Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Self employed.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this Chamber has been graced with many a fine and wondrous person. Rarely has a State sent two such. In the remarks of the junior Senator from Rhode Island concerning his senior colleague, we have an example the Republic would do well to consider. I would think, sir, of two moments. The first--and I see the senior Senator from Massachusetts on the floor--first would be in 1960, November, the Presidential election of that year. They were in a store front on Salina Street in Syracuse, NY. And my wife Elizabeth had persuaded Robert F. Kennedy that if his brother, then Senator Kennedy, could carry Syracuse, carry Onondaga County and carry New York, and accordingly become President of the United States, not the worst calculation, as a properly Democratic city had not voted Democratic since 1936. At 9:12 that evening, a phone call came from the compound, as I believe it was called, and it was Robert F. Kennedy calling for my wife, and the exchange went very quickly. It said: ``Did we?'' ``Yes.'' Click, and we had done it. Then President Kennedy had come to office, or would do, and within about 5 or 10 minutes, young Robin Pell, who had been working with the Kennedy campaign in upstate New York, came in, was there and put down the phone and said, ``Cousin Claiborne has been elected as well.'' That is the beginning of a third of a century in this Senate, but a career already well begun because I said, Mr. President, I would speak of two moments. The other took place in San Francisco not hours ago, if you would like. President Clinton was speaking in that city on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the agreement to the U.N. Charter. It was in a great hall, the music, the opera where the ratification had taken place, and the delegates in what would have been, I dare not ask the Senator, I believe 56 countries. The President looked up into the boxes and said: ``And Claiborne Pell was present.'' Indeed, he was on assignment from the military, the Coast Guard, his beloved Coast Guard in which he served valiantly in the Second World War. He carries that charter with him today, reminding a Senate and certainly an administration that sometimes seems to have forgot that we made promises in those days in the aftermath, not yet finished, of that extraordinary world conflagration. He carried that forward as chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, by all understanding, the senior committee of the Senate, with its solemn responsibilities in peace and war. He has done so with a civility, a civility of which the Senator from Connecticut spoke, that could only come from someone so deeply committed to peace, having known war and having known the effort in the aftermath to create peace. He served behind the Iron Curtain in the Department of State. No other Member of this Chamber has ever done that. He did in what is now Slovakia in times that were difficult, tenuous and, in the case of his mission, dangerous. He brought to the Senate floor two of the most important treaties for the control of nuclear weapons in our history. And if we may think that at last we may have achieved a measure of control, Claiborne Pell will be remembered as the person who brought them forth as a common understanding of this body, not a contentious, not a ragged, not a narrow, but a firm commitment that the other nation involved could accept because of that unanimity. Other Senators wish to speak. I will only say, and I hope I can claim, I hope the junior Senator will not be amiss, that by rights, he is a New Yorker. His father represented Manhattan, a district in Manhattan, in the House of Representatives. His father was chairman of the New York County Democratic Committee, a most honored and, at times, advantage not of which some of us still admire and respect and hope to do. It is typical, as the junior Senator said, that when the Pell Grants, that great beneficence, came to the moment when it was to be enacted, it was the Senator from New York, my revered former colleague, Senator Jacob K. Javits, who said they ought to be named for the Senator who has made them possible--Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island. It is much too early to say we will miss him. He is still very much among [[Page S 12559]] us. He will not for a moment leave public service. In this time to speak to the extraordinary achievement of this Senator, I would not be amiss, I hope, and I am sure I will not, to mention Nuala, without whom it could not possibly have taken place. Mr. President, with great respect to my colleague who sits right before me now, I thank him for all those things, and yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, during the welfare debate on August 8, I displayed a chart on the floor of this Chamber entitled ``AFDC Caseload of 10 Largest Cities in the U.S. (1992).'' It showed 62 percent of all children in Los Angeles as welfare recipients at some point in 1992, 79 percent in Detroit, on and on. These figures were supplied by the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS]. My office provided the chart to the Washington Times at the request of its editorial writers. The chart appeared in a Times editorial that ran last Friday entitled, ``Welfare Shock.'' The numbers, according to the editorial, ``represent a small fraction of the statistical indictment against the failed welfare polices of the liberal welfare state.'' Regrettably, the numbers from the Department were wrong. On August 23, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Services Policy Wendell E. Primus wrote me to inform me of the error and provided me with new data. It happens that the numerator used was the number of public assistance recipients in the surrounding metropolitan statistical areas [MSA's], rather than the number of recipients in the cities proper. The denominator, correctly, was the population of each city. I am informed by the Department that data on the number of program beneficiaries is difficult to obtain at the city level. The AFDC Program is operated either at a State or county level. It was a perfectly honest mistake, honorably acknowledged and corrected. I forwarded the revised numbers to the Washington Times, which graciously ran a follow-up editorial and an explanatory letter from me in this morning's edition. The numbers, as the editorial points out, went down for Los Angeles and Detroit, but inched up for New York and jumped up for Philadelphia. Given the mistake in methodology, I can understand why the ratios went down for some cities. But I am perplexed why they climbed for others, including New York. Apparently, we have more work to do. We'll get them right. Today's editorial in the Washington Times, ``Charting the Welfare State,'' states that even the lower ratios offer compelling evidence of the complete failure of the current system. I don't disagree. But it would be a huge mistake for the Federal Government to break off its commitment entirely, and we seemed poised to do. If the numbers reveal anything that we can understand, it's this: The problem simply has become too great for the cities to handle on their own. Mr. Hugh Price of the Nationals Urban League has recently argued that the welfare reform legislation upon which the Senate will take up tomorrow or Thursday could be a reenactment of the deinstitutionalization of mental patients in the 1960's and 1970's which led so directly to the problem of the homeless. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I received from Deputy Assistant Secretary Primus, the two Washington Times editorials, and my letter to the Times appear in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Lawrence H. Summers to be Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. Dr. Summers is now Under Secretary and has been for more than 2 years. He has carried out complex and important negotiations in international finance and international trade. He was very instrumental in the recent World Trade Organization negotiations concerning financial services. He has a long and distinguished career for a person still relatively young. He was Vice President of the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. From 1983 until 1993 he was the Nathaniel Ropes Professor of Political Economy at Harvard and his credentials also include a stint as domestic policy economist at the Council of Economic Advisers serving President Reagan. There is so much else that might be said, but I believe it is well known. I yield back the balance of my time, noting that the Finance Committee voted this out by voice vote with three Senators asking to be recorded in the negative and 17 affirmed. I yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the nomination was confirmed.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, Monday August 14 marks the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Social Security Act by President Franklin Roosevelt in the Cabinet Room of the White House. I am pleased to introduce today, along with Senator Packwood, a resolution honoring this event. As we celebrate this occasion we marvel at the confidence of President Roosevelt and his advisers who, in the midst of the despair of the Great Depression, could conceive of a Social Security program for the United States. President Roosevelt, a former Governor of New York, appointed a Committee on Economic Security chaired by Francis Perkins also of New York. And as the senior Senator from New York, I take pride in the fact that a third New Yorker--Senator Robert Wagner-- introduced the Economic Security Act in 1935 which resulted in the Social Security Act that President Roosevelt signed 5 months later. And from that moment the program evolved along a natural course. In 1995, as a result of this evolutionary process: 141 million persons will work in employment covered by Social Security; 95 percent of persons aged 65 and over as either receiving retirement benefits or eligible to receive benefits; 98 percent of children under 18 are eligible for survivor benefits if a working parent dies; and 80 percent of men and women aged 21 to 64 are eligible for benefits in the event of prolonged disability. To continue this success story into the next century requires a Social Security program that is soundly financed, boldly administered, and widely supported. The best way to maintain a strong Social Security program is by maintaining public support for the program. And here we need to pay attention to what is happening and why. Polls consistently show that a majority of nonretired adults have little or no confidence in Social Security. And no wonder why. Despite the fact that we pay into the Social Security system every week we never hear from them. Or at least that was the case until now. As result of legislation that I first introduced in 1988 and that was subsequently included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the Social Security Administration, this year, began sending out annual benefit statements to future Social Security recipients. These personal earnings and benefit estimate statement [PEBES] provide estimates of benefits that individuals may be eligible to receive, including retirement, survivors, disability, and dependents benefits. Sixty years ago President Roosevelt and his advisers--in the midst of a depression--could look forward with confidence as they built a Social Security system. Today our economy is eight times larger than the 1935 economy--and on a per-capita basis we are four times richer. Clearly we can afford Social Security. As needed, the system will be modified to reflect changing demographics and labor markets. But those changes must be guided by a simple principle enunciated in the 1983 report of the National Commission on Social Security Reform--the Greenspan Commission on which I proudly served: The National Commission believes that changes in the Social Security program should be made only for programmatic reasons, and not for the purposes of balancing the budget.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to facilitate the entry of foreign athletes into the United States to participate in the 1998 Goodwill Games. The New York metropolitan area has assumed the honor of hosting the 1998 games, with events to be held in both New York and New Jersey. I am pleased to be joined by Senator D'Amato, Bradley, and Lautenberg in this effort. The House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade approved an identical measure last week. The United States has routinely granted duty-free entry for such events in the past. Last year, Congress granted temporary customs duty waivers to the 1994 World Cup, the 1996 Summer Olympics, and three other international sporting events. Before that, to the World University Games held in 1993 in Buffalo, NY. Without this bill, teams, athletes and officials would suffer an extensive Customs paperwork process and pay duties for their equipment and personal effects. They would receive refunds of these duties only upon their departure from the United States. Furthermore, handling the sheer volume of participants who will enter the United States would pose a serious burden on U.S. Customs officials, who have many other important responsibilities. Foreign nations, without exception, assure hassle- free entry for U.S. athletes participating in similar events, and we should continue to reciprocate the courtesy. New York is much looking forward to hosting the 1998 Goodwill Games, which, since they follow the 1998 Winter Olympic Games in Nagano, Japan, should be the final major gathering of nations in the 20th century. This is fitting because the games were founded with the vision of promoting international cooperation through world-class competition. Moscow hosted the inaugural games in 1986--the cold war still persisting and only 2 years after the Soviets boycotted the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles--and the world witnessed 91 national 8 European, and 6 world records broken. The 1990 games in Seattle were the largest cultural and business-to-business exchange in United States-Soviet history, and the 1994 games in St. Petersburg, Russia were the first international event in Democratic Russia. Organizers anticipate the 1998 games in New York to attract 3,000 athletes from over 70 countries, and I expect them to be a worthy addition to this impressive history.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator D'Amato to introduce a bill that would correct an anomaly, by extending to faculty at independent academic health centers an exclusion from income tax for employer-provided housing that is enjoyed by faculty at university-affiliated health centers. In 1986, Congress enacted a provision allowing employees of educational institutions to exclude from income the excess of the fair market value of the university-provided housing over the rent actually paid. This exclusion permits universities to attract faculty and staff with the necessary expertise to meet the university's needs. The availability of this exclusion is especially vital to those institutions located in high- cost housing areas like New York City. Currently, faculty at academic health centers that are not affiliated with a university are not allowed to exclude the excess value of their employer-provided housing. This is the case despite the fact that independent academic health centers perform the same function as university-affiliated institutions, and that the situation of their employees is likewise identical to that of their counterparts. Many of the tenants of center-owned housing are employees pursuing advanced training at the academic health center, often at substantial financial hardship. Because of the difference in tax treatment, independent institutions are placed at a competitive disadvantage in terms of their ability to attract these highly qualified employees. Academic health centers are an important national resource, performing essential research and providing other significant contributions to our Nation's health care. By enacting this bill, Congress would ensure the continued ability of independent academic health centers to pursue their missions of patient care, education, and research. Our bill is narrowly drawn to focus only on this competitive disadvantage. Under the proposed amendment, the academic health center must, first, qualify as a tax-exempt hospital or medical research organization eligible to receive charitable contributions; second, it must receive Federal funding for graduate medical education; and third, it must engage in and teach basic and clinical medical science and research with the organization's own faculty. The bill would have negligible impact on revenue. We believe that this legislation would rectify the inequitable treatment currently accorded the faculty of independent academic health centers, ensuring fair tax treatment for these employees and the continued excellence of the institutions for which they work. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes, of course.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we might continue in session under the understanding that no amendments will be offered for such time as is required for the Senators who are now on the floor who would like to make statements. That includes Members on the floor who would like to make statements. Is that agreeable to the Senator from Iowa?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will the Senator yield for just one moment?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I would like first to thank the Senator from Wisconsin and draw particular attention to the idea of second- chance homes. This is an idea that has been around for some while. It received very strong support from persons such as James Q. Wilson, of the University of California at Los Angeles, as one possible intervention in the reproductive cycle of young persons in situations where they are overwhelmed by the single-parent culture in which they find themselves living. Not 3 miles from this Capitol you will find such neighborhoods, such settings. It is a deeply humane idea. It is an old idea--a maternity home. It may yet find a place in our response to the questions of illegitimacy-- nonmarital births, if you like. I am going to take just one moment, pending the Senator from Nebraska, to call attention to a matter in this regard. On the 1st of August, Mr. President, the Bureau of the Census put out its annual compilation called ``Population Profile of the United States, 1995.'' In that summary there is a statement that, ``26 percent of children born in 1994 were out-of-wedlock births.'' That is discouraging, because it is not so. And the Bureau of the Census needs to know it is not so. They take this information from sample surveys, and survey responses in this regard are simply not dependable for reasons that do not have to be explained. Respondents are asked whether a child born to the family was out of wedlock. Some will say otherwise. The actual number for 1992 from the National Center for Health Statistics, which counts every birth, it does not take samples--the number for 1992 was 30.1 percent. That is an exact count. I have estimated that it will have reached 32 percent by 1994. What 1995 will be--we are on that ascent. Nothing indicates it has changed. It may have moderated. But, for the Bureau of the Census to say otherwise when it so easily could have left this matter to the National Center for Health Statistics, is a bit disappointing. The Bureau of the Census is a glorious institution and it makes mistakes. We all do. I just want to make that point. I see my friend, the formidable and indomitable Senator from Nebraska, is on the floor. It is going to be an honor to hear from him. I do not see any Senator from the other side of the aisle, and my friend from Iowa indicates he does not either, in which event, Mr. President, I hope the Senator from Nebraska might be recognized.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Michigan for his very thoughtful, very moderate remarks. I, however, wish to point out that the innovative programs that have indeed taken place in Michigan in recent years have done so under the Family Support Act of 1988. Michigan responded exactly as we hoped it would respond, as other States would respond, as other States have responded. It was that bipartisan exercise that said, ``Go and innovate. Do what you think is best. Fit your own needs.'' I congratulate Michigan for what it has done. I hope they are confident that they can now do it on their own. That is where they are going to be. I said earlier that to a degree we perhaps do not recognize we are dealing with an urban crisis. In the city of Detroit, 72 percent of the children are on welfare. There has never been such an experience in our history. It will not go away easily. It has come about in a very short period of time--30 years, 35 years. I hope that we know what we are doing if we are going to say the Federal commitment to match State efforts need no longer be made. I think, sir, we will regret that, but we will find out as the debate continues. Now, we have a dissenting view and an alternative view, at the very least, from the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, who also has a Governor who has been very active in these affairs under the Family Support Act. I am happy to yield such time as he may require to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, could I take just a moment of the Senate's time to express the honor I feel, as so many of us feel, to share this Chamber with the Senator from Hawaii. He is a person of such transparent goodness, thoughtfulness, and measured concern. His statement is a model of what I hope to hear more of, and what I would like to see this Chamber respond to. I thank him and I want to tell him what an honor it is to be associated with him in this debate.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Senator from Nebraska not only for the generosity of his remarks, the clarity of his concern, the depth of his concern, but to connect his opening remarks to the closing remarks. I do not think the Senator will receive many letters from welfare recipients. I do not think many of those children will be writing postcards. No one, certainly, will be paying them. That, Mr. President, is the nub of the issue. We are talking of people who have but little voice in this land and less real influence in the end. We are seeing it all about us now. Mr. President, the Census Bureau has just released the ``Population Profile of the United States: 1995'' which reports that ``26 percent of children born in 1994 were out-of-wedlock births.'' However, according to the National Center for Health Statistics figures which I have frequently cited, the illegitimacy ratio was 30.1 percent in 1992, and I estimate that it will have reached 32 percent in 1994. According to Martin O'Connell, Chief of the Fertility Statistics Branch of the Census Bureau, ``The higher figures are correct. The `Population Profile' seriously undercounts the number of children born out of wedlock as the figures it reports are based on a small sample and incomplete information. Senator Moynihan is right.'' This is one area where precision of fact is imperative. In order to understand a problem, we must first be able to accurately measure it, and few problems are of such enormous consequence as this unrelenting rise in illegitimacy.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the unanimous- consent order be extended until 1:15.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, if I can resume for just a moment to thank the Senator from Wyoming for his statements, to share his sentiments and, particularly, to address this matter of a second-chance home for very young mothers in settings where they can live independently, and neither should they be in the setting from which they came, from which many of them are, in fact, fleeing. It is an old idea whose time may have come round once again. I appreciate the Senator's statements in that regard. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. MOYNIHAN. May I simply say for one moment, I thank the gallant Senator from Nebraska for an extraordinary statement with such candor and accuracy. But I add to the preface, just one point: Ending poverty is nothing so difficult as ending dependency. And that is perhaps what we are mostly talking about here. There are few Members, if any, in this Chamber who could meet a welfare mother and recognize her and call her by her first name. I think there are even fewer who know that kind of dependency in which you could have the city of Detroit with 72 percent of the children on welfare. None of us live in those neighborhoods. And we do well to have the courage of a man of servitude to say so. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Hawaii would like to speak on this matter, and we would like to hear from him.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, is the Senator from Connecticut aware that he is the first Senator, other than the Senator from New York, to make that point in this now 2-day debate? There is no entitlement. I am profoundly grateful to him, for at least he has heard that voice.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will the Senator from Connecticut yield for a question?

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I take just a moment of the Senate's time to express my gratitude, and I am sure that of Senator Packwood, for the substance of the remarks of Senator Simpson and particularly for the tone of those remarks. We are, indeed, struggling in this effort with forces we do not fully understand that have come upon us very suddenly, as history goes. The learned Senator can speak of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and its regulations in 1645. That is eons of time, as compared to the sudden incidence of this problem in our cities. I wonder if the Senator could allow me a moment to point out the urban dimension of this subject, because urban affairs--cities--are no longer a central topic of our concerns as they were, say, 30 years ago. President Nixon's first act upon taking office was to create an Urban Affairs Council. This will not take 3 minutes. I know the Senator from West Virginia is waiting, and he will be heard in just a second. This is what has happened in the course of the last few years, suddenly, as if it were a tornado out in Wyoming country. In the city of Los Angeles, Mr. President, 62 percent of the children are supported by aid to families with dependent children; in Chicago, 43.7 percent; in Detroit, 78.7 percent; in my city of New York, 28.4 percent; in Houston, TX, 24.6 percent. These are the 10 largest cities. There are higher ratios, but these are our 10 largest cities. What this does, and I think the Senator from Wyoming can sympathize with this, these ratios overwhelm municipal capacity. Going back to 1912--I will go back that far--the New York Times began a series that has been going on until this day called ``The 100 Neediest Cases.'' At Christmastime, they give you a list of 100 families; most had tuberculosis, or an industrial accident killed the father, or something like that. You can cope with 100. There are more than 100, but it gives you a sense of dimension. How do you cope with the situation where 62 percent of your children are on welfare, which means, of course, they are paupers. One of the things we have had most application for in waivers was to allow families to have a car worth little more than $1,500. In Wyoming, you need a car to get to work in most places. That is an element we do not talk about often. This problem tends to be concentrated. It is an urban problem. It is an urban crisis. It is a general problem. What is a problem in Wyoming is a crisis in Cook County. Therefore, the more do I appreciate the concerns of the Senator from Wyoming and the mode in which he has stated them. I thank the Chair.