Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Well said.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I believe our time has expired.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I believe it is the majority's opportunity to offer an amendment.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I would simply like to say that there is not a word in the remarks of my close friend from Utah with which I would disagree. I have now served 24 years on the Finance Committee, and the last 20 years has been a continued frustration in our disinclination and refusal to make the research and development credit permanent. It is elemental that research projects go beyond 2, 4, or 20 years. It is elemental and in the interest of society that these projects should take place. We allow the credit to be taken but only in 2-year intervals, as it were, such that there will obviously be some decisions made that it is too risky and maybe they won't do it next time. We always renew it, but at a cost. There is an efficiency cost which is clear. I, for one, will happily vote in support of the Senator's proposal.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from Virginia will yield for a question, I am sure he knows as he invokes the image of the Four Horsemen that at this very moment the Congressional Gold Medal has been bestowed on Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, the president of the Notre Dame football team, which embodies the spirit of the Four Horsemen.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I would first like to respond to the minority leader and my friend from Montana. I once served as chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. I managed major transportation legislation. I can say to you that absent this revenue from the gasoline tax, which we imposed under President Eisenhower in 1956, and which built the Interstate Highway System and transformed American society, the transportation programs will just stop. There is no other revenue for it. It is a dedicated revenue. They are planned on. This would be the first time they have been interrupted. A whole industry would be interrupted, not to mention the urban and State planning that goes on; not to mention measures such as the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which is hugely important to Virginia and to the District of Columbia. Another point on the matter of the price of gasoline: Over the past two decades the price of a gallon of gasoline, adjusted for inflation, has fallen by exactly a third--from $1.49 in 1981 to, in those dollars, $1 in June of this year. We are not paying more for gasoline. We are paying less for it. There can be an argument made that the price is too low, but not that we should lower it further and deprive ourselves of the essentials of the transportation infrastructure and construction in this Nation. Our faithful friend, Dr. Podoff, brought along, as he feels he should, Marshall's Principles of Economics. In Marshall's ``Principles of Economics,'' the great text at the end of the 19th century, Marshall taught Keynes, who has taught the world, made it very clear, that in situations of shortage such as we are temporarily facing--he was talking about fish, meat; he was not talking about gasoline--the price to the consumer will not be reduced. This is a proposition that drives from theory and is confirmed now by a century of observation in the aftermath of Marshall's principles. Consumers will get nothing, transportation departments will get nothing, and the public will get a serious disruption in its basic transportation infrastructure, which is not simply highways, but all the other related modes of transit. This is what we have at issue here. I cannot imagine we will do other than continue a program we have had in place since 1956, a third of a century, with extraordinary results. To stop it now would be, in my view, irresponsible. Based on what Marshall taught us, repealing the gasoline tax, even temporarily, represents a futile attempt to repeal the laws of supply and demand. This is a somewhat curious activity for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who often express a strong commitment for market economies both at home and abroad. Let me add a few other facts about the market for gasoline and other fuel products--facts that are obvious even to those with no formal training in economics. The increase in the price of a gallon of gas from an average of $1.15 in June 1999 to a peak of $1.71 in June 2000--a 56 cent increase--has nothing to do with a 4.3 cent per gallon tax increase, enacted in 1993, or the total federal tax on a gallon of gas of 18.3 cents, neither of which have increased over the past 12 months. The price of a gallon of gas peaked at about $1.71 in mid-June and has already declined by about 8 cents. The change in the prices has nothing to do with tax policy and is mostly related to OPEC's production decisions. In September, 1993, the month before the 4.3 cent tax increase went into effect, the price of a gallon of gasoline was $1.15. Three months later, after the tax increase, the price was $1.14. In 1996, the cost of gasoline increased rapidly from $1.19 in January to $1.39 in May--following roughly the same pattern that we are now observing. The Senate debated repeal of the 4.3 cent tax, but fortunately took no action as two attempts at cloture failed. By January, 1998 the price of a gallon of gasoline was back to $1.19--and in real terms had actually declined a few pennies. And, as I noted earlier, over almost two decades, the price of a gallon of gasoline in constant (inflation adjusted) dollars has fallen by about a third, from $1.49 in 1981 to about $1.00 in June of this year. The reduction in gasoline prices occurred even as the economy expanded almost continuously--92 months in the 1980s and a record setting 112 months in the current expansion, which shows no signs of ending. Over the past two decades the economy, in real terms, has almost doubled, while the unemployment rate has been cut by half. True, over the past two decades the price of fuel products has fluctuated, often somewhat unpredictably. For example, in 1986 the price of a gallon of gasoline decreased by 36 cents from the beginning to the end of the year. The next year the price increased by 11 cents. While economists often cannot predict, or even explain, energy price volatility, they can tell us the effect, in the short-run, of reducing fuel taxes. The price to the consumer will not be reduced. This is something we know; or it can be said as much as things like this are knowable. For a century, it has been the clearest understanding of the economics profession that under short-run supply conditions, a change, such as a reduction in an excise tax, does not affect the price paid by the consumer. During a similar debate on gas tax repeal in May of 1996, I also referred to the theories of Marshall and attempted to summarize his wisdom. Here is what I said then: Marshall took the example--to illustrate short-term supply, a fascinating thing--he took the example of fish. He said, what happens if there is a sudden change in the situation? Weather makes fish more or less available--a nice point--or if there is an increased demand for fish caused by the scarcity of meat during the year or two following a cattle plague. Mad cow disease in the late 19th century. A scarcity of fish caused by uncertainties of the weather . . . . These things come. Would outside intervention change the price of fish to the consumer in that circumstance, when there was a fixed supply? The answer from Alfred Marshall is emphatically ``no.'' Students of economics my age will remember this book. It is a very heavy book, but it is still around and it works. What it propounded is very clear. And now let me state the conclusion as simply as possible. Market values are determined by the relationship between supply and demand. This is something businessmen know. In 1996, Mr. Mike Bowlin, Chairman of ARCO, had this to say about the matter when he appeared on ABC's ``Nightline'': My concern is that there are other market forces that clearly will overwhelm the relatively small decrease in the price of gasoline, and that alarms me, that people's expectations will be that the minute the tax is removed, they want to see gasoline prices go down . . . and that won't happen. At about the same time--May 1996--I noted, on the Floor of the Senate, the comments of Dr. Philip Verleger, a well-known energy economist. The author of several books on the subject, including Adjusting to Volatile Energy Prices, Dr. Verleger was, at that time, quoted in The Washington Post: The Republican-sponsored solution to the current fuels problem . . . is nothing more and nothing less than a refiner's benefit bill. . . . It will transfer upwards of $3 billion from the U.S. Treasury to the pockets of refiners and gasoline marketers. In March of this year, when the Senate was considering a change in gas tax policy, I wrote the following to Dr. Verleger: I assume that since the economics of a gas tax reduction has not changed--something we have known since at least Alfred Marshall--neither have your views. He replied the very same day: In my view, the US petroleum industry is operating at or close to capacity. Thus refiners will be unable to boost gasoline production if the tax [repeal] becomes law. Further, inventories of gasoline are currently very low due to the destabilizing actions taken by OPEC. This means that the supply of gasoline has been essentially determined--totally inelastic in technical terms--through the summer. Under these circumstances, consumers are not likely to see any benefit from suspension or repeal of the gasoline tax. Dr. Krugman said much the same thing in a March 15, 2000, New York Times op-ed. For Professor Krugman there simply is no getting around the fact that we face a supply problem: Now suppose that we were to cut gasoline taxes. If the price of gas at the pump were to fall, motorists would buy more gas. But there isn't any more gas, so the price at the pump, inclusive of the lowered tax, would quickly be bid right back up to the pre-tax-cut level. And that means that any cut in taxes would show up not in a lower price at the pump, but in a higher price paid to distributors [emphasis added]. In other words, the benefits of the tax cut would flow not to consumers but to other parties, mainly the domestic oil refining industry. (As the textbooks will tell you, reducing the tax on an inelastically supplied good benefits the sellers, not the buyers.) It is worth repeating Krugman's conclusion--``benefits of the tax cut would flow not to the consumers but to other parties, mainly the domestic oil refining industry.'' We here in Congress know this too, and I suspect that is why the legislation we have before us contains a ``Sense of the Congress'' section that ``consumers immediately receive the benefit of the reduction in taxes.'' We surely want the consumer to realize some savings, but doubt that they will. The question for this body is whether we should approve legislation that contains what amounts to a concession of failure within its very text. Discouraging. Finally, I would point out to my colleagues that the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century was signed into law less than two years ago. TEA-21 as it is known, is a six-year Federal surface transportation bill that consumed nearly two years of committee action and Floor debate. In the end, the bill passed 88-5 based on the agreement that Federal motor fuel excise taxes would be collected at least through Fiscal Year 2003--the last year of TEA-21's authorization. During the debate on TEA-21, the Senate was afforded the opportunity to repeal 4.3 cents per gallon of the Federal motor fuel excise taxes. By an 80-18 vote, we rejected repeal and instead opted to invest that revenue in our Nation's transportation infrastructure. Just this past April, the Senate went on record again to reject any type of suspension of the motor fuel excise tax by a 56-43 vote on the Majority Leader's bill S. 2285, which would have called for a fuel tax holiday of the 4.3 cents for a six month period. According to figures from the Federal Department of Transportation, if the entire 18.3 cents gas tax were to be suspended for six months, the Federal-aid Highway program could lose an estimated $9.6 billion in fuel tax revenues. Mr. President, suspending the Federal taxes on motor fuels will do little or nothing to lower fuel costs. But it will cause considerable disruption to our Federal transportation program, even with a ``hold harmless'' provision. We ought not set precedents of this kind. They will come back to haunt us another day. I would caution my colleagues to exercise caution when they propose to undo agreements made by such overwhelming majorities. Mr. President, suspending portions of the Federal excise taxes on motor fuels will do little or nothing to lower fuel costs. To my mind, that is reason enough to reject this measure. OPEC's decision last year to restrict supply was the primary reason fuel costs increased. OPEC's future production decisions will be the primary reason gas prices go up or down in the future.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, might I make the point that the provision that the Senator from Nebraska is offering is part of S. 21, a bill that we introduced in the first session of the 106th Congress almost 2 years ago. It was a bill to reduce Social Security payroll taxes, provide KidSave, and provide for those who wish to take the option, a 2-percent thrift savings plan equivalent throughout their working years to provide wealth. The Senator has a powerful idea. We have provided security in the course of a long century, beginning with workman's compensation, widows' pension, and then Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. But we have never been able to provide a great portion of our population, that which distinguishes this Nation, with a measure of wealth, an estate. Not an estate which would be much affected by the underlying bill we are talking about today. Not many $4 million estates would be acquired in the process, but there would be a measure of wealth. It would be the first American initiative in the area of social welfare. This starts right here in this Chamber, S. 21. The first 20 numbers are reserved for the majority and minority leaders; the first bill otherwise in this Senate is this provision. We have not got to it in committee, but we have a part here on the floor. I welcome it.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I simply point out that this amendment would move us backward in our efforts to produce a stable and continuous Social Security and Medicare systems. In 1993, I was chairman of the Finance Committee. We expanded provisions with respect to the normal taxation of benefits received from Social Security, just as all other pension benefits, are taxed, which is to say, taxes on that part which is not taxed as employee income at the time the contribution is made. This obviously only affects persons with substantial income who are subject to the income tax. I think a quarter of Social Security recipients will pay no tax of any kind, they having low incomes generally and are below the income tax thresholds. We did this as part of a general program to secure the Social Security system for the next 75 years. We have not completed this work. We have to adjust the Consumer Price Index. We have to bring in State and local employees, almost a quarter of whom pay no Social Security tax on their regular job but pick up Social Security on the side and get a much higher return than the persons who pay through their regular employee. The exemption for State and local employees is an anachronism that we inherited from 1935 when it was not clear that the Federal Government could tax a State government, and the issue was just not joined. It is now clear. Most State governments do it; some do not. There are another few corrections that could be made. And then we have an actuarially sound program for 75 years. To go back now on this one step we have made is to go back to a prospect that in 15 years' time the Social Security system will not be bringing in the amount of revenues it needs to pay benefits and we will start drawing out of general revenues, and very quickly the insurance system will cease to be that, it will be a transfer of payments subject to all of the difficulties we have seen with such payments. And we will do the same to the solvency of Medicare as this change would accelerate the date of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund from 2025 to 2020. I remind the distinguished Presiding Officer that the one change we have seriously made in the Social Security system in this decade is to abolish the provision for children, title IV-A, which was a direct transfer. I hope we do not accept this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3824

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I repeat, sir, that the 1993 measure was part of a long-range effort to restore actuarial balance to the Social Security and Medicare systems. It treats Social Security income, retirement income, as all other retirement income is treated. That part for which taxes have been paid is exempted. The rest is taxed normally for others. Low-income beneficiaries of Social Security would pay no tax. This money goes into the Medicare trust fund and is part of the long-term solvency we seek. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, might I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Connecticut be given 2 minutes to respond?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I surely wish to do so.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Senators from Hawaii have identified a true problem with the estate tax, and they have proposed a very meritorious solution. Let me assure the two Senators that I will do all I can to include this proposal in any estate tax relief measure.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, as a New Yorker--and I am sure my esteemed chairman will understand--I rise in defense of Theodore Roosevelt's estate tax: One of the great achievements at the beginning of this century and of the last century--although we have members of the Finance Committee staff who still think we are in the last century, but we won't get into that matter. Today, we are here to decide if a century later we should repeal it. Again, I don't want to press this on my colleague and friend, the Senator from Delaware, but this matter should be in the Finance Committee. My friend doesn't have to say a word. We are the Committee that considers tax matters. It should have been referred to us and not sent directly to the floor. When we begin the debate and the voting begins, the Democrats will have an alternative. It is simple. I say forthwith and I will say no more, it is less costly than the measure we have received from the House. We would increase the general exemption from the present $675,000 to $1 million immediately--it was scheduled to rise to that level in the year 2006--and then to $2 million in the year 2009. We would increase the exemption for family-owned businesses and farms from $1.3 million to $2 million immediately and to $4 million by the year 2009. This increase would eliminate the estate tax on virtually all family farms and 75 percent of family-owned businesses that would otherwise be subject to the estate tax. This measure will cost $64 billion over 10 years, roughly half the cost of the Republican proposal. Of course, the measure the House has sent us, as our Chairman has stated, in the year 2010 repeals all estate taxes, and thereafter the true cost would be approximately $50 billion each year indefinitely. We think this is an extravagant proposal driven by the legitimate politics of the hour. I understand that. I understand the President will veto the measure. I look forward confidently to its being passed and vetoed and not forgotten. It will be raised in the campaign. That, too, is legitimate. But I have to say, sir, having lived on a farm for 36 years in upstate New York, the dairy farming world of that State has not prospered for half a century. We have a considerable number of meadows, in one of which the press gathered just a year ago last week to have Mrs. Clinton announce her candidacy for the seat I have the honor to hold right now. There were hundreds of journalists there. It amazed the world to look at it. Sir, I have to suggest that if we had an equal gathering of family farmers in New York State whose farms would sell for $2 million, the turnout would be desultory and the press would report disaster. Does anybody here know a family farmer whose farm is worth $2 million a year? I don't mean farms in the eastern end of Long Island where viniculture takes place.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. My dear and esteemed chairman says he knows a family farmer whose farm is worth more than $2 million.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Therein, sir, lies the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. I know of no such farmer; my friend from Delaware does. What more can I say? How pleased I am for him; how regretful I am for the toil-driven, poverty-stricken farmers of upstate New York. With that, sir, the vote being announced 4 minutes late, I yield the floor and suggest we proceed under the order.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished chairman have as much time as he requires to finish his address, which I see is not much longer.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a joint resolution, recognizing Commodore John Barry as the first flag officer of the United States Navy. Commodore Barry had been described as the ``Father of the American Navy'' by his contemporaries for his unfailing service to the United States Navy. The Commodore, born in Tacumshin Parish in County Wexford, Ireland and son to a poor Irish farmer, began his maritime career at an early age. He rose through the ranks and, at the outset of the American Revolution, was made responsible for outfitting the first Continental Navy ships. On March 14, 1776, the Marine Committee awarded Barry with a Captain's commission to the Continental Navy and his first warship, the brig Lexington. In his first conflict at sea with this ship, the Commodore brought the fledgling Navy its first victory at sea and captured the Edward, a British tender. Barry reported to the Congress, ``This victory had a tremendous psychological effect in boosting American morale, as it was the first capture of a British warship by a regularly commissioned American cruiser.'' While awaiting the completion of his second warship, the Effingham, Barry enlisted as a soldier in the Continental Army and served under General John Cadwalader, fighting in the Battles of Trenton and of Princeton. But it was not until his return to the Navy that the Commodore fought his most famed battle. Aboard the 36-gun frigate Alliance, Barry put up a brilliant defense against two British sloops, the Atlanta and the Tresspassy. In his crusade, he was badly wounded in his shoulder and lost a large volume of blood. His second-in-command reported that the ship was in a desperate condition and recommended that the ship surrender. But the Commodore refused. He said, ``If this ship cannot be fought without me, I will be brought on deck!'' Broken and bandaged, Commodore Barry continued forward with the battle. After almost four hours, the Atlanta and the Tresspassy surrendered. The Commodore's final battle in the American Revolution was also the final sea battle of the Continental Navy. Aboard the Alliance, Barry escorted the Duc De Sauzon, a ship carrying Spanish silver, and warded off the Royal Navy's Sybil, protecting the vital cargo destined for the Continental Congress. Even after his retirement from battle, Barry's contributions to the Navy continued. In 1797, President Washington invited Barry to receive Commission Number One in the Navy. His new position placed him in charge of the new Navy and oversight of the construction and outfitting of its first frigates. The U.S.S. United States and the U.S.S. Constitution were both built under his command. Commodore John Barry served as Commodore under Presidents Washington, Adams and Jefferson until he died in 1803. Before he died, the Commodore wrote a Signal Book for the Navy, which provided a practical means of communication between ships. He also suggested creating the Department of the Navy, a separate Cabinet position from the Secretary of War. This vision was realized in 1798 with the creation of the United States Department of the Navy. Most importantly, Barry was responsible for training many Naval heros of the War of 1812. It is with great honor and pride that I introduce this joint resolution, recognizing Commodore John Barry, a fellow Irishman and Naval Officer, as the first flag officer of the United States Navy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a joint resolution, recognizing Commodore John Barry as the first flag officer of the United States Navy. Commodore Barry had been described as the ``Father of the American Navy'' by his contemporaries for his unfailing service to the United States Navy. The Commodore, born in Tacumshin Parish in County Wexford, Ireland and son to a poor Irish farmer, began his maritime career at an early age. He rose through the ranks and, at the outset of the American Revolution, was made responsible for outfitting the first Continental Navy ships. On March 14, 1776, the Marine Committee awarded Barry with a Captain's commission to the Continental Navy and his first warship, the brig Lexington. In his first conflict at sea with this ship, the Commodore brought the fledgling Navy its first victory at sea and captured the Edward, a British tender. Barry reported to the Congress, ``This victory had a tremendous psychological effect in boosting American morale, as it was the first capture of a British warship by a regularly commissioned American cruiser.'' While awaiting the completion of his second warship, the Effingham, Barry enlisted as a soldier in the Continental Army and served under General John Cadwalader, fighting in the Battles of Trenton and of Princeton. But it was not until his return to the Navy that the Commodore fought his most famed battle. Aboard the 36-gun frigate Alliance, Barry put up a brilliant defense against two British sloops, the Atlanta and the Tresspassy. In his crusade, he was badly wounded in his shoulder and lost a large volume of blood. His second-in-command reported that the ship was in a desperate condition and recommended that the ship surrender. But the Commodore refused. He said, ``If this ship cannot be fought without me, I will be brought on deck!'' Broken and bandaged, Commodore Barry continued forward with the battle. After almost four hours, the Atlanta and the Tresspassy surrendered. The Commodore's final battle in the American Revolution was also the final sea battle of the Continental Navy. Aboard the Alliance, Barry escorted the Duc De Sauzon, a ship carrying Spanish silver, and warded off the Royal Navy's Sybil, protecting the vital cargo destined for the Continental Congress. Even after his retirement from battle, Barry's contributions to the Navy continued. In 1797, President Washington invited Barry to receive Commission Number One in the Navy. His new position placed him in charge of the new Navy and oversight of the construction and outfitting of its first frigates. The U.S.S. United States and the U.S.S. Constitution were both built under his command. Commodore John Barry served as Commodore under Presidents Washington, Adams and Jefferson until he died in 1803. Before he died, the Commodore wrote a Signal Book for the Navy, which provided a practical means of communication between ships. He also suggested creating the Department of the Navy, a separate Cabinet position from the Secretary of War. This vision was realized in 1798 with the creation of the United States Department of the Navy. Most importantly, Barry was responsible for training many Naval heros of the War of 1812. It is with great honor and pride that I introduce this joint resolution, recognizing Commodore John Barry, a fellow Irishman and Naval Officer, as the first flag officer of the United States Navy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to express great appreciation for the confirmation of Russell John Qualliotine to be United States Marshal for the Southern District of New York. Hailing from Nesconset, New York, he served more than a quarter century with the New York City Police Department, retiring this past January. As an Officer of the NYPD, he held the position of Detective First Grade in the elite Personal Security Section of the Intelligence Division. The NYPD has given him four outstanding achievement awards, three awards for excellent police work, and one for meritorious service. From 1969 to 1972, he also served in the United States Army and earned an Army Commendation Medal. In his roles as police detective and soldier, Mr Qualliotine has displayed exemplary dedication, character, and professionalism. He is superbly qualified, and I am confident he will make an excellent United States Marshal.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to see the New-York Historical Society mentioned in the Committee Report to the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill. The Society is a wonderful New York institution that has outstanding collections and runs outstanding educational programs. One such program would soon bring to the general public one of the nation's most extensive collections of Revolutionary War materials; documents, manuscripts, artifacts, and works of art. Tied to the collection will be a program that will tie in with social studies and history classes across the nation. The key components of this effort are digitization of primary documents and museum objects to make them available on the World Wide Web and workshops for teachers to be held at the Historical Society to show creative approaches to interpreting history using documents and artifacts. Video conferencing will make teacher workshops available around the country as well. Published school curricula and resources kits based on the Society's Revolutionary collections will be available to teachers as well. There will also be an interactive web site for teachers and students, a linkage of the Society's library and museum collection databases, providing one unified source of information on the collections. The Society also hopes to develop a 30 minute interactive video in English and Spanish available in the Society headquarters and on the web. Finally, hand held scanners will give visitors instant electronic access to information about the collections as they are viewed and access to related websites. Mr. President, the Historical Society has wonderful plans for its future. I hope we are able to assist with what is truly a project of national scope when we finalize this bill during the coming months.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, while I support the objectives of this legislation, I regret that the Senate has chosen to rush ahead with a vote on this matter without following the customary Senate procedure. This bill should have been referred to its committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Finance, and that committee ought to have had the opportunity to consider all its implications. In fact, Chairman Roth and I agreed to schedule a hearing on this matter for July 12. We contacted election and tax law experts to ask their opinions regarding fundamental questions surrounding Section 527 organizations. As we thought, there are constitutional questions, and the possibility of unintended consequences that might result from this or similar legislation. The careful examination that Senator Roth and I had planned is going to be cut short by our actions today. Without that careful examination, we can only hope that our conduct will withstand judicial scrutiny and not create additional problems.