Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, we learn today in the New York Times that an alarming number of companies and governments are failing to cope with the impending year 2000 computer crisis. A study by the respected Gartner Group, which specializes on information technology, indicates that fully ``30 percent of companies worldwide had not started addressing the year 2000 problem,'' and that of those ``88 percent were smaller companies.'' This is most troubling news. Failure to comply could lead, in the opinion of William J. McDonough, the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, to a global recession. Analysts are also predicting that many companies will go out of business when their computer systems fail at the turn of the century. Again I quote the Times article: ``Edward Yardeni, the chief economist at Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, issued a report last week saying that there is a 35-percent chance that the millennium bug will cause `at least a mild global recession' in 2000.'' My first day bill, S. 22, would establish an independent commission, more like a task force, to ensure that the Federal Government will be compliant, and to ensure that awareness and compliance will be raised in the private sector. I ask that the article from today's Times, ``Many Reported Unready To Face Year 2000 Bug,'' be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the New York Times, Sept. 25, 1997] Many Reported Unready To Face Year 2000 Bug (By Laurence Zuckerman) A new study shows that a large proportion of businesses and government agencies around the world are not properly preparing for the effect that the year 2000 will have on their computer systems, increasing the possibility of potentially serious disruptions as the end of the century approaches. The study by the Gartner Group, an adviser on information technology, found that 30 percent of companies worldwide had not started addressing the year 2000 problem, or the millennium bug, as it is often called. Of these, 88 percent were smaller companies with fewer than 2,000 employees. ``We are going to see a very large number of small companies in very serious trouble,'' said Matthew Hotle, an analyst at Gartner, which is based in Stamford, Conn. ``They are not going to finish in time.'' The research also showed that large institutions, like universities and hospitals, and Government agencies, were far behind in their efforts. ``We were expecting that some agencies would have at least made up some ground over the last six to nine months,'' Mr. Hotle added, ``but they are way behind.'' The study, which is scheduled to be issued next month at an annual Gartner Group symposium, comes at a time when concern is rising about the potential impact of the millennium bug. Last week, Representative Steve Horn of California, the Republican chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees information technology issues, graded the preparation efforts of 24 Government agencies. Eleven received either D's or F's, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Transportation. In addition, some prominent economists and William J. McDonough, the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, have warned that failure to cope with the 2000 problem properly could cause a global recession. The millennium bug dates back to the dawn of the computer age, when computer memory was so scarce that programmers abbreviated the year as two digits. A computer that read ``97'' as a date assumed it meant 1997. After the turn of the century, those same programs, unless corrected, will read ``00'' as 1900, disrupting everything from the calculation of interest rates to the shelf life of breakfast cereal. Because the two-digit dates appear in different forms in different software, finding and correcting each program is extremely time consuming and labor intensive. The Gartner Group has said in the past that fixing existing computer software will cost between $300 billion and $600 billion, an estimate that has not been increased as a result of the study. Mr. Hotle said that other estimates, including the costs of new hardware, business interruptions and potential litigation, could push the figure over $1 trillion. The study surveyed 2,300 companies, institutions and government agencies in 17 countries. Each was given a rating based on their progress. The results show that most large companies are already well along in their efforts to cope with the millennium bug, led by the financial services industry. Though only 52 percent of companies with more than 20,000 employees were considered well positioned, the figure was nearly 80 percent in the United States. The problem is that many large companies are becoming increasingly dependent on smaller suppliers that may not be as well prepared. For example, if a crucial parts supplier cannot deliver to a big auto maker, it will not matter that the auto company is year-2000 compliant. ``You are going to see some major slowdowns because of these small companies,'' said Lou Marcoccio, research director of Gartner's year 2000 practice. Some analysts have also predicted that a number of companies, already teetering on the edge, will go out of business when their computer systems fail as a result of the bug. Edward Yardeni, the chief economist at Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, issued a report last week saying that there is a 35 percent chance that the millennium bug will cause ``at least a mild global recession'' in 2000. While the Federal Government has come under criticism in Congress, the Gartner study found that the United States is far ahead of other countries. Last week, the Office of Management and Budget sent a report to Congress predicting that the cost of fixing the Government's computers would be $3.8 billion.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this past weekend I was invited to speak at the annual conference of the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy which took place in Buffalo, NY. I promised some of the attendees that I would enter my keynote address in the Congressional Record. I ask that the full text of my address be printed in the Record. The text follows: Keynote Address by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan Not long ago I happened to be in Phoenix and took the opportunity to visit Taliesin West, Frank Lloyd Wright's desert commune. I was most generously received and shown everywhere, including the atelier where the plans were being drawn for Wright's splendid Monona Terrace Community and Convention Center, just now completed in Milwaukee. At length, I was shown the splendid, terraced dining room where, in the manner of the Englishman in the jungle, all communards, faithful to the Master's edict, dress for dinner on Saturday night. We are less formal here in Buffalo, but no less welcoming, and greatly honored to be at the site of this year's Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy Annual Conference. Each of us, I cannot doubt, has a personal story of an encounter with the spiritual and physical force of architecture. As Americans, we tend to begin in Europe, but with time, more and more we return to our own. I have two tales to tell. The first is simple enough. In 1992, I was asked to address the convention of the American Sociological Association then meeting in Pittsburgh. I arrived in a fine new hotel in the Golden Triangle expecting all manner of posters and pronouncements as had been the fashion of a few decades earlier. Instead, I was greeted by a large sign announcing the times of departure for the tour of Fallingwater. American sociologists are finally getting their priorities straight. My second tale, more personal and specific to Buffalo, took place some twenty-one years ago. I was then in a five-way primary contest for the Democratic nomination for United States Senator. In the manner of such campaigns, most of one's time is spent in strategy sessions in hotel rooms. One August day, having spent the morning and afternoon at the Statler Hotel in a seemingly endless succession of these consultations, I announced I was going out for a walk. An economist would call it a random walk. I had no direction in mind, save any that would get me away from that hotel room. And so I wandered westerly to Church Street and reached Pearl. Glancing south along Church Street, of a sudden I saw something that did not exist. Couldn't exist. Certainly something I for certain had not known to exist. A Sullivan skyscraper. The Guaranty Building. The beginning of an American architecture that would come to be known as the International Style. Sure enough, on the east side of the street there were three tall skyscrapers (an American term, incidentally, the topmost sail of a clippership, save when the moonraker is rigged). One was by an old friend, Minoru Yamasaki. Each was an exact copy, if you would just look at the essentials, of Sullivan's building across the street, built fifty or sixty years earlier. (On closer examination, there had been a fire of sorts, and the building was all but abandoned.) I then and there resolved to win the Democratic primary, become a United States Senator and save the Sullivan building. My first task was to get the City of Buffalo interested. One day the Mayor agreed to walk over with me from City Hall. He was a fine new Mayor; if he had any weakness, it was that he agreed with you on everything. I mean everything. Well, most things. ``Mr. Mayor,'' I proclaimed, ``if we can save that building, the time will come when people will get on airplanes and fly to Buffalo just to see it.'' ``Bull,'' said His Honor. May I say, it was a special pleasure to see in Thursday's Buffalo News a picture of Eugenio De Anzorena of Alexandria, Virginia, one of your conferees, making videotapes of the designs on the wall of the Guaranty Building. ``Appreciating Architecture'' was the caption, although I should have preferred, ``The Mayor Refuted!'' No matter. The Buffalo ``Evening News,'' as it then was, got the point. I began to learn the history of this great achievement of the Prairie School, the first American architecture, soon to be seen world-wide. We begin in middle of the 19th Century, in the village of Stockton in nearby Chautauqua, County. It was in Stockton where one Hascal L. Taylor, a carriage maker, had grown up. Taylor would in time make a great deal of money in the oil fields of western Pennsylvania. His vision was to build a monument, the largest office building in the city, in downtown Buffalo. Taylor immediately sought the prestigious Chicago firm of Dankmar Adler and Louis Sullivan, who had of course built the Wainright Building in St. Louis four years earlier--in 1892. Adler, the engineer, and Sullivan, the designer, had created a new form. A form based on function. Taylor got it. He, however, died in 1894. Fortunately the Guaranty Company bought the plans for the building and the site. Note the brevity of the subsequent succession: The Guaranty purchased the land and plans in December of 1894. The constructors began laying the foundation for the new building in February of 1895. By July of 1895, the steel frame was complete, and in March of 1896, barely a year after laying the foundation, the first occupants were moving in. Incredible. Using his ``organic'' philosophy, Sullivan, had created a `sister' work to St. Louis's Wainwright Building. The new, taller building, a 13 story, 140,000 square foot structure was called the nation's second skyscraper. An ornate masterpiece, embellished with a warm terra cotta exterior but forceful in its verticality, was the new ``American skyscraper.'' Let me say, that I would rather see Mount Vernon torn down, or even the White House. They are fine buildings, but they are copies. Copies of European buildings, which in turn were copies of Greek and Roman buildings. The skyscraper is ours. Invented by this man of singular American genius, Louis Sullivan. In architecture, as in much else, we had followed the rest of the world. Then came Sullivan, and ever since the world has followed us. Indeed, the Guaranty is our treasure, and yet remarkably it has not always been appreciated as such. By the 1940s the building had already changed owners. In the 1950s the owners were concerned about the accumulation of dirt on the facade. They chose an unfortunately destructive solution: they hired sandblasters to clean the terra cotta on the first two stories. Other ``improvements'' included adding suspended acoustical ceilings and tile flooring, thereby altering the perspectives of Sullivan's rooms and hiding some of the exquisite interior decorations. Even though it was located downtown, its facilities became ``outmoded'' and its rental space was in very little demand. Even though it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1973 and designated a national historic landmark in 1975, a fire in 1974 forced much of the building to close, and placed the building's future in jeopardy. In June of 1977, Progressive Architecture, reported: ``Discreet inquiries have been made by owners of Louis Sullivan's Prudential Building (formerly Guaranty) in Buffalo, NY about steps to demolish a historic landmark.'' Thus by 1977, architects were speaking of the building in terms of how best to demolish it. In April of 1977 the City threatened to destroy the building. In September of 1977, the Greater Buffalo Development Foundation established a volunteer task force of business and community leaders to study the possible renovation of the building. After concluding that it should be done, they came up with new financial strategies that included tax exempt financing rates, partial property tax abatement, and private loans. The cost was estimated to be around $12.4 million. I wrote to the Secretaries of Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, and Interior seeking funds for the building. In October of 1977, I convinced Vice President Mondale to tour the building whilst visiting here. (He needed no persuading, having the Owatonna Bank back home.) In November of 1978, we got our first grant, small but symbolic--$50,000 from The Department of Interior's Historic Preservation Program. And in April of 1981, we secured a $2.4 million Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In addition, as a site on the National Register of Historic Places, the building was qualified to receive a 25 percent tax credit on the entire investment under the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. After a majestic renovation by the architectural and engineering firm Canon, the building re-opened in December of 1983. But there is a lesson to be learned here. Fortunately, throughout the process of renovating the Guaranty building there were those of us, spurred on by the Buffalo News, who began to recover the memory, if you will, of one of the greatest tragedies of architecture in this nation--the demolition of Frank Lloyd Wright's Larkin building. An examination of that misguided chain of events tells us a little more about the dangers of neglect, and introduces New York to the mind of Louis Sullivan's greatest pupil. As all of you know, Sullivan was Frank Lloyd Wright's ``Lieber meister''. In his book largely on Sullivan, Genius and the Mobocrocy, Wright wrote of his early days with Sullivan: `` `Wright,' the young draughtsman nineteen, he would often say to me with undisguised contempt: `Wright! I have no respect at all for a draughtsman!' . . . His haughty disregard had already offended most of the Adler and Sullivan employees. His contempt may have been due to the fact that he was so marvelous a draughtsman himself. But I knew what he really meant . . . He taught me nothing nor did he ever pretend to do so except as he was himself the thing he did and as I could see it for myself. He (`the designing partner') was the educational document in evidence.'' Wright then clarified Sullivan's genius and its relationship to the `mobocrocy': ``Do you realize, that here in his [Sullivan's] own way, is no body of culture evolving through centuries of time but a scheme and `style' of plastic expression which an individual, working away in the poetry crushing environment of a more cruel materialism than any seen since the days of the brutal Roman, has made out of himself? Here was a sentient individual who evoked the goddess whole civilizations strove in vain for centuries to win, and wooed her with this charming interior style--all on his own in one lifetime all too brief . . . [Sullivan's] language of self expression was as complete in itself'' as that ``of any of the great style which time took so many ages to perfect.'' Yet, I do not want to mislead. They had their disagreements. By 1902, Wright had perfected some of his outside commissions in the form of the Prairie house. On September 11, 1902, Darwin Martin--Secretary of the successful Larkin Company of Buffalo--visited his brother William in Chicago. William was looking for a site for a new home, and as they toured Oak Park they became intrigued with Wright's designs there. William met with Wright a month later and wrote his brother that he was most favorably impressed. William wrote: ``He would be pleased to design your house - & further he is the man to build your office - he has had large experience in the large office buildings with Adler and Sullivan . . . he says it is strange that he is only known as a residence architect - when his best and largest experience was in large buildings.'' Meryle Secrest in his biography of Wright, A House Divided, wrote that Wright saw the Larkin Project as his chance to ``break into the world of large building commissions,'' but that he ``shamelessly exaggerated the importance of his role at Adler and Sullivan.'' For Martin later told Larkin that: ``the $500,000 Wainwright Building and the Union Trust Building and the Union Trust Building of St. Louis; the Schiller Theater and the Stock Exchange in Chicago; the Seattle and Pueblo Opera Houses, all Adler and Sullivan's work, were, I inferred from Mr. Wright, largely his creations.' '' The Larkin Company of Buffalo commissioned him (at Mr. Darwin Martin's recommendation) to design its administrative building across from the soap factory and warehouse. For Wright, it was an opportunity to develop complex spatial ideas. His exterior was an expression of almost pure geometric form, with no ornamentation save for two piers topped by sculptures supporting globes to symbolize the company's international aspirations. Wright intended the reductive form to be a ``genuine and constructive affirmation of the new Order of the Machine Age.'' The Larkin Building was not at first widely praised in architectural circles. It began to exert a great deal of influence on European architects with the publication of Wright's work by Ernst Wasmuth in Berlin in 1910. By the mid- 1920s the European appreciation of the Larkin Building had crossed the Atlantic. The building gained prominence in American surveys of modern architecture and does so to this day. Yet, the proliferation of chain stores in small towns began to cut into the Larkin Company's mail order business. The Depression caused further problems. Assets were liquidated to pay creditors. By 1943 the Larkin Company had no assets other than the building, on which it owed $85,000 in back taxes. In August, 1949 the Western Trading Corporation offered the Common Council $5,000 and promised to raze the Larkin Building and replace it with something that would improve the tax base. Two months later Mayor Dowd accepted the offer. The building was demolished to make way for a truck terminal, but Western Trading then petitioned to move the terminal to a larger lot. A vacant lot exists on the site today. So too in downtown Chicago, one of Sullivan's first buildings was replaced by a multi-story parking garage. Wright had warned of the ``poetry crushing environment of a more cruel materialism'' and both his and Sullivan's works were victims of this environment. The burden falls on men and women like you to remind us all of the value of these works. It was just such a reminder that opened my eyes to the wonder, and neglect of the Darwin Martin House. It was Saint Patrick's Day, 1991, and Jason Aronoff, the head of the Landmark Society of the Niagara Frontier's Martin House Task Force had asked me to look into the condition of the Darwin Martin House. I was not prepared. We first visited the splendidly maintained Heath House with its gracious young family. We then went across to see the Darwin Martin House, which was quite simply a ruin. The concrete was running away like sand. Two of the great ornamental urns were missing from the front step and were only later found discarded in the yard. On the front door and side windows thereof there was a printed sign which read: Notice ``New York State's Current fiscal condition has caused the closing of the Darwin D. Martin House to the public until further notice. Queries about future opening date and restoration plans for the House should be Mailed to . . .'' I immediately wrote to the Buffalo News in an effort to alert all to the horrid state of this wonderful House. What had become of this masterpiece? Who was to blame? How can we avoid such a tragedy in the future? In the Martin House, Wright showed what he could do with what became an almost unlimited budget. Construction on the Martin House began in early 1904 and ended in 1906 with 20 rooms and 11,000 square feet, at a cost of $160,000. Because of, perhaps in spite of, their numerous dialogues over the plans for and the cost of the house, Martin and Wright became fast friends. Martin helped Wright get many other commissions through the years. Late in life Martin offered Wright one last commission, a monument for the family plot in the Forest Lawn Cemetery. Martin wanted a design to cover only the space for one grave. Typically, Wright produced a much larger design with a flight of marble steps climbing the slope of the lot to a single headstone bearing the family names. The stock market crash prevented the commission from being realized. On learning of Martin's death in 1935, Wright referred to him as ``My best friend.'' After Darwin Martin died the house stood vacant for the next 17 years. There is no clear explanation for his son's lack of appreciation for the house, no clear answer to why Darwin Jr. began to strip the house of its doors, lighting, wiring, moldings, heating, and plumbing systems and installing them in other buildings he owned. When he finally vacated the house, he left the doors unlocked. Neighborhood children would come in for roller skating, or to smash some windows or some of the remaining mosaic tiles over the fireplace. Eventually part of the roof fell in from the weight of snow. In 1946 the City was the sole bidder on the Martin House at the foreclosure sale. In 1954 Buffalo architect Sebastian Tauriello bought the house, the pergola, the conservatory, and the garage for $22,000. He wrote to Wright for the original plans and received the following reply: ``Dear Tauriello: Hope you treat the opus according to its merits. When we return to Wisconsin May first I will look up the plans and send you a set of prints with a bill for the prints. Frank Lloyd Wright.'' Fearing an exorbitant fee, Tauriello proceeded without them. The doors, heating, and plumbing systems were replaced by August and the Tauriello's moved in. Part of his plan for financing the restoration of the house was the sale of a portion of the property. The pergola, conservatory, and garage were in varying stages of decay. They were demolished and the apartments you see today were built to Mr. Tauriello's design. Mr. Tauriello was not wealthy, and was not in a position to restore the house to its 1908 condition. He also wanted to add modern conveniences and some individual touches. As he did not need a 20 room house and did need restoration funds, he created two five-room apartments inside. But regardless of the changes he made, he saved the house. Tauriello died in 1965. The next year his wife sold the house to SUNY Buffalo at the request of new president Martin Meyerson, a Wright aficionado. He left Buffalo in 1970. Several university offices were located in the house until 1980, when it again stood unused, as it was on the day of our visit in 1991. There was a restoration plan in place, but next to no money. I went to Robert C. Byrd, chairman of the subcommittee that funds Federal historic preservation programs, and asked for his help. While there was no program that provides specific funds to restore specific buildings, he saw to it that the Darwin Martin House got $500,000 that year. In 1995 we were able to reprogram another $500,000, this time in funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, for the house. Last spring, at the urging of Stan Lipsey, I asked Senator Gorton of Washington State for another $500,000 in historic preservation funds, and the Senate bill, HR 2107, which we passed on Thursday night, includes that amount. I should warn you not to look at these appropriations and think any deserving preservation project, even a Wright house, can count on Federal funds. None can. The $40 million we provide each year for preservation goes directly to the State Preservation offices. There is no ``Save This Building'' account. Is there support for one? I quote the Senate bill we just passed: ``This will be the final year of appropriations to the National Trust for Historic Preservation.'' That is a battle for next year, but we have all we can do to keep what programs we have. Thus on a couple of last notes, I hope you have had a chance to visit Kleinhans Music Hall, another of Buffalo's wonders. It is one of the great later works of Eliel Saarinen. It is also one of the first commissions on which son Eero worked side by side with him. The building's sense of balance is representative of, in Eliel's words, the structure's ``masculine'' and ``feminine'' traits as exhibited by ``strongly indicative line'' in the former and a ``playful pattern of wall space'' in the latter. But function was certainly important to the Saarinens; Kleinhans is a splendid hall in which to hear a concert. It is also one of but three examples of Eliel's work in the East. In 1984 I secured a tax provision--a ``sale-leaseback'' provision, that could have been worth millions to the upkeep and restoration of Kleinhans. But one of the investors backed out at the last minute before the legal deadline and the deal fell through. A decade later the need for restoration funds had not diminished. I got $1.5 million for the effort in 1994. Then, of course, there are the buildings by H. H. Richardson. Wright disclosed that Sullivan had a respect for Richardson, that he (Richardson) had for few others. Again from, Genius and the Mobocrocy: ``Later I [Wright] discovered his [Sullivan's] secret respect, leaning toward envy (I am ashamed to suspect), for H.H. Richardson.'' Eight of the original eleven buildings designed for the Buffalo State Hospital stand today. The most splendid being the twin towered centerpiece buildings. In 1990, the state spent $4.5 million to restore one of the seven remaining patient pavilions. However, these buildings were vacated in 1993 and 1995. Ominously, the state has designated the buildings ``surplus property'' and is looking to sell them on the open market. Thus our battle continues. We restored the Guaranty--the soul of this city. We are on our way to restoring Darwin Martin--the treasure of scale, of form and of relationship of interior to exterior. Kleinhans Music Hall and the Roycroft Inn are also to be included in a tablet of success. However, Federal support is waning. As you state in the opening of the conference, Wright wrote that the ``Prairie begins west of Buffalo.'' We must do our best to see that our treasures do not become dust on the prairie. It happened to the Larkin building. It may yet happen to those of Richardson. So again I say the burden is unduly forced on men and women like you to remind us of the symphony that continues to play around us, like this great symphonic interplay we have here in Buffalo.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this weekend a glorious and important event will take place in Monticello, NY. On Sunday, September 20, 1997, the Courthouse in Sullivan County will be renamed the Lawrence H. Cooke Sullivan County Courthouse. Judge Cooke, a native of Monticello, is one of our State's more distinguished jurists. His legal career spans almost 60 years and is highlighted by his tenure from 1979 through 1984 as the chief judge of the New York State Court of Appeals, our State's highest court. While Judge Cooke may be best known for his time on the court of appeals and his many years as a judge, practicing attorney, and town supervisor in Sullivan County, he also served as a member of my Judicial Screening Committee from 1985 through 1993. During his 8 years on the committee he provided wise counsel in helping me select candidates for Federal judgeships to be nominated by the President. While not necessarily the most glamorous part of being a Senator, selecting individuals for nomination to a Federal judgeship is one of our most important responsibilities. Long after a Senator has left the body, the judges whom he/she helped select may remain on the bench for many more years to come with life tenure. Judge Cooke provided invaluable assistance to me in this endeavor and I am pleased to say that he is now lending his talents to New York Governor George Pataki by serving on the Governor's judicial screening committee for State judgeships. When I travel around New York State, one of the things I like to do if I have a couple of free minutes is to visit the local county courthouse. In most places, the courthouse is a grand and beautiful old building, and the courthouse in Sullivan County is no exception. Sullivan County was founded in 1809 and the current courthouse is actually the third it has had. The original burned down in 1844 and the second was replaced by the current structure in 1909. The newly named Cooke Courthouse is an Ohio sandstone building which was designed by William Beardsley of Poughkeepsie and built by the Kingston firm of Campbell and Dempsey for $143,000. In 1979 the building underwent a major renovation. It is a beautiful and historic building well befitting of Judge Cooke's name. Mr. President, 1997 marks the sesquicentennial of the New York State Court of Appeals. With the exception of the U.S. Supreme Court, this court is perhaps the most important court in our Nation's legal history. One of the greatest jurists of the 20th century, Benjamin Cardozo, was a chief judge of this court before being nominated by President Franklin Roosevelt to the Supreme Court. Even today, every law student must read several of Judge Cardozo's opinions as part of a legal education and his opinion in Palsgraff versus Long Island Railroad is still the seminal case on proximate cause in torts. The current chief judge, Judith Kaye, is nationally recognized as a leader in judicial reform, especially in the area of jury selection. It is a proud and important tradition with which Judge Cooke is associated, and he certainly is an important part of that tradition. On this special day on which we honor Judge Cooke, I want to wish the Judge and his wife Alice the best and thank him for his many years of service to me, to Sullivan County, to New York State, and to our justice system.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I rise in the firmest opposition to this proposal. Might I first state that I have not the least difficulty with the thought of the distinguished Senators that there might be more funds made available to deal with gang violence among Indian populations. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition. I do not claim any specific knowledge in my awareness of anything notable in that way of difficulty in the State of New York. But, sir, I am appalled that this reasonable, modest proposal should be advanced at the expense and the effect of destroying the national memorial to President Woodrow Wilson. I have to tell you I was aggrieved to hear the gratuitous comments about the Woodrow Wilson Center that have just been made here on the floor. There is a history, Mr. President, and I will not go into it in any great detail, but I am prepared to spend the rest of the day and tomorrow, if need be. But let me see if I cannot be brief about this so that the Senate can get on with its work. In 1961, the Congress, by joint resolution, called upon President Kennedy to appoint a bipartisan commission for the purpose of proposing an appropriate memorial to Woodrow Wilson in the Nation's Capital. We have just seen the opening of the superbly designed memorial to President Roosevelt. In a time sequence, it is not inappropriate that a memorial to President Wilson would take place a quarter century earlier. In 1968, after a bipartisan commission had deliberated the matter, it was proposed that there be a living memorial to President Wilson--not a statue and not a fountain. And in all truth, he was never known to be seated on a horse. The idea arose from the same proposition put forth by the American Historical Association that said that, for all the fine universities, there was not a center for advanced studies here in the Nation's Capital where persons from around the world, and principally from the United States, could come and work in our archives, work on our various subjects, land that wouldn't it be a fine thing that there should be such, and why not have it as a memorial to President Wilson, who was a university professor, university president, a great teacher. In 1968, the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Act was passed. The act's preamble stipulates that this memorial is not to be a statue or a building bearing Wilson's name but rather a living institution expressing ``his accomplishments as the 28th President of the United States: A distinguished scholar, an outstanding university president and a brilliant advocate of international understanding.'' There is a nice bit of history here which I will not ask anybody to elucidate further, but the measure provides that the chairman of the board of trustees be from the private sector and there be a mix of public and private individuals, all appointed by the President. On his last day in office, President Johnson appointed Vice President Hubert Humphrey to be the first chairman of the first board of trustees. It was something Hubert Humphrey, beloved Senator that we all know and remember so well, that is what he wished to leave in public life, as he assumed he would be doing, and go forward with. It happened at that time I had been appointed assistant to President Nixon. In my own work I have done some writing about Woodrow Wilson. President Nixon asked if I would be the first vice chairman. Now, there is a little bit of a problem here because if Lyndon B. Johnson was President, then Hubert H. Humphrey would be Vice President--not exactly a person in the private sector--but President Nixon was not going to make an issue of that. This is something everybody knew about at the time and was excited about at the time, and so we went forward. We have been at this now for 30 years. The International Center has established an international reputation. The world over, there are persons in universities, in governments, who have been fellows here and retained a tie to the institution that is important. One does not wish to overstate, but it is an important fact of international life, particularly in the area of diplomacy. I might make the point that our present Secretary of State, most luminous and indefatigable Madeleine Albright, was a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center, and on the occasion of the 25th anniversary, President Bush arranged a dinner in the State Department. There were a series of lectures. At one of these, Madeleine Albright had this sort of happy remark, in a lecture. She said, ``Let me begin by wishing a happy 25th birthday to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. I will never forget my own time at the center as a Wilson fellow. Where else can one do truly independent research, meet scholars from all over the world and get paid for working in a castle? I have always felt in a town full of monuments, the center is unique because it is a living monument. It memorializes not only Wilson, but Wilson's lifelong effort as an educator and President, to map a trail for a future that would elude the traps of the past.'' She was referring, of course, to the Smithsonian Institution. At the time the center began, small amounts of money were made available from the Congress--about $5 million a year; now less. A fundraising effort has been made by the trustees to raise private funds. They now are a larger part of the budget than what the Federal Government provides. But there was no place to locate. Such was the expectation and understanding that the then Secretary of the Smithsonian, the Honorable S. Dillon Ripley, turned over that great Renwick Building, the Smithsonian Institution on the Mall, to the center. It's called among the family of Smithsonian workers the castle, and indeed it is a castle of sorts. It has been there ever since until just this moment. We have completed, on Pennsylvania Avenue, as the statute requires and dictates, a building for the center as part of the Ronald Reagan Building, which will be dedicated next spring. Let me take the liberty, Mr. President, of citing comments of a few Presidents of the United States. First of all, Lyndon Johnson, who signed the legislation, said ``The dream of a great scholarly center in the Nation's Capital is as old as the Republic itself * * * This Center could serve as an institution of learning that the 22nd century will regard as having influenced the 21st.'' There was a certain serendipity that its first 30 years should be located in the Smithsonian building. The Smithsonian building was created there for the advance and diffusion of knowledge--primarily in the sciences but also in other areas. Here was the incubator for this new center, ``an institution of learning that the 22nd century will regard as having influenced the 21st.'' Later in my remarks I will note that there is ample evidence that it has already influenced the 20th century. Jimmy Carter: ``The Wilson Center is a nucleus of intellectual curiosity and collaboration on issues of critical importance to our national well-being.'' George Bush, who, as I say, hosted a dinner at the State Department on one of the anniversaries, said, ``In this alliance of scholars now world-renowned for exploring some of the most vital issues that confront mankind, Woodrow Wilson's ideals find their highest and most effective expression.'' Ronald Reagan, in whose building the center will be part: ``The work of this organization symbolizes the yearning by Americans to understand the past and bring the lessons of history to bear upon the present.'' Richard M. Nixon: ``One of the most significant additions to Pennsylvania Avenue will be an international center for scholars, to be a living memorial to Woodrow Wilson. There could hardly be a more appropriate memorial to a President who combined a devotion to scholarship with a passion for peace. The District has long sought, and long needed, a center for both men of letters and men of affairs.'' And now to our own President at this moment, William Jefferson Clinton, and this was just recently: ``Three years ago I had the pleasure of signing legislation designating the great public space that will lead from Pennsylvania Avenue to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars as 'Woodrow Wilson Plaza.' Now that the Woodrow Wilson Center is preparing to move into its own home, fronting on the plaza, I salute its world-renowned contributions to scholarship, international understanding, and public service over the last 30 years. The Wilson Center will be a true living memorial to one of our great Presidents.'' I might add, just as a matter of serendipity, that the center will be part of that building construction, the Ronald Reagan Building, which will finally complete, after 70 years, the Federal Triangle, which was begun by Herbert Hoover, under Hoover's Presidency. Hoover was a great admirer of Wilson and was himself an author of one of the finest books ever written on President Wilson. This 30th anniversary, this impending move and the decision here in the Congress to see that the building will finally go up--no hurry, 30 years. It will be furnished out of private donations. Just this spring there was a large dinner in New York where our most distinguished Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Dr. Alan Greenspan, gave an extraordinary address at which we raised--it is a public matter--almost $1 million with a matching pledge for the furnishings, the books, the desks, tables, and such. On September 8 of this year the New York Times had an editorial on the center saying, ``The center has been a tone of civility during political and cultural wars and a refuge for those persecuted elsewhere.'' A center for civility. You would be surprised how often a comment returns to that quality in the Senate. The Times goes on, ``The Center's House,'' referring to the House of Representatives, ``critics fault for lacking a public policy function by overemphasizing scholarly pursuits. This seems perversely to miss the point. Washington is amply stocked with policy think tanks, and the Center was never meant to churn out position papers. The hope, instead, was to provide a forum where politicians and officials might encounter those more alien muses of history, philosophy and literature.'' Could you dispute that the center has stimulated prize-winning books, animated innumerable public workshops and published a lively quarterly? Every Federal dollar appropriated for the center is matched by a private donor.'' It goes on in that spirit. The New York Times is generally thought to be a paper disposed to liberal views--its editorial page. The Weekly Standard, newly and happily arrived in Washington, is nothing of the sort. Its editor, William Kristol, is an avowed and energetic, hugely influential conservative. The Weekly Standard ran an editorial a little while ago when this dispute was coming out in the House, and it said, ``Save the Wilson Quarterly!'' That is a published journal, scholarly, lively, published once a quarter, and it said this: ``Having somehow resisted the p.c.''--political correctness--``trendiness that has contaminated the academy, the Wilson Center, under the auspices of the Smith1sonian Institution, remains one of the few havens for disinterested scholarship * * *.'' I suppose, in the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I am a regent of the Smithsonian, and I believe at this point I am the senior regent appointed from the Senate, as well as the House. But it says, ``Having somehow resisted the p.c. trendiness that has contaminated the academy, the Wilson Center, under the auspices of the Smithsonian Institution, remains one of the few havens for disinterested scholarship in the country.'' I began by quoting the New York Times editorial page, a page of liberal opinion. I went on to quote an editorial from the Weekly Standard, a journal of assertively conservative opinion. Let me now quote George F. Will, one of the most learned, thoughtful, entertaining, and rewarding observers of the Washington scene we have had in a long time. When he is not writing about baseball, he tends to write about politics. Occasionally, he enters the world of such as we are now talking about. He refers to an essay published in the Wilson Quarterly: ``The invaluable quarterly of the irreplaceable Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.'' See, we have here a living memorial to a great President, well established, known worldwide, read worldwide. There is a web site, there is a radio program called ``Dialog.'' There is no end. There are 200,000 listeners each week. We don't want to put this center at jeopardy. I am not in the least at a disinclination to provide funds for juvenile delinquency programs in Indian tribes or populations. But at the cost, we can find those funds somewhere. To destroy this irreplaceable institution. We will start again. And, sir, it takes 30 years to take root. We have had a wonderful fortune in the persons who have led the Center. James Billington, the present Librarian of Congress, himself a great historian, particularly of the Russian Empire, and then the Soviet Empire that succeeded it. James H. Billington is a trustee now, but he was a great director for the longest while. Then it was the fortune of the center to have for a long period another distinguished scholar, a great administrator, great person, Charles Blitzer, who has just announced, at age 70, his retirement, but after a distinguished career. He had been Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian when the castle was opened up to welcome the new institution. He went from here to be director of the National Center for the Humanities in North Carolina, and then he was summoned back to the Wilson Center, and now having reached the age of retirement, has announced he will retire at the time a successor is chosen. It might give you a sense, sir, of the importance attached by Americans of every disposition to the Center to know what the search committee is for the new director. First, James A. Baker III, former Secretary of State and trustee of the Wilson Center. Next, James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress. Mary Brown Bullock, a former fellow, former director of the Wilson Center Asia Program, and now president of Agnes Scott College. William T. Coleman, Jr., a Wilson council member, former Secretary of Transportation, and a distinguished attorney here in Washington. I. Michael Heyman, a trustee and the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Gertrude Himmelfarb, one of the great scholars of our age, a person who has transcended understanding of Victorian Britain. The British learn about their history from Gertrude Himmelfarb today. She was formerly a fellow at the Center, professor emeritus at City University of New York, and a former trustee. Chris Kennan, former Wilson council member. Elizabeth McCormack, Associate, Rockefeller Family & Associates, and former President of Manhattanville College. Finally, Herbert S. Winokur, Jr., Wilson council member and managing partner of Capricorn Management. You see, sir, an extraordinary array of support, every President since Lyndon Johnson who lined the legislation has attested--in this case, to his hopes and now to the realization of those hopes for this center. Scholars from the world over. Our own Secretary of State--a great quarterly, an extraordinary audience in the world at a minimal cost to our budget and great advantage to our Nation. Mr. President, I cannot imagine that we would do this act of desecration. I would happily pledge my support to any effort to provide funds for a juvenile delinquency program. But for now, I trust this amendment will be withdrawn and, if not, it will be defeated. I hope it would not have to have a vote. I cannot imagine the U.S. Senate, which created this institution, having to vote on destroying it for another purpose altogether, unrelated and as regards this issue of a profoundly different order of importance. Mr. President, I thank you. Seeing my friend from Colorado on the floor, I yield the floor. Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will the Senator allow me just 2 minutes?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. May I say in response to my friend from Arizona, first of all, that the remark about being paid to work in a castle was just a friendly joke by Madeleine Albright, now our Secretary of State. She was a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the 1980's. As far as I know, no fellow makes $43,000 a year. No one is above that. Some come for short periods, others for longer periods. Some come to the center and spend much of their time in the archives of the Library of Congress. It is a center for scholars, and they are different one from another. They have different views. And they have to be let do their work as they will. Remember how Madeleine Albright finished her remarks. She said of the center: It memorializes not only Wilson but Wilson's lifelong effort as an educator and President to map a trail for the future that will elude the traps of the past. The cost of this is so small. Some stipends are moderate, are barely up to the living levels, a third of what an executive in one of our executive departments makes, but no one is in that life for the salary and no one is at the center for this purpose. The world is proud of what we have done. I hope, sir, the Senate would do the same. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this point, if I may, to introduce a letter sent by the distinguished Librarian of Congress James Billington to the second director after Mr. Baroody of the Center, Joseph Flom, who is chairman of the board of trustees, setting forth the principal point that a center for scholars is not a think tank. It does not produce policy papers or policymakers. It can produce policymakers. It produced Madeleine Albright, just for an example today, but it has a different purpose, one declared by Congress when Congress enacted this legislation in 1989. I yield the floor and I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his generous remarks about the center. But I also say that it is so easy to make fun of studies of ancient times and obscure subjects. But a great deal comes with them. In that New York Times editorial I spoke of, it says at one point: That such a forum is needed was suggested by a Senator's inept award several decades ago of a ``golden fleece'' to a Wilson scholar for writing a paper on how Russia's czars persecuted nomadic minorities centuries ago. This scene was not remote or irrelevant to the author, Bronislaw Geremek, the Polish medievalist who was to play a pivotal role in the Solidarity movement. ``who was to play a pivotal role in the Solidarity movement.'' In the humanities, as in natural sciences, ideas often spring from improbable intersections. I make a point again about a certain ``improbable'' intersection. It was a study by a Polish medievalist of the way in which a central Russian empire persecuted nomadic tribes. It was thought ridiculous here, but was part of the creation of a career which led to the independence of Poland. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Washington for his generosity. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I must apologize to my friend. He accurately describes this passage from Mr. Barr's article on the Federal Page and the average stipend. But if I could just take a moment to go on to say what this same article says: Previous and current fellows include Raul Alfonsin, the former President of Argentina; Anatoliy Dobrynin, the former Soviet Ambassador to the United States; Washington Post reporter Thomas B. Edsal; New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman; novelist Carlos Fuentes; Harvard University Professor Samuel P. Huntington, and Itamar Rabinovich, the former Israeli Ambassador here. This is a great institution, been a great success. Can we not leave it to its great desserts, as it was intended? I do want to tell my colleague I was in error, and I do apologize.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, just to clarify what was not meant to be misleading, to leave the center with a million dollars would be with the understanding that it would close, and I think this is something we would regret for a very long time.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will the distinguished manager, the Senator from Washington, allow me just one word?

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, there appears to be some movement on my idea to appoint a commission--which will act more like a special task force--to oversee the Federal Government's handling of the year 2000 problem. In this morning's Federal Page of the Washington Post, a story entitled `` `Year 2000' Report Flunks 3 Agencies'' reports that ``three house Republicans called on President Clinton to appoint a special aide to tackle the computer problem.'' In July 1996, I wrote the President and proposed the creation of just such a ``Y2K czar.'' But the administration is still confident that the Office of Management and Budget can handle the job. Like my House counterparts, I fear OMB may not have the time or the resources to handle this issue. In 1997, fearing the private sector's lagging awareness, I realized that perhaps a task force could increase awareness in the private sector while ensuring compliance in the public sector. Thus I introduced a first day bill, S. 22, to address this matter through a special task force. S. 22 is cosponsored by 16 Senators and has been endorsed by the New York Stock Exchange [NYSE]. The enormity of this problem demands a task force of experts to ensure compliance. I hope my colleagues agree. I ask that `` `Year 2000' Report Flunks 3 Agencies'' from today's Washington Post be printed in the Record. The material follows: [From the Washington Post, Sept. 16, 1997] ``Year 2000'' Report Flunks 3 Agencies--Lawmakers Urge Special Aide to Handle Looming Computer Problem (By Stephen Barr) A congressional report card flunked three federal agencies and faulted several others yesterday for moving too slowly on fixing potential ``year 2000'' computer glitches. Rep. Stephen Horn (R-Calif), who oversees information technology issues in the House, issued the report card at a news briefing, where he was joined by Reps. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) and Constance A. Morella (R-Md.). The three House Republicans called on President Clinton to appoint a special aid to tackle the computer problem. ``Most agencies are behind schedule,'' Horn said. ``The problem, of course, is that we do not know which programs will fail, what problems their failures will create, an how disastrous will be the consequences.'' Most large computer systems use a two-digit dating system that assumes 1 and 9 are the first two digits of the year. Without specialized reprogramming, the system will think the year 2000--or 00--is 1900, a glitch that could cause most to go haywire. If government systems are not fixed, malfunctions could jeopardize the tax-processing system, payments to veterans with service-connected disabilities, student loan repayments and perhaps even air traffic control. Horn issued his grades on the same day the Office of Management and Budget delivered to report to Congress that reflected a more aggressive stance by OMB is dealing with the problem. The OMB report said agencies estimate they will spend $3.8 billion fixing the year 2000 problem. OMB put four agencies on notice that they will not be allowed to buy new computer and other information technology systems in fiscal 1999 until they have fixed critical computer systems. The funding restriction, however, will be lifted if agencies can justify the need for new equipment or show sufficient progress on the year 2000 problem. ``I have a high degree of confidence there will not be adverse economic consequences flowing from this decision,'' said Sally Katzen, OMB's administrator for information and regulatory affairs. But, she added, OMB's increased scrutiny will ``reestablish priorities for these agencies.'' The agencies on OMB's troubled list are the departments of Agriculture, Transportation and Education and the Agency for International Development. On his report card, Horn flunked Education, Transportation and AID and gave Agriculture a D- minus. Agency officials expressed confidence yesterday that they would make their year 2000 fixes before the Jan. 1, 2000, deadline. The pointed out that the OMB report and Horn's grades represented an August snapshot that does not reflect recent decisions to repair or replace computers. At the Agriculture Department, Secretary Dan Glickman has issued a five-point plan to address year 2000 problems, officials said. An AID official said the agency has narrowed its problem to 28 date fields in a software system that can be ``readily resolved.'' An Education spokesman said the department ``hopes to have most if not all the problems resolved in the coming year.'' And at Transportation, a spokesman said DOT plans to make many of its fixes by early 1999. Yesterday, Horn, Davis and Morella urged Clinton to designate a White House official to lead the government effort to fix year 2000 computer bugs. Horn and Davis praised OMB Director Franklin D. Raines but said pressing budget issues rob him of the necessary time to oversee the computer situation. Morella said Katzen, who oversees regulatory affairs across the government, has done a ``good job'' on year 2000 policy but contended ``they need someone for whom this is a full-time job.'' Katzen said she ``very respectfully disagreed that a new bureaucracy is the way to go. . . . This is an issue in which the agencies themselves have to do the work and it is to them that we must look to be responsible and accountable.''

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I have the honor to rise in support of the distinguished chairman's remarks in regard to the proposed allocation of appropriations for the National Endowment for the Arts. I will presume upon the Senate's time on a relatively quiet afternoon to give just a little background of the measure that is before the Senate today. Once again we seem to be doing a major disservice to ourselves with the politicization of matters that ought to be as far from politics as ever is possible: the support the Government provides, not expensive but nonetheless critical, for the arts of our Nation. It would seem that the National Endowment for the Arts is challenged on three fronts: first, whether our Nation even needs Federal funding for the arts, second, that the Endowment should do more to reduce objectionable art, and third, that the current grant apparatus disproportionately funds some regions more than others. If I might, I may be able to shed light on this triumverate. I was present at the creation of the National Endowment for the Arts which we are debating today, which we debated last year, and which we will debate henceforth how long, who knows. It was begun in a time of great national agreement on this subject and a rather clearer understanding, if I may say, than we sometimes have now, on the nature of this subject. This all began in the summer of 1961 when the musicians in the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra in New York announced they could not continue under the contract they had with the trustees. They were members of local 802 of the American Federation of Musicians. Indeed, the prospect confronted us all that the Metropolitan, the Met, as we say in New York, would have to cancel its 1961-62 season. Then some inspired person had the thought, why not ask the newly appointed Secretary of Labor, Arthur J. Goldberg, to arbitrate the dispute? It was a natural thing for him to do; he was Secretary of Labor, this was a labor dispute. He was a great supporter of activities of this kind, a man of huge, varied talent. As an American Jew, he had served in the OSS behind German lines during World War II. He had been very close to the steelworkers. He had helped bring about the merger between the AFL and the CIO, what we now call the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations. His wife Dorothy was a supremely gifted artist. He moved easily in the world of the arts, as well as of business and labor and government. He went on, of course, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and then in an act of great self-sacrifice--and he knew it at the time; I was with him at the time--he accepted the demand, if you put it that way, from President Johnson that he leave the Court and go to New York to be the United States permanent representative at the United Nations at a time of cold war crisis. It was his way to do such things and to accept such assignments. Now, in the life of the things he had done, arbitrating a dispute between, I believe, some 62 musicians and a well-established and attractive, civic-minded charity was not especially challenging, except he found something out. He found, as he put it, ``Mrs. August Belmont and Mrs. Lewis W. Douglas, who were the leaders of the trustees, didn't have any money.'' With the best will in the world, they could not meet the requests that the union was making. They were then making $170 dollars a month. That comes to about $45 a week. That, sir, amounts to about $1 an hour. The minimum wage was twice that, or thereabouts, at that time. They were persons of world standing in the arts, but the arts could not provide them a living. What they were asking for was $268 a month--something like $60 a week, something like $1.50 an hour. With the best view in the world, all that Secretary Goldberg could do was to offer them a $10 a month raise. They made their living teaching and doing other things. They were devoted to music, but they had families, too, and the ordinary interests of persons who live an ordinary life, an ordinary citizen. What they were caught up with--and I do not want to take the Senate into a long discourse on economics, but it is a matter which comes to this floor in one mode or another almost every day--they were caught up with what came to be known as the cost disease of the personal services. This was a concept worked out by a great American economist, happily still vigorously pursuing his works, William Jay Baumol, then at Princeton University. He and his wife were opera lovers, as it happened, and he, too, noticed about this time that the Metropolitan Opera orchestra always seemed to be about to go on strike--this problem, that problem--and what was the matter here? His main field in economics is deeply abstract, hugely influential studies of transaction costs and things like that. But he said, well, listen, if I'm an economist, I ought to be able to understand some of this, and he came up with the idea of the cost disease. His colleagues, as is frequently the case in medicine and physics and economics, began to call this Baumol's disease. It can be very easily explained. The productivity of personal services does not grow, or grows very slowly compared to the productivity generally in the economy. You could put it this way. In 1797, if you wished to perform a Mozart quartet, you needed four persons, four stringed instruments, and 43 minutes. Two centuries go by and to produce that stringed quartet you need four persons, four stringed instruments, and 43 minutes. If the great Mormon Temple Choir undertook to do a Bach oratory when it was founded, I believe there are 350 members of that choir, so to do a Bach oratory in 1897, that would take 350 musicians an hour and a half. A century goes by and it still takes 350 persons and an hour and a half. That is called Baumol's disease. If you play the ``Minute Waltz'' in 50 seconds, you speed up productivity but you do not get quite the same product. That is why teachers are relatively more expensive than farmers. Farmers have quadrupled and quintupled and quintupled again their productivity, but a first-grade teacher can handle about 18 young 6- or 7-year-olds in 50-minute classes; you can put 190 kids in that class and it would not be the same. That is why we always have friction in our economy between those activities where we depend very much on the personal services and those which involve the mechanized services or the electronic services--think what we have seen in productivity in computation in the last 20 years. Secretary Goldberg thought what to do, and I think at this removed place in time it is no indiscretion to say he called me in and said, ``Pat, I have no money for these musicians. We have to give them hope,'' and he said, ``Write a portion of my arbitration decision which says it's time the Federal Government gets into the business of helping with the arts.'' This is not a new idea. George Washington wrote to a Rev. Joseph Willard, March 22, 1781, and said, ``The arts and sciences are essential to the prosperity of the state and to the ornament and happiness of human life. They have a claim to the encouragement of every lover of his country and mankind.'' It was as clear to George Washington as a matter could be. A few years later--that was in 1781. In 1785, Jefferson wrote to Madison: You see, I am an enthusiast on the subject of the arts, but it is an enthusiasm of which I am not ashamed, as its object is to improve the taste of my countrymen to increase their reputation, to reconcile them to the respect of the world, and to procure them its praise. And so, Mr. President, on that occasion, the arbitration decision was accompanied by a statement urging U.S. support for the performing arts. The New York Times--and forgive my provincialism, as that is where I come from--announced this on the front page, and this was Friday, December 15, 1961: Goldberg Urges U.S. To Subsidize Performing Arts. He Asks Business and Labor To Help as He Gives Pay Increase in Met Dispute. Then it says, ``Excerpts from proposals aid for the arts * * *.'' Inside, they printed the text of Goldberg's statement urging U.S. support for performing arts. Washington, December 14--Following is the text of Secretary of Labor Arthur J. Goldberg's statement on ``The State of the Performing Arts,'' which was included in his findings in the Metropolitan Opera dispute. The statement begins. The financial crisis of the Metropolitan Opera, which raised the prospect that the 1961-62 season might not take place, may prove to have been an event of larger significance in this history of American culture. And, sir, it has. As the Senator from Vermont and Senators supporting this measure on both sides of the aisle will know, the National Endowment moved in direct sequence from the Goldberg finding to President Kennedy to the White House where President Kennedy established an advisory commission on the arts and humanities. Let's remember that the humanities are still part of this. Earlier, we heard the distinguished Senator from Michigan talking about the public papers of Presidents, which are now being very steadily published and compiled--they had not been, but now they are. Now, the question is, were we aware that one day we might be on the floor of the U.S. Senate facing charges like that? Sir, I would like to say with considerable vigor--if that is the term--of course, we were. We knew perfectly well that once the Federal Government got into the question of funding for the arts, we would get into the question of what arts to fund. It is not a very complicated sequence. This statement says, President Kennedy observed not long ago that the Federal Government ``cannot order that culture exist, but the Government can and should provide the climate and the freedom, deeper and wider education, and the intellectual curiosity in which culture flourishes.'' And then Secretary Goldberg's prescient finding on the nature of our debate today: The issue of Federal support for the arts immediately raises problems. Many persons oppose Federal support on grounds that it will inevitably lead to political interference. This is by no means an argument to be dismissed, and the persons who make it are to be honored for their concern for the freedom of artistic expression. In an age in which a third of the globe languishes under the pathetic banalities of ``Socialist realism,'' let no one suppose that political control of the arts cannot be achieved. I might say that again. In an age in which a third of the globe languishes under the pathetic banalities of ``Socialist realism''-- As it was called in the Soviet Union-- let no one suppose that political control of the arts cannot be achieved. As we look in that direction in the world right now, we realize that there are limits to such control, and the efforts of Government to control the arts will never, in the end, succeed. I will go back to our statement, sir. Justice Goldberg said, ``The overwhelming evidence is that the free American society has shown deep respect for the artistic integrity of the artist. Every attempt to interfere with that freedom has been met with vigorous opposition, not least from the artistic community * * * Artists are as susceptible to pressure as the next person, but for every artist who capitulates there is another from that unruly band to take his place, which the late Russell Lynes has described as the `uncaptured, the disrespectful, and the uncomfortable searchers after truth.' '' I don't want to make any special case for work that has no real purpose, save to shock--although some work that shocks in one generation is revered in the next. We would be very wrong to forget that. Artists have always sort of known it. In 1939, one of the great American painters, John Sloan, one of those who organized the armory show of 1913 in Manhattan, which brought the postimpressionist French painters from the School of Paris to Manhattan, and it shocked everybody. Picasso was shocking, as were the others. But in very short order they came to be revered. It took a generation, but it did happen. Sloan once said, in 1939--and he had a particular kind of humor in this regard, also a kind of clairvoyance. He said: It would be good to have a Ministry of Fine Art. Then we would know where the enemy is. Indeed, I can recall an occasion when this subject was raised in a hearing before the Finance Committee and some witness, someone out of patience, said, ``All right, Senator, what would you do to have the Government encourage the arts?'' I said, ``Well, offhand, the only thing I can think to do would be for the Government to forbid them.'' That always has a lively effect, as we can look around the history of the world and the history of the 20th century and find out. But what we are doing here is supporting the arts. The National Endowment began as an effort to provide a living wage for musicians in a situation where, through no fault of their own, through the workings of the economic system--I mean the laws of economics, of productivity change, they needed public support, and it has flourished. It was a very interesting fact that after President Kennedy's assassination, the first thing this body did was to propose that a cultural center that was being discussed for the arts be named the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. That was a center that needed public support to make it possible in the present day. Those resources were there, and that activity has become part of the life of our Capital. Nonetheless it remains the case, inevitably it is the case, that there are places where particularly intensive activities in the arts occur--our third proposition at issue today. It is somehow in the nature of creative work that it tends to concentrate in one place and bring people to it. It is the normal experience of the arts, particularly large and expensive activities which involve musicians and performers and composers, as well as audiences. New York has been such a place since the beginning. It has been argued that it cannot be fair that one third of NEA grants go to six cities--with New York at the top. As it was when we examined this subject three decades ago, New York is the center of the arts--as it is of the visual arts, as it is of publishing--as it has been from the time we started our Nation with New York as the Capital. The purpose of culture is not to serve the Nation, but we speak proudly of our role in the last two centuries. And to the extent that we do, we speak of the things that have happened, to an extraordinary degree, things that have happened in the city of New York by people who came from all over the country--and the world--to that center of creative activity. Some propose that we take money away from the city of New York and distribute it elsewhere. This idea is very different. The idea is to strike at the artistic activities and expressions which are found at the center of the Nation's art world. There is something foreboding here. Do we break up the country into its competing parts? Do we want to go back to a time when those who had kept? They did not share--to reach out and bring to a place that did not have things they might need in health, in education, in standards of relations between labor and management--in a sense of sharing of common culture, of diffusing, and enriching of culture. I do hope not. It all began, sir--and I will conclude on this thought--at a time of promise in our Nation--great threat and danger, good God, yes, but promise, good spirits and creativity in Government. The Government thought through a problem that the public had, that the polity had, that the culture had, and came up with some answers. They have proven themselves powerfully important in what has now been almost two generations. And I would hope that this moment of unparalleled prosperity, with the United States--we wrote of a third of the world ``languishing under the banalities of Socialist realism,'' all that gone, and could we not relax a little bit and do what the chairman and able committee wishes done and get on with the other matters of State. The arts will be there whether we wish them or not and, in the main, I think we do wish that they will be. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, I thank my colleagues for their courtesy. May I ask unanimous consent, sir, that the text of Secretary Goldberg's decision on the arts be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I will support the amendment of the Senator from Illinois to repeal section 1604(f)(3) of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which purports to credit the increase in tobacco excise taxes against any federally legislated tobacco settlement agreement. While I have opposed other amendments that would have opened up the balanced budget agreement signed into law on August 5, 1997, a mere 5 legislative days ago, there are good reasons to support the amendment offered by Senator Durbin. Unlike the other provisions of the reconciliation legislation that have been the subject of amendments, the provision at issue in the Durbin amendment is an orphan. No one is willing publicly to take credit for having written it and securing its inclusion in the tax bill--which was done at the last minute, without analysis or debate by the Members of either the House or Senate. On July 31, 1997, during the debate on the conference report to the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, the Senator from Illinois sought to raise a point of order against the provision he now seeks to repeal. I voted, with 77 other Senators to waive all points of order against the conference report. I said at the time that the provision was meaningless and had no binding effect. I continue to hold this view, as the tobacco settlement is far from completed, and it is still subject to approval by the President and Congress. Yesterday's New York Times reported that President Clinton will not offer an opinion on the proposed tobacco deal until next week at the earliest, and that the White House will not endorse a settlement without significant changes. In fact, it is beginning to appear unlikely that Congress will complete action on the matter before adjourning for the year. In addition to any changes that the administration proposes, the Congress will want to exercise its independent judgment on the proposed agreement. The June 20, 1997, agreement does not contain all of the details necessary to effectuate a settlement. There are a number of areas where the agreement provides no guidance, the most striking of which is the lack of a mechanism to govern the payment and distribution of the $368.5 billion by the cigarette manufacturers. A White House spokesman has indicated that President Clinton supports this amendment, and if Congress does not act to rescind this credit, the President will insist that $50 billion be added to any final settlement amount. And so, although the provision has no real impact on legislation that this Senate may take up at some future date, I agree with Senator Durbin that the mere existence of the provision, and the process by which it found its way into the statute, is troubling. Let us strike it and eliminate any concern that the tobacco companies are getting away with something.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to support my revered and respected chairman in this regard. It is the case, sir, that 5 legislative days ago we passed this measure. It is a measure which originated in the House and in a good faith exchange in conference the Senate accepted it, the conferees did. There were three of us--Mr. Lott, the chairman, and myself. The bill passed Congress in a spending measure that was appropriate to the occasion. Now, first, although it is not technical, it is so profoundly important. This is legislation on an appropriations bill. It is the ancient wisdom of this body not to do such things. A point of order would obviously lie against the amendment. It is important. It is how we proceed in this body. Further, sir, on the merits of this matter, I, for my part, would have to say I would like to see how this works. This is a 5-year period. I can attest, and I know that my colleague from New York and our chairman would agree, the Finance Committee has been seized with this subject. As the medical care system of our country becomes more rationalized, as economists would put it, as price considerations enter into markets and decisions are made, and health maintenance organizations rise and you see all manner of mergers and acquisitions and the general evidence of a market which is good, you also find yourself with some of those effects which are common which involve institutions or desirable behaviors that markets do not provide. In the profession of economics, they are known as public goods. Everybody benefits from public goods so nobody will pay for them. If you want them, you have to find them in a public mode. That is why we have public schools. That is why we have, come to think about it, why we have the Marine Corps. These are public goods that you have to provide for in the collective mode. In 1994, as the Finance Committee was considering the health care legislation sent to us by the administration we found ourselves more and more interested in the question of medical schools. In this new world, who takes care of these special institutions which have high prices? They have high prices because they have high costs. They have high costs because they are teaching. We had a wonderful exchange and I am sure the chairman recalls it. One morning a witness from Fordham University, an ethicist, Father Charles J. Fahey said, ``What I am seeing is the ``commodification'' of medicine--a wonderful phrase. The then head of the UCLA Medical Center, Raymond G. Schultze, said at another hearing ``Can I give you an example? In southern California we now have a spot market for bone marrow transplants.'' All that is something that is to be welcomed. It is happening anyway, going to happen in whatever market for medical care, and we have to provide some nonmarket provisions for these singular institutions, these great teaching hospitals, in the great age of medical science. In the history of the species it is only in the last 40 or 50 years--40 some say, 50 radicals would say--that medicine has really been able to do something. It is learning exponentially, learning by the hour. In this situation there can be a surplus of some doctors generally, of some specialists in particular, some judgments need to be made, and this transition needs to be made. As I understood the legislation, I think the chairman would agree, we were proposing a 5-year transition period to see whether we did not get good results--we will not know in the next 5 years, at least--to save money. It has a clear and necessary purpose. On both grounds, Mr. President, I rise to join the chairman. First of all this is legislation on an appropriation bill, which we must not have. Secondly, this is a measure that was included in the Balanced Budget Act only just this moment, and it is in response to a real life situation in an open experimental mode. In 5 year's time we will know more, and I plead--this is a subject that will not go away. We will be debating this matter, the matter of teaching hospitals and medical schools on the floor of the U.S. Senate for a quarter century to come. I join the chairman in proposing that we not approve this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President---- Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise simply and succinctly for the purpose of endorsing the statement by our revered chairman and, once again, to say, as he put it, the ink is scarcely dry on this legislation and here we are changing it. Could it have been 5 legislative days since it was last enacted, and we are changing it? And, importantly, this is legislation on an appropriations bill. It is not in the interest of our institution to let that begin. It is a lesson we have learned in difficult ways in the 19th century, and we have shown how important it has been in this century. As we approach a new century, it is no precedent to establish. I believe we will now move to the measure indicated by the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the news from Israel is painful to all who cherish the prophetic vision of peace in the Holy Land. On Sunday, September 26, 1993, less than 2 weeks after the signing of the Oslo accords, I addressed a public forum in New York City with Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and declared, inter alia: And now, the Palestinian leaders have said, we will--at long last--beat our swords into plowshares. We will yield up Kalishnikovs and Katyushas to concentrate on the arts of accounting, civil administration, health care and construction. Now if any nation on Earth has a right to say ``no'' it was Israel. But Israel said ``yes,'' declaring, in the moving words of Prime Minister Rabin: ``Enough!'' We are willing to take this chance. To see your words converted to deeds. The Knesset has voted after a vigorous and thoughtful debate. The bedrock of the United States-Israeli friendship is our deep respect for Israeli democracy. The democracy has spoken and will have our support as it always has. The question of what response the Congress takes toward aid to the Palestinian Authority should reflect first and foremost the results of careful consultation with the Government of Israel. The Israeli Government has taken appropriate and firm measures in response to this latest atrocity. We must support them and let Chairman Arafat know that even the perception of his supporting terror is unacceptable to the American people, much less the thinly veiled utilization of terror as diplomacy by other means. May I also commend to the Members of the Senate a thoughtful resolution from the leadership of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations which addresses the issues raised by the bombing in Jerusalem. I ask that the resolution be printed in the Record. The resolution follows: Orthodox Union Resolution on the Jerusalem Bombing of September 4, 1997 The Union of Orthodox Congregations of America, representing nearly 1,000 Orthodox Jewish synagogues nationwide, expresses its outrage at the deadly terrorist attack perpetrated this morning by suicide bombers in Jerusalem. Again, acts of terrorism and murder against innocent civilians in Jerusalem streets have been committed including the wounding of American youth studying in Israel. This latest atrocity once again makes a mockery of the Palestinian Authority's solemn commitments to fight the terrorist organizations, their infrastructure and prevent violence and incitement to terror, the condition upon which the late Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin and Israeli Knesset agreed to the Oslo process. Arafat's embrace of Hamas, the release from prison of Hamas terrorists, and the incendiary statements made by Arafat and other Palestinian officials have given the terrorist organizations a virtual green light for terror operations in Israel. Ironically, the Palestinian Authority dares to use this failure to combat terrorism as a means of pressuring Israel into making concessions, a tactic which completely negates the peace negotiations. The hope for success of any peace negotiations in the continuing atmosphere of terrorism, death and ongoing calls for Jihad, is dramatically and sadly diminished. The recent New York Times photo of Mr. Arafat embracing Hamas leaders is not an isolated instance but illustrative of an apparent agreement between Hamas and the PA to countenance terrorism provided it did not emanate from areas controlled by the PA. In essence, the Hamas is acting as an adjunct of the PLO, clearly demonstrating that Mr. Arafat views terror as an instrument of diplomacy. The Orthodox Union has long been on record calling for suspension of any United States and European aid to the Palestinian Authority unless they comply with the agreements they signed. Those who sanction mass murder do not deserve the support of civilized nations. The Orthodox Union urges Congress to continue suspending U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority in light of the PA's continuing refusal to disarm or outlaw terrorist groups, its refusal to extradite terrorists to Israel and Arafat's continued speeches praising the murderers of Jews as ``heroes and martyrs''. Chairman Arafat has to learn once and for all that terror and violence are the antithesis of peace. Words are not enough. The American administration must take concrete measures in order to ensure that Mr. Arafat shuts down the terrorist mechanism that operate to threaten Israel. Israel's first responsibility is to the safety and security of its people. Israel cannot move forward in the peace process unless the threat of terror and violence that is part and parcel of the Palestinian policy is permanently eradicated. The Orthodox Union grieves with the families of the murdered victims of this horrendous, senseless attack. May they be comforted amongst the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, Mr. Charles Horsky, former adviser to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson on the District of Columbia, passed away during the August recess. I rise today to pay honor to this man who devoted himself to improving our Nation's Capital. Charlie Horsky was the ``Mayor of Washington.'' And yet, he looked forward to giving that up and getting home rule for the city of Washington. He accomplished a great deal toward that end. Mr. Horsky was instrumental in redeveloping Pennsylvania Avenue, in promoting the construction of a metropolitan subway system, and he played a crucial role in establishing the initial home rule for the citizens of Washington. Further, he led the establishment of the National Building Museum, the John F. Kennedy Center of the Performing Arts, the University of the District of Columbia, and urged the preservation of Union Station. I first arrived in Washington over three decades ago. Since those initiatory days, I was most fortunate to have known and worked with Charlie Horsky. He was as fine a gentleman as we have seen in our Capital, and his tireless efforts are reflected in so many rejuvenated aspects of the city around us. When thinking of this great man we do well to recall the epitaph of Sir Christopher Wren at St. Pauls Cathedral, London: ``Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.'' (If you would see his monument, look around). I ask that an obituary from the New York Times from August 24 be printed in the Record. The obituary follows: Charles A. Horsky, 87, Dies; Left Imprint on U.S. Capital (By Irvin Molotsky) WASHINGTON--Charles A. Horsky, a lawyer and former Government official who helped redevelop the nation's capital during the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, died Wednesday at Holy Cross Hospital in Silver Spring, Md. He was 87 and lived in Silver Spring. The cause was kidney failure, said his daughter, Margaret Horsky Burns. Mr. Horsky argued many cases and held many important positions in a law career that began in 1934, but it was his work as adviser to the President for national capital affairs from 1962 to 1967 that had the greatest impact on those who live in or visit Washington, an impact that will be felt for years to come. President John F. Kennedy appointed him to the White House job and Lyndon B. Johnson carried him over when Johnson succeeded to the Presidency in 1963. During Mr. Horsky's time at the White House, he pressed for switching money from a highway project to the construction of a subway system, and the resulting Metro is now regarded as one of the best in the world. He worked on the redevelopment of Pennsylvania Avenue, a project that was begun after the 1961 inaugural parade and Kennedy determined that America's Main Street had become seedy and unworthy of a great nation. That project is just being completed with the opening soon of the Ronald Reagan Building. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who served in the Kennedy Administration with Mr. Horsky, recalled that they were reviewing plans for the redevelopment of Pennsylvania Avenue on Nov. 22, 1963, when they received the word that the President had been shot. The plans were to be presented to Kennedy for his approval the next day. Another of Mr. Horsky's accomplishments is enduring a melancholy chapter. For years, Washington was run as a virtual fiefdom of Congress, with residents having no say in its government. During the Johnson Administration, a push was made to establish home rule for Washington and it was Mr. Horsky who played the pivotal role in getting legislation for it through Congress. Mr. Moynihan, reached at his home in upstate New York, said: ``Charlie Horsky was `Mayor of Washington.' He looked forward to giving that up and getting home rule for the city of Washington, and he accomplished a great deal toward that end.'' In recent years, however, with the District of Columbia's budget deficit ballooning out of control, Congress has taken back much of that power and placed it in the hands of a control board. Mr. Horsky's other activities included establishing the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, rescuing Union Station and opening both the National Building Museum and the University of the District of Columbia. He was born in Helena, Mont., graduated from the University of Washington 1931 and received a law degree from Harvard University in 1934. He served as a lawyer in the Solicitor General's office until 1939, when he joined Covington & Burling, one of Washington's leading law firms, staying there for the rest of his career except for his White House years. After World War II, Mr. Horsky served as an assistant prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials and argued many cases before the Supreme Court, including a case that challenged the wartime internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry. ``I was trying to persuade the Court that there was no legitimate basis for the Army to arrest citizens,'' Mr. Horsky said in a 1989 interview with The Washington Post. ``I couldn't get enough information to make it stick.'' Mr. Horsky lost his argument before the Supreme Court, but in 1988, Congress approved and President Ronald Reagan signed a bill that offered the nation's apologies to Japanese Americans and provided payments to those who were interned. A partner at the firm, David B. Isbell, said that Mr. Horsky took senior counsel status, that is, a reduced work load, in 1981 and that until he was slowed down by illness two years ago, he had kept active in the firm by arbitrating railroad disputes. His wife of 58 years, Barbara Egleston Horsky, died two years ago. Besides his daughter, Ms. Burns, a resident of Falls Church, Va., Mr. Horsky is survived by a sister, Flora Wertz of Missoula, Mont., and two grandchildren. Despite his advancing years, Mr. Horsky maintained a rugged regimen. ``He never wore an overcoat, even on the coldest day,'' Mr. Isbell said of his colleague. ``I don't think he had one. It may have had something to do with his coming from Montana.'' That Great Plains frame of mind prevailing as recently as 1989, when he drove around in the middle of winter in his 1962 Ford convertible, often with the top down. When asked in the interview in The Post about his lack of an overcoat, he said, ``I am sure I had one in college.''

Mr. MOYNIHAN

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

Mr. MOYNIHAN. May I just congratulate my colleague and friend for the tone of his statement, its tenor. He is not seeking confrontation with the administration. He is seeking insurance for the poorest of poor children in our State. I was able to say earlier that in the annual balance of payments study that we have been putting out for 2 years, New York has the third highest poverty rate in the Nation and the fourth highest cost of living. These children are at stake. The Senator has made the point, and I congratulate the Senator for it, in that mode and making clear because the record is there that this issue was never raised prior to the veto. It was a decision made after the bill was signed, I think. I don't know. And I think that some reassessment of the process, the procedure might bring change in judgment. Again, I thank my friend, and I am telling him how pleased and honored I am to be associated with him in this matter.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I send, for myself and Mr. D'Amato, a bill to the desk and ask that it be appropriately referred.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the major league baseball season does not end for another month, but today is the end of the regular season of the New York Penn short-season A League. I am very proud to congratulate two teams for making the playoffs, the Batavia Clippers and, closer to my home in Pindars Corners, the Oneonta Yankees. Oneonta is this year's winner of the New York Penn's Pickney Division, with the second best record in the league. Led by hitting stars such as third baseman Alan Butler and catcher/designated hitter Rene Pinto, behind the pitching of Scott Wiggins and Zach Day, and with the support of the rest of the team which played outstanding baseball this year, the Oneonta Yankees had their best season in 7 years and are going to the playoffs for the first time since 1990. The Oneonta Yankees have a tradition of success and excellence, having won the New York Penn league title 11 times in their 30 years of existence. The team has been affiliated with the world champion New York Yankees for longer than any other minor-league club in the Yankee organization. Several of today's Yankee stars, including Bernie Williams and Andy Pettitte, began their careers in Oneonta. Don Mattingly--affectionately referred to by the cognoscenti as ``Donnie Baseball''--whose number 23 was just retired at a ceremony at Yankee Stadium this past weekend, also played for the Oneonta Yankees. As the season ends and the playoffs begin, I want to extend my congratulations to Sam Nader, team owner; Joe Arnold, team manager; and the entire Oneonta Yankees team. I also want to wish them and the Batavia Clippers the best of luck in the post season.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would repeal an irrational provision of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. I refer to section 1042 of that act, which took away the tax exempt status of TIAA-CREF, the Teacher's Insurance Annuity Association College Retirement Equities Fund. The legislation I am introducing today, with Senators D'Amato and Graham of Florida as original cosponsors, would simply strike section 1042 and restore the tax exemption that TIAA-CREF has been afforded since its establishment by Andrew Carnegie in 1918. Repeal of section 1042 would also serve to restore the tax exemption for Mutual of America, which has served as a pension administrator for social welfare organizations for over 50 years and was similarly tax-exempt until August 5, 1997, when the President signed the tax bill. TIAA-CREF is a 2-million member retirement system that serves 6,100 American colleges, universities, teaching hospitals, museums, libraries, and other nonprofit educational and research institutions. TIAA was incorporated under the laws of the State of New York in 1937 to ``forward the cause of education and promote the welfare of the teaching profession.'' Let me repeat--to ``forward the cause of education and promote the welfare of the teaching profession.'' The law further states that the purpose of TIAA--this is the New York Statute-- is ``to aid and strengthen non-proprietary and non-profit-making colleges, universities, and other institutions engaged primarily in research.'' And it has done just that, in an exemplary manner. It has long been recognized as a model of such programs. Mr. President, by charter and New York law, TIAA-CREF's pension assets are exclusively and irrevocably dedicated to providing retirement benefits to covered employees. Its funds are essentially equivalent to a multiple employer pension trust for colleges and universities. Like other pension trusts, TIAA-CREF should not be taxed. As a somewhat unanticipated result of TIAA-CREF's creation, it brought to American higher education portability of pensions. You did not have to start out in one institution and after a certain point stay there the rest of your life because you had to have some retirement benefit. This is of great value to our educational system for the simple reason that it enables a young person at, say, a 2-year college or a local college, who shows great promise, does good work, to end up at Chicago or Stanford or Duke, because they can move. This is part of the agility of American higher education. There is no reason to tax this. Earlier in the summer, the Finance Committee had said don't tax it, and the full Senate agreed. But somehow or other, the conference agreement provided otherwise. This was a mistake, and it wants to be corrected. The repeal of TIAA-CREF's 79-year-old tax exemption will cost the average retiree who receives a $12,000 annual pension about $600 in income, unless we act. Librarians are not highly paid. A $12,000 pension would be quite normal. A $600 reduction would be 5 percent right away. Future retirees currently accumulating benefits are likely to face reductions of 10 to 15 percent. Why make the lives of librarians and assistant professors and teachers in community colleges harder? We have an opportunity to undo this before the law takes effect in 1998. Why don't we? The Finance Committee said no to it. During the conference deliberations on the tax bill, nearly half the Members of the Senate, and dozens of Members of the House, signed letters asking the conferees to stand against repealing this tax exemption. Now it is September. Members of Congress have had a month-long opportunity to visit with and hear from the academic community. I am hopeful we can act on this legislation and restore TIAA-CREF and Mutual of America to their appropriate status as tax-exempt organizations before Congress adjourns for the year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Would the distinguished Senator from Wyoming have the goodness to remain on the floor for a moment--I know he has a party conference to go to--just to allow me to congratulate him on his remarks. Two of the programs he mentioned, the Job Corps and Head Start, it happens I was a member of the Kennedy-Johnson administration. I was an Assistant Secretary of Labor and was on the group that put together the Economic Opportunity Act in 1964 which led to Head Start and to the Job Corps. These are not new initiatives. They go back now a third of a century. I didn't mean to think of myself as that ancient already. It is the case, sir, that we have had very little evaluation, very little longitudinal evaluation, where we follow things over time-- persons who entered the Job Corps in the 1960's will now be getting into their own fifties--and what has been the result cumulative, one way or the other. This is not something very attractive to governments that live on 2-year cycles, 4-year cycles and, at most, 6-year cycles, yet if we want to do something about these matters we ought to attend them in exactly the mode the Senator spoke of. This can be done. The mathematics, if you like, of evaluation have been very much in place since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorized the Coleman study. It was called an equality of educational opportunity in which we learned great things which surprised us. We thought we knew all about education in those days and we found out we knew very little. I am not sure we have learned much since. I take the opportunity to thank the Senator from Wyoming for what he has said, and I hope he will stay with the issue.