think it clear that the persons who are deprived of that right by the act [meaning the plaintiffs] have standing to challenge its constitutionality. Moreover, because the impairment of that constitutional right has an immediate impact on their official powers, in my judgment they need not wait until after the President has exercised his cancellation authority to bring suit. Finally, the same reason that the respondents have standing provides a sufficient basis for concluding that the statute is unconstitutional. Now, on October 16 of this year--this month--the city of New York filed suit with respect to a vetoed item in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. New York City was joined by the Greater New York Hospital Association and two labor groups that represent hospital workers. I have asked to file an amicus brief. The case is now pending in the district court and we will hear presently from them.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. By persons I described as standing before the court with a broken arm.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. May I respond to my learned and good friend, there are no judicial pronouncements to the effect that this is constitutional, for the simple reason that it is rather new. It was enacted by Congress for the first time in 1996. But although it has never been adjudicated by the courts, it has been the subject of scholarly commentary. At the time we debated the measure in the Senate, I cited several such scholarly opinions, including those of Lawrence H. Tribe of the Harvard Law School, and Michael J. Gerhardt, then of the Cornell Law School, now dean of Case Western Reserve Law School. I noted that in Professor Tribe's treatise ``American Constitutional Law,'' he writes: Empowering the President to veto appropriation bills line by line would profoundly alter the Constitution's balance of power. The President would be free, not only to nullify new Congressional spending initiatives and priorities, but to wipe out previously enacted programs that receive their funding through the annual appropriations policy. He goes on to say: Congress, which the Constitution makes the master of the purse, would be demoted to the role of giving fiscal advice that the executive would be free to disregard. The framers granted the President no such special veto over appropriations bills, despite their awareness of the insistence of colonial assemblies that their spending bills could not be amended once they passed the lower house had greatly enhanced the growth of legislative power. As the conference report on the Line Item Veto Act came back to the Senate in 1996, we asked Professor Tribe for his opinion, as Senator Byrd will recall. He read the conference report and telephoned in the morning, and he gave us this statement: This is a direct attempt to circumvent the constitutional prohibition against legislative vetoes, and its delegation of power to the President clearly fails to meet the requisites of article I, section 7. I say to my friend once again, if you want to give the President this power, do so in the mode the Constitution provides. That is by constitutional amendment. But you cannot do it by legislation.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank my friend from Rhode Island. I thank my leader. (Mr. SMITH of Oregon assumed the chair.)

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on October 16, following the release of monthly price data by the Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], the Social Security Administration announced a 2.1-percent cost of living adjustment [COLA] for Social Security and other Government programs. Yet a week earlier, the Social Security Administration circulated a table which indicated that the benefit increase would be 2.7 percent. How could this happen? Simple. The Administration, as I have noted on numerous occasions, insisted on using an outdated economic forecast so as to obscure the fact that the budget was approaching balance in fiscal year 1997 in the absence of a budget agreement. While that budget legislation was pending in Congress last summer, it was feared that if the economic outlook was too favorable, pressure for the budget bills would decrease and agreement would not be reached. And so the Social Security Actuaries had no recourse other than to use the official forecast when presenting data on the actuarial status of the trust funds. Here is why the numbers were, to put it mildly, misleading. The Administration notes that its midsession budget review--released almost 2 months late on September 5--is based on economic projections finalized in early June. But even by then it should have been clear what was happening to prices. By early June 1997, data for 8 months of the benefit computation period, August 1996-April 1997, indicated that, on an annual basis, CPI-W had increased by 2.4 percent. To increase by 2.7 percent for the full year would require, on an annual basis, a 3.2- percent increase in CPI-W for the remaining 4 months, April 1997-August 1997, of the computation period. Put another way the Administration was predicting a one-third increase in the inflation rate. Yet, on an annual basis, CPI-W increased by only 1.5 percent during these 4 months. That is, the inflation rate actually declined by almost 40 percent. In short, by the spring it should have been clear that the benefit increase would be less than 2.7 percent. And by late summer it was virtually certain that the increase would be 2.0 to 2.2 percent, but nowhere near 2.7 percent. What does this mean to the average beneficiary now receiving a monthly benefit of $749? Instead of a $20 monthly benefit increase--2.7 percent of $749--the benefit increase will be about $16. Fortunately, few if any Members of Congress rushed out in early October and announced to constituents, based on the Administration's estimates, that they would receive an expected 2.7-percent benefit increase. The Advisory Commission to Study the Consumer Price Index--the Boskin Commission--concluded that the Consumer Price Index [CPI] overstates changes in the cost of living by about 1.1 percentage points. And many other researchers concur with the findings of the Boskin Commission. The American Association of Retired Persons [AARP], and others, have argued that the only way to keep politics out of the process is to let the BLS do it. Such critics should be mindful that accurate statistics include timely and accurate projections. By late September or early October of each year Social Security beneficiaries should be able to rely on their Government to provide reliable projections of upcoming benefit increases. Mr. President, I ask that a table prepared by the Social Security Administration, Office of the Actuary, on October 7, 1997, be printed in the Record. The table follows:

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the National Security Agency has recently lost to retirement its deputy director, William P. Crowell. As David Kahn has recently written in Newsday, Mr. Crowell has taken NSA and ``brought the super-secret spy organization into its public, post- Cold War posture.'' For too long, we have been learning our cold war history from Soviet Archives. Bill Crowell set about to change that at the National Security Agency. He directed the establishment of the National Cryptologic Museum, which I have visited and commend to my colleagues, and helped to make public the hugely important VENONA project. The VENONA intercepts comprise over 2,000 coded Soviet diplomatic messages between Moscow and its missions in North America. The NSA and its predecessors spent some four decades decoding what should have been an unbreakable Soviet code. Led by Meredith Gardner, these cryptanalysts painstakingly decoded these messages word by word. They would then pass on the decoded messages to the FBI, which conducted extensive investigations to determine the identities of the Soviet agents mentioned in the messages. The resulting VENONA decrypts detail the Soviet espionage effort in the United States during and after the Second World War. We need access to much more of this type of information. Not only does VENONA allow us to learn our history, but in releasing it to the public, not insignificant gaps in the government's knowledge of this material are being filled. For instance, the identity of one of the major atomic spies at Los Alamos was recently discovered by clever journalists using the published VENONA messages. Joseph Albright and Marcia Kunstel of Cox News and, working independently, Michael Dobbs of The Washington Post, identified the agent codenamed MLAD as Theodore Alvin Hall, a 19-year-old physicist working at Los Alamos. Hall provided crucial details of the design of the atomic bomb which enabled the Soviet Union to develop a replica of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. Bill Crowell recognized the historic value of VENONA and played an important role in getting this material released, along with Dr. John M. Deutch, and with the gentle prodding of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy. Mr. Crowell should receive a medal for his work. Mr. Crowell retires after a long career of government service. He served as a senior executive of the National Security Agency for 17 years. He was appointed Deputy Director of the agency by the President in 1994. In addition to his work which has already been described, Mr. Crowell has worked in recent years to help craft a responsible Administration policy regarding encryption technology. I ask to have the article by David Kahn in Newsday, which announces his retirement and highlights some of his accomplishments, printed in the Record. I salute Mr. Crowell for his dedicated service and wish him well in his future pursuits. The article follows: [From Newsday, Oct. 6, 1997] National Security Official Retires--Helped Refocus Agency's Aims (By David Kahn) The National Security Agency has said goodbye to its retiring deputy director, who largely brought the super- secret spy organization into its public, post-Cold War posture. William P. Crowell was the force behind the establishment of the National Cryptologic Museum, which exhibits what had been some of the nation's deepest secrets; the revelation of the VENONA project, which broke Soviet spy codes early in the Cold War; and the National Encryption Policy, which seeks to balance personal privacy with national security. Succeeding Crowell will be Barbara McNamara, who, like Crowell, is a career employee of the agency, which breaks foreign codes and makes American Codes for the United States government. McNamara is the second female deputy director of the agency. The first, Ann Z. Caracristi, who served from 1980 to 1982, is the sister of the late Newsday photographer Jimmy Caracristi. More than 500 present and past members of the agency attended Crowell's recent retirement ceremony at its glossy, triple-fenced headquarters at Fort Meade, Md. They applauded as he was presented with awards for his intelligence and executive services and with a folded American flag that had flow over the agency. They laughed as a picture, claimed to be his retirement portrait, was unveiled: It was a photograph of Crowell, notorious for his love of motorcycles, astride his fancy bike. During his acceptance speech, Crowell choked up when he thanked his wife, Judy, a former agency employee and fellow motorcyclist, for her help. The agency director, Air Force Lt. Gen. Kenneth Minihan, recited some of the administrative landmarks of Crowell's career. Crowell, 58, a native of Louisiana, began in New York City in 1962 as an agency recruiter. In 1969, when he sought an assignment to operations, he became instead an executive assistant to the then-director. He eventually got to operations, where he rose to be chief of W group, whose function remains secret, and then chief of A group, which focused on the then-Soviet Union. After a year in private industry, he rose through other posts to the deputy directorship on Feb. 2, 1994. Among his organizational accomplishments were conceiving a crisis action center and linking the agency with other producers of intelligence to improve information exchange. His more public initiatives included the museum and the VENONA disclosures, which sought to maintain public support for the agency after the disappearance of the Soviet Union. The National Encryption Policy seeks to enable the agency to read the messages of terrorists and international criminals who use computer-based, unbreakable ciphers while enabling individuals to use good cryptosecurity to preserve such rights as security on the Internet.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise as an original sponsor of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Technical Corrections Act of 1997. This legislation will extend a provision signed into law as part of the Anti-Terrorism Act (Pub. L. 104-132) allowing individuals who are victims of terrorism and other violations of international law to file suit for damages in United States court. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, enacted in 1976, recognizes that except in the most egregious cases, foreign states are immune from suit by a citizen of the United States. The bill Senator Faircloth and I are introducing today establishes the principle that terrorism, extrajudicial killing, and other gross abuses of human rights are not protected acts of state and are not entitled to sovereign immunity. While the Anti-Terrorism Act expanded the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow for suits against countries designated by the Department of State as a sponsor of terrorism, this bill would expand the list of states to include countries which do not have an extradition treaty with the United States, or which do not have an adequate available judicial remedy. This provision recognizes that while foreign states enjoy immunity from most legal action by individuals, there are certain fundamental principles of international law that cannot be violated with impunity. Two examples of citizens who would gain legal standing by this legislation are James Smrkovski and Scott Nelson, Americans who were tortured by agents of their foreign state employer, a nation not on the list of terrorist states. They survived harrowing experiences only to be barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act from even attempting to obtain redress. When the United States Supreme Court said that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act did not permit Mr. Nelson any legal recourse, it made clear that a remedy must come from Congress. And so, Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] and I are introducing this measure so that Americans who have been victims of terrible crimes perpetrated by foreign governments have legal recourse. I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor the bill, and I hope it can be adopted without undue delay.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise as an original sponsor of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Technical Corrections Act of 1997. This legislation will extend a provision signed into law as part of the Anti-Terrorism Act (Pub. L. 104-132) allowing individuals who are victims of terrorism and other violations of international law to file suit for damages in United States court. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, enacted in 1976, recognizes that except in the most egregious cases, foreign states are immune from suit by a citizen of the United States. The bill Senator Faircloth and I are introducing today establishes the principle that terrorism, extrajudicial killing, and other gross abuses of human rights are not protected acts of state and are not entitled to sovereign immunity. While the Anti-Terrorism Act expanded the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow for suits against countries designated by the Department of State as a sponsor of terrorism, this bill would expand the list of states to include countries which do not have an extradition treaty with the United States, or which do not have an adequate available judicial remedy. This provision recognizes that while foreign states enjoy immunity from most legal action by individuals, there are certain fundamental principles of international law that cannot be violated with impunity. Two examples of citizens who would gain legal standing by this legislation are James Smrkovski and Scott Nelson, Americans who were tortured by agents of their foreign state employer, a nation not on the list of terrorist states. They survived harrowing experiences only to be barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act from even attempting to obtain redress. When the United States Supreme Court said that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act did not permit Mr. Nelson any legal recourse, it made clear that a remedy must come from Congress. And so, Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] and I are introducing this measure so that Americans who have been victims of terrible crimes perpetrated by foreign governments have legal recourse. I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor the bill, and I hope it can be adopted without undue delay.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise in emphatic support of the nomination of Paul R. Carey of New York to be a commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mr. Carey, who has served since 1993 as special assistant to President Clinton, is an inspired public servant who is exceptionally well qualified for this position. I have known Paul Carey, boy and man. He was born in Brooklyn, the borough of churches. And indeed it was in a sort of church that we first met. It was in the summer of 1977. I was a newly serving Senator and Paul's father was New York's Governor. It was through Hugh Carey's heroic efforts that New York City was saved from bankruptcy. As I have often said elsewhere, Hugh Carey was New York's greatest Governor since Al Smith. Paul's father and I had gathered, along with several hundred others at Siena College, to be present at the induction of Howard Hubbard to serve as the bishop of the Diocese of Albany. Paul accompanied his father that day. He was still in grade school but he was attentive throughout and his firm handshake alone identified him as his father's son. We became friends and I shared his family's pride as he progressed through high school, graduated from Colgate University, and entered the world of business and finance. But I think he was always interested in public service. In 1991 he chanced upon my wife Liz in the Albany train station and said as much. He joined the Clinton administration at the first. And he has just shone. Paul has exemplified what Alexander Hamilton called Energy in the Executive. No bill has been too complex to yield to his explanation. Few Senators are able to withstand his persuasive powers. He has seen the President's program through. Paul has proved his worth and his talents have not escaped the President's notice. If I may say Mr. President, Paul's time in the White House will serve him well at the SEC. For despite being an independent agency, the Commission is withal a part of the national government. As such, it is useful to have a Commissioner who knows intimately the workings of the legislative and executive branches. Government has been called the art of the possible. Paul has over these last years learned what is possible and what is not. As the Commission confronts a world made more complex by technology and the globalization of finance, proposals will be made for regulations and laws of great sweep and broad scope. Having a Commissioner who knows what can be done as well as what should be done will allow the Commission to better serve us all. Mr. President, I do not believe there is any representative of the administration who enjoys a higher degree of respect on Capitol Hill than Paul Carey, as was demonstrated by the unanimous vote in favor of Paul's nomination by the Senate Banking Committee, and by the enthusiastic support of its chairman. Senator D'Amato. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to follow suit and confirm the nomination of Paul Carey by a unanimous vote.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am beyond words but not beyond gratitude. I could not thank my colleagues enough.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, as a member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works for nigh on to 21 years now, I rise with a great sense of pleasure and even pride at what our committee has done in the legislation before you, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997, known informally as ISTEA II. It is a work of great complexity, yet clarity of principle. It is a tribute to our chairman, Senator Chafee, to his distinguished and wholly informed, carefully attentive ranking member, Senator Max Baucus of Montana. One would not wish to overlook the work of Senator John Warner of Virginia, whose subcommittee had to produce this measure. Nine months ago--and this might be an augury for many of the matters that remain for the Senate in this session--9 months ago it was thought that this bill would bring about some of the fiercest interregional battles of this time in our national life. And, yet, to the amazement of all and to the very great credit of the managers of the bill, it was reported out of committee unanimously. The committee has a long-standing tradition of bipartisanship, which is always challenged when the elemental and legitimate interests of different regions, and different States, come into play. It is a matter of great satisfaction to me that the authors of the bill chose to give it the same name, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, which we gave to the bill in 1991, ISTEA I, if you like. Robert A. Roe of New Jersey, then chairman of the House Public Works Committee and a public servant of the highest capacity, and I, as the person charged with the task in the Committee on Environment and Public Works, developed principles for the first highway bill to mark the post-Interstate era. And here I would like to make a point to which I will return at the conclusion of my remarks The point is, Mr. President, that the Department of Transportation in 1990-91 faced the unavoidable fact that the Interstate and Defense Highway System, the Eisenhower Interstate System, as it was named at the behest of our beloved John Heinz, was finished. It was built, and they could think of no other thing, no better move, no different task, than to build another. I think the distinguished managers will recall, as I will not forget, the occasion on which we were summoned to an event in the auditorium at the Executive Office Building. President Bush came, and stood on the stage by a great map of the United States with white background and red lines, just moving here and there, up and down, right, left. I thought, ``Oh, my Heaven, is this the new interstate map?'' However, I was reassured finally by the then Secretary of Transportation, that no, these were just illustrative lines drawn, presumptively for aesthetic effect, as might be an abstract expressionist painting exhibited in New York's Museum of Modern Art in the 1980's. They had no idea what to do and had no instinct, save to go on doing what they had done. Congress thought differently. Congress chose, in a cooperative mode, to devise the first post-Interstate era transportation program for the country. The Interstate System was a long time in the making, Mr. President. It began as a concept at the 1939 World's Fair. I may be one of the only Members of the body who went to that fair, which was in Flushing Meadows in Queens, NY. The General Motors Co., had an exhibit which was the great sensation and joy of the fair. It was called ``Futurama.'' Under a great plexidome, it showed a map of a portion of the United States with Chevrolets and Buicks driving steadily through these great divided highways with cloverleaf intersections, passing through mountains, stopping, in one instance, at the 40th floor, as I recall, of the Empire State Building. It was just a huge success as displays go. In 1944, President Roosevelt, having in mind the possibility that the Depression of the 1930's would return at the end of the Second World War--this was a widely held belief--had Congress authorize an interstate highway system to be built when the war was over and peace resumed. This was done. The Interstate System was authorized. No funds were made available. Then President Eisenhower came to office. One of the current ideas was the creation of an Interstate system. He appointed a commission to look into it, because this had a particular hold on his personal experience. His first command in 1919 had been to assume that enemy action had destroyed the national railroad system, and he was to take a convoy of military trucks from Fort Meade, on the outskirts of Washington, to the Presidio in California. He got there, but it was a tale to tell, and he would tell it. It is a wonderful passage in a book he put out, ``Stories I Like To Tell.'' He crossed the Mississippi River to the Pacific. He averaged about 4 miles an hour. That wouldn't do if, indeed, there was a military emergency. And so the Interstate System became the Interstate Defense System. A dedicated gasoline tax was imposed--this was very much the work of Jim Wright of Texas--and we began the largest engineering public works project in the history of the world. Indeed, we had already begun it in New York State where Governor Dewey, in 1946, simply took it upon himself to build such a road with funding from the sales of bonds. He built this road from the outskirts of New York City across the path of the New York Central Railroad and the Erie Canal to Buffalo and down to Pennsylvania. It is called the New York State Thruway. And the inspired civil engineer who built it, Bertram Tallamy, was asked down by the Eisenhower administration to take over the small Bureau of Public Roads in the Department of Commerce to build this national system. Previously, the Bureau of Public Roads managed a very small Federal program, mostly involved with what we call farm-to-market roads for rural areas. The Interstate System was a vast success, in many ways too much of a success. It changed the outlay of the American economy, the regions, the regional distribution. Cities emptied out, suburbs grew up, factories moved, and a great change took place in our system. The use of automobiles doubled, and then redoubled. The time came, however, when this Interstate System, which really was a misnomer because most of the expanse was in and around cities, was finished and the time had come to do something more. The new legislation in 1991 established the principle of a balanced national transportation investment policy, an intermodal policy to improve mobility and access to jobs. Because as jobs left the inner cities all over our country, there was no public transportation available to people who didn't have automobiles. It provided for environmental protection. Sometime in the 1970's, we began to notice the phenomenon of air pollution in our cities. A scientist at the University of California identified the process by which smog is formed. Air quality became a genuine and urgent issue. We said we would look at the environment generally and see to it that local communities participated in decisions affecting their environment. This, Mr. President, sounds like a routine statement. But before ISTEA, participation by local communities was not a routine event for our National Highway Program. These plans were drawn up in Washington and administered from highway departments in State capitals. Local governments had little or no say. The money, the 90-10 money, the 95-5 money, could scarcely be resisted and decisions were centralized at the State level in a way that would surprise many who began the program. If you would like to see an example of devolution, look to what our committee has done in these two bills in moving decisionmaking from the States to regional and local groups. In the hearings that have been held all over the country, there has been, as I understand, very strong endorsement of this legislation on this ground. A hearing held at the Alexander Hamilton Custom House in Bowling Green, NY, by Senator Warner brought the Governor of New Jersey, the Governor of New York, the mayor of New York City, persons from the surrounding counties in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York to say this has been a revelation to us that we could have something to say in the expenditure of Federal moneys. Federal funds didn't just have to go for another highway, there was something called efficiency involved. We would say in 1991 that there is no such thing as a free lunch and there is no such thing as a free way. We have to introduce pricing principles where the users of the highways pay tolls, varied by hour of the day or night. Electronics could be introduced to efficiently do that. At the time of the 1991 legislation, at the Triborough Bridge in New York, which had been opened in time for the 1939 World's Fair, there still were men, now women as well, standing at toll booths collecting tolls. Sixty years had gone by and not a bit of productivity had been introduced into the system. Today, you go through with something called EZ Pass, which electronically collects the toll, and it has quite transformed the system. We talked about air quality. We talked about efficiency. We talked about the need to maintain existing infrastructure, and we have been successful. The present bill before you, ISTEA II, contains those principles, reasserts them and will continue them. The bill does another important thing, and more important to some States than to others. The 1991 legislation provided that States that had built highways that were contributed to the Interstate System would be reimbursed for the expense. This was clearly contemplated by the original authors of the Eisenhower legislation--a committee headed by Gen. Lucius D. Clay. The bill before you continues that principle by including the interstate reimbursement program in the base amounts paid to States under the new formulas. This is especially important to New York State, which was authorized to obtain $5 billion over the course of 15 years, and has already received some $600 million. The installments are about a third of a billion each year. There are other important problems yet to be resolved. There is an issue of the transit title of our bill. Transit is one aspect of national legislation in which one region will be very much more involved than in others. For example, a third of the transit rides in the United States are in the New York region. Yet we receive only 18 percent of the funds, despite having twice that much transit ridership. On balance, we do not get much in the way of flood plain protection. Our agricultural subsidies are minimal. Our defense outlays are almost nonexistent. Transit is one of the key Federal programs that addresses New York's needs. We are a big nation, and not every part is exactly like another part. I see the brilliant chairman of our committee has returned. I want to tell him how grateful I am to him. But I say that if the transit formulas in this bill become radically different from those which existed for many, many years, then it will be difficult for any number of us to support the final legislation. This need not happen, and it should not. We have a bill here before us from a unanimous committee that can really solidify an enormous and important change. We are talking about transportation policy for the next century. It is not going to be good enough just to go on building those superhighways of this century. One of the measures that inspired us in 1991 was a report by a committee that had been established by the State of Florida to look into what would it require to accommodate the automobile traffic from Miami to the Disney complex in northern Florida by the year 2020. The report said it would require 40 lanes of interstate highway. Well, you keep that up and there is nothing left of Florida. You have to do better, and you have to think differently than in the past. Today we must increase innovation and investment in infrastructure, while including the absolutely essential Federal labor protections that are written into law today and have been, in some cases, for 60 years. Here, Mr. President, I have one final thing I would like to say. I do not find any pleasure in it, but from time to time such statements are necessary. I am not sure that the Department of Transportation is able to think differently. It is an organization created with one program to administer, and that one program having concluded, it seems incapable of doing anything else. As I said at the outset, in 1990, having completed the Interstate System, the only thing the Department of Transportation could think to do, was to build another. In our legislation in 1991, without meaning to be particularly partisan, we provided $725 million to build some prototype magnetic levitation trains and other intelligent transportation systems to get us past the point of a highway automobile driver. Magnetic levitation--it is the most important scientific idea in the history of ground transportation since the wheel. It is the first mode of transportation since persons got up on their hind feet, you might say, which does not depend on friction. It is a frictionless mode of ground transportation. The simple principles are magnets which lift a vehicle and moves it as if it were flying on the rails. The idea, sir, was invented on the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge, which connects Long Island with the mainland, by a young nuclear engineer, still thriving, working at the Brookhaven Laboratory, who was going back to MIT. As you can do only when you are a nuclear engineer and you are 26 years old, he thought up maglev, between the time he got on the bridge and the time he got off. A colleague patented it the other day. I do not assert that it is the necessary new mode of transportation within city regions or in densely populated corridors. But I do say, sir, that they have a train running in Japan now that just broke some new speed records. By pure chance, this morning I received an invitation to the opening of the German system this next spring. It was in this morning's mail. I have been on that system. I believe our distinguished chairman has also been there. In Germany, for what it is worth, they have decided to no longer have intracountry air service. They will move by new high-speed technology such as this. Sir, in the 6 years since ISTEA, the DOT did nothing, or nothing that I know of--and I will be very pleased to retract these remarks if they are inaccurate--to advance maglev. They pour concrete, or rather they know the contractors that pour the concrete for them. When an institution gets so fixed on one mission that it cannot adapt to a new challenge, to a new time, some of my radical friends in this body, and perhaps most especially in the other body, ought to ask whether that institution is really necessary. Under the legislation as written, this program could be run from an office of perhaps 10 people in the Office of Management and Budget, or what you will. In the present legislation, the chairman, the ranking member, and Senator Warner, also said: We will give another try. And $30 million has been provided for the program. And another $920 million is authorized. It could be done. We are entitled to hear from the Secretary of Transportation whether he intends to try? Does he have anybody in the employ of the Department who knows what the Congress is proposing? Is there any explanation why no effort was made to spend the money previously provided for maglev? You know, organizations go brain dead, sir, in the history of the world, in the history of governments that cannot adapt to new circumstances. I hope that the Department of Transportation would hear what was said. In that first legislation, we wrote at the outset a set of principles about efficiency, adaptability, local involvement, intermodalism because it seemed necessary. It was stipulated in law, black and white law, that these principles should be printed and every member of the Department of Transportation be given a copy. It was stipulated in law, black and white law, that the principles be printed in larger form and posted in every office of the Department. But I wish I could say there has been more of a response. I hope I have not done an injustice to individuals in the Department who have tried. But in fact, sir, we have little to show. And that is not good enough. I do not think it is good enough for the managers or for the Congress. They have done their work. Congress will have made this law. It is now for the Executive to see that the law is faithfully executed. We have had a good beginning. But we are no way at the conclusion. We are not as far as we had hoped to be, but this continues us in the direction we set out in. I can only once again congratulate the esteemed Senator from Rhode Island, his colleague from Montana, and our colleague from Virginia. They have brought to the Senate floor a bill with the unanimous support of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. What 9 months ago seemed something not possible, surely not probable, has now been done. It is an effort that should be acknowledged, praised and rewarded. If I may speak just briefly in the colloquial, there is an old saying which, translated from the Gaelic, says, ``If you want an audience, start a fight.'' Well, yes, true enough. But if you want legislation, find unanimity, find consensus. The managers have done this. I just want to congratulate them once more. I know I shall have the opportunity when the final bill comes to the floor. I ask that the principles of the 1997 legislation as printed be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on Sunday, October 5, I had the good fortune to speak at the Dedication of the new Jerome and Dawn Greene Medical Arts Pavilion at Montefiore Hospital in the Bronx. I speak of good fortune not because I was able to offer some remarks at the dedication of the splendid new pavilion, but because I was able to hear, Dr. Domenick P. Purpura, dean of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, remind us all of the lasting significance of the American academic medical center. With eloquence, humor and a New Yorker's flair, Dr. Purpura reaffirmed my belief that our core values demand our dedication to, and will provide for the future of, academic medical centers. He stated from the outset: We are here . . . to dispel the septic rumor oozing from some health policy think tanks to the effect that academic medical centers such as ours are dinosaurs doomed to extinction by the impact of the asteroid of managed care. Look skyward! On this day of noble purpose the sun shines brightly. No ashen clouds obscure the values that have made American medicine a crowning achievement of Western Civilization. And what are these core values? Simply stated: Faith in evidence-based medicine and trust that our superbly trained physicians will translate the basic science of medicine into the art and science of patient care. These values constitute the concrete foundation upon which the three pillars of our academic medical center rests so securely. As the good Doctor said, these hospitals are not doomed to extinction by managed care, but rather destined for continued success due to our faith, and their proven achievement, thus far. Thirty-two years ago, in the first article of the first issue of the Public Interest, I published some observations on the ``Professionalization of Reform.'' The essay began with a passage from Wesley C. Mitchell, who had been for near quarter a century (1920-45) director of research at the National Bureau of Economic Research, then based at Columbia University. Our best hope for the future lies in the extension to social organization of the methods that we already employ in our most progressive fields of effort. In science and in industry . . . we cannot wait for catastrophe to force new ways upon us . . . We rely, and with success, upon quantitative analysis to point the way; and we advance because we are constantly improving and applying such analysis. In the proven field of medicine, the burden of improving and applying analytical methods falls on the academic medical center. Indeed, we cannot forget their influence on the state of medicine today--what Dr. Purpura called, the crowning achievement of western civilization. Dr. Purpora reformulated Albert Einstein's e=mc\2\ to be ``e, excellence [of the medical center] to be equal to m, motivation times c, commitment . . . and the square be the multiple rather than the addition of our joint commitment to excellence in patient care.'' Catastrophe will occur not because of ``the asteroid of managed care,'' but rather due to a decline in either the motivation of Doctors like Dominick Purpura or society's commitment to institutions like the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. I ask that the full text of Dr. Dominick P. Purpura's dedicatory remarks be printed in the Record. The remarks follow: Jerome and Dawn Greene Medical Arts Pavilion (By Dominick P. Purpura, M.D.) We are gathered here for several reasons. Most importantly to bear witness to the felicitous marriage of high-spirited philanthropy and good works, now consummated in this the Jerome and Dawn Greene Medical Arts Pavilion. We are here for another purpose as well. To dispel the septic rumor oozing from some health policy think tanks to the effect that academic medical centers such as ours are dinosaurs doomed to extinction by the impact of the asteroid of managed care. Look skyward! On this day of noble purpose the sun shines brightly. No ashen clouds obscure the values that have made American medicine a crowning achievement of Western Civilization. And what are these core values? Simply stated: Faith in evidence-based medicine and trust that our superbly trained physicians will translate the basic science of medicine into the art and science of patient care. These values constitute the concrete foundation upon which the three pillars of our academic medical center rests so securely. One pillar is this great medical center committed to superb patient care; the second is the Albert Einstein College of medicine, dedicated to excellence in education and biomedical research. The third pillar is this community whose loyalty and support ensure our continuing vitality. I submit that neither the temblors of the healthquake nor the asteroid of managed care can shake or threaten the foundation of our AMC. Dinosaurs are we? Let us not forget that dinosaurs, as every child knows, dominated this planet for nearly 300 million years. Besides who would have thought that the most vulnerable to extinction by the impact of managed care might be the giant insurance companies themselves? Asteroid impact sites are difficult to predict. For us, in this holy week of contemplation let us be comforted in the knowledge that good deeds and good works still have currency as effective challenges to potential economic catastrophes. Our species, Homo sapiens, is not only man of wisdom who makes tools; he is also man who plans and builds for the future. How we rejoice when on occasion a man arises from our species who redeems the time with a vision of what will be and has the courage and motivation to pursue it to its realization. Mr. Greene, I salute your uncommon wisdom in selecting parents who gave you good genes and taught the boy to be the mensch he is today. Yours and Mrs. Greene's benefaction strengthens the ties that bind the College of medicine and the Montefiore Medical Center by helping to provide a state-of-the-art medical arts pavilion for the faculty we share in common cause. On behalf of the President of Yeshiva University and the Board of Overseers of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, I congratulate the President and Trustees of the Montefiore Medical Center and especially Jerry and Dawn Greene for proving that our Academic Medical Center is not only alive and well but that the Sun will continue to shine upon us until it exhausts its thermonuclear energy. But not to worry since that is not likely to happen for another 3 billion years. I conclude on a personal note of reinterpretation of Albert Einstein's most famous special relativity equation E=mc\2\, the equivalence of mass and energy. Let us consider the E to be Excellence equal to m, motivation times c, commitment. Excellence=motivation commitment. And let the square be the multiple rather than the addition of our joint commitment to excellence in patient care. Albert Einstein was troubled for the remainder of his life by the use to which his relativity equation was, of necessity, put in producing nuclear weapons of mass destruction in what became the Manhattan project. How pleased he might be to learn today that our interpretation of e=mc\2\ defines the excellence of our academic medical center as the product of our collective motivation and commitment to the health of the community we serve, not a Manhattan project, but a Bronx project.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the most current issue of The Economist has a cover story on the Year 2000 Problem. Entitled the ``Millennium Bug Muddle,'' the story and editorial describe the global reaction to the computer glitch. While the editors do believe much of the alarmists hue and cry is overstated, they are careful not to minimize the warnings about the critical steps we must take to solve this problem. First, even with the lowest estimates of cost at $52 billion, the millennium bug still counts as a serious computing problem, probably the worst to strike the industry to date. Governments and industries must be prepared to pay the bill. Executives and public officials will have to convince the shareholders and taxpayers that they should foot the bill even though the fix will not increase productivity one lick. Second, in their research, The Economist authors found that ``firms that are a year or so into the repair job say they have learned two things. Had they done nothing, the consequences would have been ugly indeed, from complete failure of their accounting and billing systems to, in the case of some retail firms, an inability to do business at all. But solving the problem is proving relatively straightforward, if time consuming and expensive.'' This reaffirms my belief that this is a management problem, NOT a technological problem. Third, the article alludes to the impending deluge of litigation. ``The results of these unfortunate programming decisions are already appearing. The Produce Palace, a retailer in Michigan, brought the first millennium bug case to court earlier this year, suing the makers of its sales terminals because their terminals cannot handle credit cards that expire after 1999 . . . Meanwhile, Hartford Insurance had to start fixing its systems as far back as 1988, when it realized that its 7-year bonds would crash its software from 1993 onwards.'' Our society is extremely litigious. Business interruptions and the ensuing blame game of lawsuits could have lasting harm on our economy and our courts. Lastly, as The Economist does so well, the authors see the larger meaning in this problem. They conclude that because we are dependent on technology--and the pragmatic solutions that are devised in technology's evolution--we can be hindered and, in time, stricken, by the unintended consequences of these ``innovations.'' As they point out, ``British railwaymen chose Stephenson's standard gauge over Brunel's wider one in the first half of the 19th Century, as they did in America and most European countries. This standard, originally derived from horse-drawn wagons in British mines, has remained even as railway engineering has undergone 150 years of change. Not surprisingly, it is hopelessly inadequate.'' But in the end, though costly, the market will compel us to change. The authors write: ``Sometimes a standard will be chosen which later turns out to be wrong, (two-digit dates, narrow-gauge railways), but market forces keep the waste in check, and eventually the standard becomes wrong enough to be replaced.'' What market forces and The Economist authors have failed to address, however, is the lagging response of the U.S. Government to this problem (a relative benchmark, as the United States is ahead of most countries). With just under 800 days left, we cannot have half of our agencies still assessing how many mission critical systems will be affected. This is but the first phase of three--renovation and testing/ implementation are the other two. We need an outside body to ensure this problem is fixed. My bill, S. 22, will do just that. The good news is that cover stories like that of The Economist will increase awareness, the bad news is that without mention of the status of the Federal Government, the probability of widespread failure will increase.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I am proud to note the accomplishments of the International Rescue Committee of New York. This week the International Rescue Committee was awarded the Conrad N. Hilton Humanitarian Prize, in recognition of its relief and resettlement services to millions of refugees. In presenting the award to John C. Whitehead, chairman of the IRC Board, former President Jimmy Carter said, ``This year, the Hilton Foundation has fulfilled a vital need in bringing the refugee issue, one that is often overlooked or ignored, to the forefront by honoring the International Rescue Committee.'' The Conrad N. Hilton Foundation created the annual award to recognize outstanding efforts by the best American charitable organization engaged in combating ``famine, war, disease, human affliction and man's inhumanity to man.'' IRC was selected to receive the award by a prestigious international jury that included Dr. C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General of the United States. It was accorded the Hilton Prize on the basis of its achievements in alleviating suffering, on the sustainability of its programs, and on the extent to which it reaches out and involves others in accomplishing its mission. I want to congratulate the International Rescue Committee on its fine achievements and salute the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation for recognizing those efforts.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, Glenn T. Seaborg is a truly great American who for 14 years has suffered outrageous treatment from bureaucrats and is in need of our assistance. Dr. Seaborg, codiscoverer of plutonium, kept a journal whilst chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission from 1961 to 1971. The journal consisted of a diary written at home each evening, correspondence, announcements, minutes, and the like. He was careful about classified matters; nothing was included that could not be made public. Even as he was chairman the portions relating to the Kennedy and Johnson administrations were microfilmed for public access in their respective Presidential libraries. Before leaving the AEC, Dr. Seaborg got it all cleared virtually without deletion. Then lunacy descended. Or rather, the Atomic Energy Commission became the Department of Energy and bureaucracy got going. Seaborg writes of all this in an article ``Secrecy Runs Amok'' published in Science in 1994. It seems that in 1983 the chief historian of the Department asked to borrow one of two sets of the journal, some 26 volumes in all, for work on a history of the Commission. By the time the author got his journal back passage after passage was redacted, much of it explicitly public information, such as the published code names of nuclear weapons tests, some of it purely personal, as for example his description of accompanying his children on a trick or treat outing on a Halloween evening. The 26 volumes, ``in expurgated form'' as Seaborg puts it, are now available in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress. But where does one go for sanity? Seaborg writes: ``With the beginning of the Reagan administration, the government had begun to take a much more severe and rigid position with regard to secrecy.'' The balance between the ``right of the public to know'' and the ``right of the nation to protect itself'' was simply lost as, often apologetic, investigators poured over the papers of the great Americans of the time. Dr. Seaborg recently came to my office seeking assistance in cutting through the bureaucracy. At this stage in his career he should not be forced to expend valuable time and energy trying to get back what he lent the Department of Energy. I immediately agreed to offer what assistance I could, having had experience of such matters as chairman of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy. Last week, with the energy and water appropriations bill nearly ready for conference, I thought there might be a chance to include a provision that would require the return of the unedited journal to Dr. Seaborg. I wrote to the chairman and ranking members of the subcommittee, asking for their help. On Tuesday, September 23, the clerk for Senator Reid, the ranking member of the subcommittee, reported to my staff that there had been a long staff discussion on the matter, that it was agreed the Department of Energy had acted inappropriately, that the journal was a valuable historical document, and that things looked promising for including the provision in the conference report. The report was filed today with no mention of the Seaborg journal. This afternoon the clerk for Senator Domenici, the chairman, reported that the Department of Energy had been consulted and that they had raised objections to the return of the unexpurgated journal. And so, absent the opportunity for a hearing, the provision was dropped. I suppose doing the right thing for Dr. Seaborg in a simple, expedient manner was too much to expect. I suppose it was wishful thinking that the Department would do its part to rectify the situation. So, Mr. President, I am introducing the same provision as a free-standing bill. I look forward to a hearing on the matter, which the appropriations staff advocates, so that at least this one egregious example of the regulation and control of valuable public information can be brought to light and, I trust, remedied. I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Seaborg's article in Science be included in the Record at this point. I send to the desk a bill requiring the return of Dr. Seaborg's journal in the original, unredacted form in which it was lent to the Department of Energy, and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record and referred to the appropriate committee.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, Glenn T. Seaborg is a truly great American who for 14 years has suffered outrageous treatment from bureaucrats and is in need of our assistance. Dr. Seaborg, codiscoverer of plutonium, kept a journal whilst chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission from 1961 to 1971. The journal consisted of a diary written at home each evening, correspondence, announcements, minutes, and the like. He was careful about classified matters; nothing was included that could not be made public. Even as he was chairman the portions relating to the Kennedy and Johnson administrations were microfilmed for public access in their respective Presidential libraries. Before leaving the AEC, Dr. Seaborg got it all cleared virtually without deletion. Then lunacy descended. Or rather, the Atomic Energy Commission became the Department of Energy and bureaucracy got going. Seaborg writes of all this in an article ``Secrecy Runs Amok'' published in Science in 1994. It seems that in 1983 the chief historian of the Department asked to borrow one of two sets of the journal, some 26 volumes in all, for work on a history of the Commission. By the time the author got his journal back passage after passage was redacted, much of it explicitly public information, such as the published code names of nuclear weapons tests, some of it purely personal, as for example his description of accompanying his children on a trick or treat outing on a Halloween evening. The 26 volumes, ``in expurgated form'' as Seaborg puts it, are now available in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress. But where does one go for sanity? Seaborg writes: ``With the beginning of the Reagan administration, the government had begun to take a much more severe and rigid position with regard to secrecy.'' The balance between the ``right of the public to know'' and the ``right of the nation to protect itself'' was simply lost as, often apologetic, investigators poured over the papers of the great Americans of the time. Dr. Seaborg recently came to my office seeking assistance in cutting through the bureaucracy. At this stage in his career he should not be forced to expend valuable time and energy trying to get back what he lent the Department of Energy. I immediately agreed to offer what assistance I could, having had experience of such matters as chairman of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy. Last week, with the energy and water appropriations bill nearly ready for conference, I thought there might be a chance to include a provision that would require the return of the unedited journal to Dr. Seaborg. I wrote to the chairman and ranking members of the subcommittee, asking for their help. On Tuesday, September 23, the clerk for Senator Reid, the ranking member of the subcommittee, reported to my staff that there had been a long staff discussion on the matter, that it was agreed the Department of Energy had acted inappropriately, that the journal was a valuable historical document, and that things looked promising for including the provision in the conference report. The report was filed today with no mention of the Seaborg journal. This afternoon the clerk for Senator Domenici, the chairman, reported that the Department of Energy had been consulted and that they had raised objections to the return of the unexpurgated journal. And so, absent the opportunity for a hearing, the provision was dropped. I suppose doing the right thing for Dr. Seaborg in a simple, expedient manner was too much to expect. I suppose it was wishful thinking that the Department would do its part to rectify the situation. So, Mr. President, I am introducing the same provision as a free-standing bill. I look forward to a hearing on the matter, which the appropriations staff advocates, so that at least this one egregious example of the regulation and control of valuable public information can be brought to light and, I trust, remedied. I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Seaborg's article in Science be included in the Record at this point. I send to the desk a bill requiring the return of Dr. Seaborg's journal in the original, unredacted form in which it was lent to the Department of Energy, and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record and referred to the appropriate committee.