Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, earlier today I voted to support Senator Harkin's amendment to fund the Food and Drug Administration's ``Youth Tobacco Initiative'' regulations. When this amendment was first offered on July 23, 1997, I voted to table it. I was concerned at that time that the offset was a tax; taxes fall under the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means and Finance Committees. I am pleased that Senator Harkin changed the offset so that I was able to vote for the amendment today. I am a strong supporter of the Food and Drug Administration's efforts to reduce the number of young people who begin smoking cigarettes each year. I believe that the money designated for that purpose today is crucial to the success of those efforts.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Never.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

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. Never.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on this the first full day of Senate business since our adjournment for the August recess, I come to the floor with my colleague and friend from New York, Senator D'Amato, to address an issue of importance to New York, and of surpassing significance to our constitutional form of government. On August 11, for the first time in our history, President Clinton exercised his new authority under the Line Item Veto Act. In doing so he repealed, a provision of Federal law intended to relieve New York of up to $2.6 billion in disputed Medicaid claims. The provision had been included at Senator D'Amato's behest, and with my full support, in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, one of the two major reconciliation bills signed into law on August 5 in a ceremony at the White House. Senator D'Amato and I rise today to state for the record our firm opposition to the President's repeal of the New York Medicaid provision, and to introduce a ``disapproval bill'' to reverse the President's action. I will also speak to the underlying question of the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act. Each year, for 21 years now, I have issued a report on the balance of payments, as we put it, between New York State and the Federal Government. The twenty-first edition, now prepared in collaboration with the Taubman Center on State and Local Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government will be published toward the end of this month. Let me report for purposes of this comment, however, that it will show that New York has the third highest poverty rate in the Nation and the fourth highest Cost of Living Index--as computed by the Friar-Leonard State Cost of Living Index. This has resulted in an extraordinarily high level of Medicaid costs for the State and especially for the city of New York. This level of payments might have been sustainable with a more equitable Federal-State matching formula. If, for example, the Federal Government paid 73 percent as it does in Arkansas. But we were capped at 50 percent. As my colleague from New York knows, the current Federal-State Medicaid matching formula was taken directly from the Hill-Burton Hospital Survey and Construction Act of 1946, under which the matching rate is based on the square of the ratio of State per capita income and national per capita income. In a commencement address at Kingsborough Community College in New York 20 years ago, I suggested, only half jokingly, why not square root? If you are going to have algebra in Federal statutes, why not turn it our way? Given New York's 50-percent match rate, however, something had to be done. And so, like a number of other States, New York began to impose provider taxes on hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies, and so forth, as a way of generating revenues to finance specific health care programs. As part of the costs incurred by providers, these taxes were reimbursable, withal at the 50-percent level, by the Federal Government. The taxes all went into additional health care, and no one could claim fraud. However, in recent years some States got too creative in imposing and seeking Federal matching funds for their provider taxes, in some instances using the Federal money for purposes unrelated to health care. This led Congress in 1991 to enact legislation to prevent States from gaming the system. Since New York was confident its taxes were in compliance with the 1991 law, the State continued its practice, all the while seeking a waiver from the Federal health care bureaucracy. And so, when the time came to draft the 1997 reconciliation bill, Senator D'Amato, a member of the Committee on Finance, asked that a provision be included that would simply preclude any Federal claims regarding the use of these taxes from 1991 to 1996. I fully supported this measure. The issue had been debated during our markup in the Finance Committee, and the provision was included in the final bill, which was passed by a large 73 to 27 majority. The conference report was adopted by an even larger majority, 85 to 15. As ranking member of the committee, I was on this floor with our esteemed chairman, Senator Roth, for several days and in meetings with House conferees and administration officials for an eternity, or so it seemed. Morning, noon, night; mostly night. Let the Record reflect that at no point in the course of those deliberations did the subject of the Medicaid waiver come up. No Member of the House challenged it; no representative of the administration said a word to me. In fact, the only administration objection that I know of was buried deep in the 21- page letter of administration views sent by OMB Director Raines on July 7, which said, in pertinent part: [T]he Senate bill would deem provider taxes as approved for one State. We have serious concerns about these provisions and would like to work with the Conferees to address the underlying problems. This was not the clearest possible statement. What, for example, does ``deem'' mean? Further, the term ``serious concerns'' is used any number of times in the administration's views, yet in none of those other instances did a line item veto result. ``Serious concerns.'' I ask my friend from New York, does that sound like a veto threat to him? In 20 years in the Senate, this Senator has heard many veto threats made, but never one like that. Yet this is evidently how we should expect things to work in the era of the line item veto. This leads to my second, larger, point. I am one of those--and I am not alone--who hold that the line-item veto is unconstitutional in that it violates the presentment clause of article I, section 7, which states: Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it. When the Line Item Veto Act was first debated in the Senate in the spring of 1995, I argued--along with our revered colleague from West Virginia, Senator Robert C. Byrd, and others-- that the presentment clause means exactly what it says. But I'm afraid not many people were listening. Recall that the line item veto was part of item one in the Contract With America, which was then only a few months old. But we said: ``Don't do this! It violates the principle of the separation of powers as we have understood it since George Washington was President.'' For it was President Washington who wrote ``From the nature of the Constitution, I must approve all the parts of a bill or reject it in toto.'' In lengthy statements here on the floor, Senators Byrd, Levin, Hatfield, and I--among others--argued as emphatically as we could. We cited the relevant case law--INS versus Chadha, Bowsher versus Synar; we quoted prominent constitutional scholars--Laurence H. Tribe, Michael J. Gerhardt. Yet in the end we were in a regrettably small minority. The Line Item Veto Act passed the Senate on March 23, 1995, by a vote of 69 to 29. When the conference report came back in March of 1996--a full year later--it passed by a vote of 69-31. Of the 31 Senators opposed, four of us felt the principle at stake was so consequential that it demanded immediate scrutiny by the courts. For which the Line Item Veto Act had explicitly provided: Section 3 of the act provides for ``expedited review'' of the statute's constitutionality by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, with direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The act further stated that ``any Member of Congress or any individual adversely affected'' could bring an action ``on the ground that any provision of this part violates the Constitution.'' Accordingly, on January 2 of this year, the first business day after the Line Item Veto Act took effect, I joined with Senator Byrd, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, former Senator Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon, and Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and David E. Skaggs of Colorado, as plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the measure. We were represented on a pro bono basis by a team of distinguished and learned counsel, including Louis R. Cohen; Charles J. Cooper; Lloyd N. Cutler; Michael Davidson; and Alan B. Morrison. Oral argument was heard on March 21 by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. And less than 3 weeks later, on April 10, Judge Jackson held for us and declared the bill unconstitutional. He wrote in his opinion: . . . the Act effectively permits the President to repeal duly enacted provisions of federal law. This he cannot do. . . . The duty of the President with respect to such laws is to ``take care that [they] be faithfully executed.'' U.S. Const. art. II, sec. 3. Canceling, i.e., repealing, parts of a law cannot be considered its faithful execution. On June 26, however, the Supreme Court vacated the district court's judgment, holding in a 7-2 decision that as Members of Congress, we did not have ``standing'' to sue, as we could not demonstrate any personal, or ``judicially cognizable,'' injury. We do not agree; in our view, the measure shifts the balance of power between the Congress and President in direct contravention of article I, something that can only be done by constitutional amendment. But, of course, the Court left it for others to sue. Now we can. As a consequence of the President's decision to use the line-item veto on a measure designed to help New York, surely there will now be a lawsuit that will persuade the Supreme Court to strike down the measure as unconstitutional. All manner of New Yorkers presumably have standing; they have suffered injury. The Court was explicit that in such a case, the act was open to constitutional challenge. Let the Governor sue. The Comptroller. The Speaker. Mayors. Hospital administrators. Nurses unions. I shall be honored to join in. Expedited judicial review will again be provided pursuant to section 3 of the Line Item Veto Act; the action will again begin in the district court in Washington, with direct appeal to the Supreme Court. This time round, I trust the Court will declare the statute unconstitutional. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent to the Court's June 26 decision: If the [Act] were valid, it would deny every Senator and every Representative any opportunity to vote for or against the truncated measure that survives the exercise of the President's cancellation authority. Because the opportunity to cast such votes is a right guaranteed by the text of the Constitution, I think it clear that the persons who are deprived of that right by the Act have standing to challenge its constitutionality. . . [T]he same reason that the respondents have standing provides a sufficient basis for concluding that the statute is unconstitutional. Once the constitutional issue is disposed of, and even if it is not, and very possibly before it is, I know my colleague from New York will join me in saying that the issue of the equity of the Medicaid matching formula must be addressed. It is too extreme an example of discrimination to go on for another half century. Three years ago, President Clinton said as much. On a visit to New York City in May 1994, he spoke at a breakfast of the Association for a Better New York. Inviting questions, the President was asked by State Comptroller H. Carl McCall whether anything would be done to relieve the State of the ``crushing burden'' imposed by Medicaid. The President replied: There's no question that the formula should be changed, and that states like New York with high per capita incomes but huge numbers of poor people are not treated fairly under a formula that only deals with per capita income. There was no reference to this in the President's recent veto message of the New York provision. Rather, the contrary: No other state in the nation would be given this provision, and it is unfair to the rest of our nation's taxpayers to ask them to subsidize it. This was not entirely accurate, although there is no reason to suppose the President was aware of this. In the absurdly dense 1,600-page bill Congress had sent him, there was a small provision, adopted in the Finance Committee, which raises the Medicaid matching level for Alaska from the bottom rate of 50 percent to the national average of 59.6 percent. The Senators from Alaska made the simple case that the cost of living in Alaska is well above the national average. This is reflected in higher incomes, which the Medicaid formula wrongly interprets as greater wealth. They asked for nothing more than the national average. The District of Columbia got an increased match rate as well. Hawaii asked also, but the bill had been closed by then. Senator D'Amato and I say it is time to open the issue up. The case for legislative remedy is surely overwhelming. And we intend to use the new attention that has been drawn to this issue by the President's veto to press that case at every opportunity.

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. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with Chairman Roth to clarify the conference agreement as it relates to the children's health initiative. First, the issue of what benefits must be provided to children has been very important to us in this Chamber, on both sides of the aisle. Under the conference report, a State covering children under the new title XXI must offer at least the coverage listed under the options specified in section 2103(a). Do these options establish floors or ceilings?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, one provision of H.R. 2014 would repeal the $150 million limit on section 501(C)(3) bonds. This is a change I have long sought, and I am grateful for my chairman's support for this change. It is my understanding that the intention of the provision is that bonds that meet the requirements of the bill will be eligible for tax-exempt treatment without being subject to the $150 million limitation. Furthermore, these bonds will not be taken into account with respect to other qualified section 501(C)(3) bonds that are subject to the $150 million limitation, which bonds may continue to be issued on a tax-exempt basis to finance and refinance expenditures as permitted under existing law.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I believe the chairman would like to make a comment in response.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, under the Taxpayer's Relief Act of 1997, the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association [TIAA] and the College Retirement Equities Fund [CREF] are taxed under the same regime as life insurance companies. However, TIAA and CREF are separate companies with different structures and operations. TIAA is a nonprofit, legal reserve life insurance and annuity company. CREF, on the other hand, is a management investment company registered with the SEC under the 1940 act. CREF was organized in 1952 under a special act of the New York Legislature. CREF predates the existence of separate accounts and in fact served as the model for the variable annuity products offered today by life insurance companies through separate accounts. No portion of a participant's pension contribution to CREF pays for guarantees or the maintenance of reserves. In light of the differences between TIAA and CREF, I would like to ask Chairman Roth, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee if he would be so kind as to comment on the intent of the bill as it applies to the taxation of CREF.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Of course, Mr. President.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, if the Senator from New Mexico wishes to speak, I will yield the floor, of course, but the Senator from Arkansas would be the next?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President I believe the distinguished Senator from Louisiana would like to speak at this point. She can have as much time as she would like from our time.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Might I simply join my friend and old colleague on the Finance Committee in his remarks commending the Senator from Louisiana. Typically, he did not mention his own work, his own role in this--it was indispensable--to have a unanimous Finance Committee in these matters and to make a point. It had been assumed there would be a storm of disapproval for what we did. There was none. There was none. The usual interest groups wrote the usual letters and the usual people took them too seriously. But a day will come when we have learned from this experience because it was an event. I thank the Senator.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. We talk more than you do.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Acid Deposition Control Act of 1997, a bill to combat acid rain and help restore health to the Nation's sensitive ecosystems--such as the Adirondack Park in my home State of New York. My friend and colleague, Senator D'Amato is cosponsor of this measure. Mr. President, in the 1960's, fishermen in the Adirondacks began to complain about more than the big ones that got away. Fish, once abundant, were not simply becoming harder to catch. They had disappeared. Initially, pollution seemed an unlikely cause. The lakes lie in a park protected by the New York State Constitution from most disturbances by human activities. Most of the lakes are virtually inaccessible, except to fishermen--and the winds that blow in from industrial pockets across the Midwest. Before long, pioneering scientists such as Cornell University's Eugene Likens and Carl Schofield and Syracuse University's Charles Driscoll established a link between increased deposition of acidic compounds in rainfall and the absence or deformity of fish in lakes with clear water and low pH. This was precisely the phenomenon first documented by Robert Angus Smith in Manchester, England, in 1852. More recently, acid rain had been of concern in Scandinavia. Acids lofted into the atmosphere from tall smokestacks in the industrial basin of the Ruhr River, falling on watersheds that were, in many places, little more than bare rock. Closer to the source, acid rain was blamed for Waldsterben, the death of Germany's prized Black Forest. We have learned a great deal since then. In June 1980, Congress passed the Energy Security Act, Public Law 96-264. Title VII consisted of a bill I introduced in 1979, the Acid Precipitation Act of 1980. It established the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program [NAPAP]--an interagency research program to foster the development of science-based Federal policy regarding acid rain. This program resulted in the establishment of long-term acid deposition monitoring programs, a network of permanent forest plots and lake sampling regimes, over 1,500 peer reviewed publications, and perhaps more important the issuance of 71 doctoral degrees in acid deposition research during the 1980's compared to only 2 in the decade before. By the end of this massive study, scientists worldwide gathered in South Carolina to discuss what they had learned. They learned that at least 800 lakes and 2,200 streams in the eastern United States had been made acidic by acid rain; they predicted that an additional 10 percent would become acidic over the next decade without additional legislation. And they confirmed--as had been expected--that sulfur dioxide emissions were found to be a significant factor in acidifying ecosystems. Sulfur dioxide had contributed to forest decline in high elevation areas, corrosion of stone and metal structures, and reduced visibility. In 1990, Congress enacted acid rain controls to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 10 million tons below 1985 levels, utilizing a unique, market-based approach to ensure the most cost-effective pollution reduction possible. At the time, the measure was expected to have some noticeable--but not overwhelming--beneficial effects. We were right. Visibility has increased. Acidification of lake waters and deterioration of materials has been reduced. The incidence of respiratory disease has decreased. The market-based emissions trading approach has proved a tremendous success, fostering reductions nearly 40 percent beyond that which the act required, at costs amounting to a mere fraction of industry and government predictions. Equally important, our knowledge increased. In recent years, scientists have identified another important precursor of acid rain: nitrogen oxides. Studies on the combined effect of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide strongly suggest that the Clean Air Act will not be adequate to prevent long-term deterioration of national treasures such as the Adirondack Mountains and the Chesapeake Bay. According to a 1995 Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] study, even with the reductions required by the Clean Air Act, up to 45 percent of the lakes in the Adirondacks will become too acidic to support most aquatic life by the year 2040. Lakes too acidic to support life. Now there is a powerful image. The bill I introduce today requires an additional 50-percent reduction of sulfur dioxide and a 75-percent reduction in the level of nitrogen oxides emitted from electric utilities. This legislation blends the best judgment of top scientists with the successful, market- based approach of the existing program. The legislation calls for a nitrogen oxide cap and trade program similar to the sulfur dioxide program presently administered by EPA's Acid Rain Division. Under the program, EPA officials would divide a fixed--capped--number of nitrogen oxide emission allowances among the 48 contiguous States each year, basing each State's share of allowances on the State's share of the power generated within the 48 States. Each State, in turn, would divide the allowances among the utilities within the State, in whatever manner the State sees fit. Each allowance represents a limited right to emit 1 ton of NOX pollution. Each utility must conduct an accounting procedure to ensure that they hold enough allowances to cover their emissions tonnage. A utility with more allowances than emissions may sell their additional allowances or save them for use in a future year. Likewise, a utility with fewer allowances than emissions would purchase excess allowances from another source. If for any reason a State does not wish to administer the allocation of allowances to its utilities, the EPA Administrator will distribute the allowances automatically, giving each utility a share of the State's allowances equal to that utility's share of the State's power generation. In addition to contributing to acid deposition, NOX pollution contributes to ozone pollution, a respiratory and pulmonary irritant which can cause significant adverse health effects. Because heat and sunlight are necessary components in the creation of ozone pollution, ozone is most prevalent in warm summer months. Therefore, in an effort to reduce ozone pollution, the legislation would take additional measures to reduce summertime NOX emissions. During the months of May, June, July, August, and September, an electric utility would be forced to surrender two allowances per ton of NOX emitted. The NOX trading program would commence operation on January 1, 2000, beginning with an annual cap of 5.4 million allowances and cutting back to 3.0 million allowances beginning in 2003. EPA modeling suggests that, due to the two-for-one ozone season emissions provision, the actual emissions will likely drop to approximately 2.3 million tons per year after 2003--a reduction of approximately 70 percent from 1995 levels. Mr. President, there were days when dark plumes of smoke coming out of factory smokestacks were signs of prosperity. There was nothing Jim Farley liked to do better than put up a new Post Office and hire an artist to paint on its walls prosperity returning. Black columns of smoke reaching up to the sky--strong colors for what we hoped would be a strong economy. Lord Kelvin used to point out that one can't solve a problem that one cannot measure. We have spent decades measuring, and now it is time to update our policy response in order to solve the problem. It is time to adjust to the consequences of what we have learned. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Acid Deposition Control Act of 1997. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to honor and remember a truly exceptional American, Ronald H. Brown. The bill would designate the newly constructed Federal building located at 290 Broadway in the heart of lower Manhattan as the ``Ronald H. Brown Federal Building.'' It is a fitting gesture to recognize the passing of this remarkable American, and I would ask for my colleagues' support for this legislation to place one more marker in history on Ron Brown's behalf. Ron Brown had a great love for enterprise and industry as reflected in his achievements as the first African-American to hold the office of U.S. Secretary of Commerce. His was also a life of outstanding achievement and public service: Army captain; vice president of the National Urban League; partner in a prestigious law firm; chairman of the National Democratic Committee; husband and father. And these are but a few of the achievements that demonstrated Ron Brown's spirited and sweeping pursuit of life. To have held any one of these posts in the government, and in the private sector, is extraordinary. To have held all of the positions he did and prevail as he did, is unique. Ron Brown was tragically taken from us too soon; we are diminished by his loss. I cannot think of a more fitting tribute to this uncommon man. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Ronald H. Brown Federal Building Designation Act of 1997 be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise with a distinguished group of my colleagues to introduce the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Act of 1997. Maglev is the first new transportation technology envisioned since the development of aviation in the early 1900's, and its adoption represents an opportunity for dramatic national gains in transportation efficiency and economic growth. This legislation proposes to demonstrate the feasibility of Maglev by authorizing limited Federal participation in financing one or more Maglev projects in the United States. Maglev is an advanced technology in which magnetic forces lift, propel, and guide a vehicle over a guideway. Utilizing state-of-the-art electric power and control systems, this configuration eliminates the need for wheels and many other mechanical parts, thereby minimizing friction and permitting cruising speeds of 300 miles per hour or more-- three times the speed of conventional American train technology. Because of its high speeds and relatively modest right-of-way requirements, Maglev offers significant advantages over auto, rail, and aviation modes in 40- to 600-mile travel markets. Maglev is also a very safe technology since properly designed Maglev is virtually impossible to derail. While Maglev was invented by a young American nuclear engineer in the 1960's, the Germans have developed the technology and have already built a demonstration Maglev test facility. They are now proceeding with a public/private project to construct a 181-mile Maglev system to connect Berlin to Hamburg. The German system, which is expected to be operational by 2005, will provide 1-hour service between the two cities. Not far behind Germany, Japan has its own Maglev system under test. Meanwhile, our Federal Government has done relatively little to develop this extraordinary technology. In the last few years, however, the Federal Rail Administration has identified the feasibility of deployment of Maglev systems in several major U.S. transportation corridors. Also, several public/private partnerships in the United States have begun to develop Maglev projects in a number of States, including California, Florida, Maryland, and Nevada. However, as with our European and Asian competitors, developing these Maglev projects will require Federal support to supplement the private and other public funding sources. Our bill would establish a competition for Federal funds, based on economic and financial criteria, among the various public/private Maglev project partnerships. Because Maglev is a proven technology that offers significant benefits for both passengers and freight, it is in the National interest to demonstrate these benefits by proceeding to construct and put into service, at an early date, a project in the United States. This legislation will encourage such a project at minimum public cost. I ask unanimous consent that the section-by-section analysis and the text of the Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) Transportation Technology Deployment Act of 1997 be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise with a distinguished group of my colleagues to introduce the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Act of 1997. Maglev is the first new transportation technology envisioned since the development of aviation in the early 1900's, and its adoption represents an opportunity for dramatic national gains in transportation efficiency and economic growth. This legislation proposes to demonstrate the feasibility of Maglev by authorizing limited Federal participation in financing one or more Maglev projects in the United States. Maglev is an advanced technology in which magnetic forces lift, propel, and guide a vehicle over a guideway. Utilizing state-of-the-art electric power and control systems, this configuration eliminates the need for wheels and many other mechanical parts, thereby minimizing friction and permitting cruising speeds of 300 miles per hour or more-- three times the speed of conventional American train technology. Because of its high speeds and relatively modest right-of-way requirements, Maglev offers significant advantages over auto, rail, and aviation modes in 40- to 600-mile travel markets. Maglev is also a very safe technology since properly designed Maglev is virtually impossible to derail. While Maglev was invented by a young American nuclear engineer in the 1960's, the Germans have developed the technology and have already built a demonstration Maglev test facility. They are now proceeding with a public/private project to construct a 181-mile Maglev system to connect Berlin to Hamburg. The German system, which is expected to be operational by 2005, will provide 1-hour service between the two cities. Not far behind Germany, Japan has its own Maglev system under test. Meanwhile, our Federal Government has done relatively little to develop this extraordinary technology. In the last few years, however, the Federal Rail Administration has identified the feasibility of deployment of Maglev systems in several major U.S. transportation corridors. Also, several public/private partnerships in the United States have begun to develop Maglev projects in a number of States, including California, Florida, Maryland, and Nevada. However, as with our European and Asian competitors, developing these Maglev projects will require Federal support to supplement the private and other public funding sources. Our bill would establish a competition for Federal funds, based on economic and financial criteria, among the various public/private Maglev project partnerships. Because Maglev is a proven technology that offers significant benefits for both passengers and freight, it is in the National interest to demonstrate these benefits by proceeding to construct and put into service, at an early date, a project in the United States. This legislation will encourage such a project at minimum public cost. I ask unanimous consent that the section-by-section analysis and the text of the Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) Transportation Technology Deployment Act of 1997 be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Acid Deposition Control Act of 1997, a bill to combat acid rain and help restore health to the Nation's sensitive ecosystems--such as the Adirondack Park in my home State of New York. My friend and colleague, Senator D'Amato is cosponsor of this measure. Mr. President, in the 1960's, fishermen in the Adirondacks began to complain about more than the big ones that got away. Fish, once abundant, were not simply becoming harder to catch. They had disappeared. Initially, pollution seemed an unlikely cause. The lakes lie in a park protected by the New York State Constitution from most disturbances by human activities. Most of the lakes are virtually inaccessible, except to fishermen--and the winds that blow in from industrial pockets across the Midwest. Before long, pioneering scientists such as Cornell University's Eugene Likens and Carl Schofield and Syracuse University's Charles Driscoll established a link between increased deposition of acidic compounds in rainfall and the absence or deformity of fish in lakes with clear water and low pH. This was precisely the phenomenon first documented by Robert Angus Smith in Manchester, England, in 1852. More recently, acid rain had been of concern in Scandinavia. Acids lofted into the atmosphere from tall smokestacks in the industrial basin of the Ruhr River, falling on watersheds that were, in many places, little more than bare rock. Closer to the source, acid rain was blamed for Waldsterben, the death of Germany's prized Black Forest. We have learned a great deal since then. In June 1980, Congress passed the Energy Security Act, Public Law 96-264. Title VII consisted of a bill I introduced in 1979, the Acid Precipitation Act of 1980. It established the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program [NAPAP]--an interagency research program to foster the development of science-based Federal policy regarding acid rain. This program resulted in the establishment of long-term acid deposition monitoring programs, a network of permanent forest plots and lake sampling regimes, over 1,500 peer reviewed publications, and perhaps more important the issuance of 71 doctoral degrees in acid deposition research during the 1980's compared to only 2 in the decade before. By the end of this massive study, scientists worldwide gathered in South Carolina to discuss what they had learned. They learned that at least 800 lakes and 2,200 streams in the eastern United States had been made acidic by acid rain; they predicted that an additional 10 percent would become acidic over the next decade without additional legislation. And they confirmed--as had been expected--that sulfur dioxide emissions were found to be a significant factor in acidifying ecosystems. Sulfur dioxide had contributed to forest decline in high elevation areas, corrosion of stone and metal structures, and reduced visibility. In 1990, Congress enacted acid rain controls to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 10 million tons below 1985 levels, utilizing a unique, market-based approach to ensure the most cost-effective pollution reduction possible. At the time, the measure was expected to have some noticeable--but not overwhelming--beneficial effects. We were right. Visibility has increased. Acidification of lake waters and deterioration of materials has been reduced. The incidence of respiratory disease has decreased. The market-based emissions trading approach has proved a tremendous success, fostering reductions nearly 40 percent beyond that which the act required, at costs amounting to a mere fraction of industry and government predictions. Equally important, our knowledge increased. In recent years, scientists have identified another important precursor of acid rain: nitrogen oxides. Studies on the combined effect of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide strongly suggest that the Clean Air Act will not be adequate to prevent long-term deterioration of national treasures such as the Adirondack Mountains and the Chesapeake Bay. According to a 1995 Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] study, even with the reductions required by the Clean Air Act, up to 45 percent of the lakes in the Adirondacks will become too acidic to support most aquatic life by the year 2040. Lakes too acidic to support life. Now there is a powerful image. The bill I introduce today requires an additional 50-percent reduction of sulfur dioxide and a 75-percent reduction in the level of nitrogen oxides emitted from electric utilities. This legislation blends the best judgment of top scientists with the successful, market- based approach of the existing program. The legislation calls for a nitrogen oxide cap and trade program similar to the sulfur dioxide program presently administered by EPA's Acid Rain Division. Under the program, EPA officials would divide a fixed--capped--number of nitrogen oxide emission allowances among the 48 contiguous States each year, basing each State's share of allowances on the State's share of the power generated within the 48 States. Each State, in turn, would divide the allowances among the utilities within the State, in whatever manner the State sees fit. Each allowance represents a limited right to emit 1 ton of NOX pollution. Each utility must conduct an accounting procedure to ensure that they hold enough allowances to cover their emissions tonnage. A utility with more allowances than emissions may sell their additional allowances or save them for use in a future year. Likewise, a utility with fewer allowances than emissions would purchase excess allowances from another source. If for any reason a State does not wish to administer the allocation of allowances to its utilities, the EPA Administrator will distribute the allowances automatically, giving each utility a share of the State's allowances equal to that utility's share of the State's power generation. In addition to contributing to acid deposition, NOX pollution contributes to ozone pollution, a respiratory and pulmonary irritant which can cause significant adverse health effects. Because heat and sunlight are necessary components in the creation of ozone pollution, ozone is most prevalent in warm summer months. Therefore, in an effort to reduce ozone pollution, the legislation would take additional measures to reduce summertime NOX emissions. During the months of May, June, July, August, and September, an electric utility would be forced to surrender two allowances per ton of NOX emitted. The NOX trading program would commence operation on January 1, 2000, beginning with an annual cap of 5.4 million allowances and cutting back to 3.0 million allowances beginning in 2003. EPA modeling suggests that, due to the two-for-one ozone season emissions provision, the actual emissions will likely drop to approximately 2.3 million tons per year after 2003--a reduction of approximately 70 percent from 1995 levels. Mr. President, there were days when dark plumes of smoke coming out of factory smokestacks were signs of prosperity. There was nothing Jim Farley liked to do better than put up a new Post Office and hire an artist to paint on its walls prosperity returning. Black columns of smoke reaching up to the sky--strong colors for what we hoped would be a strong economy. Lord Kelvin used to point out that one can't solve a problem that one cannot measure. We have spent decades measuring, and now it is time to update our policy response in order to solve the problem. It is time to adjust to the consequences of what we have learned. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Acid Deposition Control Act of 1997. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.