Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in support of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This bill represents a bipartisan effort which couples protection of public health and welfare with the flexibility necessary for cost-effective implementation. The bill contains a number of provisions that are of particular interest to New York State. The components of the bill which provide for watershed protection directly impact the 9 million residents of New York City who rely on the Croton, Catskill, and Delaware watersheds to provide approximately 1.4 billion gallons of water each day. The State of New York recently announced the establishment of a partnership between New York City and the communities located within the watershed region. This agreement will effectively limit contamination of the water supply, preventing the need for a multibillion-dollar water filtration facility. The bill would authorize up to $15 million per year for 7 years to help fund the implementation and assessment of demonstration projects as part of the New York City Water Protection Program. Thus, the bill supports New York State's efforts to achieve prudent, cost-effective protection of the quality of New York City's drinking water. A second provision will provide long-term benefits for the Great Lakes region by establishing a program to test chemical pollutants believed to cause so-called estrogenic effects in human populations. These effects may result in a variety of cancers--especially breast cancer--in addition to affecting the human reproductive system adversely. Pollutants which may be associated with these effects are known to accumulate in bodies of water and are pervasive in the Great Lakes System. The testing program sponsored by this provision will incorporate quality science and peer-review to allow the Administrator of EPA to identify such substances and take effective action to prevent human exposure. Unfortunately, despite Senator Chafee's valiant efforts today, it has become necessary to eliminate section 28 of the bill which, was reported unanimously out of committee. This section would have required the EPA Administrator to compare and rank various sources of pollution with respect to their relative degree of risk to human health and the environment, and evaluate the costs and benefits of existing regulations. I believe this analysis, which would have been included in a peer-reviewed report to the Congress, would have provided us with information critical to enhancing the effectiveness of the Nation's environmental programs. I would point out that the requirement to conduct cost-benefit analyses and to evaluate the effectiveness of environmental legislation was first incorporated in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. I felt it was very important when passing the acid rain provisions of the Clean Air Act to evaluate their effectiveness, and requirements to conduct such an evaluation were incorporated in that law. In any case, because of the importance of safe drinking water legislation, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Safe Drinking Water Act. I extend my sincere gratitude to Senator Chafee for his support of future consideration of the issue by the Environment and Public Works committee. I intend to work with him and other interested Members to secure passage of a bill authorizing these important studies. I have introduced legislation to achieve this end in the past three Congresses, and I look forward to the upcoming hearings on the measure. Estrogenic Screening Program

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Certainly.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. The amendment is silent on exactly what additional studies to require after the screening study because we want to benefit from the screening results and from EPA's guidance before deciding what, if anything, to do next. The determination about how much science is needed before making a regulatory decision is a policy call. There will never be enough information to unambiguously answer every question about environmental safety. When the EPA makes its report to Congress it would be appropriate to examine just how much science is recommended by EPA to resolve this issue, how much additional research or action beyond that initiated by EPA would cost, and how much Congress thinks is appropriate to pay.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Obviously, that depends on the outcome of the screening program. If only a few substances screen positive, the followup might include conducting more detailed tests on each substance that tests positive; if a number are positive, however, priorities must be set to identify those chemicals of greatest concern for which dose-response relationships are needed. Though we may wish it were not so, we simply cannot do everything at once. The criteria for setting priorities may well be to select those chemicals found most often in the environment and in the highest concentrations, those that are most active or that bioaccumulate, those for which there are testable hypotheses for action, and those which are representative of specific categories of chemicals. The goal is to develop plausible biologically-based risk-assessment models for use by EPA and others to inform their risk management decisions.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes, certainly. It is because we are just coming to learn that certain environmental pollutants mimic naturally occurring hormones and that they may contribute to breast cancer, reproductive failure, and other diseases. There is no consensus about the magnitude and nature of the problem, and so it will be controversial, with those on opposite sides of the issue voicing strong opinions. It is our intent that EPA be as responsible and credible as it can be. This means that the Administrator should work with expert scientists from government, academia, industry, and the public health sector to select criteria for what constitutes a validated test, to select the set of validated tests to be used, and to design the protocols for study. She may wish to engage organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences or other appropriate independent scientific organizations for assistance. Similarly, when the study is completed, the report to Congress required under subsection g(7) should reflect guidance from the scientific community, summarizing the findings of the screening study, and recommending followup actions, as necessary.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Given the concerns that reproductive effects in wildlife may be linked to endocrine disruption, some are concerned that the amendment is too limited because it focuses on human breast cancer. Does the amendment take a position on this issue?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. The screening study will identify certain pesticide ingredients that mimic estrogens and perhaps other hormones. Consequently, people will be concerned, some very concerned, about their health. It is important to be realistic, honest and responsible throughout the design and conduct of this study so that we do not create undue apprehension, but it is also important to inform the public and to take action where significant hazards are identified.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Senator raises an extremely important issue--how best to determine whether pesticides, a widespread class of environmental chemicals, pose a potential risk without creating unwarranted public concern. An important part of this process should be a risk communication strategy to identify the likely outcomes, and to keep the public informed and aware of the purpose of the study, including its strengths and limitations. It is important not to over promise and raise false expectations. Turning to another issue, could the Senator elaborate on what is intended by the exemption described in subsection g(4)?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I have heard concerns raised about other endocrine and immune system impairments too. Does the discretion provided the Administrator under this amendment extend to health effects other than breast cancer?

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, just prior to the Thanksgiving recess, the Republican conferees for the budget reconciliation bill agreed to a 7-year deficit reduction plan that included a tax cut purporting to cost $245 billion. The Democratic conferees were excluded from all deliberations of the conference. I have previously expressed my concern about tax cuts of this magnitude in the face of annual deficits and the accumulated national debt. The conference agreement falls far short of paying for these cuts--the tax cuts will cause the cumulative deficit to increase over the next 7 years by $200 billion more than it would without them. We will be forced to borrow to pay for them. When one considers the fact that elsewhere in the Republican budget agreement taxes are being raised on families making $30,000 or less, we see that there is very curious social policy being advanced as well. Today, however, I would like to focus on another troubling aspect of these tax cuts. The true cost of the cuts explodes once you get beyond the initial 7 years that are counted for estimation purposes. The cost of several of the tax cuts doubles or triples when you include the 8th, 9th and 10th years, as compared to the first 7. This is no accident. The tax cut provisions are deliberately crafted so that their true costs do not begin to show up until after the initial 7 years. That way, they do not show up in the 7-year plan to balance the budget. [[Page S 17523]] The magnitude of the out year costs can be found in figures provided to me by the Joint Committee on Taxation, dated November 16, 1995. When the majority released their conference agreement on the deficit reduction bill, they provided revenue tables that covered only the first 7 years. I asked the Joint Tax Committee staff to provide figures showing the revenue effect of the tax cuts for an additional 3 years beyond what had previously been disclosed. That is, for the first 10 years after enactment. What is shown on these 10-year revenue estimates is astonishing. The analysis provided by the Joint Tax Committee shows that the total cost of the tax cuts starts out at $245 billion over the first 7 years, but then in the short span of the next 3 years another $171 billion is added. The average annual revenue loss is about $35 billion over the first 7 years, but rises to an average of $57 billion per year for the 3 years after 2002. Three provisions, in particular, stand out. First, the cost of the capital gains cuts for individuals more than doubles over 10 years, as compared to the cost for the first 7 years--from $28.8 billion to $70 billion. Second, the expansion of individual retirement accounts [IRA's] in the bill costs $11.8 billion over 7 years, but nearly triples to $32.5 billion when you include the 3 years after 2002. Third, the cost of reductions in the estate tax more than doubles from $12.3 billion over 7 years to $25.5 billion over 10 years. Other provisions that show rapid out year growth include the reduction in the marriage penalty on couples filing joint returns and the expansion of the self-employed health insurance deduction. In part, the explosion in the long-term revenue costs of these tax cuts results from the attempt to hide their true impact, by drafting them so that they do not take full effect until after the 7-year budget window is closed. Possibly the most egregious example is the provision that permits indexing of capital assets. Under this provision, taxpayers can exclude from their taxable income capital gains on qualifying assets resulting from inflation after calendar year 2000. To qualify, an asset generally must be purchased after 2000 and be held for over 3 years. Thus, the revenue cost of indexing does not show up until 2004 and thereafter, that is, conveniently outside the 7-year budget window. The indexing provision, however, would permit taxpayers to treat assets purchased prior to 2000 as newly purchased assets eligible for indexing if they elect to pay taxes on the appreciation in the assets at the time of the election. This results in a speedup of tax revenues, allowing the Republicans to score about $10 billion of accelerated tax revenues inside the last 2 years of the budget window. The 10-year revenue numbers evince an effort by the right to starve the beast--that is, to cut off funding for the Federal Government. The extreme growth in revenue loss outside the budget window is ominous because the spending reductions in the bill are far from certain to occur. A recent Washington Post editorial entitled ``Time Bomb in the Budget'' states: . . . the deeper the ultimate tax cuts in the plan, the deeper the spending cuts must also be to keep up. And some of these spending cuts are too deep to sustain. The focus in the fight thus far has almost all been on what would happen in the first 7 years of this plan. That's fine, but it makes no sense to solve a problem in that period only to begin to create it all over again immediately thereafter. Mr. Moynihan's 10-year chart is a useful warning. The government shouldn't be mortgaging its future by cutting taxes that in the long run it will need to fulfill its basic responsibilities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of this editorial be printed in the Record, along with another article on this topic from the Washington Post, dated November 23, 1995.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, of the many commemorative ceremonies held on Veterans Day, November 11, one event had particular significance for the Honorable Hugh L. Carey, the former Governor of the State of New York, and for his family and many friends. More than 50 years ago, Hugh Carey, then a young officer with the ``Timberwolves'' of the 104th Infantry Division, United States Army, led a patrol near the Elbe River in Germany. The patrol encountered an encampment of German soldiers who, unaware that Germany had surrendered several days earlier, were holding a large number of French prisoners. A fight broke out, and the Germans were overtaken by the American patrol. This capture by the American soldiers led to the discovery of some 35,000 French prisoners, who were then freed by the Allies. For his extraordinary valor in this mission, Hugh Carey was awarded the Croix de Guerre with Silver Star, one of France's most esteemed military decorations. Yet, owing to the unpredictabilities of war, he was unable to attend the presentation ceremony for the Croix de Guerre. Time passed, and Hugh L. Carey continued his service to his country. He was ultimately discharged from active duty with the rank of colonel, and went on to serve as a Member of the House of Representatives and as Governor of New York, raising 14 children with his late wife Helen along the way. Last Saturday, in a special ceremony at Dacor Bacon House here in Washington, Governor Carey finally got that medal. He was presented the Croix de Guerre with Silver Star by Brig. Gen. Gerard de Bastier on behalf of the Republic of France. The decoration was given in recognition of Governor Carey's ``outstanding services during the operations of the liberation of France.'' Earlier that day, Governor Carey joined President Clinton at the dedication of the site for the World War II Memorial at The Rainbow Pool on The Mall. As vice chairman of the American Battle Monuments Commission, Governor Carey pursued the establishment of this memorial with his usual vigor and unbounded enthusiasm. His commitment to the project has been such that at one point he even telephoned this Senator about it from his [[Page S 17522]] bed at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, where he was recuperating from back surgery. He later remarked to the New York Times that his back condition was due to carrying an infantryman's rifle during World War II and the weight of the state budget on his back for two terms as Governor. So it was fitting indeed that on the same day that Governor Carey's efforts to honor veterans of the Second World War reached fruition, a grateful ally took the occasion to honor him. Mr. President, I salute my gallant friend Gov. Hugh Carey on this great and richly deserved honor, and I ask unanimous consent that the tribute by Brig. Gen. Gerard de Bastier and other material be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I submit a concurrent resolution expressing the thanks and good wishes of the American people to the Honorable George M. White, FAIA, on the occasion of his retirement as the Architect of the Capitol on November 21, 1995, [[Page S 17504]] after nearly a quarter-century of service to the Nation. It is not widely known, and as is the case with active men, soon overshadowed by yet larger accomplishments, but within a few short months of his appointment as Architect of the Capitol in January 1971, George Malcolm White did something which had long eluded Nixon and was even beyond the grasp of the second Roosevelt. He reshaped the High Court. With a few strokes of the pen, he changed the shape of the Supreme Court bench from straight to slightly angled toward the ends and back at the middle. Chief Justice Warren Berger assembled the Associate Justices and explained, ``When it comes to architecture, by law, the Supreme Court will obey this man.'' And the Court has been the better for it. That George White should instantly command such respect as Architect came as no surprise to me; after all, I had recommended him to the office. Since Washington's time and until 1989, the Architect was simply picked by the President and presented to the Congress. No advice and consent involved. I was domestic counselor to President Nixon when on May 24, 1970, word came that the previous Architect, former Congressman and former contractor J. George Stewart, had died in office. President Nixon asked me to find him a successor. I suggested that this time we pick an architect. The result was George Malcolm White, the ninth architect of the Capitol. And 25 years later, the Capitol has never looked better. I am aware that the Capitol as we know it is a felicitous accretion of separate elements. Some would reason from that, apparently, that each succeeding generation may add to the building at its pleasure. But the various pieces that now comprise this magnificent composition were all designed in the course of one-half century's work by a string of extraodinary minds, both Architects and Presidents. If the tone of architectural debate has been lowered since the day Jefferson and Latrobe locked horns over whether the column capitals in the House Chamber should be modeled after those in the Theater of Marcellus in Rome or the Choragic Monument to Lysicrates in Athens--Latrobe won; choragic it was--it is a failing purely on the part of the modern-day Executive. George White has upheld the tradition of the early Architects of the Capitol. Like them, he is a polymath. He holds degrees in engineering, in business administration, and in law as well as in architecture. He is registered in and has practiced these as well. Unlike Thornton, he is not a medical doctor, but that can be excused. Beginning in 1988, I had the pleasure of chairing the Judiciary Office Building Commission, a body which was careful to stay out of George White's way as he used his master-planning skills to propose, his legal skills to enact, his business skills to finance, and his architectural and engineering skills to design and construct what is generally considered the best new Government building in a generation, the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building at One Columbus Circle. While the Capitol grounds and several of the buildings in the Capitol complex bear his stamp, George White has made the Capitol itself the focus of his life's work. He added balance and proportion where he found it lacking and improved what was existing when it needed his care. Who else could recognize stone shock in the west front and repair it to a state better than before the British arrived? From the foundations of the east steps of the House, to the Minton tiles on the floor, to the murals and frescoes on the walls--indeed, to the crown of the Statue of Freedom atop the dome which he climbed and made new with great panache and little regard for his own safety--nothing has escaped his hand, and all is better than he found it. The Capitol was built as an expression of our beliefs. It was not an efflorescence of elite aestheticism; it was and remains the bone and muscle of our democracy. More than we care to realize, what we build, destroy, or preserve tells future generations the sort of people we are. Next to the social edifice of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, the Capitol may be the most important legacy we leave behind. For nearly a quarter-century as Architect of the Capitol, George White has given his very fiber to preserving and improving that legacy, and we are thankful for it. Mr. President, this is a resolution to recognize and commend the Architect of the Capitol, the Honorable George M. White, FAIA, for his outstanding service to the Nation, and to tender to him the thanks and good wishes of the American people on the occasion of his retirement.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I offer legislation with my esteemed colleague Senator D'Amato that would allow the Secretary of the Interior to acquire a parcel of land on Long Island known as Shadmoor. The land would be added to the Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge. Shadmoor supports one of the largest populations of New York State's most endangered plant, the sandplain gerardia. The gerardia lives in only 12 places in the world, 6 of which are on Long Island. The privately owned land was targeted by the Fish and Wildlife Service for acquisition in 1991, but no money has been available. Meanwhile, the possibility of development on the parcel has increased dramatically. New York has received little of the already scarce Federal money for the acquisition of land to protect endangered plants. This is clearly an opportunity to begin to rectify that. Shadmoor has other significance. It contains six other rare plants. It has bunkers built during World War II. The dramatic coastline has 70-foot cliffs eroded by wind and surf. In all, it would be a tremendous addition to the Amagansett Refuge. Mr. President, the sandplain gerardia is a part of our natural heritage that could easily disappear forever. This is our chance to preserve one of its last strongholds. I ask my colleagues to support this authorization. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I offer legislation with my esteemed colleague Senator D'Amato that would allow the Secretary of the Interior to acquire a parcel of land on Long Island known as Shadmoor. The land would be added to the Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge. Shadmoor supports one of the largest populations of New York State's most endangered plant, the sandplain gerardia. The gerardia lives in only 12 places in the world, 6 of which are on Long Island. The privately owned land was targeted by the Fish and Wildlife Service for acquisition in 1991, but no money has been available. Meanwhile, the possibility of development on the parcel has increased dramatically. New York has received little of the already scarce Federal money for the acquisition of land to protect endangered plants. This is clearly an opportunity to begin to rectify that. Shadmoor has other significance. It contains six other rare plants. It has bunkers built during World War II. The dramatic coastline has 70-foot cliffs eroded by wind and surf. In all, it would be a tremendous addition to the Amagansett Refuge. Mr. President, the sandplain gerardia is a part of our natural heritage that could easily disappear forever. This is our chance to preserve one of its last strongholds. I ask my colleagues to support this authorization. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on October 25, 1995, the Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, spoke in the Capitol Rotunda at a ceremony commemorating the 3,000th anniversary of the founding of the City of Jerusalem by David. I had the honor to introduce him. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my remarks on that occasion.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, twelve days later, I, along with many Senate and House colleagues, stood by his casket, first at the Knesset, later on Mount Herzl where he was buried. It was an experience none of us will forget. No one has captured the moment and the momentous consequences better than Mortimer B. Zuckerman, who [[Page S 17180]] was there also. I ask unanimous consent that his reflections, ``The Light of a Fierce Fire,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on Thursday, November 9, 1995, the Office of Management and Budget released a study requested on October 24 by the Senator from New York and 11 other members of the conference committee on the welfare legislation. The OMB study concludes that the Senate welfare bill would push 1.2 million children into poverty, while the House bill would force 2.1 million children into poverty. Also on November 9, the Department of Health and Human Services released a separate report containing data on the number of children who would be cut off from welfare benefits as a result of the time limits in both bills. Under the 5-year time limit required by the House welfare bill, 4.3 million children would become ineligible for Federal benefits by the time of full implementation. The Senate bill would cut off 3.3 million children. Mr. President, I ask that excerpts from both studies be printed in the Congressional Record. The excerpts follow:

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, to conclude the discussion on this succinct and, I hope persuasive proposal, I plead with my fellow Senators to understand what my friend of so many years, the chairman of the Budget Committee, has just said. The President will veto this measure. He has to do it for the reasons set forth by the Senator from Ohio about regulatory reform, the repeal of habeas corpus, a horrendous measure, and so on. He will veto it, and then we will have a crisis and put in jeopardy the credit worthiness of the United States. The great asset that Alexander Hamilton secured for us in the end of the 18th century will have been squandered for no purpose whatever. Can we not simply get on with our reconciliation bill, work out these issues there instead of on the debt ceiling? Or do we need a crisis in mid-week? Surely, Madam President, we do not. I plead with the Senate, do not create a crisis. Let us govern as the orderly body that we have been for two centuries. It is far beyond the realm of the imagination what we might do. I understand the yeas and nays have been ordered.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, almost as an aside but a serious one, I note that a part of the provision that we are about to strike would combine the Bureau of the Census with the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And as the Senator from South Carolina knows, in article I, section 2 of the Constitution, we provide for a decennial census and that has been our great strength and source of data for this country. But there has come a time when consolidating makes sense. The Canadians have done this, with Statistics Canada, at considerable success, something I think in time we ought to do. I simply make that observation. I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I also ask unanimous consent that an excerpt from a report by the Congressional Budget Office stating that the debt ceiling is an extraneous issue as regards Federal spending in a day when entitlement spending comprises two-thirds of our outlays, be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time to our gallant and distinguished sometime [[Page S 16910]] chairman of the Committee on Government Operations, the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, I ask that the measure be read in its entirety to define and illustrate its brevity and its purpose, which is to send to the President a clean extension of the debt ceiling. There can be no question in my mind that we put in jeopardy the interests of the United States if we restrict the ability of the Treasury to redeem its debts. One of the greatest assets we have is that the U.S. Treasury bond is the firmest, most solid debt instrument in the world. I have a letter from Alan Greenspan, our distinguished, revered Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, saying, ``Our word is among our most valuable assets.'' It is essential that we honor our obligations in order to make our securities the keystone of world financial affairs. I ask unanimous consent that Chairman Greenspan's letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to lament the fact that House Joint Resolution 115 contains a provision to provide for the ``orderly termination'' of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations [ACIR]. This is most regrettable, and ought not to go unnoticed. The ACIR was created by Congress in 1959--during the Eisenhower administration--``to monitor the operation of the American federal system and to recommend improvements.'' The commission is independent and bipartisan. Over 30 years ago, under Dr. Alice Rivlin, it commenced ground-breaking research on alternative measures of fiscal capacity. It measures tax effort and representative expenditures and a host of other topics that may appear arcane, but are of enormous importance when it comes to governance. Few people are even aware of the ACIR because it goes about its business quietly, professionally, and dispassionately. Earlier this year, Mr. President, Congress passed the unfunded mandates bill--Public Law 104-4. That bill generated considerable discussion about our Federal system and the proper roles of and relationships between the various levels of government. At that time, the Commission's unique expertise on such questions was recognized, and Congress delegated much work regarding unfunded mandates to it. The Commission estimated it would need about $1 million over and above its fiscal year 1995 appropriation of $1 million to perform the unfunded mandates work and continue equally valuable ongoing research and projects. Earlier this year, the House Treasury-Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 2020) zeroed out funding for the Commission. The Senate bill provided $334,000 for the Commission, but stipulated that no further Federal funds would be made available. This seems to me a good example of an unfunded mandate. But no matter. The ACIR is prepared to continue its operations without Federal funding. I do not know how, but I leave it to them. When conferees met on the Treasury-Postal bill, however, language was inserted that would give ACIR a small appropriation to terminate its operations by April of 1996. Senate Joint Resolution 115 also provides a minimum amount of funding ``necessary to accomplish orderly termination'' of the Commission. Both the Commission and the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] are concerned that termination is something altogether different from simply not providing Federal funding. I deeply regret the action of the Treasury-Postal conferees, and I deeply regret that it has carried over to the continuing resolution. Is it necessary to terminate an organization that has indicated it can survive, somehow, without Federal funds? Mr. President, the first principle of public affairs is that you never do anything about a problem until you learn to measure it. I would add a corollary: if your purpose is not to address problems through government, you will put an end to attempts to measure them. I wonder if that is what is at work here. Surely, we are not going to balance the budget by eliminating the ACIR. What is this all about? I remember back in December 1981, Edwin Harper, then deputy director of the OMB, issued a memorandum which stated: As a result of recent evaluations of certain reporting requirements, it has been decided to discontinue the compilation and publication of the ``Geographic Distribution of Federal Funds,'' effective immediately. Data should not be submitted for fiscal year 1981. The purpose of that directive was to make it more difficult to quantify the balance of payments between the States and the Federal Government. Beginning in 1968, the Community Services Administration began to publish annual reports, known as the Geographic Distribution of Federal Funds series, in which expenditures of various Federal programs were broken down by State, and thereafter by counties and towns. It is worth noting that the Community Services Administration was the successor to the Office of Economic Opportunity, the organization established in 1965 to carry out President Johnson's ``War on Poverty.'' As a member of the President's task force that drew up that legislation, I had been much concerned with the question of regional balance in Federal expenditures and, in 1965, made what I believe [[Page S 16933]] was the first formal statement calling attention to the loss of industrial jobs in New York. The idea of measuring these matters was an aspect of the poverty program, and it was pleasing to find that our intentions had not been lost on those who followed. Unfortunately, the task was not done with sufficient vigor. Various Government agencies were simply asked where their money went, and the matter was left at that. Because New York is the banking center of the world, huge amounts of Federal moneys are deposited there, although they are actually in transit elsewhere. No matter: vast sums of foreign aid, payments by the Commodity Credit Corporation, and similar transfers were being recorded as Federal outlays in New York. As you may know, Mr. President, each year that I have been in the Senate I have issued a report I call the ``Fisc'' which measures the balance of payments between New York and the Federal Government. You can imagine my surprise--back when the finances not only of New York City, but of the State, as well, were shaky--that the data, such as they were, suggested that New York ran a balance of payments surplus. Well, we discovered a phantom $14 billion in Federal outlays nominally attributed to New York. When these sums were subtracted from the total, we discovered a large and unmistakably serious deficit in New York's balance of payments. A deficit that persists to this day. We got to the point where we had tidied up the data. It took some doing. Looking back, if a general judgment may be offered of the period, the Community Services Administration was interested and helpful. The Treasury Department, on the other hand, was aloof and impervious--equally to reason or change. In the end, we turned to the Tax Foundation, a private organization, as our source for data on tax payments, inasmuch as the Treasury Department refused to tell us then-- and still will not tell us--where it gets its money. And then the new administration came and decided to discontinue the Geographic Distribution of Federal Funds series. It was stopped in order to conceal trends and mute argument. We protested, and we enacted Public Law 97-326, the Consolidated Federal Funds Report Act of 1982, which directed the Census Bureau to track allocable Federal expenditures. The Census Bureau does a marvelous job. Its Consolidated Federal Funds Report and Federal Expenditures by State report are available on CD-ROM now, containing 10 years' worth of data. It's marvelous. Mr. President, the ACIR does important, if largely unheralded, work. And we stand on the brink of terminating it. This is a mistake which we will regret. I realize the provision is identical to the conferees' agreement on the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. But that bill is an unresolved matter. Neither the House nor the Senate has approved the conference report, and even if we were to do that, there is no guarantee the administration would sign it. There is a chance, albeit slim, to correct the mistake. Mr. President, getting back to my first principle of public affairs, Lord Kelvin stated it best: When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind: it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science. Mr. President, without the ACIR, our knowledge of important matters will never be anything more than meager. The action we are about to take will harm our capacity to govern effectively.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution was passed.