Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce, along with Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, legislation to establish a commission to study the Federal Statistical System. Statistics are part of our constitutional arrangement, which provides for a decennial census that, among other purposes, is the basis for apportionment of membership in the House of Representatives. I quote from Article I, Section I: * * * enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. But, while the Constitution directed that there be a census, there was, initially, no Census Bureau. The earliest censuses were conducted by U.S. marshals. Later on, statistical bureaus in State governments collected the data, with a Superintendent of the Census overseeing from Washington. It was not until 1902 that a permanent Bureau of the Census was created by the Congress, housed initially in the Interior Department. In 1903 the Bureau was transferred to the newly established Department of Commerce and Labor. The Statistics of Income Division of the Internal Revenue Service, which was originally an independent body, began collecting data in 1866. It too was transferred to the new Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903, but then was put in the Treasury Department in 1913 following ratification of the 16th amendment, which gave Congress the power to impose an income tax. A Bureau of Labor, created in 1884, was also initially in the Interior Department. The first Commissioner, appointed in 1885, was Colonel Carroll D. Wright, a distinguished Civil War veteran of the New Hampshire Volunteers. A self-trained social scientist, Colonel Wright pioneered techniques for collecting and analyzing survey data on income, prices, and wages. He had previously served as chief of the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics, a post he held for 15 years, and in that capacity had supervised the 1880 Federal census in Massachusetts. In 1888, the Bureau of Labor became an independent agency. In 1903 it was once again made a Bureau, joining other statistical agencies in the Department of Commerce and Labor. When a new Department of Labor was formed in 1913, giving labor an independent voice--as labor was ``removed'' from the Department of Commerce and Labor--what we now know as the Bureau of Labor Statistics was transferred to it. And so it went. Statistical agencies sprung up as needed. And they moved back and forth as new executive departments were formed. Today, some 89 different organizations in the Federal Government comprise parts of our national statistical infrastructure. Eleven of these organizations have as their primary function the generation of data. These 11 organizations are: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date Agency Department Established ------------------------------------------------------------------------ National Agricultural Statistical Agriculture........... 1863 Service. Statistics of Income Division, IRS. Treasury.............. 1866 Economic Research Service.......... Agriculture........... 1867 National Center for Education Education............. 1867 Statistics. Bureau of Labor Statistics......... Labor................. 1884 Bureau of the Census............... Commerce.............. 1902 Bureau of Economic Analysis........ Commerce.............. 1912 National Center for Health Health and Human 1912 Statistics. Services. Bureau of Justice Statistics....... Justice............... 1968 Energy Information Administration.. Energy................ 1974 Bureau of Transportation Statistics Transportation........ 1991 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ need for legislation President Kennedy once said: Democracy is a difficult kind of government. It requires the highest qualities of self-discipline, restraint, a willingness to make commitments and sacrifices for the general interest, and also it requires knowledge. That knowledge often comes from accurate statistics. You cannot begin to solve a problem until you can measure it. This legislation would require the new commission to conduct a comprehensive examination of our current statistical system and focus particularly on the agencies that produce data as their primary product--agencies such as the Bureau of Economic Analysis [BEA] and the Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS]. In September 1996, prior to the first introduction of this bill, I received a letter from nine former chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers [CEA] endorsing this legislation. Excluding the two most recent chairs, who were still serving in the Clinton administration, the signatories include virtually every living chair of the CEA. While acknowledging that the United States ``possesses a first-class statistical system,'' these former chairmen remind us that ``problems periodically arise under the current system of widely scattered responsibilities.'' They conclude as follows: Without at all prejudging the appropriate measures to deal with these difficult problems, we believe that a thoroughgoing review by a highly qualified and bipartisan Commission as provided in your Bill has great promise of showing the way to major improvements. The letter is signed by: Michael J. Boskin, Martin Feldstein, Alan Greenspan, Paul W. McCracken, Raymond J. Saulnier, Charles L. Schultze, Beryl W. Sprinkel, Herbert Stein, and Murray Weidenbaum. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be printed in the Record following my statement. It happens that this Senator's association with the statistical system in the executive branch began over three decades ago. I was Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy and Planning in the administration of President John F. Kennedy. This was a new position in which I was nominally responsible for, inter alia, the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I say nominally out of respect for the independence of that venerable institution, which as I noted earlier long predated the Department of Labor itself. The then-Commissioner of the BLS, Ewan Clague, could not have been more friendly and supportive. And so were the statisticians, who undertook to teach me to the extent I was teachable. They even shared professional confidences. And so it was that I came to have some familiarity with the field. For example, we had just received a report on price indexes from a committee led by George J. Stigler, who later won a Nobel prize in economics. The Committee stressed the importance of accurate and timely statistics, noting that: The periodic revision of price indexes, and the almost continuous alterations in details of their calculation, are essential if the indexes are to serve their primary function of measuring the average movements of prices. And while the recently released Final Report of the Advisory Commission To Study The Consumer Index (The Boskin Commission) focused primarily on the extent to which changes in the CPI overstate inflation, the Boskin Commission also addressed issues related to the effectiveness of Federal statistical programs and recommended that: Congress should enact the legislation necessary for the Department of Commerce and Labor to share information in the interest of improving accuracy and timeliness of economic statistics and to reduce the resources consumed in their development and production. Our Government officials are not oblivious to the growing need for reform. In fact, Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Everett M. Ehrlich has been most forthcoming on this point. In a November 24, 1996 New York Times article, Under Secretary Ehrlich states: Our statistical system is failing to keep track with a rapidly changing economy. The data we provide give us a good picture of where we are in the business cycle but risk misrepresenting such long-term phenomena as inflation, productivity growth and the economy's changing composition. To address this problem, Under Secretary Ehrlich has proposed a 3- year program to improve the Department of Commerce's measurement of statistics. There is, of course, a long history of attempts to reform our Nation's statistical infrastructure. Between 1903 and 1990, 16 different committees, commissions, and study groups have convened to assess our statistical infrastructure, but in most cases little or no action has been taken on their recommendations. The result of this inaction has been an ever-expanding statistical system. It continues to grow in order to meet new data needs, but with little or no regard for the overall objectives of the system. Janet L. Norwood, former Commissioner of the BLS, writes in her book Organizing to Count: The U.S. system has neither the advantages that come from centralization nor the efficiency that comes from strong coordination in decentralization. As presently organized, therefore, the country's statistical system will be hard pressed to meet the demands of a technologically advanced, increasingly internationalized world in which the demand for objective data of high quality is steadily rising. In this era of government downsizing and budget cutting it is unlikely that Congress will appropriate more funds for statistical agencies. It is clear that to preserve and improve the statistical system we must consider reforming it, yet we must not attempt to reform the system until we have heard from experts in the field. It is also clear there is a need for a comprehensive review of the Federal statistical infrastructure. For if the public loses confidence in our statistics, they are likely to lose confidence in our policies as well.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure to improve our information about the regulation and criminal use of ammunition and to prevent the irresponsible production of ammunition. This bill has three components. First, it would require importers and manufacturers of ammunition to keep records and submit an annual report to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms [BATF] on the disposition of ammunition, including the amount, caliber and type of ammunition imported or manufactured. Second, it would require the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Academy of Sciences, to conduct a study of ammunition use and make recommendations on the efficacy of reducing crime by restricting access to ammunition. Finally, it would amend title 18 of the United States Code to raise the application fee for a license to manufacture certain calibers of ammunition. While there are enough handguns in circulation to last well into the 22d century, there is perhaps only a 4-year supply of ammunition. But how much of what kind of ammunition? Where does it come from? Where does it go? There are currently no reporting requirements for manufacturers or importers of ammunition; earlier reporting requirements were repealed in 1986. The Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Reports, based on information provided by local law enforcement agencies, does not record the caliber, type, or quantity of ammunition used in crime. In short, our data base is woefully inadequate. I supported the Brady law, which requires a waiting period before the purchase of a handgun, and the recent ban on semi-automatic weapons. But while the debate over gun control continues, I offer another alternative: Ammunition control. After all, as I have said before, guns do not kill people; bullets do. Ammunition control is not a new idea. In 1982 Phil Caruso of the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association asked me do something about armor-piercing bullets. Jacketed in tungsten or other materials, these rounds could penetrate four police flak jackets and five Los Angeles County telephone books. They are of no sporting value. I introduced legislation, the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act, to ban the cop-killer bullets in the 97th, 98th, and 99th Congresses. It enjoyed the overwhelming support of law enforcement groups and, ultimately, tacit support from the National Rifle Association. It was finally signed into law by President Reagan on August 28, 1986. The crime bill enacted in 1994 contained may amendment to broaden the 1986 ban to cover new thick steel-jacketed armor-piercing rounds. Out cities are becoming more ware of the benefits to be gained from ammunition control. The District of Columbia and some other cities prohibit a person from possessing ammunition without a valid license for a firearm of the same caliber or gauge as the ammunition. Beginning in 1990, the city of Los Angeles banned the sale of all ammunition 1 week prior to Independence Day and New Year's Day in an effort to reduce injuries and deaths caused by the firing of guns into the air. And in September 1994, the city of Chicago became the first in America to ban the sale of all handgun ammunition. Such efforts are laudable. But they are isolated attempts to cure what is in truth a national disease. We need to do more, but to do so, we need information to guide policymaking. This bill would fulfill that need by requiring annual reports to BATF by manufacturers and importers and by directing a study by the National Academy of Sciences. We also need to encourage manufacturers of ammunition to be more responsible. By substantially increasing application fees for licenses to manufacturer .25 caliber, .32 caliber, and 9-mm ammunition, this bill would discourage the reckless production of unsafe ammunition or ammunition which causes excesses damage. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I introduce two measures to help fight the epidemic of bullet-related violence in America: the Real Cost of Destructive Ammunition Act and the Destructive Ammunition Prohibition Act of 1997. The purpose of these bills is to prevent from reaching the marketplace some of the most deadly rounds of ammunition ever produced. Some of my colleagues may remember the Black Talon. It is a hollow- tipped bullet, singular among handgun ammunition in its capacity for destruction. Upon impact with human tissue, the bullet produces razor- sharp radial petals that produce a devastating wound. It is the very same bullet that a crazed gunman fired at unsuspecting passengers on a Long Island Railroad train in December 1993, Killing the husband of now Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy and injuring her son. That same month, it was also used in the shooting of Officer Jason E. White of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, just 15 blocks from the Capitol. I first learned of the Black Talon in a letter I received from Dr. E.J. Gallagher, director of Emergency Medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine at the Municipal Hospital Trauma Center in the Bronx. Dr. Gallagher wrote that he has never seen a more lethal projectile. On November 3, 1993, I introduced a bill to tax the Black Talon at 10,000 percent. Nineteen days later, Olin Corp., the manufacturer of the Black Talon, announced that it would withdraw sale of the bullet to the general public. Unfortunately, the 103d Congress came to a close without the bill having won passage. As a result, there is nothing in law to prevent the reintroduction of this pernicious bullet, nor is there any existing impediment to the sale of similar rounds that might be produced by another manufacturer. So today I reintroduce the bill to tax the Black Talon as well as a bill to prohibit the sale of the Black Talon to the public. Both bills would apply to any bullet with the same physical characteristics as the Black Talon. These bullets have no place in the armory of criminals. It has been estimated that the cost of hospital services for treating bullet-related injuries is $1 billion per year, with the total cost to the economy of such injuries approximately $14 billion. We can ill afford further increases in this number, but this would surely be the result if bullets with the destructive capacity of the Black Talon are allowed onto the streets. Mr. President, despite the fact that the national crime rate has decreased in recent months, the number of deaths and injuries caused by bullet wounds is still at an unconscionable level. It is time we took meaningful steps to put an end to the massacres that occur daily as a result of gunshots. How better a beginning than to go after the most insidious culprits of this violence? I urge my colleagues to support these measures and to prevent these bullets from appearing on the market.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Poverty Data Correction Act of 1997, a bill to require that any data relating to the incidence of poverty in subnational areas be corrected for the differences in the cost of living in those areas. This legislation, cosponsored by Senators Lieberman and Jeffords, would correct a longstanding inequity and would provide us with more accurate information on the number of Americans living in poverty. Mr. President, residents of New York and Connecticut earn more than do the residents of Mississippi or Alabama. But they also must spend more. The 1990 Census of Population and Housing, for instance, determined that homeowner costs with a mortgage averaged $1,096 per month in Connecticut, $894 in New York State--not city, $555 in Alabama, and $511 in Mississippi. The national average was $737. Yet, we have a national poverty threshold adjusted only by family size and composition, not by where the family lives. A family of four just above the poverty threshold in New York City is demonstrably worse off than a family of four just below the threshold in, say, rural Arkansas. And yet the family in New York might be ineligible for aid, and will not count in the poverty population tallies used to allocate funds while the Arkansas family will receive aid, and will be counted. An August 7, 1994 New York Times editorial endorsing a version of this bill introduced in the 104th Congress sums it up nicely: The cost of food, rent and other consumer goods can be twice as high in Manhattan as in Little Rock, Ark. Yet the income cutoff for poverty programs is the same in both places, $14,769 for a family of four. That produces the ridiculous and unfair result that a Manhattan family earning $15,000 does not qualify for Federal nutrition or education programs while an Arkansas family earning $14,500--the equivalent of $29,000 in Manhattan-- does. * * * Federal poverty levels are supposed to identify families that cannot buy minimally decent food, clothes and shelter. To act as if living costs do not matter, or as if financially strapped states will pick up where Washington leaves off, amounts to a vicious attack on the poor who happen to live in high-cost states. Professor Herman B. ``Dutch'' Leonard and Senior Research Associate Monica Friar of the Taubman Center for State and local government at Harvard have devised an index of poverty statistics that reflects the differences in the cost of living between States. If we look at the ``Friar-Leonard State Cost-of-Living index,'' as it has come to be known, we find that New York has a cost-adjusted poverty rate of 20.4 percent, the fifth highest in the Nation. Florida has the 12th highest adjusted poverty rate; Arkansas drops from 14th to 24th. New York fifth; Arkansas 24th. Georgia as the 25th highest. It is no longer the case that the incidence of poverty is highest in the Mississippi Delta or Appalachia. The fifth highest poverty rate is in New York. We seem not to have grasped this. In 1995, a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel of experts released a study on redefining poverty. Our poverty index dates back to the work of Social Security Administration economist Mollie Orshansky who, in the early 1960s, hit upon the idea of a nutritional standard, not unlike the ``pennyloaf'' of bread of the 18th century British poor laws. Our poverty standard would be three times the cost of the Department of Agriculture-defined minimally adequate ``food basket.'' During consideration of the Family Support Act of 1988, I included a provision mandating the National Academy of Sciences to determine if our poverty measure is outdated and how it might be improved. The study, edited by Constance F. Citro and Robert T. Michael, is entitled Measuring Poverty: A New Approach. A Congressional Research Service review of the report states: The NAS panel * * * makes several recommendations which, if fully adopted, could dramatically alter the way poverty in the U.S. is measured, how federal funds are allotted to the States, and how eligibility for many Federal programs is determined. The recommended poverty measure would be based on more items in the family budget, would take major noncash benefits and taxes into account, and would be adjusted for regional differences in living costs. * * * Under the current measure the share of the poor population living in each region was: Northeast: 16.9 percent; Midwest: 21.7 percent; South: 40.0 percent; and West: 21.4 percent. Under the proposed new measure, the estimated share in each region would be: Northeast: 18.9 percent; Midwest: 20.0 percent; South 36.4 percent; and West: 24.5 percent. Mr. President, our current poverty data are inaccurate. And these substandard data are used in allocation formulas used to distribute millions of Federal dollars each year. As a result, States with high costs of living--States like New York, Connecticut, Vermont, Hawaii, and California, just to name a few--are not getting their fair share of Federal dollars because differences in the cost of living are ignored. And the poor of these high cost States are penalized because they happen to live there. It is time to correct this inequity. I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times editorial be inserted into the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with my friend and colleagues, Senator D'Amato, a bill to designate President Grant's tomb a national monument. This April 27 will be the centennial of the dedication of the tomb. I can think of no better observance than to pass this designation and the other provisions in this bill that would protect and preserve the tomb and make it more attractive to visitors. The Nation owes President Grant a great debt for his efforts during the Civil War alone. He proved to be the capable general President Lincoln lacked in the early years of that conflict. Grant provided the leadership, strategy, determination, and courage to do what was necessary to win the war. He should also be remembered for his efforts to include Blacks in the Union Army and later for his relentless opposition to the Ku Klux Klan. Many Southerners appreciated his generous terms with General Lee, which included allowing Lee's men to keep their horses for the spring plowing. Grant went on to become the eighteenth President and to serve two terms. In 1881 the former President moved to New York City, and four years later to Mount McGregor near Saratoga. He died in 1885. In the next few years, 90,000 people contributed to a fundraising effort that brought in $600,000. This was enough to build structure on Riverside Drive in Manhattan modeled on the tombs of the Emperor Hadrian in Rome, Napoleon in Paris, and King Mausolis in Turkey. Inside are two eight-and-a-half ton sarcophagi made of Wisconsin red granite and a great mural depicting Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomattox. The tomb became a leading attraction for New York residents and for tourists. However, the neighborhood around the tomb has changed in recent years and visitorship is down. Vandalism is an ongoing concern. This bill takes several steps that are past due to protect and preserve the tomb. The bill would make Grant's Tomb a National Monument and require the Secretary of the Interior to ``administer, repair, restore, preserve, maintain, and promote'' the tomb in accordance with the law applicable to all National Monuments. It requires the Secretary to build a visitors center. It also calls for a study over two years to plan interpretive programs, restoration, and security and maintenance. This bill addresses the needs at Grant's Tomb. It can again become a leading attraction in New York. More important, the bill does what is right for the memory of our eighteenth President.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a most important piece of legislation for the State of New York, and to ask my Senate colleagues for their support. This bill directs the Secretary of the Army to repair a section of waterfront parkland in the Bronx, New York, known as Orchard Beach. My colleague in New York City, Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer, has worked hard for many years to get this beach--so beloved by the citizens of the Bronx--restored to its former glory. Orchard Beach is a splendid natural sanctuary and recreational spot within the Bronx, which is one of New York City's most urbanized areas. Orchard Beach provides a welcome respite from urban living and is particularly valued by low-income families with children who cannot afford summer homes or trips to the tonier beach resorts on Long Island or the Jersey shore. Over two million people visit Orchard Beach annually. For many of New York's working families, it offers the only affordable and convenient place for their children to play in the sea and sand. In addition, the beach and surrounding wetlands and salt marshes provide a vital habitat for many marine creatures, including crabs, lobsters, striped bass and winter flounder, as well as numerous species of overwintering waterfowl. But today, the beach is in urgent need of repair--there is widespread erosion due to repeated storm damage, threatening both the recreational utility of the beach and the stability of the animal and ocean life habitats. It seems only appropriate that we come to the rescue of this treasure now before irreversible damage is done. In the Water Resources Development Acts of 1992 and 1996, a total of $5.6 million was authorized to study and then conduct an Orchard Beach shoreline protection project to address storm damage prevention, recreation, and environmental restoration. The bill I introduce today would help to ensure that this important project for New York goes forward.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, cosponsored by Senator D'Amato, to provide for the relief and payment of an equitable claim to the estate of Dr. Beatrice Braude. Mr. President, this is a measure of justice which brings back memories of an old and awful time. Dr. Braude, a linguist fluent in several languages, was dismissed from her position at the United States Information Agency (USIA) in 1953 as a result of accusations of disloyalty to the United States. The accusations were old; two years earlier, the State Department's Loyalty Security Board had investigated and unanimously voted to dismiss them. The Board sent a letter to Dr. Braude stating ``there is no reasonable doubt as to your loyalty to the United States Government or as to your security risk to the Department of State.'' Dr. Braude was terminated one day after being praised for her work and informed that she probably would be promoted. USIA officials told her that the termination was due to budgetary constraints. Congress had funded the USIA at a level 27 percent below the President's request. The Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-207) authorized a reduction in force commensurate to the budget cut. Fair enough. As Dr. Braude remarked years later, ``I never felt that I had a lien on a government job.'' But what Dr. Braude did not know is that she was selected for termination because of the old--and answered-- charges against her. And because she did not know the real reason for her dismissal, she was denied certain procedural rights (the right to request a hearing, for instance). The true reason for her dismissal was kept hidden from her. When she was unable, over the next several years, to secure employment anywhere else within the Federal Government--even in a typing pool despite a perfect score on the typing test--she became convinced that she had been blacklisted. She spent the next 30 years fighting to regain employment and restore her reputation. Though she succeeded in 1982 (at the age of 69) in securing a position in the CIA as a language instructor, she still had not been able to clear her name by the time of her death in 1988. The irony of the charges against Dr. Braude is that she was an anti-communist, having witnessed first-hand communist- sponsored terrorism in Europe while she was an assistant cultural affairs officer in Paris and, for a brief period, an exchange officer in Bonn during the late 1940s and early 1950s. Mr. President, I would like to review the charges against Dr. Braude because they are illustrative of that dark era and instructive to us even today. There were a total of four. First, she was briefly a member of the Washington Book Shop at Farragut Square that the Attorney General later labeled subversive. Second, she had been in contact with Mary Jane Keeney, a Communist Party activist employed at the United Nations. Third, she had been a member of the State Department unit of the Communist-dominated Federal Workers' Union. Fourth, she was an acquaintance of Judith Coplon. With regard to the first charge, Dr. Braude had indeed joined the Book Shop shortly after her arrival in Washington in 1943. She was eager to meet congenial new people and a friend recommended the Book Shop, which hosted music recitals in the evenings. I must express some sensitivity here: my F.B.I. records report that I was observed several times at a ``leftist musical review'' in suburban Hampstead while I was attending the London School of Economics on a Fulbright Fellowship. Dr. Braude was aware of the undercurrent of sympathy with the Russian cause at the Book Shop, but her membership paralleled a time of close U.S.-Soviet collaboration. She drifted away from the Book Shop in 1944 because of her distaste for the internal politics of other active members. Her membership at the Book Shop was only discovered when her name appeared on a list of delinquent dues. It appears that her most sinister crime while a member of the book shop was her failure to return a book on time. Dr. Braude met Mary Jane Keeney on behalf of a third woman who actively aided Nazi victims after the war and was anxious to send clothing to another woman in occupied Germany. Dr. Braude knew nothing of Keeney's political orientation and characterized the meeting as a transitory experience. With regard to the third charge, Dr. Braude, in response to an interrogatory from the State Department's Loyalty Security Board, argued that she belonged to an anti-Communist faction of the State Department unit of the Federal Workers' Union. Remember that the Loyalty Security Baird invested these charges and exonerated her. The fourth charge, which Dr. Braude certainly did not--or could not-- deny, was her friendship with Judith Coplon. Braude met Coplon in the summer of 1945 when both women attended a class Herber Marcuse taught at American University. They saw each other infrequently thereafter. In May 1948, Coplon wrote to Braude, then stationed in Paris and living in a hotel on the Left Bank, to announce that she would be visiting shortly and needed a place to stay. Dr. Braude arranged for Coplon to stay at the hotel. Coplon stayed for 6 weeks, during which time Dr. Braude found her behavior very trying. The two parted on unfriendly terms. The friendship they had prior to parting was purely social. Mr. President, Judith Coplon was a spy. She worked in the Justice Department's Foreign Agents Registration Division, an office integral to the FBI's counter-intelligence efforts. She was arrested early in 1949 while handing over notes on counterintelligence operations to Soviet citizen Valentine Gubitchev, a United Nations employee. Coplon was tried and convicted--there was no doubt of her guilt--but the conviction was overturned on a technicality. Gubitchev was also convicted but was allowed to return to the U.S.S.R. because of his quasi-diplomatic status. My involvement in Dr. Braude's case dates back to early 1979, when Dr. Braude came to me and my colleague at the time, Senator Javits, and asked us to introduce private relief legislation on her behalf. In 1974, after filing a Freedom of Information Act request and finally learning the true reason for her dismissal, she filed suit in the Court of Claims to clear her name and seek reinstatement and monetary damages for the time she was prevented from working for the Federal Government. The Court, however, dismissed her case on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired. On March 5, 1979, Senator Javits and I together introduced a bill, S. 546, to waive the statute of limitations on Dr. Braude's case against the U.S. Government and to allow the Court of Claims to render judgment on her claim. The bill passed the Senate on January 30, 1980. Unfortunately, the House failed to take action on the bill before the 96th Congress adjourned. In 1988, and again in 1990, 1991, and 1993, Senator D'Amato and I re- introduced similar legislation on Dr. Braude's behalf. Our attempts met with repeated failure. Until at last, on September 21, 1993, we secured passage of Senate Resolution 102, which referred S. 840, the bill we introduced for the relief of the estate of Dr. Braude, to the Court of Claims for consideration as a congressional reference action. The measure compelled the Court to determine the facts underlying Dr. Braude's claim and to report back to Congress on its findings. The Court held a hearing on the case in November of 1995 and on March 7 of last year Judge Roger B. Andewelt of the Court of Federal Claims issued his verdict that the USIA had wrongfully dismissed Dr. Braude and intentionally concealed the reason for her termination. He concluded that such actions constituted an equitable claim for which compensation is due. Forty-three years after her dismissal from the USIA and 8 years after her death, the Court found in favor of the estate of Dr. Braude. Senator D'Amato and I wish to express our profound admiration for Judge Andewelt's decision in which he absolved Dr. Beatrice Braude of the surreptitious charges of disloyalty with which she was never actually confronted. The Court declared that Dr. Braude ``cared about others deeply and was loyal to her friends, family and country.'' We are equally grateful to Christopher N. Sipes and William Livingston, Jr. of Covington & Burling, two of the many lawyers who have handled Dr. Braude's case on a pro bono basis over the years. Mr. Sipes quite properly remarked that the decision represents an important page in the annals of U.S. history: ``The Court of the United States has said it recognizes that this conduct is out of bounds. It tells the government it must acknowledge its wrongs and pay for them.'' Justice Department attorneys have reached a settlement with lawyers representing the estate of Dr. Beatrice Braude concerning monetary damages equitably due for the wrongful dismissal of Dr. Braude from her Federal job in 1953 and subsequent blacklisting. The estate will receive $200,000 in damages. Family members have announced that the funds--which Congress must now appropriate--will be donated to Hunter College, the institution from which Dr. Braude received her bachelor's degree. Now that the parties to the Braude case have reached an agreement on the monetary damages equitably due to Dr. Braude's estate, Senator D'Amato and I are offering legislation to release the $200,000 to her estate. I hope that we will have the unqualified and unanimous support of our colleagues. What happened to Dr. Braude was a personal tragedy. But it was also part of a national tragedy, too. This Nation lost, prematurely and unnecessarily, the exceptional services of a gifted and dedicated public servant. Stanley I. Kutler, a professor of constitutional history at the University of Wisconsin, estimates that Dr. Braude was one of about 1,500 Federal employees who were dismissed as security risks between 1953 and 1956. Another 6,000 resigned under the pressure of security and loyalty inquiries, according to Professor Kutler, who testified as an expert witness on Dr. Braude's behalf. It was, as I said earlier, an awful time. We had settled ``as on a darkling plain, Swept with confused alarm of struggle and flight, Where ignorant armies clash by night.'' It must not happen again.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I introduce this bill to repeal an unprecedented provision--unprecedented until the 104th Congress--to tamper with the constitutional protection of habeas corpus. The provision reads: (d) An application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim-- (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. Last year we enacted a statute which holds that constitutional protections do not exist unless they have been unreasonably violated, an idea that would have confounded the framers. Thus, we introduced a virus that will surely spread throughout our system of laws. Article I, section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution stipulates, ``The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.'' We are mightily and properly concerned about the public safety, which is why we enacted the counterterrorism bill. But we have not been invaded, Mr. President, and the only rebellion at hand appears to be against the Constitution itself. We are dealing here, sir, with a fundamental provision of law, one of those essential civil liberties which precede and are the basis of political liberties. The writ of habeas corpus is often referred to as the ``Great Writ of Liberty.'' William Blackstone (1723-80) called it ``the most celebrated writ in English law, and the great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal imprisonment.'' * * * * * I repeat what I have said previously here on the Senate floor: If I had to choose between living in a country with habeas corpus but without free elections, or a country with free elections but without habeas corpus, I would choose habeas corpus every time. To say again, this is one of the fundamental civil liberties on which every democratic society of the world has built political liberties that have come subsequently. I make the point that the abuse of habeas corpus--appeals of capital sentences--is hugely overstated. A 1995 study by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics determined that habeas corpus appeals by death row inmates constitute 1 percent of all Federal habeas filings. Total habeas filings make up 4 percent of the caseload of Federal district courts. And most Federal habeas petitions are disposed of in less than 1 year. The serious delays occur in State courts, which take an average of 5 years to dispose of habeas petitions. If there is delay, the delay is with the State courts. It is troubling that Congress has undertaken to tamper with the Great Writ in a bill designed to respond to the tragic circumstances of the Oklahoma City bombing last year. Habeas corpus has little to do with terrorism. The Oklahoma City bombing was a Federal crime and will be tried in Federal courts. Nothing in our present circumstance requires the suspension of habeas corpus, which was the practical effect of the provision in that bill. To require a Federal court to defer to a State court's judgment unless the State court's decision is ``unreasonably wrong'' effectively precludes Federal review. I find this disorienting. Anthony Lewis has written of the habeas provision in that bill: ``It is a new and remarkable concept in law: that mere wrongness in a constitutional decision is not to be noticed.'' We have agreed to this; to what will we be agreeing next? I restate Mr. Lewis' observation, a person of great experience, long a student of the courts, ``It is a new and remarkable concept in law: that mere wrongness in a constitutional decision is not to be noticed.'' Backward reels the mind. On December 8, 1995, four former U.S. Attorneys General, two Republicans and two Democrats, all persons with whom I have the honor to be acquainted, Benjamin R. Civiletti, Jr., Edward H. Levi, Nicholas Katzenbach, and Elliot Richardson--I served in administrations with Mr. Levi, Mr. Katzenbach, Mr. Richardson; I have the deepest regard for them--wrote President Clinton. I ask unanimous consent that the full text be printed in the Record as follows: December 8, 1995. Hon. William J. Clinton, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: The habeas corpus provisions in the Senate terrorism bill, which the House will soon take up, are unconstitutional. Though intended in large part to expedite the death penalty review process, the litigation and constitutional rulings will in fact delay and frustrate the imposition of the death penalty. We strongly urge you to communicate to the Congress your resolve, and your duty under the constitution, to prevent the enactment of such unconstitutional legislation and the consequent disruption of so critical of part of our criminal punishment system. The constitutional infirmities reside in three provisions of the legislation: one requiring federal courts to defer to erroneous state court rulings on federal constitutional matters, one imposing time limits which could operate to completely bar any federal habeas corpus review at all, and one prevent the federal courts from hearing the evidence necessary to decide a federal courts from hearing the evidence necessary to decide a federal constitutional question. They violate the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause, the judicial powers of Article III, and due process. None of these provisions appeared in the bill that you and Senator Biden worked out in the last Congress together with representatives of prosecutors' organizations. The deference requirement would bar any federal court from granting habeas corpus relief where a state court has misapplied the United States Constitution, unless the constitutional error rose to a level of ``unreasonableness.'' The time-limits provisions set a single period of the filing of both state and federal post-conviction petitions (six months in a capital case and one year in other cases), commencing with the date a state conviction become final on direct review. Under these provisions, the entire period could be consumed in the state process, through no fault of the prisoner or counsel, thus creating an absolute bar to the filing of federal habeas corpus petition. Indeed, the period could be consumed before counsel had even been appointed in the state process, so that the inmate would have no notice of the time limit or the fatal consequences of consuming all of it before filing a state petition. Both of these provisions, by flatly barring federal habeas corpus review under certain circumstances, violate the Constitution's Suspension Clause, which provides: ``The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in the case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it'' (Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 1). Any doubt as to whether this guarantee applies to persons held in state as well as federal custody was removed by the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment and by the amendment's framers' frequent mention of habeas corpus as one of the privileges and immunities so protected. The preclusion of access to habeas corpus also violates Due Process. A measure is subject to proscription under the due process clause if it ``offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental,'' as viewed by ``historical practice.'' Medina v. California, 112 S.Ct. 2572, 2577 (1992). Independent federal court review of the constitutionality of state criminal judgments has existed since the founding of the Nation, first by writ of error, and since 1867 by writ of habeas corpus. Nothing else is more deeply rooted in America's legal traditions and conscience. There is no case in which ``a state court's incorrect legal determination has ever been allowed to stand because it was reasonable,'' Justice O'Connor found in Wright v. West, 112 S.Ct. 2482, 2497; ``We have always held that federal courts, even on habeas, have an independent obligation to say what the law is.'' Indeed, Alexander Hamilton argued, in The Federalist No. 84, that the existence of just two protections--habeas corpus and the prohibition against ex post facto laws--obviated the need to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. The deference requirement may also violate the powers granted to the judiciary under Article III. By stripping the federal courts of authority to exercise independent judgment and forcing them to defer to previous judgments made by state courts, the provision runs afoul of the oldest constitutional mission of the federal courts: ``the duty . . . to say what the law is.'' Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803). Although Congress is free to alter the federal courts' jurisdiction, it cannot order them how to interpret the Constitution, or dictate any outcome on the merits. United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1871). In 1996, the Supreme Court reiterated that Congress has no power to assign ``rubber stamp work'' to an Article III court. ``Congress may be free to establish a . . . scheme that operates without court participation,'' the Court said, ``but that is a matter quite different from instructing a court automatically to enter a judgment pursuant to a decision the court has not authority to evaluate.'' Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 115 S. Ct 2227, 2234. Finally, in prohibiting evidentiary hearings where the constitutional issue raised does not go to guilt or innocence, the legislation again violates Due Process. A violation of constitutional rights cannot be judged in a vacuum. The determination of the facts assumes ``and importance fully as great as the validity of the substantive rule of law to be applied.'' Wingo v. Wedding, 418 U.S. 461, 474 (1974). Prior to 1996, the last time habeas corpus legislation was debated at length in constitutional terms was in 1968. A bill substantially eliminating federal habeas corpus review for state prisoners was defeated because, as Republican Senator Hugh Scott put it at the end of debate, ``if Congress tampers with the great writ, its action would have about as much chance of being held constitutional as the celebrated celluloid dog chasing the asbestos cat through hell.'' In more recent years, the habeas reform debate has been viewed as a mere adjunct of the debate over the death penalty. But when the Senate took up the terrorism bill this year, Senator Moynihan sought to reconnect with the large framework of constitutional liberties: ``If I had to live in a country which had habeas corpus but not free elections,'' he said, ``I would take habeas corpus every time.'' Senator Chafee noted that his uncle, a Harvard law scholar, has called habeas corpus ``the most important human rights provision in the Constitution.'' With the debate back on constitutional grounds, Senator Biden's amendment to delete the deference requirement nearly passed, with 46 votes. We respectfully ask that you insist, first and foremost, on the preservation of independent federal review, i.e., on the rejection of any requirement that federal courts defer to state court judgments on federal constitutional questions. We also urge that separate time limits be set for filing federal and state habeas corpus petitions--a modest change which need not interfere with the setting of strict time limits--and that they begin to run only upon the appointment of competent counsel. And we urge that evidentiary hearings be permitted wherever the factual record is deficient on an important constitutional issue. Congress can either fix the constitutional flaws now, or wait through several years of litigation and confusion before being sent back to the drawing board. Ultimately, it is the public's interest in the prompt and fair disposition of criminal cases which will suffer. The passage of an unconstitutional bill helps no one. We respectfully urge you, as both President and a former professor of constitutional law, to call upon Congress to remedy these flaws before sending the terrorism bill to your desk. We request an opportunity to meet with you personally to discuss this matter so vital to the future of the Republic and the liberties we all hold dear. Sincerely, Benjamin R. Civiletti, Jr., Baltimore, MD. Edward H. Levi, Chicago, IL. Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Princeton, NJ. Elliot L. Richardson, Washington, DC. Let me read excerpts from the letter: ``The habeas corpus provisions in the Senate bill . . . are unconstitutional. Though intended in large part to expedite the death penalty review process, the litigation and constitutional rulings will in fact delay and frustrate the imposition of the death penalty . . . The constitutional infirmities . . . violate the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause, the judicial powers of Article III, and due process . . . . . . A measure is subject to proscription under the due process clause if it ``offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental,'' as viewed by ``historical practice.'' That language is Medina versus California, a 1992 decision. To continue, Independent federal court review of the constitutionality of state criminal judgments has existed since the founding of the Nation, first by writ of error, and since 1867 by writ of habeas corpus. Nothing else is more deeply rooted in America's legal traditions and conscience. There is no clause in which ``a state court's incorrect legal determination has ever been allowed to stand because it was reasonable.'' That is Justice O'Connor, in Wright versus West. She goes on, as the attorneys general quote. ``We have always held that federal courts, even on habeas, have an independent obligation to say what the law is.'' If I may interpolate, she is repeating the famous injunction of Justice Marshall in Marbury versus Madison. The attorneys general go on to say, Indeed, Alexander Hamilton argued, in The Federalist No. 84, that the existence of just two protections--habeas corpus and the prohibition against ex post facto laws--obviated the need to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. The letter from the Attorneys General continues, but that is the gist of it. I might point out that there was, originally, an objection to ratification of the Constitution, with those objecting arguing that there had to be a Bill of Rights added. Madison wisely added one during the first session of the first Congress. But he and Hamilton and Jay, as authors of The ``Federalist Papers,'' argued that with habeas corpus and the prohibition against ex post facto laws in the Constitution, there would be no need even for a Bill of Rights. We are glad that, in the end, we do have one. But their case was surely strong, and it was so felt by the framers. To cite Justice O'Connor again: ``A state court's incorrect legal determination has never been allowed to stand because it was reasonable.'' Justice O'Connor went on: ``We have always held that Federal courts, even on habeas, have an independent obligation to say what the law is.'' Mr. President, we can fix this now. Or, as the Attorneys General state, we can ``wait through several years of litigation and confusion before being sent back to the drawing board.'' I fear that we will not fix it now. We Americans think of ourselves as a new nation. We are not. Of the countries that existed in 1914, there are only eight which have not had their form of government changed by violence since then. Only the United Kingdom goes back to 1787 when the delegates who drafted our Constitution established this Nation, which continues to exist. In those other nations, sir, a compelling struggle took place, from the middle of the 18th century until the middle of the 19th century, and beyond into the 20th, and even to the end of the 20th in some countries, to establish those basic civil liberties which are the foundation of political liberties and, of those, none is so precious as habeas corpus, the ``Great Writ.'' Here we are trivializing this treasure, putting in jeopardy a tradition of protection of individual rights by Federal courts that goes back to our earliest foundation. And the virus will spread. Why are we in such a rush to amend our Constitution? Why do we tamper with provisions as profound to our traditions and liberty as habeas corpus? The Federal courts do not complain. It may be that because we have enacted this, there will be some prisoners who are executed sooner than they otherwise would have been. You may take satisfaction in that or not, as you choose, but we have begun to weaken a tenet of justice at the very base of our liberties. The virus will spread. This is new. It is profoundly disturbing. It is terribly dangerous. If I may have the presumption to join in the judgment of four Attorneys Generals, Mr. Civiletti, Mr. Levi, Mr. Katzenbach, and Mr. Richardson-- and I repeat that I have served in administrations with three of them-- this matter is unconstitutional and should be repealed from law. Fifteen years ago, June 6, 1982, to be precise, I gave the commencement address at St. John University Law School in Brooklyn. I spoke of the proliferation of court-curbing bills at that time. I remarked: * * * some people--indeed, a great many people--have decided that they do not agree with the Supreme Court and that they are not satisfied to Debate, Legislate, Litigate. They have embarked upon an altogether new and I believe quite dangerous course of action. A new triumvirate hierarchy has emerged. Convene (meaning the calling of a constitutional convention), Overrule (the passage of legislation designed to overrule a particular Court ruling, when the Court's ruling was based on an interpretation of the Constitution), and Restrict (to restrict the jurisdiction of certain courts to decide particular kinds of cases). Perhaps the most pernicious of these is the attempt to restrict courts' jurisdictions, for it is * * * profoundly at odds with our Nation's customs and political philosophy. It is a commonplace that our democracy is characterized by majority rule and minority rights. Our Constitution vests majority rule in the Congress and the President while the courts protect the rights of the minority. While the legislature makes the laws, and the executive enforces them, it is the courts that tell us what the laws say and whether they conform to the Constitution. This notion of judicial review has been part of our heritage for nearly two hundred years. There is not a more famous case in American jurisprudence than Marbury v. Madison and few more famous dicta than Chief Justice Marshall's that ``It is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'' But in order for the court to interpret the law, it must decide cases. If it cannot hear certain cases, then it cannot protect certain rights. We need to deal resolutely with terrorism. And we have. But the guise of combating terrorism, we have diminished the fundamental civil liberties that Americans have enjoyed for two centuries; therefore the terrorists will have won. My bill will repeal this dreadful, unconstitutional provision now in public law. I ask unanimous consent that the article entitled ``First in Damage to Constitutional Liberties,'' by Nat Hentoff from the Washington Post of November 16, 1996; and the article entitled ``Clinton's Sorriest Record'' from the New York Times of October 14, 1996; be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, cosponsored by Senator Charles E. Grassley, to amend the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 to establish qualification standards for individuals nominated for the position of Deputy Director of Demand Reduction in the Office of National Drug Control Policy. On May 17, 1988, then-Senate Majority Leader Robert S. Byrd established a working group on substance abuse which I was to co-chair with Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia. Interdiction and crackdown were then all the rage. My role on the working group was to assert that, other than to raise the price of drugs somewhat, interdiction was not going to have the slightest effect on supply. We saw the failure of supply side measures during Prohibition and in the French Connection model of cutting off production abroad. Accordingly, any comprehensive legislation should place at least equal emphasis on demand. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which became law on November 18 of that year, did just that. Section 2012 sets out the purposes of the law. They include: To increase to the greatest extent possible the availability and quality of treatment services so that treatment on request may be provided to all individuals desiring to rid themselves of their substance abuse problem. The legislation established an Office of National Drug Control Policy in the executive office of the President. It was headed by a so-called czar and included a deputy director of supply reduction and a deputy director for demand reduction. The Deputy Director for Demand would seek a clinical device, a pharmacological block, similar to methadone treatment for heroin. The Deputy Director would know the chemistry of the subject enough to promote some treatment beyond the sort of psychiatric treatment currently available. President Bush made extraordinary, fine appointments. He appointed Dr. William Bennett as the head of the office. As the Deputy Director for Demand Reduction he appointed Dr. Herbert Kleber, a physician at the Yale Medical School, a research scientist, and exactly the person you would want for this. Then, after a while, Bennett left, and Kleber also left. Kleber has gone to Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons and is working at the New York Psychiatric Institute in this field. Nobody succeeded him in a scientific role. There have been a number of persons in the job. I am sure they are good persons, but they are nothing like what we had in mind in the legislation. The bill I introduce today would require that the Deputy Director of Demand Reduction have a scientific background and be a leader in the field of substance abuse prevention or treatment. This is no more than what the 1988 Act intended. We enacted a good statute which has been trivialized. If we are serious about getting hold of the drug dealer epidemic in this country, we must have an individual eminent in the field of substance abuse prevention leading the charge on demand reduction.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Faculty Retirement Incentive Act. This bill will amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) to allow the use of age-based incentives for the voluntary retirement of tenured faculty at colleges and universities. I am pleased that Senator Ashcroft is an original cosponsor of this legislation. Since the late 1950s, there has been a vast expansion in the number of individuals pursuing careers in academia. Now, an unusually large cohort of tenured faculty make it difficult for universities to hire more recent graduates. As a practical matter, it is extremely difficult or costly or both for institutions to bring on new tenured faculty except where tenure positions open up as a result of retirement. In order for academic institutions to remain effective centers of teaching and scholarship they must have a balance of old and new faculty. This balance, however, is threatened by continuing uncertainties created by recent legislation. I support the ADEA, but when it was amended in 1986 to extend the protections of the act to individuals age 70 and over, I expressed concern that the application of this change to the unique situation of tenured faculty members at colleges and universities would affect teaching and scholarship at these institutions. While it did include an exemption from the provisions for the bill for tenured faculty, the exemption only lasted seven years. Therefore, I was pleased when that bill included a request for the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to appoint a commission to study the impact of removing the mandatory retirement age for faculty members at colleges and universities. When the National Research Council released this study, Ending Mandatory Retirement for Tenured Faculty: The Consequences for Higher Education, on behalf of NAS in 1991, the report concluded that diminished faculty turnover--particularly at research universities-- could increase costs and limit institutional flexibility in responding to changing academic needs, particularly with regard to necessary hires in new and existing disciplines. In concluding that there was ``no strong basis for continuing the exemption for tenured faculty,'' the NAS report presumed that the Federal government would allow ``Practical steps'' such as age-based early-retirement incentives to mitigate the impact of an uncapped retirement age for tenured faculty. Specifically, the NAS report stated: ``The committee recommends that Congress, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission permit colleges and universities to offer faculty voluntary-retirement incentive programs that are not classified as an employee benefit, include an upper age limit for participants and limit participation on the basis of institutional needs.'' These practical steps, however, were not taken although the exemption was allowed to run out. Instead, passage of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA) further confused the issue. OWBPA made early-retirement incentives permissible in the context of defined- benefit retirement plans but did not address the status of such incentives in the context of defined-contribution retirement plans. Defined-contribution retirement plans are most popular with tenured faculty due to their pension portability. The OWBPA did not preclude defined-contribution retirement plans, but by not addressing the issue at all, it added to the ambiguity surrounding the matter. Functionally, early-retirement incentives operate in the same manner for both types of plans. There is continued uncertainty, however, whether early- retirement incentives with an upper-age limit that are offered to tenured faculty conflict with the purpose of ADEA of prohibiting arbitrary age discrimination. I am troubled by the continued uncertainty created by these bills, and I hope that the Faculty Retirement Incentive Act will provide a ``safe harbor'' for colleges and universities by clarifying that the early retirement incentives are permitted by the ADEA. Universities must ensure that older faculty members retire at an appropriate age, not simply to ``make room'' for younger faculty, but to maintain a contemporary, innovative, and creative atmosphere at our nation's colleges and universities.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Curt Flood Act of 1997, a bill drafted by the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch. This bill is designed to be a partial repeal of major league baseball's antitrust exemption. It would leave the exemption in place as it pertains to minor league baseball and the ability of major league baseball to control the relocation of franchises. In 1922, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Federal Baseball Club v. National League, held that ``exhibitions of base ball'' were not interstate commerce and thus were exempt from the antitrust laws. Fifty years later, in Flood v. Kuhn in 1972, the Court concluded that the antitrust exemption was an ``anomaly'' and an ``aberration confined to baseball'' and that ``profession baseball is a business and it is engaged in interstate commerce.'' Even so, the Court refused to reverse its 1922 decision in Federal Baseball. Justice Blackmun, delivering the opinion of the Court in Food, wrote: If there is any inconsistency or illogic in all this, it is an inconsistency and illogic of long standing that is to be remedied by the Congress and not by this Court. This decision clearly laid responsibility for baseball's antitrust exemption on Congress. It also explicitly recognized baseball's evolution into a major industry. Clearly, baseball is a business engaged in interstate commerce, and should be subject to the antitrust laws to the same extent that all other businesses are. So now, in 1997, on the 75th anniversary of Federal Baseball, the time has come for Congress to act. On the first day of the 104th Congress, I introduced my own legislation on the subject. My bill, S. 15, the National Pastime Preservation Act of 1995, would have applied the antitrust laws to major league baseball without the exceptions suggested by my friend from Utah. At this time, I am pleased to support any efforts that will provide a more level playing field for baseball's labor negotiations and that should help to prevent future strikes like the one we experienced in 1994 and 1995 from interrupting the fans enjoyment of the game of baseball itself. While I am happy that both the owners and the players agreed to support this limited repeal of baseball's antitrust exemption, it is important to keep in mind that the players and owners do not write the labor laws, Congress does. It is most appropriate that this bill has been named in honor of Curt Flood, the man responsible for the second significant challenge to baseball's antitrust immunity. Curt Flood was a battler. Sadly, he lost a different battle yesterday, to throat cancer. He was only 59. Mr. Flood hit over .300 six times playing for the St. Louis Cardinals and he finished his 15-year career with a lifetime batting average of .293. he was also a seven-time Gold Glove winner, a three-time all- star, and he helped lead the cardinals to their World Series titles in 1964 and 1967. After the 1969 season, however, at the age of 32, Curt Flood was traded to the Phillies. Mr. Flood did not want to move. St. Louis was his home (he had played for the Cardinals for 11 years) and he was concerned about the racial politics in Philadelphia at the time. He sent a letter to Commissioner Bowie Kuhn asking him to nullify the trade, but his request was denied. It was in response to this denial that Mr. Flood initiated his historic suit challenging baseball's antitrust exemption. Curt Flood put his career on the line by sitting out the 1970 season as he challenged baseballs' reserve clause--rules that prohibited players from choosing which teams they wished to play for. While he resumed playing in 1971 after St. Louis and Philadelphia made a deal with the Washington Senators, the year off hurt Mr. Flood. his level of play was not the same and he retired after playing only 13 games for the Senators. The head of the players' union, Don Fehr, called Mr. Flood ``a man of quiet dignity.'' He added, ``Curt Flood conducted his life in a way that set an example for all who had the privilege to know him. When it came time to take a stand, at great personal risk and sacrifice, he proudly stood firm for what he believe was right.'' I thank my friend from Utah for inviting me to cosponsor this legislation, and hope other Senators agree with us that the time has come to act.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to amend Title 18 of the United States Code to strengthen the existing prohibition on handgun ammunition capable of penetrating policy body armor, commonly referred to as bullet-proof vests. This provision would require the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General to develop a uniform ballistics test to determine with precision whether ammunition is capable of penetrating police body armor. The bill also prohibits the manufacture and sale of any handgun ammunition determined by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General to have armor-piercing capability. I am encouraged that, on behalf of its 277,000 members, the Fraternal Order of Police has decided to support this bill. In addition the Law Enforcement Steering Committee, which represents eight of the largest Associations of law enforcement officers, has also indicated that they are in support of this bill. I am also pleased that President Clinton has taken an avid interest in this subject. In a statement similar to remarks he made many times at campaign appearances around the country, President Clinton said to an audience in Cincinnati, Ohio on September 16, 1996: So that's my program for the future--do more to break the gangs, ban those cop killer bullets, drug testing for parolees, improve the opportunities for community-based strategies that lower crime and give our kids something to say yes to. Mr. President, it has been fifteen years since I first introduced legislation in the Senate to outlaw armor-piercing, or ``cop-killer,'' bullets. In 1982, Phil Caruso of the Patrolman's Benevolent Association of New York City alerted me to the existence of a Teflon-coated bullet capable of penetrating the soft body armor police officers were then beginning to wear. Shortly thereafter, I introduced the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1982 to prohibit the manufacture, importation, and sale of such ammunition. At that time, armor-piercing bullets--most notably the infamous ``Green Hornet''--were manufactured with a solid steel core. Unlike the softer lead composition of most other ammunition, this hard steel core prevented these rounds from deforming at the point of impact--thus permitting the rounds to penetrate the 18 layers of Kevlar in a standard-issue police vest or ``flak-jacket.'' These bullets could go through a bullet-proof vest like a hot knife through butter. My legislation simply banned any handgun ammunition made with a core of steel or other hard metals. Despite the strong support of the law enforcement community, it took four years before this seemingly non-controversial legislation was enacted into law. The National Rifle Association initially opposed it-- that is, until the NRA realized that a large number of its members were themselves police officers who strongly supported banning these insidious bullets. Only then did the NRA lend its grudging support. The bill passed the Senate on March 6, 1986 by a vote of 97-1, and was signed by President Reagan on August 8, 1986 (Public Law 99-408). That 1986 Act served us in good stead for 7 years. To the best of my knowledge, not a single law enforcement officer was shot with an armor- piercing bullet. Unfortunately, the ammunition manufacturers eventually found a way around the 1986 law. By 1993, a new Swedish-made armor- piercing round, the M39B, had appeared. This pernicious bullet evaded the 1986 statute's prohibition because of its unique composition. Like most common ammunition, it had a soft lead core, thus exempting it from the 1986 law. But this core was surrounded by a heavy steel jacket, solid enough to allow the bullet to penetrate body armor. Once again, our nation's law enforcement officers were at risk. Immediately upon learning of the existence of the new Swedish round, I introduced a bill to ban it. Another protracted series of negotiations ensued before we were able to update the 1986 statute to cover the M39B. We did it with the support of law enforcement organizations, and with technical assistance from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. In particular, James O. Pasco, Jr., then the Assistant Director of Congressional Affairs at BATF, worked closely with me and may staff to get it done. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent on November 19, 1993 as an amendment to the 1994 Crime Bill. Despite these legislative successes, it was becoming evident that continuing ``innovations'' in bullet design would result in new armor- piercing rounds capable of evading the ban. It was at this time that some of us began to explore in earnest the idea of developing a new approach to banning these bullets based on their performance, rather than their physical characteristics. Mind, this concept was not entirely new; the idea had been discussed during our efforts in 1986, but the NRA had been immovable on the subject. The NRA's leaders, and their constituent ammunition manufacturers, felt that any such broad- based ban based on a bullet ``performance standard'' would inevitably lead to the outlawing of additional classes of ammunition. They viewed it as a slippery slope, much as they have regarded the assault weapons ban as a slippery slope. The NRA had agreed to the 1986 and 1993 laws only because they were narrowly drawn to cover individual types of bullets. And so in 1993 I asked the ATF for the technical assistance necessary to write into law an armor-piercing bullet ``performance standard.'' At the time, however, the experts at the ATF informed us that this could not be done. They argued that it was simply too difficult to control for the many variables that contribute to a bullet's capability to penetrate police body armor. We were told that it might be possible in the future to develop a performance-based test for armor-piercing capability, but at the time we had to be content with the existing content-based approach. Well. Two years passed and the Office of Law Enforcement Standards of the National Institute of Standards and Technology wrote a report describing the methodology for just such a armor-piercing bullet performance test. The report concluded that a test to determine armor- piercing capability could be developed within six months. So we know it can be done, if only the agencies responsible for enforcing the relevant laws have the will. The legislation I am introducing requires the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, to establish performance standards for the uniform testing of handgun ammunition. Such an objective standard will ensure that no rounds capable of penetrating police body armor, regardless of their composition, will ever be available to those who would use them against our law enforcement officers. I wish to assure the Senate that this measure would in no way infringe upon the rights of legitimate hunters and sportsmen. It would not affect legitimate sporting ammunition used in rifles. It would only restrict the availability of armor-piercing rounds, for which no one can seriously claim there is a genuine sporting use. These cop-killer rounds have no legitimate uses, and they have no business being in the arsenals of criminals. They are designed for one purpose: to kill police officers. The 1986 and 1993 cop-killer bullet laws I sponsored kept us one step ahead of the designers of new armor-piercing rounds. When the legislation I have introduced today is enacted--and I hope it will be early in the 105th Congress--it will put them out of the cop-killer bullet business permanently. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter of support from the Fraternal Order of Police be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, 1,074 days. Rather, one thousand seventy-four days and counting. We have 1,074 days until January 1, 2000. Historically, the passage of the century has caused quite a stir. Until now, however, there has been little factual basis on which doomsayers and apocalyptic fearmongers could spread their gospel. I rise today, on the first day of legislative business in the 105th Congress, to warn that we have cause for fear. In the 6th century AD, the Western world began the practice of numbering years consecutively. The 6th-century monk, Dionysius Exiguus (known as ``Denis the Small''), introduced the first consecutive year calendar. Popular mythology would have us believe that at the end of the first millennium, Christians and pagans everywhere were cowering in fear of the end of the world. Yet, current historians believe that at the end of the year 999, much of the populace had no idea what year it was, and thus no idea that the millennium was coming to a close. In an ironic twist of fate, many calendars in our current, most advanced technological society ever may be as inaccurate as those of the people who faced the beginning of the Second Millennia A.D. I have no proof that the Sun is about to rise on the apocalyptic millennium of which chapter 20 of the Book of Revelation speaks, nor do I have proof that, armed with flood and catastrophe, the Four Horseman will arrive on January 1, 2000. I do know, however, that a seemingly innocuous ``computer glitch'' relating to how computers use the date could wreak worldwide havoc. This lack of recognition on the part of computers--called the year 2000 Computer Problem, or ``Y2K'' as computer aficionados call it--could cause everything from the failure of weapons systems, widespread disruption of business operations, the miscalculation of taxes by the Internal Revenue Service, possible misdiagnosis or improper medical treatment due to errors in medical records, to incorrect traffic signals at street corners across the country. In the 1950's and 1960's, computer programmers decided that, in order to minimize the consumption of computer memory, most computer languages would be designed to express the date with only six digits. In this format, the date of this speech would be 97-01-21. The century designation ``19'' is assumed. The problem is that many programs will read January 1, 2000 as January 1, 1900. Millions of computer programs will not function correctly because they cannot recognize the 21st century. The answer to this problem is a costly, time-consuming process of rewriting the computer codes. Estimates to fix the problem in the United States alone are in the range of $300 billion ($600 billion worldwide). That's billion with a ``B''. Experts have estimated that about half the cost of upgrading U.S. computers will have to be paid by Government entities. Furthermore, the cost of fixing the `Y2K' problem will increase at 20- 50 percent per year due to the decreasing supply of, and increasing demand for, the skilled professionals who can rewrite the codes. There is no time to cower at the immensity and pervasiveness of the problem, even though it is true that at our current rate of addressing this problem, millions of computer programs across the globe will not recognize the year 2000. We have developed the medicine to cure the disease. It is our job to recognize the extent of our ills and the time-consuming nature of the cure. I now enter my second year warning of this problem. People have begun to listen. But neither the public nor private sector is anywhere near where they need to be. I congratulate my counterparts in the other Chamber of Congress, namely Representative Stephen Horn, Representative Carolyn Maloney, Representative Connie Morella, and Representative John Tanner, who have held hearings on this matter and helped uncover the Federal Government's lack of preparation for this crisis. The administration has only begun to stir. In his November 25, 1996 letter (answering my July 31st letter to the President) Franklin Raines, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, stated that: We have been meeting with senior agency officials and urging them to complete their assessments of the scope of the problem now, so they will have time to fix it. We have assurances that all of their systems will either be fixed, replaced, or scrapped before 2000, and we will continue to monitor their progress. As we develop the President's 1998 budget, we are working with the agencies to assure that there is adequate funding to support agency year 2000 activities. Mr. Raines paints a much more comfortable picture than was revealed in the Congressional findings of just 2 months prior. In September 1996, the House Committee on Government Oversight reported that: only 9 of the 24 departments and agencies (which the Committee had just queried) had a plan for addressing the problem; five had not even designated an official within the organization to be responsible for the problem; and 17 of the departments and agencies lacked any cost estimates for the problem. I am encouraged that Representative Stephen Horn (R-CA) will continue his subcommittee's oversight hearings on February 24, 1997. Yet, someone or something needs to ensure that the Federal Government, State governments, and all sectors of the economy are ``Year 2000 Compliant.'' The OMB has neither the staff nor the resources to do this alone. I am introducing today a revamped bill that will set up a Commission to address this problem. Commissions are not by definition weak. This commission will assume responsibility for assuring that all Federal agencies are Year 2000 compliant by January 1, 1999 ( a year early, so as to leave enough time for testing--some say the longest part). The Commission will be composed of experts on the Federal response and the State response in order to face the problems of integration. The Commission will prioritize which agencies are most at risk of not performing vital functions, and through its reports to the President and Congress, it will recommend the appropriate triage process and medicine. It it not enough to recognize that this problem exists. Unless we install the doctors for the triage, the Y2K disease will manifest itself in all sectors of government and the economy. We are told that the President will include adequate funding for the Executive Agencies in his budget plan for fiscal year 1998. My hope is that Congress will recognize the importance of providing the funding now; for if we wait, not only will the costs rise, but we are liable to see major Government agencies and State governments unable to perform critical functions. It is January 21 of 1997; we have 1,074 days remaining until January 1, 2000. Too late to lament, time to act. In the first stanza of his epic work, ``The Second Coming,'' Yeats wrote of the onslaught of the apocalypse: Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood dimmed tide is loosed . . . At the upcoming turn of the millennium, we cannot test what ``blood dimmed tide'' computer malfunctions could loose on our society.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution in response to the egregious prison sentence which was recently imposed by the Chinese Government on Ngawang Choephel. Mr. Choephel is a Tibetan whose family fled Chinese oppression to live in exile in India in 1968. He studied ethnomusicology at Middlebury College in Vermont as a Fulbright Scholar in 1992 and 1993, after having studied at the Tibetan Institute of Performing Arts in Dharamsala, India. The Tibetan Institute of Performing Arts was formed by the Dalai Lama to preserve the Tibetan performing arts while in exile. Mr. Choephel returned to Tibet in July, 1995 to prepare a documentary film about traditional Tibetan performing arts. He was detained in August, 1995 by the Chinese authorities and held incommunicado for over a year before the Government of the People's Republic of China admitted to holding him, and finally charged him with espionage in October, 1996. On December 26, 1996, the Chinese Government sentenced Ngawang Choephel to an 18 year prison term plus four years subsequent deprivation of his political rights following a secret trial. This is the most severe sentence of a Tibetan by the Chinese Government in seven years. There is no evidence that Mr. Choephel's activities in Tibet involved anything other than purely academic research. His arrest and the long sentence subsequently imposed appear to stem from his collecting information to preserve Tibetan performing arts. Such censure is indicative of the extreme measures the Chinese Government continues to take to repress all forms of Tibetan cultural expression. My daughter, Maura Moynihan, has traveled to Tibet several times. After her most recent trip last year, she wrote in the Washington Post of the Chinese assault on Tibetan religion and culture: Beijing's leaders have renewed their assault on Tibetan culture, especially Buddhism, with an alarming vehemence. The rhetoric and the methods of the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s have been resurrected--reincarnated, what you will--to shape an aggressive campaign to vilify the Dalai Lama. The New York Times echoed just such sentiments in its January 2 editorial on Ngawang Choephel's arrest: The basis of Ngawang Choepel's conviction is unclear, but even taping Tibetan culture for export could qualify as espionage under Chinese law. Since its invasion of Tibet in 1950, Beijin has gradually increased its efforts to erase Tibet's identity. China has arrested those who protested the takeover and tried to eradicate the people's affection for the leader of Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama. Ngawang Choephel is a symbol of the Chinese Government's continued pursuit of Maoist policies when dealing with what it sees at the ``Tibet problem.'' Tibetan religion and culture are seen by the Chinese as an impediment to successfully unifying Tibet with the ``motherland.'' This resolution will record the United States Senate's response to these Chinese policies, which we reject. In the words of the International Commission of Jurists in 1960, ``Tibet demonstrated from 1913 to 1950 the conditions of statehood as generally accepted under international law.'' We will continue to stand with the Tibetan people. As the Senate recorded in 1991 in S. Res. 107: * * * the government of the People's Republic of China should know that as the Tibetan people and His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet go forward on their journey toward freedom the Congress and the people of the United States stand with them. I thank all my colleagues who have cosponsored this resolution. In particular I would like to recognize the long commitment that the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee has shown in support of Tibetans and thank him for joining me in this effort today. I would especially note the work of the senior Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy. Since Mr. Choephel was reported missing, Senator Leahy has sought to win his release. In November, Senator Leahy, while traveling on a delegation to China with the Senate Democratic Leader and other Senators, raised his concerns directly to Chinese President Jiang Zemin. I thank Senator Leahy for his commitment to this issue and for agreeing to cosponsor this measure. I ask unanimous consent to have the New York Times editorial on this subject placed in the Record. [From the New York Times, Jan. 2, 1997] A Prison Term in Tibet Last week, the Chinese Government gave a 30-year-old scholar of Tibetan music an 18-year prison sentence for espionage. Even by Chinese standards, the sentence is astonishingly long. It is also a warning to Tibetans that their already scarce liberties are now further endangered. Ngawang Choepel fled Tibet with his family when he was 2 to the Tibetan exile community in Dharmsala, India. He came to the United States in 1993 to study and teach at Middlebury College. In 1995 he went to Tibet to capture on video traditional songs and dances that he feared were being lost. The basis of Ngawang Choepel's conviction is unclear, but even taping Tibetan culture for export could qualify as espionage under Chinese law. Since its invasion of Tibet in 1950, Beijing has gradually increased its efforts to erase Tibet's identity. China has arrested those who protested the takeover and tried to eradicate the people's affection for the leader of Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama. In the 1960's and 1970's, the Chinese killed thousands of monks and nuns and destroyed virtually all Tibet's monasteries. China later tried a slightly softer line, but riots in 1987 brought another crackdown. Monks have been asked to redpudiate the Dalai Lama or face expulsion, and at least 700 Tibetans are now in prison for political offenses. China's repressive policy is wrong both morally and politically. By smothering Tibetans' ability to speak, worship freely, or express their culture, China risks driving them to violence. Last week, a powerful, sophisticated bomb blew up outside a Government building in Lhasa. Although the Dalai Lama has never wavered in his commitment to nonviolence and denies any link to the bomb, he Government quickly blamed the bomb on ``the Dalai clique'' and has vowed to retaliate. The Chinese Government went out of its way to link Ngawang Choepel to the United States, charging that Americans underwrote his trip and that he was gathering information for a foreign agency. Indeed, Chinese officials seem to delight in taunting the United States over human rights issues. During a visit by Secretary of State Warren Christopher in 1994, Beijing arrested China's leading democracy campaigner, Wei Jingsheng. In May of that year, Washington ended the linkage between China's behavior on human rights and its preferential trading status. Only two months later, hard- liners at a Communist Party meeting pushed through a policy that increased Chinese control of Tibet. To be sure, American officials have scolded Beijing about human rights abuses in Tibet, Hong Kong, and China itself. But the Chinese know they can safely ignore such talk. The Clinton Administration, unwilling to damage its relations with Beijing, has failed to impose any real cost on Chinese repression. Whether or not Beijing intended Ngawang Choepel's sentence as a specific message to Washington, Washington should read it as an indication of China's continuing contempt for its weak defense of Tibetan rights.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on Thursday, January 2, in the first civil action of 1997 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a lawsuit was filed challenging the constitutionality of the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996. On this the first day of legislative business in the first session of the 105th Congress, I rise as one of the plaintiffs in the suit to inform the Senate that this action has commenced--as specifically provided for in the Line-Item Veto Act. Section 3(a) of the act provides that: Any Member of Congress or any individual adversely affected . . . may bring an action, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief on the ground that any provision of this part violates the Constitution. Six Members of Congress, led by our distinguished colleague from West Virginia, Senator Robert C. Byrd, have joined together to bring this suit, which is captioned Byrd et al. v. Raines et al., Civil Action No. 97-001. The other plaintiffs are the Senator from New York, the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin; the former Senator from Oregon, Mr. Hatfield; Representative Waxman of California and Representative Skaggs of Colorado. I will simply restate for the Record what I said during our debates on this legislation during the last Congress. The Line-Item Veto Act effectuated an unprecedented and unconstitutional allocation of power from the legislative branch to the executive. The law--Public Law 104-130--which took effect on January 1 of this year, gives the President the authority to cancel any specific appropriation, any item of new direct spending, or any limited tax benefit contained in a bill that the President has just signed into law. Senators Byrd, Hatfield, Levin, and Congressmen Waxman and Skaggs and I have filed this suit because we believe the act violates article I of the Constitution, which requires that a bill be passed by a majority vote in both houses of Congress and either approved or vetoed in its entirety by the President. The line-item veto gives the President the power to unilaterally repeal, without congressional approval, portions of laws which he has already signed. In 1983, the Supreme Court declared in INS v. Chadha [462 U.S. 919, 954] that, and I quote: It emerges clearly that the prescription for legislative action in Article I, Section 7, represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal government be exercised in accord with a single finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. The Line-Item Veto Act departs dramatically from that ``single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure'' for making or changing Federal law. The Constitution could not be more clear on this point. The presentment clause of article I, section 7 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. . . . The Line-Item Veto Act unconstitutionally expands the President's power by authorizing him to approve a bill and sign it into law and, from an instant up to 5 days later, disapprove and return parts of the bill, so that the parts of the bill disapproved by the President do not have the force and effect of law. The act also violates the requirements of bicameral passage and presentment by granting to the President, acting alone, the authority to cancel and thus repeal provisions of law. Even if, as some have argued, the President will exercise this power sparingly, his ability to do so will forever shift the balance of power. A balance the Framers deemed fragile, and necessary for the proper functioning of the American Government. The Framers gave the power of the purse to Congress and Congress alone; Madison made the reason abundantly clear in Federalist No. 58: This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure. Whether the Line-Item Veto Act is viewed as granting the President a unilateral power of line-item revision of bills that have been presented for his signature, or as granting him a unilateral power to repeal portions of duly enacted laws, the act grants powers to the President that contravene the constitutional process for making Federal law. I might understand if the President were trying to seize this power. But why have we given it to him? The lawsuit filed earlier this month will allow the judiciary to review this issue under an expedited schedule. We hope to have a decision in the case by the Supreme Court in the next October term, and I will provide periodic updates on the progress of the case for the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1281, the War Crimes Disclosure Act, which expresses the sense of Congress that Government agencies in possession of records documenting Nazi war crimes should declassify such records and release them to the public. Ideally, in a democracy, all government information belongs to the people, excepting such information as would be harmful to the body politic if made publicly available. Knowledge of wartime atrocities presents no threat to the American people. To the contrary, accurate information about the Nazi regime, and those who ruthlessly carried out its barbaric policies, can only serve to deepen our understanding of history's darkest chapter, and strengthen our resolve that it never be repeated. On August 2, 1996, I introduced the War Crimes Disclosure Act (S. 2048), which would have amended the Freedom of Information Act to provide for disclosure of information relating to individuals who committed Nazi war crimes. This bill, cosponsored by Senators D'Amato and Dodd, is the Senate companion to a similar measure sponsored in the House of Representatives by my colleague from New York, the Honorable Carolyn Maloney. Inexplicably, that measure has met with some opposition and, due to the impending adjournment of Congress, we will not be able to adopt it in its original form. Nevertheless, with the passage of this amended legislation, Congress makes an important statement in support of public disclosure of documents relevant to Nazi war crimes. This is a first step. I do hope that we can revisit this issue in the 105th Congress.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the immigration bill signed into law on September 30 includes the following provision:

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, quite the most notable, if at times little noted, fact about the American Constitution is that the Framers brought a wholly new conception of the nature of political man to the design of American Government. They were keenly aware of this fact, for it was crucial to their claim that a republic might work, given, as ``The Federalist'' remarks at some point, ``the fugitive existence'' of the ancient republics of Greece, and that of Rome. That history was familiar to what we would call educated persons in the 18th century, and it made for skepticism at best; pessimism in the main. But harken, said the Framers, we have developed a ``new science of politics,'' which radically changes the assumptions on which those ancient governments were founded. We would not depend on virtue in our rulers; virtue was too rare, too fleeting, too unforeseeable. To the contrary, we would take man as he is and use his defects to perfect a new system of government that would endure by virtue of its recognition of how little virtue may be depended upon. Instead, we would build into our Government a system of checks and balances whereby the clash of interests would offset one another and make up, in that wonderful phrase, for ``the defect of better motives.'' Well, the Republic has endured. In the world today there are two nations and two only which both existed in 1800 and have not had their form of government changed since then. That is to say, the United States and the United Kingdom. And, of course, the case can be made that the Government of the United Kingdom is radically different, then from now. Ours is the very same in structure, with changes that only reaffirm the original purpose; reaffirm and enhance. And surely time has confirmed the Framers in their judgment that interest, not virtue, would rule the polity. Not unbridled, demonic interest; but interest withal. The more, then, may we note and ought we note the appearance from time to time of a political figure singular for disinterestedness and for virtue, as the ancients would have understood it, and which is as singular today as ever, and immediately recognizable. Such a person is Mark Hatfield of Oregon, who would never dream of calling himself the conscience of the Senate, although he has been just that for an astounding 30 years. I state that he would never dream of thinking himself such, much less encouraging others to do. For he is singularly of that great Anabaptist tradition which condemned government involvement in religion and which eventually led to the idea of the separation of church and state. Mark Hatfield would fear that conscience might too readily decline into dogma. And so, he has spoke but little of such matters. He has merely and singularly embodied them. He came of age in the Second World War, and served in the U.S. Navy from 1943 to 1946. At the Navy Memorial on Pennsylvania Avenue there is carved in granite a wonderful line of John F. Kennedy: ``Any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction, `I served in the United States Navy.' '' I would simply say that this would surely be the case had he served with the like of Mark Hatfield. A man of deep pacific conviction, serving his country in wartime withal. He returned to become a professor of political science at his own Willamette University. There then began a political science lesson of dazzling deftness and direction. First, the Oregon House of Representatives. Next, the Oregon State Senate. Secretary of State; Governor. Thence to the U.S. Senate. There is none of us in this body who does not treasure some aspect of his great, transcendent qualities. For my own part, may I record his dogged, affectionate, informed interest in the career of Herbert Hoover. Woodrow Wilson had two subcabinet members who would go on to the Presidency: Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Hoover was by far the more learned and experienced man, but fate was harsh. And it was a kind of fate, not so different from that of Wilson himself, as Hoover depicted it in a superb account, ``The Ordeal of Woodrow Wilson.'' The book, first published in 1958, was reprinted in 1992. Naturally, a brilliant introduction was written by Mark Hatfield. And so he and his beloved Antoinette return to Oregon and to his chair at Willamette University. We must not say we will not see his like again. The Constitution does not call for such, but one doubts the Republic can be sustained without some such as he. One or two a generation: capable of gaining power not for power's sake, but for virtue's imperatives. In our time that man has been Mark Hatfield.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to share with my colleagues the inspiring story of Sigmund Nissenbaum of Warsaw, Poland, which was brought to my attention by a group of distinguished American Rabbis--headed by Grand Rabbi Shmuel Teitelbaum and Rabbi Hertz Frankel of Brooklyn--who recently returned from Poland where they helped rededicate three historic Jewish cemeteries which had been almost completely destroyed by 50 years of neglect and vandalism. Sigmund Nissenbaum, a survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, has devoted his life to keeping alive and protecting the one-glorious Jewish heritage of Poland. For almost 1,000 years before 1939, Poland had the world's largest Jewish population. The vast majority of Poland's 3 million Jews were killed by the Nazis, and most of the survivors were driven into exile by the post-war Communist regime. During these trying days, Sigmund Nissenbaum--often almost singlehandedly--battled against overwhelming odds to protect Poland's Jewish cemeteries. The collapse of the Communist government in 1989 allowed Mr. Nissenbaum to solicit support for his endeavors from Jews residing in the United States and Israel, leading to the creation of the Nissenbaum Foundation. For the past 7 years, this foundation has institutionalized the life work of Sigmund Nissenbaum, erecting memorials to the victims of the Holocaust in several Polish cities and restoring over a dozen historic cemeteries. Rabbi Hertz Frankel reports that he has: . . . personally observed Mr. Nissenbaum gathering skeletons from cemeteries which had been trampled by hooligans. His compassion, care and conscience are an inspiration to Jews throughout the world, and to Polish non- Jews as well. The current Polish government and Catholic Church leaders have noted his historic role in helping to restore a measure of dignity to the final resting place of so many of his people. I know I speak for the entire Senate when I congratulate Sigmund Nissenbaum, who recently celebrated his 70th birthday, and wish him many more years of success in his life's sacred work.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, last Wednesday, September 25, I introduced S. 2131, a bill to establish a bipartisan National Commission on the Year 2000 Computer Problem. In a statement as ominous as the problem itself, I summarized the fears of the computer and information technology experts on this problem. Their voices, as yet largely unheard by Congress and the administration, are multiplying. On Monday, September 16, 1996, in the publication New Technology Week, Mark Crawford wrote about the lack of preventive action with regard to the Year 2000 Computer Problem and about new factors concerning the timeliness and costliness of this critical issue. Previously, I informed my Senate colleagues that the cost of this problem had been estimated in the tens of billions. This article cites a recent industry report that tabulated the cost in the hundreds of billions. Crawford writes: ``The magnitude of the problem is reflected in estimates of the repair bill: $300 billion for the United States and $300 billion for the rest of the world.'' Until now, I had informed my fellow Senators that we had until December 1999 to address this problem. Mr. Crawford writes that we have even less time. He quotes Mr. Larry Olson, deputy secretary for information technology for the State of Pennsylvania, who argues that businesses and governments will have to fix their computer codes by the end of 1998--not 1999: ``Pennsylvania's Olson figures that States, Federal agencies, and companies must fix their problems by the end of 1998 in order to have adequate time to run systems and identify any catastrophic glitches.'' So, not only are the cost estimates rising, but the date by which we must address this problem has moved up as well. We must act expeditiously. I ask that the article which appeared in New Technology Week on September 16, 1996, entitled ``The Year 2000 Software Fix Unlikely To Beat Clock'' by Mark Crawford, be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the New Technology Week, Sept. 16, 1996] Year 2000 Software Fix Unlikely To Beat Clock (By Mark Crawford) The challenge that business, state and local government, and federal agencies face in changing millions of lines of code by the year 2000--so that computer record systems continue to function accurately in the new millennium--is getting bigger by the day. According to experts testifying September 10 before a joint hearing held by subcommittees of the House's Science Committee and Government Reform & Oversight Committee, neither industry nor government agencies will be able to make all the required fixes before the clock strikes midnight on December 31, 1999. The magnitude of the problem is reflected in estimates of the repair bill: $300 billion for the United States and $300 billion for rest of the world (NTW, Dec. 12, 1995, p. 1). At risk is the integrity of many services and functions that are taken for granted--the management of payroll services, retirement programs, medical and health insurance, traffic systems, information databases. The fix: Expand from two digits to four digits the date fields used in computer programs to designate the year. Without this modification, many computer programs, especially older software, will register ``00'' when 2000 arrives. Left unchecked, the consequences will range from minor inconvenience to devastation for some record systems and management programs, according to industry and government analysts. The problem is equally daunting for companies, many of which are only now beginning to understand it, according to Larry Olson, deputy secretary for Information Technology for the state of Pennsylvania. Olson's state has started an aggressive outreach program aimed at prodding companies located there to attack the problem. And large national companies also are moving expeditiously on the matter, particularly in the securities industry, where it's essential to maintain date-critical information on stock trades, retirement accounts, and other financial transactions. Despite the potential for havoc, industry and government agencies have been moving slowly to address the problem. And now both legislators and computer industry officials fear there could be serious--not to mention costly--problems created. Why? Daniel Houlihan, first vice president of the National Association of State Information Resource Executives (NASIRE), noted that there has been little direction from Washington on the matter. ``There is no leadership on a uniform solution across the states,'' said Houlihan. That criticism is not hard for Rep. Stephen Horn (R- Calif.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, to accept. In July he disclosed results of a survey conducted by his panel that showed few federal agencies to be moving aggressively on the issue (see chart, bottom). Most of the government's large agencies were graded D or F on their level of preparation to address the Year 2000 problem. The Department of Defense got a C and the Nuclear Regulatory Agency a B, while the Social Security Administration was one of four agencies out of a total of 24 surveyed to get an A. Said Horn of the state of readiness in the federal government: ``There were very few As, Bs, and Cs. There were a lot of Ds and Fs.'' It's not likely that federal agencies, state governments, or businesses will be able to make all the computer program changes needed by 2000, said Houlihan. Government agencies and companies alike, he stressed, should focus on ``identifying critical programs that will be affected and get those changes done first.'' Indeed, Pennsylvania's Olson figures that states, federal agencies, and companies must fix their problems by the end of 1998 in order to have adequate time to run systems and identify any catastrophic glitches. Only in the last year or so have industry and government begun to attack the problem with any intensity to understand the full scope of the records that must be modified. ``I am afraid that some of the folks don't recognize that they have a problem,'' said Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.). Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), said his organization is doing all it can to make industry aware of the Year 2000 problem and to get top management moving on it. But, Miller noted, some executives have been slow to recognize the scope of the problem and make it a top priority in their organization. Said Miller: ``They need to wake up, look in the mirror, go to the office, and start asking some questions.'' At the state government level, said NASIRE's Houlihan, who also is director of the data processing oversight commission for Indiana, there is now a high level of recognition of the problem. But states are moving at different speeds to address it, he said. Survey data, he said, show that 75 percent of the states are still in the planning stage, with just 25 percent actually moving to implement system changes. At this point, Houlihan said, state projections for finishing software program modifications range from 1997 to December 1999. The size of the problem varies from state to state--ranging from 300,000 lines of code to 97 million lines. What states that are moving aggressively to tackle the Year 2000 program, such as Pennsylvania, fear is that the federal government at this late juncture may step in with rules and standards that could slow their efforts--or, worse yet, cause them to modify program changes that have already been made. NASIRE's Houlihan said that what states do want is a quick determination by federal agencies on the level of funding that might be provided to assist state governments and localities in fixing information systems that support or interact with federal programs. The costs of modifying date fields in computer programs is daunting at a macro level. The estimate of $600 billion worldwide is based on an estimate of $1 for each line of code that must be changed. Most of that dollar is used not in making the change, but in conducting subsequent tests to make sure that affected programs continue to function properly. Just what it will cost companies and governments to bring their software programs into compliance is expected to vary widely, depending on how old the programs are and whether all the underlying source code is available. Pennsylvania estimates that repairing the date fields in its payroll system will involve changing 10,000 lines of code at a cost of $7,500. While getting a fix on the accuracy of cost estimates is hard at this time, ITAA's Miller warned that there is certain to be upward pressure on costs--because of a shortage of qualified programmers. Miller said that ITAA, in fact, is concerned that industry and government demand will be so great that fly-by-night companies could spring up and create nightmares for unsuspecting firms. To ward off this problem, ITAA is launching a certification program that will help companies and government agencies select firms that have the required capabilities to make software modifications.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, nothing is typical about Bill Bradley, but some things are characteristic. As, for example, his article on the front page of the Washington Post's Outlook section this past Sunday. Just before the scheduled adjournment of the 104th Congress, bringing to an end for now his brilliant 18-year career as a U.S. Senator. The article is characteristically bipartisan: ``It's Government by Tax Break Again: Clinton and Dole Should Be Talking About Fairness and Loopholes, Not Cuts and Credits.'' It is our pleasant custom to ask that such articles be reprinted in the Record, and I make that request, with the text to be placed at the conclusion of my remarks. But the Senate will take the meaning from the title. Bill Bradley harkens back to the great 1986 tax reform bill, of which he, above all his colleagues, conceived, inspired, and helped to enactment. The principles were simple. First of all, above all, simplify. Two low rates. In that sense, cutting taxes. But paying for the lower rates by closing loopholes in the existing code which had acreted like a coral reef as Congress after Congress responded to the tiny this and the tiny that special interest, until a vast barrier separated the privileged from the people. I happened to be one of the core group that put together this legislation. We would meet early each morning in the office of Senator Bob Packwood, who was then chairman of the Finance Committee. My informal task was to provide a brief inspirational reading as the meeting commenced. It was then a simple task. I would simply glance through the previous day's Wall Street Journal looking for the best advertisement. Typically, it would have a headline: ``Guaranteed Losses'' In finer print one would learn that a sheep ranch in Idaho, an alligator ranch in Florida, an ostrich ranch in Kansas would assure investors immediate losses that could be offset against other income, which losses would be recouped at some future date. And that was where entrepreneurial energy was flowing. To guaranteed losses that the Internal Revenue Code would turn into profits. Bill Bradley changed that. But the work is never done, and so he leaves us still talking the responsibilities of citizenship and legislation. I will miss him as perhaps few others. We have served 18 years together on the Finance Committee. He has taught me; I have learned from him and followed him. And will continue to do so. Just last week, the Finance Committee convened for its last meeting of this Congress. Bill was asked to say a few words; which was all he ever will do. He recalled that in 1978 I came down to Princeton, NJ to campaign with him in that first campaign for the Senate. In the course of our stumping about, I urged him to try to get onto the Finance Committee, where so very much of the critical issues of American life are decided. He did and he showed why. I then recalled a passage from Woodrow Wilson at the time he was president of Princeton University. A student of the Presidency, Wilson was watching the growing intensity of presidential campaigns. Candidates did not, of course, did not then go to the conventions that nominated them, but after nomination were getting into the business of making speeches from the rear of railroad trains and all manner of stressful campaigning. Wilson wrote that if this should continue, we would be reduced to choosing our Chief Executives from ``among wise and prudent athletes: a small class.'' I thought that then; I think it now, as we say farewell to Bill Bradley--for now.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to a historic event in Central Europe that, given the world focus on Bosnia, may have been overlooked, the signing of a treaty this month making the end of a rivalry between Hungary and Romania that dates back at least 1,000 years. Our admirable Ambassadors, Donald M. Blinken in Hungary, and Alfred H. Moses in Romania, have written an article that nicely sums up the significance of this agreement in securing a stable Central Europe and protecting the rights of ethnic minorities. It deserves as wide an audience as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the attached article from the Washington Post be placed in the Record at this point. There being on objection, the article was ordered to be printed in

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would amend Title 18 of the United States Code to strengthen the existing prohibition on handgun ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor, commonly referred to as bullet-proof vests. This provision would require the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General to develop a uniform ballistics test to determine with precision whether ammunition is capable of penetrating police body armor. The bill also prohibits the manufacture and sale of any handgun ammunition determined by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General to have armor-piercing capability. I am encouraged that President Clinton has taken an interest in this subject. In a statement similar to remarks he has made many times recently at campaign appearances around the country, President Clinton said to an audience in Cincinnati, OH, on September 16, 1996: So that's my program for the future--do more to break the gangs, ban those cop killer bullets, drug testing for parolees, improve the opportunities for community-based strategies that lower crime and give our kids something to say yes to. Mr. President, it has been almost 15 years since I first introduced legislation in the Senate to outlaw armor-piercing, or cop-killer, bullets. In 1982, Phil Caruso of the Patrolman's Benevolent Association of New York City alerted me to the existence of a Teflon-coated bullet capable of penetrating the soft body armor police officers were then beginning to wear. Shortly thereafter, I introduced the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1982 to prohibit the manufacture, importation, and sale of such ammunition. At that time, armor-piercing bullets--most notably the infamous ``Green Hornet''--were manufactured with a solid steel core. Unlike the softer lead composition of most other ammunition, this hard steel core prevented these rounds from deforming at the point of impact--thus permitting the rounds to penetrate the 18 layers of Kevlar in a standard-issue police vest or flak-jacket. These bullets could go through a bullet-proof vest like a hot knife through butter. My legislation simply banned any handgun ammunition made with a core of steel or other hard metals. Despite the strong support of the law enforcement community, it took 4 years before this seemingly noncontroversial legislation was enacted into law. The National Rifle Association initially opposed it--that is, until the NRA realized that a large number of its members were themselves police officers who strongly supported banning these insidious bullets. Only then did the NRA lend its grudging support. The bill passed the Senate on March 6, 1986 by a vote of 97 to 1, and was signed by President Reagan on August 8, 1986 (Public Law 99-408). That 1986 act served us in good stead for 7 years. To the best of my knowledge, not a single law enforcement officer was shot with an armor- piercing bullet. Unfortunately, the ammunition manufacturers eventually found a way around the 1986 law. By 1993, a new Swedish-made armor- piercing round, the M39B, had appeared. This pernicious bullet evaded the 1986 statute's prohibition because of its unique composition. Like most common ammunition, it had a soft lead core, thus exempting it from the 1986 law. But this soft core was surrounded by a heavy steel jacket, solid enough to allow the bullet to penetrate body armor. Once again, our Nation's law enforcement officers were at risk. Immediately upon learning of the existence of the new Swedish round, I introduced a bill to ban it. Another protracted series of negotiations ensued before we were able to update the 1986 statute to cover the M39B. We did it with the support of law enforcement organizations, and with technical assistance from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. In particular, James O. Pasco, Jr., then the Assistant Director of Congressional Affairs at BATF, worked closely with me and my staff to get it done. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent on November 19, 1993 as an amendment to the 1994 crime bill. Despite these legislative successes, it was becoming evident that continuing innovations in bullet design would result in new armor- piercing rounds capable of evading the existing ban. It was at this time that some of us began to explore in earnest the idea of developing a new approach to banning these bullets based on their performance, rather than their physical characteristics. Mind, this concept was not entirely new; the idea had been discussed during our efforts in 1986, but the NRA had been immovable on the subject. The NRA's leaders, and their constituent ammunition manufacturers, felt that any such broad- based ban based on a bullet performance standard would inevitably lead to the outlawing of additional classes of ammunition. They viewed it as a slippery slope, much as they have regarded the assault weapons ban as a slippery slope. The NRA had agreed to the 1986 and 1993 laws only because they were narrowly drawn to cover individual types of bullets. And so in 1993 I asked the ATF for the technical assistance necessary to write into law an armor-piercing bullet performance standard. At the time, however, the experts at the ATF informed us that this could not be done. They argued that it was simply too difficult to control for the many variables that contribute to a bullet's capability to penetrate police body armor. We were told that it might be possible in the future to develop a performance-based test for armor-piercing capability, but at the time we had to be content with the existing content-based approach. Two years passed and the Office of Law Enforcement Standards of the National Institute of Standards and Technology wrote a report describing the methodology for just such a armor-piercing bullet performance test. The report concluded that a test to determine armor- piercing capability could be developed within 6 months. So we know it can be done, if only the agencies responsible for enforcing the relevant laws have the will. The legislation I am introducing requires the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, to establish performance standards for the uniform testing of handgun ammunition. Such an objective standard will ensure that no rounds capable of penetrating police body armor, regardless of their composition, will ever be available to those who would use them against our law enforcement officers. I wish to assure the Senate that this measure would in no way infringe upon the rights of legitimate hunters and sportsmen. It would not affect legitimate sporting ammunition used in rifles. It would only restrict the availability of armor-piercing rounds, for which no one can seriously claim there is a genuine sporting use. These cop-killer rounds have no legitimate uses, and they have no business being in the arsenals of criminals. They are designed for one purpose: to kill police officers. The 1986 and 1993 cop-killer bullet laws I sponsored kept us one step ahead of the designers of new armor-piercing rounds. When the legislation I have introduced today is enacted--and I hope it will be early in the 105th Congress--it will put them out of the cop-killer bullet business permanently.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would amend Title 18 of the United States Code to strengthen the existing prohibition on handgun ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor, commonly referred to as bullet-proof vests. This provision would require the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General to develop a uniform ballistics test to determine with precision whether ammunition is capable of penetrating police body armor. The bill also prohibits the manufacture and sale of any handgun ammunition determined by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General to have armor-piercing capability. I am encouraged that President Clinton has taken an interest in this subject. In a statement similar to remarks he has made many times recently at campaign appearances around the country, President Clinton said to an audience in Cincinnati, OH, on September 16, 1996: So that's my program for the future--do more to break the gangs, ban those cop killer bullets, drug testing for parolees, improve the opportunities for community-based strategies that lower crime and give our kids something to say yes to. Mr. President, it has been almost 15 years since I first introduced legislation in the Senate to outlaw armor-piercing, or cop-killer, bullets. In 1982, Phil Caruso of the Patrolman's Benevolent Association of New York City alerted me to the existence of a Teflon-coated bullet capable of penetrating the soft body armor police officers were then beginning to wear. Shortly thereafter, I introduced the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1982 to prohibit the manufacture, importation, and sale of such ammunition. At that time, armor-piercing bullets--most notably the infamous ``Green Hornet''--were manufactured with a solid steel core. Unlike the softer lead composition of most other ammunition, this hard steel core prevented these rounds from deforming at the point of impact--thus permitting the rounds to penetrate the 18 layers of Kevlar in a standard-issue police vest or flak-jacket. These bullets could go through a bullet-proof vest like a hot knife through butter. My legislation simply banned any handgun ammunition made with a core of steel or other hard metals. Despite the strong support of the law enforcement community, it took 4 years before this seemingly noncontroversial legislation was enacted into law. The National Rifle Association initially opposed it--that is, until the NRA realized that a large number of its members were themselves police officers who strongly supported banning these insidious bullets. Only then did the NRA lend its grudging support. The bill passed the Senate on March 6, 1986 by a vote of 97 to 1, and was signed by President Reagan on August 8, 1986 (Public Law 99-408). That 1986 act served us in good stead for 7 years. To the best of my knowledge, not a single law enforcement officer was shot with an armor- piercing bullet. Unfortunately, the ammunition manufacturers eventually found a way around the 1986 law. By 1993, a new Swedish-made armor- piercing round, the M39B, had appeared. This pernicious bullet evaded the 1986 statute's prohibition because of its unique composition. Like most common ammunition, it had a soft lead core, thus exempting it from the 1986 law. But this soft core was surrounded by a heavy steel jacket, solid enough to allow the bullet to penetrate body armor. Once again, our Nation's law enforcement officers were at risk. Immediately upon learning of the existence of the new Swedish round, I introduced a bill to ban it. Another protracted series of negotiations ensued before we were able to update the 1986 statute to cover the M39B. We did it with the support of law enforcement organizations, and with technical assistance from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. In particular, James O. Pasco, Jr., then the Assistant Director of Congressional Affairs at BATF, worked closely with me and my staff to get it done. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent on November 19, 1993 as an amendment to the 1994 crime bill. Despite these legislative successes, it was becoming evident that continuing innovations in bullet design would result in new armor- piercing rounds capable of evading the existing ban. It was at this time that some of us began to explore in earnest the idea of developing a new approach to banning these bullets based on their performance, rather than their physical characteristics. Mind, this concept was not entirely new; the idea had been discussed during our efforts in 1986, but the NRA had been immovable on the subject. The NRA's leaders, and their constituent ammunition manufacturers, felt that any such broad- based ban based on a bullet performance standard would inevitably lead to the outlawing of additional classes of ammunition. They viewed it as a slippery slope, much as they have regarded the assault weapons ban as a slippery slope. The NRA had agreed to the 1986 and 1993 laws only because they were narrowly drawn to cover individual types of bullets. And so in 1993 I asked the ATF for the technical assistance necessary to write into law an armor-piercing bullet performance standard. At the time, however, the experts at the ATF informed us that this could not be done. They argued that it was simply too difficult to control for the many variables that contribute to a bullet's capability to penetrate police body armor. We were told that it might be possible in the future to develop a performance-based test for armor-piercing capability, but at the time we had to be content with the existing content-based approach. Two years passed and the Office of Law Enforcement Standards of the National Institute of Standards and Technology wrote a report describing the methodology for just such a armor-piercing bullet performance test. The report concluded that a test to determine armor- piercing capability could be developed within 6 months. So we know it can be done, if only the agencies responsible for enforcing the relevant laws have the will. The legislation I am introducing requires the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, to establish performance standards for the uniform testing of handgun ammunition. Such an objective standard will ensure that no rounds capable of penetrating police body armor, regardless of their composition, will ever be available to those who would use them against our law enforcement officers. I wish to assure the Senate that this measure would in no way infringe upon the rights of legitimate hunters and sportsmen. It would not affect legitimate sporting ammunition used in rifles. It would only restrict the availability of armor-piercing rounds, for which no one can seriously claim there is a genuine sporting use. These cop-killer rounds have no legitimate uses, and they have no business being in the arsenals of criminals. They are designed for one purpose: to kill police officers. The 1986 and 1993 cop-killer bullet laws I sponsored kept us one step ahead of the designers of new armor-piercing rounds. When the legislation I have introduced today is enacted--and I hope it will be early in the 105th Congress--it will put them out of the cop-killer bullet business permanently.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced S. 2131, a bill to establish a bipartisan National Commission on the Year 2000 Computer Problem. I ask that the permanent Record be changed to include the text of the bill at the beginning of my remarks. I further ask that the title of my remarks yesterday be corrected to read ``A National Commission on The Year 2000 Computer Problem.'' The text of the bill follows: Sec. 1. Short title.--(A) This title may be cited as the ``Commission on the Year 2000 Computer Problem Act.'' Sec. 2. Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings: (A) Whereas the Congress of the United States recognizes the existence of a severe computer problem that may have extreme negative economic and national security consequences in the year 2000 and beyond. (B) Whereas most computer programs (particularly in mainframes) in both the public and private sector express dates with only two digits and assume the first two digits are ``19'', and that therefore most programs read 00-01-01 as January 1, 1900; and that these programs will not recognize the year 2000 or the 21st century without a massive rewriting of codes. (C) Whereas the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has completed a report on the implications of the ``Year 2000 Computer Problem'' and according to CRS, each line of computer code will need to be analyzed and either passed on or be rewritten and this worldwide problem could cost as much as $600 billion to repair. We recognize that no small share of the American burden will fall on the shoulders of the Federal Government and on State and local governments. (D) Whereas six issues need to be addressed: (1) an analysis of the history and background concerning the reasons for the occurence of the Year 2000 problem; (2) the cost of reviewing and rewriting codes for both the Federal and State governments over the next 3 years, including a legal analysis of responsibilities for such costs and possible equitable bases for sharing them; (3) the time it will take to get the job done and, if not by 2000, what agencies are at risk of not being able to perform basic services; (4) the development of balanced and sound contracts with the computer industry available for use by Federal agencies, and if such outside contractual assistance is needed, to assist such agencies in contracting for and effectuating Year 2000 compliance for current computer programs and systems as well to ensure Year 2000 compliance for all programs and systems acquired in the future; (5) an analysis of what happens to the United States economy if the problem is not resolved by mid-1999; (6) recommendations to the President and the Congress concerning lessons to be learned and policies and actions to be taken in the future to minimize the Year 2000 public and private sector costs and risks. (E) Whereas the Congress recognizes that an Executive Branch Interagency Committee has been established to raise awareness of this problem and facilitate efforts at solving it; but that in order to best minimize the impact and cost of this problem, and recognizing the extreme urgency of this problem, this bipartisan commission will be established to both address these issues and take responsibility for assuring that all Federal agencies be computer compliant by January 1, 1999. Sec. 3. Establishment of Commission.--(A) There is established a commission to be known as the ``National Commission on the Year 2000 Computer Problem'' (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Commission''). The Commission shall be composed of 15 members appointed or designated by the President and selected as follows: (1) Five members selected by the President from among officers or employees of the Executive Branch, private citizens of the United States, or both. Not more than three of the members selected by the President shall be members of the same political party; (2) Five members selected by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, in consultation with the Majority and Minority Leaders, from among officers or employers of the Senate, private citizens of the United States, or both. Not more than three of the members selected by the President Pro Tempore shall be members of the same political party; (3) Five members selected by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, in consultation with the Majority and Minority Leaders, from among members of the House, private citizens of the United States, or both. Not more than three of the members selected by the Speaker shall be members of the same political party. (B) The President shall designate a Chairman from among the members of the Commission. Sec. 4. Function of Commission.--(A) It shall be the function of the Commission to conduct a study on the historical, current and long term condition of computer programs as they relate to date fields and the year 2000; identify problems that threaten the proper functions of computers as the public and private sectors approach the 21st Century; analyze potential solutions to such problems that will address the brief time there remains to meet this problem, the substantial cost of reviewing and rewriting codes, and the shared responsibilities for such costs; and provide appropriate recommendations (including potential balanced and sound contracts with the computer industry available for use by Federal agencies) to the Secretary of Defense (as this is a matter of National Security), the President and the Congress. (B) the Commission shall submit to Congress a final report containing such recommendations concerning the Year 2000 Computer problem; including proposing new procedures, rules, regulations, or legislation that is needed to ensure the proper transition of the computers of the Federal Government and local and State governments from the year 1999 to the year 2000. (C) the Commission shall make its report to the President by December 31, 1997. Sec. 5. Administration.--(A) The heads of Executive Agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide the Commission such information as it may require for the purpose of carrying out its functions. (B) Members of the Commission shall serve without any additional compensation for their work on the Commission. (C) Travel Expenses.--While away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission, members of the Commission shall be allowed travel expenses including per diem in lieu of substance, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703(b) of title 5, United States Code. (D) The Commission shall have a staff headed by an Executive Director. Any expenses of the Commission shall be paid from such funds as may be available to the Secretary of Defense. Sec. 6. Termination.--(A) The Commission, and all the authorities of this title, shall terminate thirty days after submitting its report.