Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Republicans' revenue recommendations contain a slew of tax breaks for businesses that do not belong in a deficit reduction bill. One of the most egregious of these special tax breaks is a provision on corporate pension transfers that would allow employers to take billions of dollars in excess assets from pension plans to the extent of their costs for other employee benefits--such as health care for active employees--without paying the current-law excise tax. The proposal opens the door for up to $47 billion to be removed from the pension system, thereby endangering workers' retirement security and increasing the risk to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation [PBGC] and U.S. taxpayers. The Republicans have included this provision among a small group of so-called corporate welfare reforms that raise revenue through restrictions on tax rules under which the affected companies currently operate. The pension transfer proposal, however, is hardly a reform; rather, it is a conspicuous corporate welfare program of its own. The proposal merely frees workers' pension funds to be used for general corporate purposes, such as executive bonuses or extra shareholder dividends. Earlier this year, the Finance Committee devoted several weeks to hearings on how to increase our Nation's savings rate. We found that the savings rate is terribly low, and that the high rate of consumption was hurting the economy. Yet, the Finance Committee has now recommended to the Senate a provision that both weakens the retirement security of employees and removes assets from a key source of savings--employees' pension funds. Despite Republican assertions to the contrary, the proposal poses a serious threat to the security of the affected pension plans. First, the pension transfer proposal generally would measure excess assets using a standard that is easily manipulated and thus, I believe, inappropriate for this purpose. Under the provision, a pension plan would be considered to have excess assets, eligible to be withdrawn, to the extent its assets exceed 125 percent of the plan's current liability. Under this standard, the employer is free to use a range of interest rate and mortality assumptions, and need not account for the effect of early retirement or contingent events such as plant shutdowns. Thus, an employer can choose favorable actuarial assumptions to minimize the plan's liabilities and maximize the excess assets it is entitled to withdraw from the retirement plan under the proposal. Consequently, the cushion provided by the proposal cannot ensure that adequate funds remain to fulfill the amount of the employees' accrued benefits. The laxity of this standard is demonstrated in PBGC's analysis of several large plans. PBGC's analysis of 10 large plans revealed that a transfer in accordance with the provision in the bill could leave those plans with less than 90 percent of the funds needed to pay benefits on termination. PBGC would be expected to pay the difference, up to the guaranteed level. Moreover, the current liability standard is highly susceptible to shifts in the stock or bond market. The stock market is currently at an all-time high; any subsequent drop in the market could have a significant adverse effect on a plan's asset values, thereby causing a plan that currently has excess assets under the proposal to become underfunded. Thus, a more substantial cushion is necessary than that provided by the proposal to protect against future market shifts. The Republicans note that the standard used in this proposal is the same standard enacted for pension transfers for retiree health benefits in the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act [GATT]. However, the two provisions are vastly different in scope. The potential transfers allowable under this proposal would dwarf the amount of transfers allowable for use in meeting retiree health costs under GATT. Care was also taken in GATT--unlike in the Republican proposal--to create a protective firewall that is, a maintenance of effort requirement. Thus, the proposal will increase considerably the risk of loss to the PBGC. Finally, by exempting employers from the current law excise tax, the proposal encourages employers to use pension plans as tax-sheltered corporate piggy banks. Under current law, if an employer terminates its plan and takes a reversion, an excise tax of 50 percent of the reversion applies. One purpose of the excise tax is to recapture the tax benefit the employer enjoys from earnings that have grown tax-free on the contributions to the pension plan. In 1990, GAO found that an excise tax of between 17 percent and 59 percent was necessary-- depending on the plan population and the underlying investments--for the Federal Government to recapture the tax benefit to employers when assets in a pension plan are withdrawn by the employer. In addition, the proposal removes the deterrent effect of the excise tax on plan terminations: An employer can first take the excess assets and subsequently terminate the plan, thus avoiding the excise tax because there would be no additional assets left to revert to the employer as a result of the termination. Yet, employers under the committee's proposal are exempted from the excise tax, and are merely required to include the amount taken into income. Any company with a net operating loss carryover can offset the income from the pension transfer with its accumulated net operating losses. Thus, the tax paid by employers on a reversion under this proposal could be zero. Moreover, under this proposal, an employer can easily terminate its plan after draining it of excess assets, thus avoiding the termination excise tax altogether. Senate Republicans argue that the use of the pension transfers under the proposal is restricted to meeting the costs of other qualified employee benefits--primarily health benefits for active employees. Make no mistake: This requirement is merely cosmetic. The proposal allows employees' pensions to be siphoned off for general corporate use. Nearly all employers who would take advantage of this proposal already provide health benefits to their employees. Thus, using these excess assets for existing health benefits merely frees up funds they would have spent anyway, to be used in turn for executive bonuses, extra shareholder dividends, or the like. In light of all these defects, I believe the proposal is fundamentally flawed as a matter of retirement and tax policy, and strongly urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I wish to congratulate the chairman of the Finance Committee on a very thoughtful and deeply felt exposition of his views. They are not entirely shared on this side, but they are, nonetheless, admired for the grace in which he has presented them.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I make the suggestion that morning business be continued to 1:30 and that the time be equally divided?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Of course. Could we then extend morning business until 1:30?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period of morning business be extended until 1:30 and that the time be equally divided. I believe it is the desire of the majority that the speakers alternate, if that is convenient.

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

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Chair for its courtesy, and I hope I will have the attention of my friends on the other side of the aisle. It is not too late to do the right thing. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield myself the balance of the opening Democratic time. I had hoped to speak in response to my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee. He is unavoidably detained. So I will go ahead as if in rebuttal. But first to continue the exchange I was having with the Senator from Colorado, there are those on this side of the aisle who are deeply offended by the continuing deficits which have increasingly produced stalemate in our Government. This sequence began in the late 1970's, early 1980's, and there was an idea behind it--the idea was that, if you wanted to paralyze the Federal Government you simply put it into a paralyzing debt by the reduction of revenues and simultaneously increasing spending on defense and such matters. Indeed, that happened. We forecast it. We tracked it. And we are here today to say that it is the case. Just a few years ago in a wonderful book ``The Deficit and the Public Interest,'' Joseph White, and the late revered Aaron Wildavsky, said: ``Strife over the deficit has affected procedure as well as policy, monopolizing the congressional agenda, encouraging paralyzing and deceptive legislation like Gramm-Rudman, frustrating our public officials, and stalemating the Government.'' As regards deceptive legislation, Mr. President, I have to place this present proposal in that category. We are not balancing the budget. We are adding $700 billion to the debt in the next 7 years. One of the ways we are doing it is, while talking about the deficit, while talking about the debt, we are going to cut taxes. Well, no. No, Mr. President. I correct myself. I correct myself. We are going to raise taxes on half the population, and cut taxes on the other half. Mr. President, here is a table from data produced by the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is an authoritative, intermittently nonpartisan, body which calculates the effects of tax measures taken by the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Finance. In the course of our markup, as we say, voting out the tax bill, I requested that the Joint Committee give us the distribution of the $245 billion tax cut, and they did, including the reductions in the earned income tax credit which are tax increases, in my view. If you have to pay more tax, you have had a tax increase. Sir, here is the data: 51 percent of American taxpayers will have a tax increase; 49 percent will have a tax decrease. How we can do this, and then talk about fiscal responsibility eludes this Senator. Now a second table from the Treasury, showing the actual distribution of the tax cuts and tax increases across the population of taxpayers, by income. It shows a tax increase for taxpayers with incomes of $30,000 or less. I should point out that according to the analysis of the Joint Committee on Taxation, 51 percent of American taxpayers make $30,000 or less. Once we get above $30,000, then we see tax cuts for everyone. I am embarrassed for my friends on the other side of the aisle. This is a caricature. A comic Democrat might have come along and have said, ``Let me show you what a Republican tax cut looks like.'' Families with incomes above $200,000 will have a tax cut of $3,416. Families with incomes under $10,000 will have a tax increase. That simply is unacceptable. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee earlier spoke about what Thomas Jefferson had to say on the subject of debt. I have not met Mr. Jefferson, but you can sense his presence in these precincts. The Senator said what Laurence Tribe has said about the accumulation of debt. I taught at the same university, and I know him well. And the legacy of debt of which the chairman spoke--we are the ones appalled by that legacy. We did not create it. At the end of the 1970's, at the end of the administration of President Carter, the national debt was in the neighborhood of $800 billion. That was at the end of nearly two centuries in this Republic. After 15 years it is now approaching $5 trillion. That did not happen accidentally, and it did not happen as a consequence of activities on this side of the aisle. To the contrary, 2 years ago the Democrats put together, in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, a combination of program spending cuts and ``tax increases''--I do not forbear to use the term-- of $500 billion. And we brought a deficit, which in that year, in fiscal 1992 was $290 billion. We started a glidepath down to where this fiscal year just concluded, the deficit will be somewhere between $160 and $170 billion. We cut the deficit in half. In consequence of what we did, the so-called deficit premium on interest rates was reduced. The deficit premium is simply that extra charge which lenders exact when governmental deficits are running very high--because in the end the way governments typically have handled their debt was through inflation, to wipe it out, wipe out the currency, and wipe out the society frequently. But it happens. It happened enough that this premium exists. The ``deficit premium'' being charged on interest rates went down, and resulted in a savings to the Federal Government of about $100 billion more. So in total we achieved deficit reduction of $600 billion as a result of the 1993 legislation-- passed without a single Republican vote. What have we to show for that? First, let we say that the average length of recovery for 10 postwar business cycles has been 50 months, but the current recovery has now lasted 55 months and is still going. The annual rate of growth in real gross domestic product has been 3.3 percent, more than twice what it was in the previous 4 years. Unemployment has fallen to 5.6 percent, which is very close to full employment. The annual inflation rate has dropped to 2.5 percent. If you correct for the CPI overstatement, you may have something very close to zero inflation. The New York Times this morning devotes a lead article in its business section to it. ``Has inflation finally been whipped?'' It did not just happen. It was made to happen by what we did in 1993, and we do not apologize for a thing. We would rather state we have shown the way--shown what you can do, if you have the courage to govern. There are things in this present proposal from the majority with which I would disagree. There are things with which I would not disagree in the least. I do not object in the least to the statement of the Senator from Colorado that a reduction in the rate of increase is not a cut. However, to cut taxes is an act of unforgiven irresponsibility. I did not say ``unforgivable.'' I said the consequences will be unforgiving at this moment in our business cycle expansion. We do not need to do this and, Mr. President, we would not be doing it save for the House of Representatives. In our hearings on this subject, in the Finance Committee, one Republican Senator after another said no, we have to bring the budget into balance. This is no time to cut taxes. We do not have to stimulate the economy. The economy is in its 55th month of expansion; we are practically at full employment; inflation has practically disappeared. Business investment is at the highest rate in 30 years--investment savings is at the highest rate in 30 years. This is not the time to get into an inflationary stimulus. We know enough about our economy to know that. One Senator after another from the other side of the aisle said no, certainly not; we would never pass a $245 billion tax cut. And then we learned that--and I do not mean in any way to seem to ridicule, but it turns out that the Contract With America written in the other body required this tax cut. And so here it is today. But it is not a tax cut for all. It is a tax cut for half the population and a tax increase for the other half. That surely is something we would not wish to do in ordinary circumstances. Has the prospect of a Presidential election brought us to this? I hope not, Mr. President. I hope we would not be doing things we are doing in the process of cutting, cutting Medicare as much as we do, cutting Medicaid as much as we do. Mr. President, before this decade is out, we are going to have a crisis in our teaching hospitals and our medical schools because of the measures in this bill. We currently have in Medicare a provision to provide medical schools and teaching hospitals with some extra support. We currently have a provision on disproportionate share which in effect compensates those hospitals, including teaching hospitals, that treat large proportions of the uninsured. They are already in a precarious financial position, and the bill before us will exacerbate their problems. They will be in genuine jeopardy if this bill becomes law. At the greatest moment of medical science for this country's institutions, we are decimating their finances in order to give a tax cut to people with incomes over $200,000. Sir, I believe my time has expired.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will Senator Roth have spoken by then?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Against my better judgment. We reduced it against my better judgment.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Could it be that you delegated that joyous task to the chairman of the Finance Committee?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, we are awaiting the arrival of the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee who will set forth the proposals of the tax cut in this measure. I say to my friend from Colorado that it might surprise him, there are those on this side of the aisle who see the debt crisis in the same crisis terms that he does and have a feeling that we know when it arose in the 1980's, and it was not from this side of the aisle--and we want to get hold of it. We do not think you can solve a deficit problem by cutting taxes.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield 15 seconds to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, earlier in the day, this morning, I was speaking without notes. I stated that under the Republican budget plan the national debt will increase by $700 billion in the next 7 years. I would like now to correct that to be the precise number, which is $669 billion. That is how much more we will borrow. I surely cannot think of any figure more explicitly to state the irresponsibility of a $245 billion tax cut. We will borrow every penny of that tax cut. If that were not the last thing to say, it turns out that the tax cut is a tax increase on average for taxpayers with income up to $30,000--half of all taxpayers--because of the reduction in the earned income tax credit. For the rest the bill reduces taxes. And we will borrow every penny of the tax cut, and persons working, paying taxes, and trying to get along will pay for every cent of the tax increase. Mr. President, there is no way to get rid of a $5 trillion debt. I hope we know. Once again, to say, if it were not for that Contract With America, we would not be talking about a $245 billion tax cut on this floor, in this Chamber. We know it. We all know it. And I need not repeat it again. I thank the Chair. I appreciate the courtesy. Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, for the past three months, two of the nation's foremost labor leaders, John J. Sweeney and Thomas R. Donahue, have campaigned for the presidency of the AFL-CIO. This afternoon in New York City at the AFL-CIO's biennial convention, the delegates chose Mr. Sweeney. I rise to congratulate him, and Thomas Donahue as well, for their dedication, service, and not least, their civilities. Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Donahue remain strong and united in their pledge to lead the labor community into the next century. Both are sons of Irish working class families from the Bronx--home of another great labor leader, the legendary George Meany. As friends and allies in the labor movement for over 35 years, Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Donahue have vied for the presidency with energy, but without bitterness. There is much we in political life can learn from such earnest and talented men. Victory need not mean vanquishing the opponent. Good ideas are not the province of any one faction. These are the lessons John Sweeney and Tom Donahue have taught us all. There is more to these men than their recent contest. There is much testimony given to the value of work and the dignity that comes from having a job. John Sweeney and Tom Donahue, and the millions they represent, embody those values even as they advance them. It is prophetic that John Sweeney, born in St. Joseph's parish in the Bronx--named for the patron saint of working men and women--has been chosen to lead the 13 million members of the AFL-CIO. The son of a bus driver, he learned the value of a job and the dignity of hard work from his father. Mr. Sweeney first joined a union as a part-time grave digger while attending Iona College in New Rochelle, New York, and began his trade union career in 1950 with the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union. Later, in 1961, he joined Local 32B of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and eventually rose through the ranks to become the SEIU's President in June of 1980. Today, this union, representing doormen, elevator operators, custodians, all manner of workers, is 1.1 million members strong. Tom Donahue, another Bronx native, has had an equally long and distinguished career in the labor movement. He has served most recently as the Acting President of the AFL-CIO after Lane Kirkland stepped down in August of 1994. Mr. Donahue began his career at the AFL-CIO as Executive Assistant to George Meany, and was later elected to serve as Secretary-Treasurer, a post he held for many years. I am indebted to him for advice, and counsel throughout my near two decades on the Senate Finance Committee. While there could only be one winner today, the election is not so much a victory for John Sweeney, but for the labor movement as a whole. Let there be no question that Mr. Sweeney has his work cut out for him, as they would say in the ``ICG'', for this is a critical time in labor's history. But his record as an organizer of workers promises great things. And may I say that it is a tribute to New York and to the Bronx especially that in these turbulent times for labor, the membership of the AFL-CIO has once again entrusted its leadership to a New Yorker. I wish my friend John Sweeney great things as he embarks on the newest phase of his remarkable career. The origins of today's AFL-CIO go back to 1881, or some will argue 1886. Which is to say, in the first century of the American nation. They have sustained their principles and organization into what is now the third century of our nation. It has been a remarkable and eventful journey and it is only begun. I stand with them in solidarity and joy for this fine moment.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I introduce three joint resolutions to appoint Howard H. Baker, Jr., Anne D'Harnoncourt and Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., to serve as citizen regents of the Smithsonian Institution. I introduce these Joint-resolutions on behalf of my distinguished colleagues, Senators Cochran and Simpson, with whom I have the privilege to serve on the Smithsonian's Board of Regents. Howard Baker, whose reputation is well known among the Members of this body, is a superb public servant. After spending 18 illustrious years in the Senate, during which time he served 4 years as Majority Leader, Senator Baker went on to become President Reagan's most trusted advisor. He has since returned to private practice, as the senior partner in the law firm of Baker, Donelson, Bearman & Caldwell, but has remained an active leader in the political and business communities. His commitment to both communities is marked by his membership on the Council on Foreign Relations and the Washington Institute of Foreign Affairs and his positions on the boards of Federal Express, United Technologies, and Penzoil. He has most deservedly received the Nation's highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, as well as the Jefferson Award for Greatest Public Service Performed by an Elected or Appointed Official. As the distinguished statesman and gifted strategist that he is, Howard Baker would bring to the Smithsonian a voice that can talk to Congress at a time when that is what is most urgently needed. The Institution would benefit immensely from his political and fiscal wisdom, and I urge my colleagues to support his appointment. Just as Senator Baker would add his expertise on matters political and economic, Ms. Anne D'Harnoncourt would bring to the Smithsonian vast experience in the management and oversight of a large museum. Having served with her for some 15 years on the Board of the Hirshorn Museum, I can think of no person better suited to serve on the Board of Regents. Ms. D'Harnoncourt has served as an Assistant Curator for the Art Institute of Chicago, a Curator for the Philadelphia Museum of Art, and is currently the George D. Widener Director of the Philadelphia Museum of Art. She has a broad base of expertise in the Arts, and is among the most actively involved in that community. As the Smithsonian continues to broaden its mission within the Sciences, Ms. D'Harnoncourt surely would help the Institution remain focused on its long-standing commitment to the Arts. Her knowledge and experience would be of inestimable value to the Board of Regents, and I eagerly urge her appointment. Finally, Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., a gifted leader in the business and educational communities. Mr. Gerstner was named chairman and chief executive officer of International Business Machines Corporation on April 1, 1993, prior to which he served for 4 years as chairman and chief executive officer of RJR Nabisco Inc. He received his B.A. from Dartmouth College in 1963, his M.B.A. from Harvard Business School in 1965, and was awarded an honorary doctorate of Business Administration from Boston College in 1994. Mr. Gerstner has long been an advocate of improving the quality of public education in America. He is the co-author of ``Re-Inventing Education: Entrepreneurship in America's Public Schools'' (Dutton, 1994), which documents public school reforms designed to enable our children to handle the demands of today's complex global economy. At IBM he has re-directed a majority of the company's substantial philanthropic resources to support public school reform. His dedication to re-inventing both education and management makes him an ideal candidate to serve on the Smithsonian's Board of Regents. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will agree that this profoundly talented triumvirate is most deserving of these appointments, and I urge Senators to support all three resolutions.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I introduce three joint resolutions to appoint Howard H. Baker, Jr., Anne D'Harnoncourt and Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., to serve as citizen regents of the Smithsonian Institution. I introduce these Joint-resolutions on behalf of my distinguished colleagues, Senators Cochran and Simpson, with whom I have the privilege to serve on the Smithsonian's Board of Regents. Howard Baker, whose reputation is well known among the Members of this body, is a superb public servant. After spending 18 illustrious years in the Senate, during which time he served 4 years as Majority Leader, Senator Baker went on to become President Reagan's most trusted advisor. He has since returned to private practice, as the senior partner in the law firm of Baker, Donelson, Bearman & Caldwell, but has remained an active leader in the political and business communities. His commitment to both communities is marked by his membership on the Council on Foreign Relations and the Washington Institute of Foreign Affairs and his positions on the boards of Federal Express, United Technologies, and Penzoil. He has most deservedly received the Nation's highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, as well as the Jefferson Award for Greatest Public Service Performed by an Elected or Appointed Official. As the distinguished statesman and gifted strategist that he is, Howard Baker would bring to the Smithsonian a voice that can talk to Congress at a time when that is what is most urgently needed. The Institution would benefit immensely from his political and fiscal wisdom, and I urge my colleagues to support his appointment. Just as Senator Baker would add his expertise on matters political and economic, Ms. Anne D'Harnoncourt would bring to the Smithsonian vast experience in the management and oversight of a large museum. Having served with her for some 15 years on the Board of the Hirshorn Museum, I can think of no person better suited to serve on the Board of Regents. Ms. D'Harnoncourt has served as an Assistant Curator for the Art Institute of Chicago, a Curator for the Philadelphia Museum of Art, and is currently the George D. Widener Director of the Philadelphia Museum of Art. She has a broad base of expertise in the Arts, and is among the most actively involved in that community. As the Smithsonian continues to broaden its mission within the Sciences, Ms. D'Harnoncourt surely would help the Institution remain focused on its long-standing commitment to the Arts. Her knowledge and experience would be of inestimable value to the Board of Regents, and I eagerly urge her appointment. Finally, Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., a gifted leader in the business and educational communities. Mr. Gerstner was named chairman and chief executive officer of International Business Machines Corporation on April 1, 1993, prior to which he served for 4 years as chairman and chief executive officer of RJR Nabisco Inc. He received his B.A. from Dartmouth College in 1963, his M.B.A. from Harvard Business School in 1965, and was awarded an honorary doctorate of Business Administration from Boston College in 1994. Mr. Gerstner has long been an advocate of improving the quality of public education in America. He is the co-author of ``Re-Inventing Education: Entrepreneurship in America's Public Schools'' (Dutton, 1994), which documents public school reforms designed to enable our children to handle the demands of today's complex global economy. At IBM he has re-directed a majority of the company's substantial philanthropic resources to support public school reform. His dedication to re-inventing both education and management makes him an ideal candidate to serve on the Smithsonian's Board of Regents. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will agree that this profoundly talented triumvirate is most deserving of these appointments, and I urge Senators to support all three resolutions.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I would like to carry on the manner and the thoughtfulness of my colleague and friend from New Jersey as we begin this debate, which will shortly, I think, conclude for today. The Senate stands ready to correct an absurdity which has endured for nearly half a century. We propose to respect Israel's sovereign right to choose her capital. We do this by providing for the relocation of our embassy to the city which contains the Parliament of that State. The bill which the distinguished majority leader has proposed will ensure that the United States Embassy in Israel is moved to Jerusalem, the undivided capital of that State, no later than May 31, 1999. I have been involved with this particular issue in some measure since my tenure as Permanent Representative to the United Nations in 1975. By the early 1970's, the United States was faced with a General Assembly where a Soviet-led coalition wielded enormous power and used it in an assault against the democracies of the world. In that regard, I cite an editorial in the New Republic which recently said of the United Nations in that time that ``During the cold war, the U.N. became a [[Page S 15481]] chamber of hypocrisy and proxy aggression.'' Proxy aggression, Mr. President, and in particular directed to the State of Israel, which became a metaphor for democracy under virtual siege at the United Nations. Those who had failed to destroy Israel on the field of battle joined those who wished to discredit all Western democratic governments in an unprecedented, sustained attack on the very right of a U.N. member state to exist within the family of nations. The efforts in the 1970's to delegitimize Israel came in many forms, none more insidious than the twin campaigns to declare Zionism to be a form of racism and to deny Israel's ties to Jerusalem. Those who ranted against the ``racist Tel Aviv regime'' were spewing two ugly lies. Both had at their heart a denial of Israel's right to exist. The first lie, the infamous Resolution 3379, was finally repealed on December 16, 1991, after the cold war had ended and the Soviet Union dissolved. Today, we take an important step to refute the second lie, the absurd suggestion that Israel did not have a right to select its own capital city. Israel expects attempts by her enemies to undermine her, but it is more difficult to fathom our own refusal to recognize Israel's chosen capital and to locate our Embassy in Jerusalem. In so doing, we have given and continue to give unintended encouragement to those enemies of Israel who hope one day to be able to divide the United States and that nation, the only democratic state in the Middle East. For as long as Israel's most important friend in the world refuses to acknowledge that Israel's capital city is not its own, we lend credibility and dangerous strength to the lie that Israel is somehow a misbegotten, an illegitimate, or transient state. This suggestion is all the more untenable when you consider that no other people on this planet have been identified as closely with any city as the people of Israel are with Jerusalem --a city which this year celebrates the 3000th anniversary of King David declaring it his capital. No Jewish religious ceremony is complete without mention of the Holy City. And twice a year, at the conclusion of the Passover Seder and the Day of Atonement services, all assembled repeat one of mankind's shortest and oldest prayers ``Next year in Jerusalem.'' Throughout the centuries Jews kept this pledge, often sacrificing their very lives to travel to, and live in, their holiest city. It should be noted that the first authoritative Turkish census of 1839 reported that Jews were by far the largest ethnic group in Jerusalem-- and this long before there was a West Jerusalem, or even any settlements outside the ancient walled city. When the modern State of Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948, Jerusalem was the only logical choice for the new nation's capital --even if it was only a portion of Jerusalem, the Jordanian Arab Legion having occupied the eastern half of the city and expelled the Jewish population of the Old City--Jerusalem was sundered by barbed wire and cinder block and Israelis of all faiths and Jews of all citizenship were barred from even visiting the section under Jordanian occupation. The world was silent while the historic Jewish Quarter of the city was sacked and razed to the ground, 127 synagogues were destroyed, and 3,000 years of history were denied. This bizarre anomaly only ended on June 5, 1967, when Israel faced renewed aggression from Egypt and Syria, both then close friends of, and dependents of the Soviet Union. As hostilities commenced, Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol sent a message to King Hussein of Jordan promising that, if Jordan refrained from entering the war, Israel would not take action against it. Jordan, however, attacked Israel that same day. Within the week, Israeli forces had captured all of Jerusalem, as well as other territories west of the Jordan River. The City of David was once again united, and has been since 1967. Under Israeli rule Jerusalem has flourished as it did not under Jordanian occupation, and the religious shrines of all faiths have been meticulously protected. Israel has found itself repeatedly attacked, boycotted, and spurned by its neighbors. But slowly Israel has worked to secure a less hostile environment. First, the historic Camp David Accords brought peace between Israel and Egypt. All Senators are aware of the unprecedented accomplishments of the last 2 years. Jordan is at peace with Israel and a peace process is well underway with the Palestinians. In fact, Mr. Arafat gave voice at the United Nations just yesterday. The United Nations is celebrating its 50th anniversary. Even Yasir Arafat, who 21 years ago addressed the General Assembly wearing a gun holster, spoke yesterday of the tremendous achievements in Israeli- Palestinian relations. The New York Times characterizes Mr. Arafat's remarks as ``a far more conciliatory tone than during his last visit.'' And contrasts his earlier calls for the destruction of Israel with yesterday's General Assembly pledge to ``turn over the leaf of killing and destruction once and for all so that the Palestinian people and Israeli people may live side by side.'' There are those who might criticize our proposal, saying that we have no business taking such action while the peace process continues. On the contrary--or such is my view. This is our Embassy and congressional sentiment should be made known. In this I am reminded of a message from Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to the American-Israel Friendship League on November 28, 1993 in which he wrote: In 1990, Senator Moynihan sponsored Senate Resolution 106, which recognized Jerusalem as Israel's united Capital, never to be divided again, and called upon Israel and the Palestinians to undertake negotiations to resolve their differences. The resolution, which passed both houses of Congress, expressed the sentiments of the United States toward Israel, and, I believe, helped our neighbors reach the negotiating table. The negotiators will soon turn to final status issues, as defined by the Declaration of Principles signed on September 13, 1993, by Israel and the Palestinians. The status of Jerusalem is one of the agenda items to be settled during this final stage of the peace process. It is inconceivable that Israel would agree to any proposal in which Jerusalem did not remain the capital of Israel. Since Jerusalem will continue to be the capital of Israel, it is time to begin planning to move the United States Embassy to ensure that at the end of the process it will be where it belongs. Our Embassy should have been moved long ago, but we recognize the momentous achievements taking place in the Middle East and they temper our actions. Our intentions are clear. When the peace process is completed, which according to the Declaration of Principles is scheduled for May 1999, our Embassy will be located in Jerusalem. On March 20th of this year, Senator D'Amato and I sent a letter to Secretary Christopher with the support of 91 other Senators. That letter made it clear that the overwhelming majority of Senators agree with the proposition that ``Jerusalem is and shall remain the undivided capital of the State of Israel.'' We also wrote that our embassy belongs in Jerusalem and we asked the Secretary to inform us of the steps being taken to make a relocation of our Embassy to Jerusalem possible. Today we have before us legislation that reflects the spirit of our letter to Secretary Christopher. I am hopeful that the President will be able to sign this legislation. Prime Minister Begin once advised me that the ``battle for Jerusalem should never be fought in the halls of Congress.'' I agree and am pleased that the majority leader worked with those of us on our side of the aisle to produce a draft that reflects the bipartisan consensus of the Senate. I would also like to commend my friend, the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, for his considerable contribution to the formulation of this bill. This administration has been effective in the Middle East peace process. Secretary Christopher has personally flown to the region numerous times and has clearly committed himself to active participation in the peace process. On the issue of our Embassy, I would respectfully suggest that the administration direct its attention to the comments of Prime Minister Rabin, as our letter to the Secretary of State noted: There can be little doubt that Jerusalem is a sensitive issue in the current peace process. While the Declaration of Principles stipulates that Jerusalem is a ``final status'' [[Page S 15482]] issue to be negotiated between the parties, we share Prime Minister Rabin's view which be expressed to the Knesset that: On Jerusalem, we said: ``This Government, like all its predecessors, believes there is no disagreement in this House concerning Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Israel. United Jerusalem will not be open to negotiation. It has been and will forever be the capital of the Jewish people, under Israeli sovereignty, a focus of the dream and longing of every Jew.'' It continues: United States policy should be equally clear and unequivocal. The search for peace can only be hindered by raising utterly unrealistic hopes about the future status of Jerusalem among the Palestinians and understandable fears among the Israeli population that their capital city may once again be divided by cinder block and barbed wire. Charles Krauthammer adopted a similar line of argument in a column in the Washington Post on May 19, 1995, when he wrote: True, the embassy move does endorse the proposition that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. What possibly could be wrong with that? Is it the PLO position that even after a final peace, Jerusalem may not be the capital of Israel? That is the simple proposition for the Senate today, Mr. President. This bill would provide for the relocation of our Embassy to Jerusalem where it has always belonged. It does not interfere with the peace process, because there is no scenario in which Israel would agree to relinquish Jerusalem as its capital. The Senate's involvement in this particular issue could be traced in some degree to the seventh conference of heads of state of government of nonaligned countries, which convened in New Delhi, India, March 7 through 11, in 1983. This summit devoted several lengthy passages of its final declaration as it is called--final declaration--to excoriating Israel and its ally the United States. Special attention was devoted to the question of Jerusalem's status. And not just east Jerusalem as had become the practice of such forums. I happened to be in New Delhi in the days before the summit began and was shown a draft of the final declaration. The draft passage on Israel read: ``Jerusalem is part of the occupied Palestinian territory and Israel should withdraw completely and unconditionally from it and restore it to Arab sovereignty.'' While surely this can be read as a provocative statement that all of Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory, when pressed on the point, my Indian hosts assured me that by Jerusalem they really only meant east Jerusalem, which is to say the old city, or perhaps the Arab section. Hence, the significance of the revised final text of the declaration of some 101 nations. This is what nonaligned declared in that session in 1983: West Jerusalem is part of the occupied Palestinian territory and Israel should withdraw completely and unconditionally from it and restore it to Arab sovereignty. West Jerusalem, Mr. President. The 101 nations of the nonaligned movement declared that the Israeli Parliament and government buildings, Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial, the whole of the new city, did not belong to Israel. The State of Israel is not a nation. It has no capital, or so said the nonaligned. What was the response from Washington to such polemics? Not a word. In effect, our silence could have been interpreted as implying that we had no quarrel with those who state that Israel has no capital. And thus, that Israel is less than a sovereign nation. It was at this point that I brought the issue to the Senate floor. On September 22, 1983, during consideration of the State Department authorization bill, I offered an amendment to articulate the clearest and most emphatic demonstration of a policy of fairness toward Israel. The amendment was only one sentence long: ``The United States shall maintain no embassy in Israel that is not located in the city of Jerusalem.'' I withdrew the amendment after Senator Percy, the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee at the time, gave his assurance that a hearing would be held on the matter. On October 31, 1983, I introduced S. 2031 which also required the relocation of our Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Senator Percy, always true to his word, convened a hearing of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee on February 23, 1984, to consider that bill. Lawrence Eagleburger, then Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs testified on behalf of the administration. I stated in my testimony to the committee: I begin with the simple proposition that Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Israel and our embassy in that State should be in its capital. This would seem to be an unexceptional statement, Mr. Chairman. That it is not is the result of actions the United States has taken and actions not taken. In the first category is the unprecedented and bewildering practice of the United States Government in its official publications to record that there is a ``country'' named Israel in which our Embassy is located at a ``post'' named Tel Aviv; and another ``country'' named Jerusalem in which we are represented at a ``post'' named Jerusalem. Secretary Eagleburger suggested they might at least be able to correct the State Department phone book, but nothing was done. Offical documents published by the United States Government at the time, such as the State Department's ``Key Officers of Foreign Service Posts: Guide for Business Representatives,'' listed Jerusalem separate from Israel. The guide listed countries alphabetically, under each of which in subscript was enumerated the various diplomatic posts the United States Government maintained in that country. There was Ireland, with the one post in Dublin; then came Israel, with one diplomatic office listed, its address in Tel Aviv; then curiously several pages later, after Japan, there was listed a Consulate General in a country called Jerusalem. Then came Jordan and Kenya. That was how the Key Officers of Foreign Service Posts was organized until the end of 1994, when Secretary Christopher published the document with Jerusalem listed under the Israel heading. This is a welcome change. That simple refusal by the United States Government to associate our consulate in Jerusalem with the State of Israel carried much greater weight with the nonaligned countries than we realized. They would not have acted as they had done in 1983 if they did not think at some measure we were not in disagreement. Our documents have so implied. No doubt, we wounded the Israelis more than we intended as well, while sending a dangerous message to Israeli enemies. Clarifying the status of Jerusalem began to gain momentum in the Senate in 1990 when I submitted S. Con. Res. 106, which States simply: ``Jerusalem is and should remain the capital of the State of Israel.'' A simple declarative sentence which gained 85 cosponsors and was adopted unanimously by the Senate and by an overwhelming majority in the House. Two years later, Senator Packwood and I submitted Senate Concurrent Resolution 113 to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem. The measure stated that, ``Congress strongly believes that Israel must remain an undivided city.'' That, too, was agreed to unanimously, both in the Senate and the House. Last year, in the wake of the massacre in Hebron, the United Nations Security Council adopted a measure which referred to Jerusalem as ``occupied territory.'' Senator Mack and I sent a letter to the President, with the signature of 81 other Senators, calling on the administration to veto any U.N. Security Council resolution which states or implies that Jerusalem is occupied territory. To his credit, President Clinton responded with a forceful promise to veto any future U.N. resolution which raised questions about the status of Jerusalem. A promise that he kept on May 17, 1995, when Ambassador Albright cast such a long overdue veto in the Security Council. In the winter of 1981, I wrote an article in Commentary entitled ``Joining The Jackals'' in response to the Carter administration's disastrous support for a resolution challenging Israel's rights in Jerusalem. Almost 15 years later, we find that the jackals are in retreat. Israelis and Palestinians are negotiating the details of their future. And today we have an opportunity to make a simple but important contribution to this process by unequivocally recognizing Israel's chosen capital. [[Page S 15483]] Mr. President, I see my friend from Connecticut has risen. I yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I express my profound gratitude for the remarks of my friend from Connecticut. If he is only partially correct, I am wholly complimented and deeply honored.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, again: Dr. Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board--0.5 to 1.5 percentage points. Dr. Dale Jorgenson, chairman of the department of economics at Harvard University--around 1 percentage point. Dr. Robert Gordon, chairman of the economics department at Northwestern University--at least 1.7 percentage points. Note that in 1981 Professor Gordon wrote the Public Interest article, cited earlier, in which he laid out many of the issues related to the accurate measurement of changes in the cost of living. Dr. Michael Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford University and Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Bush administration--at least 1 percentage point, maybe 2 percentage points. In all, 9 of the 13 witnesses provided numerical estimates of the overstatement. The average of the estimates: about 1.1 percentage points. The calculation is based on a minimum estimate for some witnesses. Even if we assume a zero estimate of the overstatement for those who provided no estimate--and few, if any, would so contend--the average for all the witnesses would be 0.8 of a percentage point. Not too different from the 0.4 to 1.5 percentage points noted by OMB Director Rivlin in her memo last October. The complete record of these hearings is printed as Senate Hearing 104-69--Consumer Price Index. I hope Senators will obtain copies and review the hearing record. Following the hearings, then Finance Committee Chairman Packwood and I, as ranking member, announced on June 26, 1995, the appointment of a nonpartisan Commission to: . . . study the methodology used to calculate the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and to advise Congress on whether this methodology provides an accurate measure of the cost of living. At that time I stated: . . . Current law makes it clear that certain federal programs should be adjusted for changes in the cost of living. What is not clear is whether changes in the CPI, which is used as a proxy for changes in the cost of living, accurately measures these changes. A study by a non-partisan commission will provide invaluable advice to Congress on this important issue. The Commission, chaired by Dr. Michael Boskin, issued its interim report on September 15, 1995. The report, ``Toward a More Accurate Measure of the Cost of Living,'' included the following observations and conclusions in the executive summary: . . . While the CPI is the best measure currently available, it is not a true cost of living index (this has been recognized by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for many years). Despite important BLS updates and improvements in the CPI, changes in the CPI have substantially overstated the actual rate of price inflation, by about 1.5% per annual recently. It is likely that a large bias also occurred looking back over at least the last couple of decades, perhaps longer, but we make no attempt to estimate its size. [[Page S 15447]] . . . Changes in the CPI will overstate changes in the true cost of living for the next few years. The Commission's interim best estimate of the size of the upward bias looking forward is 1.0% per year. The range of plausible values is 0.7% to 2.0%. The range of uncertainty is not symmetric. It is more likely that changes in the CPI have a larger than a smaller bias. . . . The upward bias programs into the federal budget an annual automatic real increase in indexed benefits and real tax cut. Let me now elaborate on the implications of these points made by the Commission. Current law requires the Government to adjust some benefits and tax provisions for changes in the cost of living. The 1972 Amendments to the Social Security Act included this language: Section 202. (a) 1 Section 215 of the Social Security Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: Cost-of-Living Increases in Benefits. Similarly, section 104(f)(3) of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 states: . . . the cost of living adjustment for any calendar year is the percentage . . . The objective of these statutes is clear: Benefits and Tax Code provisions should be adjusted for changes in the cost of living. However, the law stipulates that the adjustments should be based on changes in the CPI as a proxy for changes in the cost of living. But with mounting evidence that changes in the CPI overstate changes in the cost of living, implementation of the policy is thwarted. The law is being thwarted. What can be done to ensure that the policies Congress has adopted are faithfully executed? That is, how can we ensure that adjustments in benefits and Tax Code provisions more accurately reflect changes in the cost of living? Two things. First, continue to support ongoing efforts by the BLS in its routine updating and rebenchmarking of consumer expenditure patterns, and in its research activities. Talented and dedicated BLS researchers have identified many of the complex measurement issues that must be addressed when compiling a CPI in a world in which the quality of products changes and new goods are introduced with resolute regularity. Second, Congress must recognize that, despite the best intentions of the BLS as it continues with its updates and research, the CPI is not, as the BLS readily acknowledges, a cost-of-living index. To achieve its policy objectives--so clearly stated in the law--Congress must implement legislative corrections that, when combined with the most accurate CPI that the BLS can produce, will result in changes in benefits and Tax Code provisions that accurately reflect changes in the cost of living. As noted earlier, the Boskin commission on the CPI suggests that for now, the correction Congress should adopt is 1 percentage point. The Commission's report also highlights the budget implications of failing to correctly implement policies designed to adjust for changes in the cost of living. We should not harbor any misgivings merely because these changes will dramatically improve the budget outlook. The error is there and should be corrected without regard to budget implications. Even so, it must be acknowledged that the budget implications are enormous. One could say awesome. CBO estimates a cumulative 10-year reduction in the deficit of $634 billion from a 1 percentage point downward adjustment in automatic changes of benefits and tax provisions. By the 10th year the annual reduction in the deficit is almost $140 billion. Extrapolating from these CBO projections, my staff estimates the 12-year cumulative reduction in the deficit at almost $1 trillion. And the corrections affect both sides of the budget ledger. About one-half of the cumulative reduction in the deficit is due to lower outlays; one-third due to higher revenues, and the remainder results from reductions in interest payments. And while we are thinking about saving the Social Security trust fund, consider this fact. Harry Ballantyne, Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration, estimates that the date of exhaustion of the OASDI fund is extended by 19 years from 2030 to 2049 by a 1 percentage point downward adjustment in the CPI. Exhaustion is defined as the year in which the trust fund has used up all its reserves of Treasury securities with the expectation that annual outlays will continue to exceed annual income. This is a real fiscal dividend. We can get things right and save the trust fund. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following reports and documents cited in my remarks be printed in the Record after my statement. First, ``The Consumer Price Index: Measuring Inflation and Causing It'' by R.J. Gordon, 1981, in the Public Interest 63: Spring. Second, ``Understanding the Consumer Price Index: Answers to Some Questions'' by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1994. Third, ``Toward a More Accurate Measure of the Cost of Living'' by the Advisory Commission to Study the Consumer Price Index, September 15, 1995. Fourth, table on the change in deficit from a downward adjustment in the CPI of 1 percentage point by the Congressional Budget Office, March 15, 1995. Fifth, memorandum prepared by Harry C. Ballantyne, September 28, 1995, on: Estimated Long-Range Effects of Alternative Reductions in Automatic Benefit Increases.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, some 32 years ago, in the administration of John F. Kennedy, I became Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy Planning and Research. This was a new position. In this new position, I was nominally responsible for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I say nominally out of respect for the independence of that venerable institution which long predated the Department of Labor itself. The then-commissioner, Ewan Clague, could not have been more friendly and supportive and in time I grew to know more of the field. At that time the monthly report of the unemployment rate was closely watched by capital and labor, as we would have said, and was frequently challenged. Committees regularly assembled to examine and debate the data. Published unemployment rates, based on current monthly survey methodology appeared, if memory serves, in 1948 and so the series was at most 14 years in place at this time. By contrast, the Consumer Price Index dated back to 1919. And yet, while the statisticians were increasingly confident of the accuracy by which they measured unemployment, they were never entirely happy about the CPI. Its computation was, and remains, a difficult and ever-changing effort. In particular, the statisticians worried that the Consumer Price Index was increasingly used as a surrogate for the cost-of-living index. They felt this would lead to great troubles as surely the CPI overstated inflation. I think they would have been even more alarmed to know that in the two decades that followed we would use the CPI to index some 30 percent of Government outlays and 45 percent of Government revenues. This problem inevitably grew more salient at times of true inflation. Thus, on October 26, 1980, an article in the Business and Finance section of the Washington Post described the election difficulties President Carter was facing owing to double-digit inflation. The story noted ``The consumer price index overstates the impact of inflation, the White House contends.'' As we know, it contended to no avail, but the difficulties with the CPI as a proxy for the cost of living continued. In the spring 1981 issue of the Public Interest, Dr. Robert J. Gordon, now chairman of the department of economics at Northwestern University, wrote: . . . the [United States] CPI is probably the single most quoted economic statistic in the world. We are now slowly waking up to the further fact, well known in the economics and statistics communities, that the Consumer Price Index is not a measure of the change in the cost of living. It is so stated in a pamphlet published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics entitled ``Understanding the Consumer Price Index: Answers to Some Questions'': Is the CPI a cost-of-living index? No, although it frequently and mistakenly is called a cost- of-living index. The CPI is an index of price change only. It does not reflect the changes in buying or consumption patterns that consumers probably would make to adjust to relative price changes. For example, if the price of beef increases more rapidly than other meats, shoppers may shift their purchases away from beef to pork, poultry, or fish. If the charges for household energy increase more rapidly than for other items, households may buy more insulation and consume less fuel. The CPI does not reflect this substitution among items as cost-of-living index would. Rather, the CPI assumes the purchase of the same market basket, in the same fixed proportion (or weight) month after month. Despite this caution from the agency that compiles the CPI, the index is used as a yardstick for adjusting Government benefits, including Social Security, and provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. And yet, it is now well recognized that changes in the CPI overstate the change in the cost of living. The administration recognizes this fact. Congress recognizes this fact. And a Commission of eminent economists appointed by the Senate Finance Committee recognizes this fact. In an October 3, 1994, memorandum entitled ``Big Choices,'' Dr. Alice [[Page S 15446]] Rivlin, then Acting Director of OMB and now Director--and a distinguished economist who has served as the president of the American Economic Association--noted that among the options available to reduce the budget deficit were several COLA proposals including, and I quote: CPI minus 0.5 ``technical'' reform (CPI may be overstated by 0.4% to 1.5%). CPI minus 2 for five years. The budget resolutions passed by the Senate and House built into their baseline lower CPI assumptions than were projected by CBO in January. The lower assumptions reflect the expectation that scheduled BLS revisions of the CPI will lower the reported CPI. The Senate assumed a two-tenths of a percentage point adjustment; the House assumed a six-tenths of a percentage point adjustment. The conference report adopted the Senate version. In their report--Senate Report 104-82--the Senate Budget Committee noted: In January, CBO projected CPI inflation would remain at 3.4 percent for 1998 and thereafter. The downward revision reported here relative to the January figures reflects CBO's new appraisal that the 1998 benchmark revision to the CPI planned by the Bureau of Labor Statistics will likely reduce the rise in the computed measure of the CPI by 0.2 percentage points a year. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan and CPI experts have recently testified before the Senate that incomplete evidence suggests CPI inflation may be overstated by as much as 1.0 to 1.5 percentage points a year. However, in advance of further, more conclusive analysis, CPI biases remain speculative and have not been incorporated into the Committee assumptions. And the budget resolution, adopted by the Senate on May 25, 1995, contained this language:

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to wish great congratulations to the Haverstraw Little League Senior League All- Stars. This outstanding group of 14- and 15-year-olds from Rockland County played some of the best baseball of their young lives this summer. They were winners of the New York State and Eastern Regional Championships, and represented New York in the Little League Senior League World Series in Kissimmee, FL. Indeed, these young men have much to be proud of, as do their families, coaches, and community. Most fittingly, on October 22, 1995, the team will be honored at a dinner held by the Knights of Columbus in Haverstraw, NY. In recognition of the team's successful season, I ask that the names of the players and coaches of the Haverstraw Little League Senior League All-Stars be printed in the Record. The names follow: Players: Craig Barton, Andrew Breuninger, Richard Chase, David Delarosa, John Grosso, Junior Lopez, Jorge Maldonado, Mike Persico, Jose Vasquez, Rapheal Cespedes, Chris Granata, R.J. Mackenzie, Joe Sansonetti, and Walter Vega. Manager: Gene Barnum. Coach: Howard Johnson. Coach: Bob Michelitch.