Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, On Wednesday, May 8, 1996, New York Police officer Garret Lavelle was awarded the Fourteenth Annual Theodore Roosevelt Association Award. Each year the Theodore Roosevelt Association honors one member of the New York City Police Department who has overcome a handicap and contributed outstanding service to the New York community with this prestigious award. Garret Lavelle has been a police officer with the Brooklyn South Narcotics Unit for 14 years. Mr. Lavelle has received three Meritorious Police Duty Citations, one Commendation, and three Excellent Police Duty Citations. In addition, he has been active in the Patrolmen's Benevolence Association. Five years ago Officer Lavelle was diagnosed with a chronic form of leukemia, and has since undergone chemotherapy, a bone marrow transplant, suffered from pneumonia, hepatitis, a complete muscular breakdown, and hypertension. While Officer Lavelle could have taken a disability pension, he courageously chose to return to active duty. Although currently serving desk duty, Officer Lavelle looks forward to returning to the streets where he excels at serving his community. Furthermore, Mr. and Mrs. Lavelle now take time to counsel people diagnosed with leukemia. It is this kind of service which sets a standard for public servants across the nation, and it is only fitting that such heroism is rewarded with this great honor in Theodore Roosevelt's name.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it happens I was ill on December 7, 1995, when the measure before us now was first voted on by the Senate. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of the bill, and today I will vote to override the President's veto. Some while later, I was asked about the matter. I referred to the particulars of the medical procedure, as best I understood them. In an article in this morning's New York Times, our former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop writes: In this procedure, a doctor pulls out the baby's feet first, until the baby's head is lodged in the birth canal. Then, the doctor forces scissors through the base of the baby's skull, suctions out the brain, and crushes the skull to make extraction easier. Even some pro-choice advocates wince at this, as when Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan termed it ``close to infanticide.'' It is the terrible fact of our national debate over abortion that there has seemed no possibility of compromise as between opposing views; as if we are consigned to unceasing conflict. More than two centuries ago--270 years, to be precise--Dean Swift saw this as the condition of certain societies--that of the ``Big-Endians'' and the ``Little-Endians'' engaged in ``a most obstinate War for six and thirty Moons past''--and woe it was to them. Dr. Koop, however, argues that there are points that those of opposing views can concede without surrender of principle, and that there are measures which lend credence to those principles which are too often slighted. He writes: Both sides in the controversy need to straighten out their stance. The pro-life forces have done little to help prevent unwanted pregnancies, even though that is why most abortions are performed. They have also done little to provide for pregnant women in need. I would suggest, for example, that there could be few measures more likely to encourage abortion than our decision just last month to impose severe time limits on eligibility for what had been title IV-A of the Social Security Act, aid to families with dependent children. Indeed, we repealed AFDC. It is the sorry fact, then, that of the 285 Members of the House of Representatives who voted to override the President's veto of H.R. 1833, all but 23 also voted to repeal aid to families with dependent children. Once again, in my view, the honorable stance has been that of religious leaders who opposed both the welfare bill we have enacted and the procedure that we now seek to ban. One notes that the present bill ``shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother * * *.'' That said, however, the fact is that we are providing by statute for the possible imprisonment of medical doctors. This, surely, is deplorable. In a great age of medical discovery, far beyond the comprehension of all but a very few Members of Congress, it is supremely presumptuous of lawmakers to impose their divided judgment on the practice of a sworn profession whose first commitment is to preserve life. Can we not stop this ugliness before it begins to show on the national countenance? Is there no better way to resolve these issues? Surely, this wrenching experience should encourage us to seek one--or many.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, legislation that would establish a Commission To Study the Federal Statistical System. The United States has the oldest and by and large finest data gathering system in the world. 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. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, created in 1884, was also initially in the Interior Department. The first Commissioner of the BLS, appointed in 1885, was Col. 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 Statistics 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--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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my last in a series of warnings to the 104th Congress. I warn of a problem which may have extreme negative economic and national security consequences in the year 2000 and beyond. It is the problem of the Year 2000 Time Bomb, which has to do with the transition of computer programs from the 20th to the 21st century. Throughout history, much forewarning of the millennium has been foolishly apocalyptic, but this problem is not trifling. Simply put, many computer programs will read January 1, 2000 as January 1, 1900. Outwardly innocuous, the need to reprogram computers' internal clocks will not only cost billions, but if left undone--or not done in time--all levels of government, the business community, the medical community, and the defense establishment could face a maelstrom of adverse effects. Widespread miscalculation of taxes by the Internal Revenue Service; the possible failure of some Defense Department weapons systems; the possibility of misdiagnosis or improper medical treatment due to errors in medical records; and the possibility of widespread disruption of business operations due to errors in business records. Mr. Lanny J. Davis, in his thoughtful analysis of the dilemma presented in an article in the Washington Post of September, 15, 1996, cited one industry expert who called the Y2K defect--as the computer literate call it--``the most devastating virus to ever infect the world's business and information technology systems.'' Mr. Davis also tabulated the cost: ``Current estimates for business and government range from $50 billion to $75 billion--and will only increase as 2000 draws closer.'' Moreover, it seems the problem is not limited to main frame computers as once was thought. In an article entitled ``Even Some New Software Won't Work in 2000,'' the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday, September 18, 1996, that owners of personal computers will be affected as well. Mr. Lee Gomes wrote: ``In fact, tens of millions of PC owners will be affected. Current or very recent versions of such best sellers as Quicken, FileMaker Pro and at least one brand-new program from Microsoft will stumble at the approach of Jan. 1, 2000. There will be hardware hiccups, too. Many PC owners will have to take extra steps to teach their systems about the new millennium.'' Early in 1996, John Westergaard first informed me of this impending problem. I asked the Congressional Research Service to assess its extent. In July, CRS reported back and substantiated the doomsayers' worst fears. I immediately wrote to the President, alerted him to the problem and suggested that a presidential aide--a general perhaps--be appointed to take responsibility for assuring that all Federal agencies and Government contractors be Y2K date-compliant by January 1, 1999. No word back yet. Over the past few weeks I have periodically updated my colleagues in the Senate as to the nature of this problem, the possible costs of the problem, and advances in thinking about the problem. The business community has begun to stir, but it seems all is quiet here in the Nation's capital, or nearly quiet. Today, I am introducing a bill to establish a nonpartisan commission on the year 2000 computer problem. It will be composed of 15 members-- five selected by the President; 5, the President pro tempore of the Senate, and 5, the Speaker of the House of Representatives--in consultation with the minority leaders respectively. The commission will study the problem, analyze its costs, and provide immediate recommendations and requirements for the Secretary of Defense, the President, and Congress. Because of the urgency of this problem, the commission will complete its study and make its report to the President by December 31, 1997. The onus is now on us to see this bill passed. I urge my colleagues to recognize this problem, and help establish this Commission. As Mr. Davis warned, we have begun a ``Countdown to a Meltdown.'' The longer we delay, the more costly the solution and the more dire the consequences. The computer has been a blessing; if we do not act in a timely fashion, however, it could become the curse of the age. I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal article of Wednesday, September 18, 1996, entitled ``Even Some New Software Won't Work in 2000,'' by Lee Gomes, be included in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my last in a series of warnings to the 104th Congress. I warn of a problem which may have extreme negative economic and national security consequences in the year 2000 and beyond. It is the problem of the Year 2000 Time Bomb, which has to do with the transition of computer programs from the 20th to the 21st century. Throughout history, much forewarning of the millennium has been foolishly apocalyptic, but this problem is not trifling. Simply put, many computer programs will read January 1, 2000 as January 1, 1900. Outwardly innocuous, the need to reprogram computers' internal clocks will not only cost billions, but if left undone--or not done in time--all levels of government, the business community, the medical community, and the defense establishment could face a maelstrom of adverse effects. Widespread miscalculation of taxes by the Internal Revenue Service; the possible failure of some Defense Department weapons systems; the possibility of misdiagnosis or improper medical treatment due to errors in medical records; and the possibility of widespread disruption of business operations due to errors in business records. Mr. Lanny J. Davis, in his thoughtful analysis of the dilemma presented in an article in the Washington Post of September, 15, 1996, cited one industry expert who called the Y2K defect--as the computer literate call it--``the most devastating virus to ever infect the world's business and information technology systems.'' Mr. Davis also tabulated the cost: ``Current estimates for business and government range from $50 billion to $75 billion--and will only increase as 2000 draws closer.'' Moreover, it seems the problem is not limited to main frame computers as once was thought. In an article entitled ``Even Some New Software Won't Work in 2000,'' the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday, September 18, 1996, that owners of personal computers will be affected as well. Mr. Lee Gomes wrote: ``In fact, tens of millions of PC owners will be affected. Current or very recent versions of such best sellers as Quicken, FileMaker Pro and at least one brand-new program from Microsoft will stumble at the approach of Jan. 1, 2000. There will be hardware hiccups, too. Many PC owners will have to take extra steps to teach their systems about the new millennium.'' Early in 1996, John Westergaard first informed me of this impending problem. I asked the Congressional Research Service to assess its extent. In July, CRS reported back and substantiated the doomsayers' worst fears. I immediately wrote to the President, alerted him to the problem and suggested that a presidential aide--a general perhaps--be appointed to take responsibility for assuring that all Federal agencies and Government contractors be Y2K date-compliant by January 1, 1999. No word back yet. Over the past few weeks I have periodically updated my colleagues in the Senate as to the nature of this problem, the possible costs of the problem, and advances in thinking about the problem. The business community has begun to stir, but it seems all is quiet here in the Nation's capital, or nearly quiet. Today, I am introducing a bill to establish a nonpartisan commission on the year 2000 computer problem. It will be composed of 15 members-- five selected by the President; 5, the President pro tempore of the Senate, and 5, the Speaker of the House of Representatives--in consultation with the minority leaders respectively. The commission will study the problem, analyze its costs, and provide immediate recommendations and requirements for the Secretary of Defense, the President, and Congress. Because of the urgency of this problem, the commission will complete its study and make its report to the President by December 31, 1997. The onus is now on us to see this bill passed. I urge my colleagues to recognize this problem, and help establish this Commission. As Mr. Davis warned, we have begun a ``Countdown to a Meltdown.'' The longer we delay, the more costly the solution and the more dire the consequences. The computer has been a blessing; if we do not act in a timely fashion, however, it could become the curse of the age. I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal article of Wednesday, September 18, 1996, entitled ``Even Some New Software Won't Work in 2000,'' by Lee Gomes, be included in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, legislation that would establish a Commission To Study the Federal Statistical System. The United States has the oldest and by and large finest data gathering system in the world. 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. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, created in 1884, was also initially in the Interior Department. The first Commissioner of the BLS, appointed in 1885, was Col. 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 Statistics 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--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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today that I hope, at the very least, will draw attention to the interesting possibilities of how private capital might be joined with public funding of our Nation's infrastructure. The bill is designed to facilitate investment in, and the financing of, infrastructure projects--which generate good-paying jobs--through the creation of a self-sustaining entity, the National Infrastructure Development Corporation. In 1991, I sponsored the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA]. One provision called for the establishment of an Infrastructure Investment Commission. Public investments in infrastructure have been declining, and so the Commission was charged with looking at ways to encourage the investment of private capital. The Commission was chaired by Daniel V. Flanagan, Jr. Under his able direction, the Commission released a report early in 1993. I found it truly compelling, and I look forward to revisiting the Commission's recommendations as we prepare for ISTEA II. In short, we would do well to listen to Mr. Flanagan, again, as we reauthorize our vitally important transportation infrastructure policies in the 105th Congress. There will be hearings, of course, and we look forward to testimony from the Commission as to its recommendations. I would like to point out that our colleague, Senator Hutchison from Texas, served as a member of the Commission; and I certainly look forward to working with her as the Environment and Public Works Committee takes up this most important matter next year. I would like to note that significant infrastructure investment activity by U.S. pension funds is occurring daily overseas, particularly in Asia and Latin America. A good part of this has been prompted by the evolution of the independent power generation spawned by the action of our Congress in creating such entities as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. As a result, we now have a project finance industry in existence in this country assisting those American funds in such infrastructure investment overseas. Also, current policies of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export Import Bank, and the World Bank, encourage this type of overseas investment through credit enhancements, political risk insurance, and so forth. The problem in the United States is that we have never provided such credit enhancement disciplines in our own infrastructure network. Clearly, there is significant political risk for the entrepreneur, the architect, the engineer, and even the community group that seeks to develop improvements and novel and innovative ways of paying for such services. The Commission's report suggests a ``growing of the pie'' approach to leverage some of our public funds by encouraging such private investment, and suggests that leverage ratios of approximately 10 to 18 times the public funds involved are attainable. Recommendations of the Commission and Mr. Flanagan, who has testified several times before Congress on this subject, are incorporated in this legislation. For example, it suggests various insurance initiatives, particularly in the area of development risk, as well as other innovative procedures, including the reinsurance of long term revenue streams that would allow new economic activity to ensure either in the construction of new or rehabilitation of existing facilities. I commend my colleagues in the House of Representatives, particularly the Democratic leadership there, for introducing this measure in that body earlier this year. To me this is a bipartisan effort and we welcome the support of our Republican colleagues. This legislation, the National Infrastructure Development Act of 1996, is by no means the final word on this subject. But I do recommend it to all of my colleagues for their examination and hope it proves sufficient to stimulate their interest in this ingenious approach to such an exciting matter.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today that I hope, at the very least, will draw attention to the interesting possibilities of how private capital might be joined with public funding of our Nation's infrastructure. The bill is designed to facilitate investment in, and the financing of, infrastructure projects--which generate good-paying jobs--through the creation of a self-sustaining entity, the National Infrastructure Development Corporation. In 1991, I sponsored the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA]. One provision called for the establishment of an Infrastructure Investment Commission. Public investments in infrastructure have been declining, and so the Commission was charged with looking at ways to encourage the investment of private capital. The Commission was chaired by Daniel V. Flanagan, Jr. Under his able direction, the Commission released a report early in 1993. I found it truly compelling, and I look forward to revisiting the Commission's recommendations as we prepare for ISTEA II. In short, we would do well to listen to Mr. Flanagan, again, as we reauthorize our vitally important transportation infrastructure policies in the 105th Congress. There will be hearings, of course, and we look forward to testimony from the Commission as to its recommendations. I would like to point out that our colleague, Senator Hutchison from Texas, served as a member of the Commission; and I certainly look forward to working with her as the Environment and Public Works Committee takes up this most important matter next year. I would like to note that significant infrastructure investment activity by U.S. pension funds is occurring daily overseas, particularly in Asia and Latin America. A good part of this has been prompted by the evolution of the independent power generation spawned by the action of our Congress in creating such entities as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. As a result, we now have a project finance industry in existence in this country assisting those American funds in such infrastructure investment overseas. Also, current policies of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export Import Bank, and the World Bank, encourage this type of overseas investment through credit enhancements, political risk insurance, and so forth. The problem in the United States is that we have never provided such credit enhancement disciplines in our own infrastructure network. Clearly, there is significant political risk for the entrepreneur, the architect, the engineer, and even the community group that seeks to develop improvements and novel and innovative ways of paying for such services. The Commission's report suggests a ``growing of the pie'' approach to leverage some of our public funds by encouraging such private investment, and suggests that leverage ratios of approximately 10 to 18 times the public funds involved are attainable. Recommendations of the Commission and Mr. Flanagan, who has testified several times before Congress on this subject, are incorporated in this legislation. For example, it suggests various insurance initiatives, particularly in the area of development risk, as well as other innovative procedures, including the reinsurance of long term revenue streams that would allow new economic activity to ensure either in the construction of new or rehabilitation of existing facilities. I commend my colleagues in the House of Representatives, particularly the Democratic leadership there, for introducing this measure in that body earlier this year. To me this is a bipartisan effort and we welcome the support of our Republican colleagues. This legislation, the National Infrastructure Development Act of 1996, is by no means the final word on this subject. But I do recommend it to all of my colleagues for their examination and hope it proves sufficient to stimulate their interest in this ingenious approach to such an exciting matter.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, a decade ago, I was much involved in the drafting of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. A major objective of that legislation was to simplify the Tax Code by eliminating a large number of loopholes that had come to be viewed as unfair because they primarily benefitted small groups of taxpayers. One of the loopholes we sought to close in 1986 was one that permitted builders of professional sports facilities to use tax-exempt bonds. We had nothing against new stadium construction, but we made the judgment that scarce Federal resources could surely be used in ways that would better serve the general public good. The 1986 Act accordingly prohibited the use of private activity bonds--that is, bonds for non-governmental purposes--for professional sports facilities. Yet, despite Congress' action, sports team owners, with help from clever tax counsel, soon found a way around the new law: they persuaded local governments to issue tax-exempt public bonds to finance new stadiums. As the columnist Neal R. Pierce wrote recently, team owners ``were soon exhibiting the gall to ask mayors to finance their stadiums with general purpose bonds.'' We did not anticipate this. It was--and still is--perfectly legal. The result has been a boom unlike anything we have ever seen in construction of new tax-subsidized professional sports stadiums. In the last 6 years alone, over $4 billion has been spent to build 30 new professional sports stadiums. According to Prof. Robert Baade, an economist at Lake Forest College in Illinois and an expert in stadium financing, that amount could ``completely refurbish the physical plants of the Nation's public elementary and secondary schools.'' An additional $7 billion of stadiums are in the planning stages, and there is no end in sight. This is why I recently introduced S. 1880--the Stop Tax-exempt Arena Debt Issuance Act--or STADIA for short--to end the Federal tax subsidy for these stadium deals. Only the team owners and players profit, while taxpayers and fans pick up the tab. I introduced S. 1880 with an immediate effective date of June 14, 1996 for a number of reasons, which I have previously explained for the Record. However, I also recognized, and requested comment on, ``the need for equitable relief for stadiums already in the planning stages.'' On June 27, 1996, based upon initial comments I had received, I made a statement on the floor that projects that had binding contracts or final bond resolutions in place on the date the bill was introduced would not be affected by the bill. Since that time, several other localities with stadiums already in the planning stages have requested equitable relief. Given the Senate's imminent adjournment, it is now certain --as I predicted earlier--that S. 1880 will not be enacted into law this year. Accordingly, in order to provide needed certainty to those remaining localities that have expended significant time and funds in planning and financing professional sports facilities, I wish to indicate that when I reintroduce this legislation in the 105th Congress, its effective date will be the date of the first committee action. As practitioners in this field know, the date of first committee action is a common effective date for this type of legislation. In addition, I will include the transition relief provision contained in my June 27 floor statement. This, I believe, strikes the proper balance between closing the loophole in present law--a loophole that benefits only team owners and their players--and addressing the concerns of those localities that have been planning new stadiums. Mr. President, I ask that four recent articles regarding this legislation be printed in the Record. The articles follow: [From the National Journal, July 20, 1996] Calling Time on Sports Tax Breaks (By Neal R. Peirce) Washington.--Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. D-N.Y., stirred up a virtual hornet's nest last month with a bill to forbid use of federal tax-exempt bonds to finance sports stadiums for private teams. It turns out that from Nashville to Cleveland, Seattle to Denver, New Orleans to New York and multiple points in between, mayors and councils are readying bond issues to finance close to $7 billion worth of baseball, basketball, football and hockey facilities. The first deal imperiled was a $60 million bond sale by the city of Nashville, just one part of the tax-free bonding package that the city is assembling to pay for a $292 million state-of-the-art stadium to lure the Oilers football team from Houston. So when Moynihan suggested barring tax-free financing for such deals, retroactive to June 14, the day he introduced his legislation, the buzz of angry protest was almost instant. Moynihan's proposal was ``abrupt,'' it ``jeopardized' local planning, city leaders said. It was a ``dangerous precedent,'' the Public Securities Association asserted. The political signals, for the Republican-controlled Congress, seemed all wrong. ``No bill will go through the House in terms of NFL [National Football League] that doesn't include the Oilers being in Nashville,'' said House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. A spokesman for Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles of Oklahoma said the Moynihan bill was not even ``on the radar screen'' of the Republican leadership. Within a few days Moynihan beat a tactical retreat, saying that he would consider ``the need for equitable relief for stadiums already in the planning stages.'' But Moynihan, the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, is not backing away from his bill. And rather than being pilloried, he should be hailed as a hero of the times-- an invaluable whistle-blower and friend to all U.S. taxpayers. Let's get it straight. Unless current federal law is changed, interest payments from the billions of dollars of forthcoming stadium bonds will be totally tax-free to the affluent investors who buy them. These are general-purpose bonds--which Congress intended for financing such truly public purposes as roads, sewers, schools, libraries and other public buildings. And who will benefit from this largesse? Joe Six-Pack, who often can't afford the seats in these opulent new stadiums and who'll surely never darken the door of one of their ritzy skyboxes? Of course not. The real winners are the owners and professional sports teams, who are utterly proficient in blackmailing local officials: ``Buy me my stadium, rent it to me for a pittance or nothing, channel the ticket and concession revenue to me, and if you don't like my deal, I'll skip town and leave you, Mr. Mayor, with egg all over your face for having lost a team.'' Moynihan, to his credit, has been at this struggle for years. In the mid-1980s, many stadiums were financed by low- interest, tax-exempt private revenue bonds. Owners paid off the cost over 30 or 40 years. But the federal taxpayer was clipped, because no taxes were collected. Moynihan's answer was to write conditions into the 1986 tax reform law that virtually choked off such revenue bonds. The owners were checkmated--but not for long. They were soon exhibiting the gall to ask mayors to finance their stadiums with general-purpose bonds. And what a deal this was for them! At concessionary prices, they rent (but are not ultimately responsible for) their stadiums. And they are relieved of repaying the bonds: The local taxpayers get to take care of that for them. As for the tax-free interest payments--well, Uncle Sam can take it on the chin as lost revenue. Moynihan notes that one result is ``forcing the taxpayers in the team's current hometown to pay for the team's new stadium in a new city.'' But mayors found it tough to say no. Federal and state aid was shrinking. If not another city, nearby rapacious suburbs would bid for their sports teams. So many said yes. They'd keep (or sometimes gain) a team. But at a price--adding municipal indebtedness, a possible threat to the city's credit standing and thus higher borrowing costs for schools, colleges, and other public investments, even while stadium investors escaped taxes. This is the cavernous tax loophole Moynihan wants to close. In time, he's likely to win. As the federal budget vise tightens--forcing program after program to constrict--mega- subsidies to fat-cat sports owners will become even more reprehensible. The sooner Congress acts, the better for us all. And the quicker cities wise up and resist the team owners' threats and demands, the better. Without question, the cost of sports subsidies have begun to reach stratospheric levels. The Congressional Research Service (CRS), in a May report, calculated that Baltimore's football stadium subsidies to attract the former Cleveland Browns will be $127,000 for each job created--almost 21 times more than the $6,250 it cost to create jobs through Maryland's economic development fund. Does the national economy benefit? No. CRS reported: ``Almost all stadium spending is spending that would have been made on other activities within the United States.'' Net benefits, therefore, are ``near zero.'' A hero on this score, maybe a pioneer, is Houston Mayor Bob Lanier, who has focused city funds on bolstering police, rebuilding neighborhoods, cleaning out sewers and sprucing up parks. When Oilers owner Bud Adams applied pressure for incentives to stay in Houston, Lanier just said no. All that Nashville will get for a total incentive pool of $650 million, Lanier noted, is 10 home games a year. The same cash, he told a reporter, would almost finish the job of cleaning up Houston's depressed neighborhoods. If a few more mayors got their priorities as straight as Lanier's, the team owners would have fewer cities to prey on.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on September 16, I introduced legislation to repeal section 434 of the recently enacted Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Section 434 provides that: Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States. This provision conflicts with an executive order, issued by the mayor of New York in 1985, prohibiting city employees from reporting suspected illegal aliens to the Immigration and Naturalization Service unless the alien has been charged with a crime. The executive order, which according to a report in the September 12, 1996, New York Times is similar to local laws in other States and cities, was intended to ensure that fear of deportation does not deter illegal aliens from seeking emergency medical attention, reporting crimes, and so forth. On September 8, 1995, during Senate consideration of H.R. 4, the Work Opportunity Act of 1995, Senators Santorum and Nickles offered this provision as an amendment. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 91 to 6. The Senators who voted ``no'' were: Akaka, Campbell, Inouye, Moseley-Braun, Moynihan, and Simon. Four of these six--Senators Akaka, Moseley-Braun, Simon, and the Senator from New York--were also among the 11 Democrats who voted against H.R. 4 when it passed the Senate 11 days later on September 19, 1995. The provision remained in H.R. 3734, the welfare bill recently signed by President Clinton. Last week, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York announced that the city planned to challenge section 434 of the new welfare law in court.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I would like to make a few, brief comments about the evolution of the welfare plank in the Democratic Party's national platform for the coming election. July 8: First Draft Staff members of the Democratic National Committee wrote the initial draft of the party platform. The document was dated July 8, 1996, and contained the following plank on welfare: Welfare Reform. There is no greater gap between mainstream American values and modern American government than our failed welfare system. When Bill Clinton became President, the welfare system undermined the very values--work, family, and, especially, personal responsibility--that it should promote. Over the past four years, President Clinton--without help from Congress--has dramatically transformed the welfare system. He has freed 40 states from federal rules and regulations so they can reform their welfare systems. The Clinton Administration has granted [70] waivers--more than twice as many waivers as granted in the Reagan-Bush years. For 75 percent of all Americans on welfare, the rules have changed for good, and welfare is becoming what it should be: a second chance, not a way of life. Welfare rolls are finally coming down--there are 1.3 million fewer people on welfare today than there were in 1992. The President has also taken strong executive action to make sure that the welfare system strengthens families and demands responsibility. He ordered states to require minor mothers to stay in school and turn their lives around so they can get a job and get off welfare for good. He also ordered states to require mothers to name the father of their children before they can get welfare, so we can find those fathers and make them pay the child support they owe. Now we must finish the job. We should pass national welfare reform to end welfare as we know it across America. Unfortunately, the plan proposed by Senator Dole and Speaker Gingrich was weak on work and tough on children. That's the wrong approach. We should be tough on work and demand responsibility, but we shouldn't punish children for their parents' mistakes. A real bipartisan welfare reform plan should require that anyone on welfare who can work, goes to work. And we should provide child care and health care so parents can work. We should impose strict time limits so that no one who can work can stay on welfare forever. We should require minor mothers to live with their parents or another responsible adult. July 26: Initial Draft Revised by Drafting Committee The initial draft was sent to members of the drafting committee, chaired by Georgia Gov. Zell Miller. The 15 members of the drafting committee met on July 11 in Kansas City to revise the initial draft. On July 26, the drafting committee issued its revised draft of the platform and sent it to the members of the platform committee. The revised welfare plank was slightly longer, but contained essentially the same language as the first version: Welfare reform. Today's Democratic Party knows there is no greater gap between mainstream American values and modern American government than our failed welfare system. When Bill Clinton became President, the welfare system undermined the very values--work, family, and personal responsibility--that it should promote. The welfare system should reflect those values: we want to help people who want to help themselves and their children. Over the past 4 years, President Clinton--acting alone--has dramatically transformed the welfare system. He has freed 41 states from federal rules and regulations so they can reform their welfare systems. The Clinton Administration has granted 69 waivers--more than twice as many waivers as granted in the Reagan-Bush years. For 75 percent of all Americans on welfare, the rules have changed for good already, and welfare is becoming what it should be: a second chance, not a way of life. Welfare rolls are finally coming down--there are 1.3 million fewer people on welfare today than there were when President Clinton took office in January 1993. The President has also taken strong executive action to make sure that the welfare system strengthens families and demands responsibility. He ordered states to require minor mothers to stay in school and turn their lives around so they can get a job and get off welfare for good. He also directed states to require mothers to help identify and find absent fathers so we can make them pay the child support they owe. He challenged all states to require teen mothers to live at home or with a responsible adult. And the President fought to make sure that poor children get health care and nutrition to meet their basic needs. Now we must finish the job, and pass national welfare reform. Unfortunately, the plan proposed by Senator Dole and Speaker Gingrich was weak on work and tough on children. That is the wrong approach. We should be tough on work and demand responsibility, but we should not punish children for their parents' mistakes. A real bipartisan welfare reform plan should require that, anyone on welfare who can work, goes to work. And we should provide child care and health care so parents can work. We should impose strict time limits so that no one who can work can stay on welfare forever. We should require minor mothers to live with their parents or another responsible adult. If the Republican Party puts politics aside, we can finish the job President Clinton started, and end welfare as we know it across America. Passing legislation is not enough; we should make sure people get the skills they need to get jobs, and that there are jobs for them to go to so they leave welfare and stay off. Welfare reform should put more people to work and move them into the economic mainstream, not take jobs away from working families. July 31-August 4: DNC Staff Change Platform The President announced on July 31 that he would sign the Dole- Gingrich welfare plan into law--which he did on August 22. Democratic National Committee staff thereupon revised the platform plank on welfare to reflect the President's newly announced intentions. The platform plank on welfare, which previously denounced the legislation Congress had passed, now endorsed it. August 5: Final Platform Issued The full platform committee met in Pittsburgh, PA on August 5 and approved the changes to the Kansas City draft. The new platform plank on welfare, as changed by DNC staff, was nearly identical to the final version approved by the convention delegates in Chicago on August 27 with the exception of one sentence noted below which was formally added as an amendment during the Pittsburgh session. The new plank reads as follows: Welfare reform. Today's Democratic Party knows there is no greater gap between mainstream American values and modern American government than our failed welfare system. When Bill Clinton became President, the welfare system undermined the very values--work, family, and personal responsibility--that it should promote. The welfare system should reflect those values: we want to help people who want to help themselves and their children. Over the past 4 years, President Clinton has dramatically transformed the welfare system. He has freed 41 states from federal rules and regulations so they can reform their welfare systems. The Clinton Administration has granted 69 waivers--more than twice as many waivers as granted in the Reagan-Bush years. For 75 percent of all Americans on welfare, the rules have changed for good already, and welfare is becoming what it should be: a second chance, not a way of life. Welfare rolls are finally coming down --there are 1.3 million fewer people on welfare today than there were when President Clinton took office in January 1993. Now, because of the President's leadership and with the support of a majority of the Democrats in Congress, national welfare reform is going to make work and responsibility the law of the land. Thanks to President Clinton and the Democrats, the new welfare bill includes the health care and child care people need so they can go to work confident their children will be cared for. Thanks to President Clinton and the Democrats, the new welfare bill imposes time limits and real work requirements--so anyone who can work, does work, and so that no one who can work can stay on welfare forever. Thanks to President Clinton and the Democrats, the new welfare bill cracks down on deadbeat parents and requires minor mothers to live at home with their parents or with another responsible adult. We are proud the President forced Congressional Republicans to abandon their wrong-headed and mean-spirited efforts to punish the poor. Republicans wanted to eliminate the guarantee of health care for the poor, the elderly, and the disabled. They were wrong, and we stopped them. Republicans wanted to destroy the food stamp and school lunch programs that provide basic nutrition to millions of working families and poor children. They were wrong, and we stopped them. Republicans wanted to gut child abuse prevention and foster care. They were wrong, and we stopped them. Republicans wanted to cut off young, unwed mothers--because they actually thought their children would be better off living in an orphanage. They were dead wrong, and we stopped them. The bill Republicans in Congress passed last year was values- backward--it was soft on work and tough on children, and we applaud the President for stopping it. We know the new bill passed by Congress is far from perfect--parts of it should be fixed because they go too far and have nothing to do with welfare reform. First, Republicans cut too far into nutritional assistance for working families with children; we are committed to correcting that. Second, Republicans insisted on using welfare reform as a vehicle to cut off help to legal immigrants. That was wrong. Legal immigrants work hard, pay their taxes, and serve America. It is wrong to single them out for punishment just because they are immigrants. We pledge to make sure that legal immigrant families with children who fall on hard times through no fault of their own can get help when they need it. And we are committed to continuing the President's efforts to make it easier for legal immigrants who are prepared to accept the responsibilities of citizenship to do so. But the new welfare plan gives America an historic chance: to break the cycle of dependency for millions of Americans, and give them a real chance for an independent future. It reflects the principles the President has insisted upon since he started the process that led to welfare reform. Our job now is to make sure this welfare reform plan succeeds, transforming a broken system that holds people down into a working system that lifts people up and gives them a real chance to build a better life. States asked for this responsibility--now we have to make sure they shoulder it. We must make sure as many people as possible move from welfare to work. We must make sure that children are protected. In addition to health care and nutritional assistance, states should provide in-kind vouchers to children whose parents have reached the time limit. We challenge states to exempt battered women from time limits and other restrictions. [We challenge states to ensure that hard-earned, federal taxpayer dollars are spent effectively and fraud and abuse are prevented.] (The preceding sentence was added as an amendment to the platform during the Pittsburgh meeting.) We challenge the business community to provide more of the private sector jobs people on welfare need to build good lives and strong families. We know that passing legislation is not enough; we must make sure people get the skills they need to get jobs, and that there are jobs for them to go to so they leave welfare and stay off. We want to make sure welfare reform will put more people to work and move them into the economic mainstream, not take jobs away from working families. We call on all Americans to make the most of this opportunity--never to use welfare reform as an excuse to demonize or demean people, but rather as a chance to bring all our people fully into the economic mainstream, to have a chance to share in the prosperity and the promise of American life. Following the Pittsburgh meeting, in an August 6 Washington Post article by Kevin Merida entitled ``Democrats Play Down Platform Differences,'' White House deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes was quoted as characterizing disputes over platform planks as ``some fusses around the edges,'' and as stating, ``I can't think of any changes of consequence since the drafting'' of the platform in Kansas City. In an August 29 Washington Post column entitled ``Bathos and Nothingness,'' columnist Robert D. Novak wrote, ``The platform's denunciation of Republican welfare reform was obediently reversed, with neither protest nor debate, once Clinton signed the bill. Nor was the change mentioned on the convention floor in the non-debate preceding voice-vote approval of the platform. Far from being debated, the declaration of party principles was not even explained.'' Indeed.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this past Sunday, September 15, 1996, the Outlook section of the Washington Post contained an excellent article, ``Countdown to a Meltdown,'' by Lanny J. Davis, an attorney with the firm of Patton Boggs, L.L.P. The article concerns the Y2K problem, as the computer literate refer to it. What happens to the internal clocks and software of the Nation's--indeed, the world's-- government, business, and personal computers at 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 2000, when they need date code space for four digits, rather than two? Will the computers crash? Will they assume the year is 1900? Mr. Davis quotes one industry expert as calling the Y2K defect ``the most devastating virus ever to infect the world's business and information technology systems.'' Estimates of the cost of fixing this defect range as high as $75 billion--if we act expeditiously. The longer we delay, the more costly the solution. On July 31, I wrote to the President concerning this problem. I offered the following suggestion: A presidential aide should be appointed to take responsibility for assuring that all Federal agencies including the military be Y2K date compliant by January 1, 1999 and that all commercial and industrial firms doing business with the Federal government also be compliant by that date. I am advised that the Pentagon is further ahead on the curve here than any of the Federal agencies. You may wish to turn to the military to take command of dealing with the problem. A general--given the national security implications--to take charge, to determine what the Federal government must do to respond to this looming menace, and how it ought to go about doing it. I put a copy of this letter, along with the summary of a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report I requested on the subject, in the September 5 Congressional Record. I will introduce legislation shortly to establish a commission to investigate the problem and suggest remedies. There is not much time left to resolve it. The consequences of procrastination, as the attached article indicates, are grave indeed. I ask that the article, ``Countdown to a Meltdown,'' appear in the Record at this point. The article follows: [The Washington Post, Sept. 15, 1996] Countdown to a Meltdown Before the Year 2000, We Have to Spend Billions to Fix a Very Strange Glitch (By Lanny J. Davis) In the classic '50s science fiction film ``The Day the Earth Stood Still,'' an alien lands his flying saucer in front of the Washington Monument and demands that the earthlings destroy their nuclear weapons. When they doubt his powers, the alien gives them a demonstration. At noon on a designated day, he eliminates all sources of energy on the planet, from electricity to water power to gasoline. Cars stop. Trains stop. Telephones stop. The lights go out. At 12:01 a.m., Jan. 1, year 2000--or the ``Y2K,'' as computer aficionados refer to it--the world won't exactly ``stand still.'' But it could come close unless the world's major governments and businesses start to fix their computer systems right away. The general public knows Y2K (for Year Two Kilo--the Greek prefix kilo meaning 1,000) as the ``Year 200 Problem.'' Although it's finally beginning to get some attention, there is still little sense of urgency because it is seen as three years away. But the fact is that for some institutions, including parts of the federal government, it will very soon be too late. We could end up with a real catastrophe that could affect many people's lives around the globe in annoying and profound ways. The reason is simple: Virtually all computers used by business and government won't know what to do when their internal clocks try to switch from 1999 to 2000. They'll go haywire. (Most newer personal computers for home use will be unaffected.) The problem is that computers (and the software inside that tells them what to do) are programmed with only the last two digits in the year being variable, i.e., 19XX. But when the clock moves to 12:01 a.m. on Jan 1, 2000, the computer's program will need code space for four digits. One of two things will happen: The computer will cease functioning (``crash''); or more likely, it will change the last two digits from ``99'' to ``00,'' thus causing the computer's internal calendar to register as if the current date is Jan. 1, 1900. There is a solution, but it is time consuming and costly. Current estimates for business and government range from $50 billion to $75 billion--and will only increase as 2000 draws closer. Unfortunately, the alternative is unthinkable. One industry expert has called the Y2K defect ``the most devastating virus ever to infect the world's business and information technology systems.'' If the problem isn't fixed, here are just some of the things that will happen: Vital military and defense systems will shut down. Taxpayers will receive notices from the IRS saying that they owe millions of dollars in back taxes. Banks will shut off credit and send foreclosure notices to millions. Social Security, Medicare and other government benefit programs based on age will not function, as the computer determines, for instance, that retirees are minus 35 years old, instead of 65 (take the year 1900 and subtract their birth year of 1935). Millions of workers will not receive their pension checks. Thousands of airplanes all over the world will be grounded when records show that maintenance has not been done for 100 years. For the same reason, prison records will show criminals overdue for release. The economic and political ramifications of this issue are immense. Kevin Shick, research director of the Gartner Group, a consulting firm that developed early expertise on this issue, told the House Information and Technology subcommittee in April that it is highly probable that 90 percent of all computer program applications in the world are dependent on the correct date being recorded. The questions are: How'd we get into this mess? Who's to blame? What do we do about it? Who's going to pay to fix it? A major sub-industry has arisen in the last few years to correct the problems. There are many small software houses and consulting companies that have developed ``software for the calendrically challenged'' and other ``tools'' to address the problem. And such giants as Oracle, Computer Associates, IBM and Arthur Anderson have shown interest in assisting companies to solve the Y2K problems, often at costs in the tens of millions of dollars or more. Experts differ on the extent of corporate America's state of readiness for the Y2K: The computer magazine Datamation estimated that, as of last year, more than two-thirds of the companies that use mainframe computers at least has a team in place to consider how to deal with the problem. However the Gartner Group's Schick says that only 17 percent of the companies have sought the necessary outside help. Governments are waking up, but slowly. At a recent Y2K conference in Austin, an industry expert warned that fewer than 25 percent of state government systems will be ready. One of the first public officials to take notice of the problem, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.), is just now planning to ask President Clinton to appoint a blue ribbon commission to study and make recommendations on this issue. They're going to need to work fast. Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it may promulgate rules requiring public companies to detail their readiness for the Y2K. One reason for the urgency is that this is not a simple problem to fix. There are three options: replace all old software, which would likely be prohibitively expensive; modify the software's two-digit year code to a four-digit code, with instructions that 2000 follows 1999, which would require the location and correction of every ``time field'' in millions of lines of code in every software and hardware system; or program the computer so that, when faced with two double-zero dates, it chooses the more logical of them. For example, a computer can be told that a 1996 driver's license with a five-year term has expired in the year 2001, even though the internal clock reads 1901. This last solution seems on its face the simplest, and cheapest. Unfortunately, it doesn't do the job in most instances. For example, if the issue is knowing the person's age, the computer has no way of knowing whether someone born in the year 2002 is 2 years old or 102 years old. Finding a solution that identifies and corrects all Y2K defects may well prove impossible. Certain programs were deliberately written in obscure programming languages. In the Pentagon, for example, many of the codes were uniquely written by one or two individuals using top-secret technology and cannot be addressed by off-the-shelf software. Even for the best technicians, the nightmare is finding all the Y2K defects in a computer system. For instance, the dates themselves have been expressed in a variety of ways by programmers--December 12, 1945, 12 December 1945, 12-12-45, etc. All conceivable methods of expressing those date fields must be located and corrections made. If only a few have been missed, it can cause a ripple effect through a computer network, leading to a crash. The solution is time and money. But why should those who bought computer products be left with the tab for cleaning this mess up? Wasn't it obvious when software was being written that at some point the year 2000 would come? Why didn't programmers anticipate the problem and deal with it? As one leading Y2K commentator, Warren Reid, notes: ``The Year 2000 problem was caused by shortsightedness and human error.'' One thing is certain--there is plenty of blame to go around. Programmers and software houses say the main reason was cost. George Munoz, chief financial officer of the Treasury Department, testified recently that in the early 1980s, when most of these systems were being developed, memory was expensive and the cost of adding another two digits to every date field would have been considerable. Thus, he and other industry experts explain, programmers decided to save the money and make the fix when 2000 got closer. For this reason, many in the industry suggest that responsibility for the Y2K problem is not assignable. As Munoz testified in April: ``Did this problem arise because of someone's negligence? To this, we emphatically respond: No.'' But if that is the ``no fault'' explanation, why weren't the purchasers and licensees of these software programs and computer systems at least informed about the coming problem? Why weren't they allowed to decide for themselves whether they wanted to pay then or pay later? And what about hardware and software sold in the recent years, when memory is much less of a problem (with today's PCs having more storage space and processing capacity than many mainframes 30 years ago)? These questions may get answered in court as businesses go looking to recover their costs from the vendors who sold them these products, though no major Y2K lawsuits have yet been filed. On the other hand, vendors (and their attorneys) are likely to remind any customers pressing these theories that they should have known that when the year 2000 tolled, the problem would arise. For the most part, the buyers of these big systems are sophisticated information managers. Ultimately, the verdict is likely to be that everyone shares a piece of the blame--both vendors who failed to inform and buyers who chose to ignore, figuring someone else would fix it. Perhaps it's human nature: Governments, and people, are more likely to respond to a crisis than anticipate it. Though costs are hard to estimate, they can be approximated, based on the amount of computer code within a particular company or government agency. Coopers & Lybrand has found that on average one of every 50 lines of code contains a date reference. Each individual application may contain thousands of lines of code. All software must be searched line by line; for every million lines of code, nine to 16 staff years will be needed to correct the problem. It costs about $1-$2 per line of code, most industry analysts say. The Information Technology Association of America, representing the software and information services industry, estimates the total U.S. cost in the range of $50 billion to $75 billion. The Social Security Administration says it will take between $30 million and $60 million to fix its programs, the Defense Department over $1 billion. For the state of Maryland, current estimates for the fix exceed $25 million. Recent hearings by the House Information Technology Subcommittee found that when state and local government costs are taken into account, as well as the various indirect costs of lost productivity and diversion of personnel and resources, the public sector costs of the Y2K crisis reaches tens of billions of dollars in the United States alone. Private sector costs are likely to be as high. The Gartner Group estimates that a mid-sized company with 8,000 computer programs will spend between $3.6 million and $4.2 million to repair ``date challenged'' software. Who's left paying the bill? Surprise: first and foremost, the taxpayer. Then, either in the courts or by negotiation, the rest of the pain of solving the problem is likely to be shared by vendors, users and consumers. And the longer a company or an agency waits, the more it will cost. At the start of 1999, the cost will be three times that of starting today, because the supply of trained programmers able to fix the problem will not keep up with demand. Once the alien in the movie made the Earth stand still, he convened the leaders of the world to a meeting in front of his space ship. The Earth's leaders told him they now believed in his powers and promised to destroy all the planet's nuclear weapons forthwith. But as soon as the alien left, they went back to their old habits of building more. The real-life inhabitants of a planet that is so dependent on computers might take a lesson from that. Having let the technology experts put one past us this time, we shouldn't let them do it again.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, Adlai E. Stevenson remarked of Eleanor Roosevelt that ``She would rather light candles than curse the darkness.'' The same can be said of my dear friend, Peter M. Flanigan. I rise to call to the Senate's attention the Student-Sponsor Partnership, a program for troubled students that Mr. Flanigan started in 1986. Private donors help pay the tuition for New York City high school students whose backgrounds include poverty, poor grades, and discipline problems so that they may attend Catholic schools. In 1984 Mr. Flanigan promised a class of sixth-graders that if they finished high school he would pay for their college education. It soon became clear that even this was insufficient incentive for many of the participants to complete high school, and Mr. Flanigan realized that a different approach was needed. He learned that Catholic schools had higher graduation rates, and so concluded that he would help students attend such schools by subsidizing their tuition. Mr. Flanigan also realized the importance of providing each student with a mentor to provide encouragement and counsel. This program works; 75 percent of the participants graduate in 4 years, and 90 percent eventually go on to college. These are remarkable statistics for a group made up of troubled students. I congratulate Peter Flanigan for all his concern and efforts, and I ask unanimous consent that an article in the September 12 New York Times on the Student-Sponsor Partnership Program be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the New York Times, Sept. 12, 1996] Private Program for Troubled Students Echoes Catholic School Plan (By Mirta Ojito) Two years ago, Sean Kendell Winn was the kind of student who is at the heart of the plan advocated this week by Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani to send some public school students to Roman Catholic schools. A Bronx student who would get into fights and end up suspended, Sean was accepted by a Catholic school in his first year of high school. Almost all expenses were paid by private donors. ``My life,'' Sean said yesterday, ``is much nicer now.'' Sean, now a 16-year-old junior at All Hallows High School with an 85 average, is a beneficiary of a 10-year-old private program, Student-Sponsor Partnership, which was created by Peter M. Flanigan, an investment banker. The partnership, which has helped 825 students enrolled in 18 Catholic schools to graduate since 1986, bears striking similarities to a proposal recently made by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York and, since Sunday, backed by the Mayor. Under the Archdiocese's plan, Catholic schools would educate 1,000 of the city school system's worst students, providing both secular and religious instruction. Their tuition would be paid by private businesses. After some board members cited Constitutional concerns about having school employees acting as admissions counselors for Roman Catholic schools, Schools Chancellor Rudy Crew said yesterday that the Board of Education would not compile lists of eligible students for the program advocated by Mr. Giuliani. But the Chancellor's spokeswoman said that guidance counselors would continue to advise students to seek scholarships to private schools, and would release school records for students applying for scholarships. The public schools have been giving that help to Student-Sponsor Partnership for 10 years. ``We hope that what we are doing could serve as a blueprint for what the Mayor is proposing,'' said Mayree Clark, the chairwoman of the partnership's board, who is the director of global research at Morgan Stanley. Ms. Clark said 75 percent of the program's students graduate in four years and 90 percent go on to college. Omar Antigua, a 20-year-old junior at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, is one of them. ``They opened up so many doors for me, I couldn't even begin to count them,'' said Mr. Antigua, the third child of an unemployed immigrant who reared three boys by herself in a tough Bronx neighborhood. ``Where I come from, I'm a rarity.'' Mary Grace Eapen, the partnership's executive director, said the program works to make students feel special. ``They want discipline, they want order,'' she said. ``They want to have someone in their lives who expects great things from them, and we do.'' Applicants learn of the program through their eighth-grade guidance counselors or community leaders, Ms. Eapen said. Once a student decides to apply, school counselors or teachers supply test scores, a list of the student's weaknesses and strengths and an analysis of why the student would probably not succeed were he or she to continue in the public school system. ``Counselors are very vigilant at spotting the kids that could benefit the most from our help,'' Ms. Eapen said. ``They want what's best for their kids and they know we provide it.'' Of the thousands of students who apply every year, several hundred are accepted. This year, 345 new students entered the program. Although the partnership program is similar to the one advocated by the Mayor, it differs in two ways. First, its eligibility requirements are broader: It considers poverty, poor grades and disciplinary problems as qualifications for entry, not simply whether a student has been identified as one of the school system's worst. Second, it provides mentors to guide students in addition to paying their tuitions. The partnership has 1,030 students and but is short 150 mentors. Sponsors pay at least $850 in tuition a year for four years. The rest of a student's tuition, which could be as high as $3,800 is paid by parents, who contribute $30 a month, and money raised from foundations and private businesses. The idea for the partnership came about when Mr. Flanigan realized that it took more than the promise of a bright future to make students finish their education, Ms. Eapen said. More than a decade ago, he promised a class of sixth graders that if they finished high school, he would pay for their college education. Despite the incentive, many students dropped out of school. The schools, he concluded, were failing the students. About the same time, Mr. Flanigan learned that Roman Catholic schools were more successful in keeping students in the classroom, so he shifted his focus and decided to encourage public school students to attend those private schools. To further increase the students' chances of success, he paired students with mentors. The partnership tries to match sponsors with students based on shared interests or experiences, sometimes a difficult goal because most of the students are black or Latino while 88 percent of the sponsors are non-Hispanic whites. But most of the time, despite cultural and economic differences, a bond is forged. It happened to Sean and his sponsor, James Jurney, a 26-year-old who went to boarding school, lives at Central Park West and works at Morgan Stanley. Their bond is theater. Sean wants to be an actor; Mr. Jurney is interested in television and films. ``We go to the theater.'' Mr. Jurney said, ``we talk. He tells me about his girlfriends. I'm his big brother. He's a good kid.''

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced legislation to repeal section 434 of the recently enacted Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Section 434 provides that: Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service INS information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States. This provision is ill-advised and threatens the public health and safety of residents of New York City because it conflicts with an executive order, issued by the major of New York in 1985, prohibiting city employees from reporting suspected illegal aliens to the Immigration and Naturalization Service unless the alien has been charged with a crime. The executive order, which is similar to local laws in other States and cities, was intended to ensure that fear of deportation does not deter illegal aliens from seeking emergency medical attention, reporting crimes, and so forth. On September 8, 1995, during Senate consideration of H.R. 4, the Work Opportunity Act of 1995, Senators Santorum and Nickles offered this provision as an amendment. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 91 to 6. The Senators who voted ``no'' were: Senators Akaka, Campbell, Inouye, Moseley-Braun, Moynihan, and Simon. Four of these six--Senators Akaka, Moseley-Braun, Simon, and the Senator from New York--were also among the 11 Democrats who voted against H.R. 4 when it passed the Senate on September 19, 1995. H.R. 4, of course, was later vetoed by President Clinton. Last week, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York announced that he and his staff had recently become aware of section 434 of the new welfare law, and planned to challenge it in court. An alien who witnesses a crime should feel free to report it to the police without fear of being deported. Just as an alien ought to be able to get emergency medical attention without fear of deportation. Mr. President, section 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 poses a serious threat to health and safety in New York City and elsewhere. It should be repealed.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on Wednesday, September 11, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York City delivered an address at Georgetown University Law School about an obscure provision in the recently passed welfare legislation. The provision, section 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, states: Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States. Mayor Giuliani said it would ``create chaos in New York City.'' I agree with him that this provision is ill-advised and threatens the public health and safety of residents of New York City. It conflicts with a 1985 executive order issued by then-Mayor Edward I. Koch prohibiting city employees from reporting suspected illegal aliens to the INS unless the alien was charged with a crime. That executive order, which is similar to local laws in other States and cities, was intended to ensure that fear of deportation does not deter illegal aliens from seeking emergency medical attention, reporting crimes, and so on. An earlier version of this provision was first introduced in welfare legislation during the 103d Congress as a part of H.R. 3500, the Responsibility and Empowerment Support Program Providing Employment, Child Care, and Training Act, sponsored by Representatives Michel, Gingrich, and Santorum. On September 8, 1995, during Senate consideration of H.R. 4, the Work Opportunity Act of 1995, Senator Santorum, along with Senator Nickles, offered a similar amendment. The amendment was adopted by the Senate by a vote of 91 to 6, but H.R. 4 was later vetoed by President Clinton. This year, the provision was included in S. 1795, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which was signed by President Clinton on August 22, 1996. Because this provision poses a threat to health and safety in New York City and elsewhere, I am today introducing legislation to repeal section 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on Wednesday, September 11, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York City delivered an address at Georgetown University Law School about an obscure provision in the recently passed welfare legislation. The provision, section 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, states: Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States. Mayor Giuliani said it would ``create chaos in New York City.'' I agree with him that this provision is ill-advised and threatens the public health and safety of residents of New York City. It conflicts with a 1985 executive order issued by then-Mayor Edward I. Koch prohibiting city employees from reporting suspected illegal aliens to the INS unless the alien was charged with a crime. That executive order, which is similar to local laws in other States and cities, was intended to ensure that fear of deportation does not deter illegal aliens from seeking emergency medical attention, reporting crimes, and so on. An earlier version of this provision was first introduced in welfare legislation during the 103d Congress as a part of H.R. 3500, the Responsibility and Empowerment Support Program Providing Employment, Child Care, and Training Act, sponsored by Representatives Michel, Gingrich, and Santorum. On September 8, 1995, during Senate consideration of H.R. 4, the Work Opportunity Act of 1995, Senator Santorum, along with Senator Nickles, offered a similar amendment. The amendment was adopted by the Senate by a vote of 91 to 6, but H.R. 4 was later vetoed by President Clinton. This year, the provision was included in S. 1795, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which was signed by President Clinton on August 22, 1996. Because this provision poses a threat to health and safety in New York City and elsewhere, I am today introducing legislation to repeal section 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, under the amendment of my friend from North Dakota, U.S. corporations or individual investors that own 10 percent or more of the stock of a U.S.-controlled foreign corporation would be taxed currently on the foreign corporation's profits when it sells goods back into the United States. Under present law, such profits are not taxed by the United States at the time earned. Instead, taxation is deferred until the foreign corporation's earnings are repatriated, that is, returned to its U.S. shareholders in the form of dividends or gains on the sale of their stock. In many cases, the sole U.S. shareholder of a foreign corporation is the parent corporation. In other cases, several U.S. corporations or investors own the foreign corporation. The premise underlying this proposal is that plants are being moved abroad for tax reasons. While this is a fair topic for examination, I do not believe this has been established with any certainty, and before the current rules are changed it must be. Investment abroad that is not tax driven is good for the United States. It promotes exports and enhances the competitiveness of our companies. The evidence suggests that the decision to locate production abroad primarily depends not on tax considerations, but instead on practical business considerations, such as proximity to raw materials, access to distribution channels, lower wage rates, prospects for growth, regulatory climate and other nontax factors. Taxes are certainly taken into account, but they are not the predominant factor, since the bulk of U.S. direct investment in foreign countries is in countries with effective business tax rates in excess of, or comparable to, the United States. Over 70 percent of assets held by United States-owned foreign manufacturers are held in high-tax jurisdictions, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, and Australia. In contrast, the two low-tax jurisdictions most often cited as having runaway plants--Ireland and Singapore--have only 4.2 percent of the total assets held by United States-owned foreign manufacturers. Furthermore, excluding Canada, only 7.2 percent of total sales by United States-owned foreign manufacturers were to the United States market in 1990, with over 60 percent to local markets and the remainder to other foreign countries. Finally, according to the Departments of Treasury and Commerce, less than 15 percent of total imports from U.S. affiliates came from low-tax countries. Thus, the weight of the evidence indicates that, at most, taxes appear to affect investment decisions only where the investor is relatively indifferent between two locations. Would this amendment be effective in keeping production in the U.S.? It is hard to imagine that it would alter many decisions to locate plants abroad. Those producing goods abroad for the U.S. market would continue to do so for practical reasons, and simply face higher taxes. For example, the proposal would apply to a U.S.-owned company that grows bananas abroad and imports them into the United States, even though there are virtually no producers of bananas in the United States. As a result, the bill would have a negative impact on many businesses that would not be economically viable in the United States, or for which locating production in the United States would be impractical. At the same time, the vast majority of U.S. businesses with foreign subsidiaries would not be greatly affected by the proposal because their foreign operations do not produce for the U.S. market. Over 90 percent of all sales by United States-owned foreign manufacturers located outside of Canada are to foreign markets. From the standpoint of competitiveness, other countries typically do not require their taxpayers to pay tax currently on the earnings from operations conducted abroad by a foreign subsidiary. U.S.-owned businesses must compete against foreign-owned businesses that are located in low-tax jurisdictions and are not taxed currently by their home countries. It is unlikely that many of our major trading partners would respond to enactment of this amendment by imposing current taxation on their companies. Administrability of the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota is also a concern. Under the legislation, U.S. shareholders would be taxed currently not only on the profits from imports into the United States, but on the foreign corporation's income from sales to third parties that import the goods into the United States, if it was reasonable to expect that such property would be imported into the United States, or used as a component in other property which would be imported into the United States. Staff at the Treasury Department and the Joint Committee on Taxation have raised questions about the administrative feasibility of enforcing the provision in the case of foreign corporations selling outside the United States to a third party importer. It would be very difficult for the IRS to identify those sales to third parties triggering taxation because the products are destined for the U.S. market, particularly given that many taxpayers could be expected to restructure their U.S. sales via third parties in an attempt to avoid the provision. Further, the recordkeeping required of taxpayers could be onerous. Finally, this proposal conflicts with the intent of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. Since 1991, the United States has been working toward a legally binding comprehensive investment agreement in the OECD. In May 1995, the OECD Council finally agreed to negotiate a Multilateral Agreement on Investment. The objective of the United States in those talks is to reach agreement that will set high standards for liberalizing investment rules and increasing investment protection. The idea is to make foreign investing safer for U.S. companies because U.S. investment overseas promotes exports and enhances the competitiveness of our companies. Foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies are the primary customers for U.S. exports--over one- fourth of U.S. exports go to them each year. Those exports account for more than 2 million of the 8 million U.S. jobs supported by U.S. exports. The proposal before us goes in exactly the opposite direction of our efforts in the OECD. I am committed to doing everything possible to ensure that the U.S. economy remains strong, that decent jobs are available to those that seek them, and that American workers dislocated by the increasingly global economy are assisted in finding new opportunities. However, I believe the opening of production facilities abroad is often good news, not bad, and that this amendment would not accomplish its stated purpose. I hope we will not act improvidently on this important matter, and I therefore urge that this amendment not be adopted.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 1918, legislation aimed at bringing a modicum of clarity to our trade laws. This bill, cosponsored by all 20 members of the Senate Committee on Finance, would replace the term ``most-favored-nation'' with a more direct, more accurate, less muddled phrase to describe the basis of our trade policy. Since the 18th century, American trade policy has been one of nondiscrimination: the vast majority of our trading partners receive treatment equal to all others. Not most-favored treatment, but normal treatment. And hence, we propose the term ``normal trade relations'' in the hopes that it will lessen the confusion when we discuss trade matters. At the root of the problem is that we continue to use a term that first appeared at the end of the 17th century--``most-favored- nation''--in our treaties and agreements, in our trade laws and executive orders, a term that, even then, was a misnomer. There is, Mr. President, no single most favored nation. As noted in a 1919 report to the Congress by the United States Tariff Commission (known today as the U.S. International Trade Commission): It is neither the purpose nor the effect of the most- favored-nation clause to establish a ``most favored nation;'' on the contrary its use implies the intention that the maximum of advantages which either of the parties to a treaty has extended or shall extend to any third State--for the moment the ``most-favored''--shall be given or be made accessible to the other party.'' That is, the most favored nation is not the nation with which we are negotiating, but rather a third nation altogether that happens to benefit from the lowest tariffs or smallest trade barriers with respect to some particular product. The most-favored-nation principle means merely that we will grant to the country with which we are negotiating the same terms that we give to that third country, for the moment the most favored. Little wonder, then, that the term, though used for more than two centuries, has increasingly caused public confusion. And yet we must have a term to describe our normal trade relations for the simple reason that there is still in law a very unfavorable tariff--that is, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, the last tariff schedule enacted line-by-line by the Congress, producing the highest tariff rates, overall, in our history. In response to the disaster that followed, the Roosevelt administration negotiated a series of trade agreements--agreements with individual countries as well as multilateral agreements negotiated under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. These agreements brought down our tariffs, as they brought down tariffs worldwide. These are the tariffs that we call our most-favored-nation tariff rates, which, in fact, apply to the vast majority of our trading partners. They are thus the norm, and not in any way more favorable than the tariffs that apply to nearly all other countries. Nor are they, in fact, the lowest tariff rates the United States applies. We have free trade arrangements with Canada, Israel, and Mexico. We grant other tariff preferences to developing countries under the Generalized System of Preferences, to Caribbean nations under the Caribbean Basin Initiative and to Andean countries under the Andean Trade Preferences Act. The tariff rates under all of these regimes are lower than the most-favored-nation rates referred to in our laws and treaties. Hence the confusion, and hence the need to change the terminology to clarify that our most-favored-nation tariff rates represent, in fact, our normal trade relations. Mr. President, this legislation in no way intends to alter our fundamental international obligations. The term ``most-favored-nation'' has a long history of application and interpretation, and that will stand. This legislation is not intended as a substantive change in our trade policy. Rather, it is intended only as a change in nomenclature with the sole purpose of making our trade policy more comprehensible. Mr. President, it is rare that legislation before the Senate has the cosponsorship of the entire membership of the committee of jurisdiction. That is the case with S. 1918, which strikes a bipartisan blow for clarity in our trade laws.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2056, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. It has been noted on the floor that we are in an honorable succession here, from legislation that has very much defined this period in American national life. We begin with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in which the prohibition against discrimination based on color was extended to include discrimination based on sex. That was part of the calculation of opponents of the legislation. In the end, both prevailed, with large consequences to our society. I should think each of us, or almost all of us in the Senate, have been to one or the other of the national conventions of our parties, and have seen an extraordinary range of persons, men and women, black and white, Hispanic and thus-and-so. I do not know how many would recall how strikingly different this would have been, say 40 years ago, when I had the opportunity to be part of the Democratic Convention in the city of Chicago. Seeing photographs and films of it today, you see a different world. It has been changed, and for the better, and agreeably, by legislation enacted on this Senate floor. The time to extend the prohibition against discrimination based on sexual preference, as the usage is, is surely at hand. For my part, I introduced legislation that would address this matter in terms of employment in 1979. Then, in 1985, this legislation was first introduced. I was a cosponsor. It could scarcely have been said to come about precipitously. It is 11 years, if you like; 17 years, if you prefer, that we have been discussing it. The simple proposition before us is that no person should be denied civil rights because of his or her affectional or sexual orientation. Federal guarantees against discriminatory practices in employment, housing, public accommodations, and federally funded programs should extend to all citizens. At least, that is how I read the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, and the right to privacy implied in the 4th and 5th amendments. The legislation does not condone any particular course of conduct. It simply affords all American citizens equal protection under the law. It is narrowly drafted to prevent an explosion of litigation. The bill would not apply to the U.S. Armed Forces or to religious organizations. The bill would not affect marriage, adoption, or child custody laws, all of which are determined individually by the States. And the legislation makes clear that preferential treatment and quotas are prohibited, and that no claims will be permitted based upon underrepresentation in a particular work force. That randomness is to be expected in our society and encouraged, in the sense that people seek what they feel to be the best outlet for their opportunities. It is discrimination that we oppose, which we have legislated against for a generation now. And, as we look about us, we look at the consequences: a degree of acceptance such that you would never know the resistance of a generation ago. You would never know how fierce the opposition was to that which we could not imagine doing without today. I think this will be the case with the legislation before us. I am proud to cosponsor it.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on the 31st of July, I took the liberty of writing to the President concerning a problem that could have extreme negative economic consequences in the year 2000 when we will have to make the transition of computers from the 20th to the 21st century. This is a matter that will necessarily concern the Congress. I ask unanimous consent that my letter to the President and a summary of an accompanying report by Richard M. Nunno be printed in the Record at this point. Cost considerations prevent having the entire report printed in the Record. The report can be obtained from the Congressional Research Service.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Missouri and the distinguished Senator from Maryland about funding for the Onondaga Lake Management Conference. As they both know, the conference was authorized in 1990 to develop a plan for the cleanup of Onondaga Lake, the most polluted lake in the country. The commission is composed of the State and local officials involved in the cleanup effort, as well as representatives from the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA. In addition to the ongoing planning effort, the Commission helps support pilot programs to restore plants and fish to the lake, demonstration projects to measure oxygenation of the lake, remediation projects to address combined sewer overflow problems, and other important initiatives. Ongoing funding is necessary to complete the work of the conference, including these projects. I ask my colleagues to consider an allocation of $500,000 for the management conference when this bill goes to conference.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. The New York Botanical Garden is in need of a new laboratory in which it will train graduate students and visiting scientists from this country and abroad. Their work is most important to the Garden's many efforts, but especially to the economic botany program. Senator D'Amato and I ask that when this bill goes to conference, the chairman and ranking member look for an opportunity to provide a $50,000 planning grant so that the New York Botanical Garden can begin the process of building a new laboratory.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter to Senator Bond be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy about the New York Botanical Garden with the distinguished Senator from Missouri and the distinguished Senator from Maryland. The New York Botanical Garden has the largest collection of plant specimens in the hemisphere, some 5 million including those collected by Lewis and Clarke. These are available to virtually any institution or researcher at no charge. The Department of Agriculture is the most frequent borrower.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, we understand that the subcommittee is working under considerable budget pressures. But given the importance of this project to our respective States, we would ask that you make a concerted effort in conference to provide funding to keep this office moving forward. We are seeking an appropriation of $975,000 to cover the LISO's operating expenses and to expand its efforts to provide grants to State and local partnerships involved in the cleanup. But at a minimum, we would request that the conferees maintain support for the office at the current level of $650,000. We thank the chairman and the subcommittee's ranking member, Senator Mikulski, for consideration of this matter.