Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the dean of Washington based New York reporters, Alan Emory. Mr. Emory, a writer for the Watertown Daily Times, has been covering Washington for the last 43 years. His personal style and fabled wisdom have allowed Mr. Emory to provide his readers in upstate New York with a window to Washington. Deemed a small town by some, Watertown's success stories include three former Secretaries of State: John Foster, John Foster Dulles, and Robert Lansing. Other notable Watertown residents included Roswell P. Flower, former Governor of New York State; and Frank Woolworth, founder of the five-and-dime store. Having been voted president of the prestigious Gridiron Club in recognition of his many years of reporting excellence, Mr. Emory now joins the list of celebrated Watertown residents. Alan Emory was sent to Washington in 1952 when his distinguished publisher, John B. Johnson, decided to give his readers more for their money. He has certainly done that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Watertown Daily Times celebrating Mr. Emory's accomplishments and years of service be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank my friend from California.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, for a quarter century I have been involved with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. I was a member of its first board of trustees in 1969, and served as vice chairman from 1971 to 1976. During the center's existence, five remarkable men have served as chairmen of its board: Hubert H. Humphrey, 1969-72; William J. Baroody, Sr., 1972-79; Max M. Kampelman, 1979-82; William J. Baroody, Jr., 1982-94; and now Joseph H. Flom, 1994- . William J. Baroody, Jr.'s term on the board expired just this week, and I would like to join his colleagues at the Wilson Center in honoring his remarkable tenure. A dinner was given in Bill's honor following the last board meeting in October, when he stepped down from its chairmanship, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Record. Remarks at Dinner Honoring William J. Baroody, Jr., October 11, 1994 Mr. Blitzer. I want to join Joe Flom in welcoming all of you here this evening to this richly deserved tribute to Bill Baroody, a man who served with enormous devotion skill and wisdom as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Woodrow Wilson Center for nearly half of the Center's life. During the years I have known Bill, and particularly during the six years that I've served under his chairmanship, my respect for him has constantly grown as has my affection. I can say with absolute sincerity that during those years I have never asked Bill for his help without receiving it. Similarly I have never sought his advice without receiving suggestions that contributed substantially and fruitfully to my own ideas and those of my colleagues. In many ways I would say that Bill has been a model of what a chairman should be. He shared with us the knowledge and the wisdom gained in the legislative and executive branches of government, including in the White House, and as the head of a kindred but not quite identical institution, and in all of this he has somehow managed to guide without being intrusive. His chairmanship of the board, a board composed of distinguished and often strong-minded people appointed by three presidents of two parties, and his leadership of the Center under two directors, have been characterized by an extraordinary combination of effectiveness, tact, evenhandedness and self-effacement. Indeed if it is possible to be modest to a fault that perhaps is Bill's singular fault. With his clear sense of the delicate balance between the legal responsibility of a board and the authority of a director, he served the Center well and made the experience for me at least, and I suspect for my predecessor, of serving under him a genuine pleasure. It is for that accomplishment, and for his stewardship of this institution that his fellow trustees, the Center's staff, his friends, his family and I join in honoring him this evening with deep respect and affection. Ted Barreaux. I have been given the assignment of reading one of the letters that Bill Baroody has received from the former Presidents who have appointed him to various posts. But before that I wanted to tell you all what a pleasure it is for me to be here tonight because I've known Bill for many years. The two of us met almost thirty years ago, and we were both at various points in our lives aides of President Nixon. Now I don't know if Bill's memory fades in and out as occasionally most Nixon aides' memories do, but my experience when I first met Bill was illustrative of what became a very warm and valued friendship. I met Bill as I said nearly thirty years ago in the spring of 1967, when I was in Washington to have lunch on a Saturday morning with a friend of mine, Congressman Glenn Lipscomb from California. He was a close ally and colleague of Congressman Mel Laird, for whom Bill worked. I didn't have a change to work with Bill while he was at the Defense Department or in Congress, but I worked very closely with him when he was the public liaison for President Ford. I had the pleasure not only of working with Bill when he was a White House aide but also when I spent twelve years on the Board of Trustees of the Wilson Center. I served under Bill's father, I served under Max Kampelman, and I served under Bill. The one thing about Bill that impressed me as well as all of the other trustees and the Fellows is Bill's commitment to public service. He provided two characteristics that I think really mean public service to me, and he carried them out with firmness and commitment and dedication and with an elan and an ease that made it appear even more beautiful than it ordinarily is. The first of these is satisfaction. He demonstrated clearly the satisfaction one derives from the formulation of public policy. There are dozens of key policy issues where he played a central role and he did it always with grace and intelligence and style. And the second is sacrifice. I was always impressed by the fact that he never capitalized in a personal way on his public service, which is terribly impressive when you consider that although there is nothing wrong with that, he chose a different road. President Ford, whose letter I've been asked to read tonight, shares many of my sentiments, and I'll share his letter with you now. ``Dear Bill, I write with congratulations and best wishes on the occasion of your retirement as Chairman of the Woodrow Wilson Center Board of Trustees. It is indeed an enjoyable task to acknowledge your generosity and commitment to that fine institution. ``I also remember with great pleasure your time as a member of our White House team and I am so pleased that you and many of your colleagues have continued a tradition of outstanding public service. Thanks to your dedicated leadership, the Wilson Center is now known throughout the world as a place of both scholarly excellence and practical relevance. ``I am delighted to have this opportunity to express my appreciation of your devotion to the Center and its scholarly ideals. ``I am delighted to have this opportunity to express my appreciation of your devotion to the Center and its scholarly ideals. ``Thank you for your many kindnesses and loyal support. Warmest, best regards, Gerald R. Ford.'' I would now like to toast Bill Baroody who is not only a friend, a colleague and a boss, all three things you get to be when you're Chairman of the Board of the Center, but he's also a very special human being. Gertrude Himmelfarb. I cannot I'm afraid compete with Ted who has known Bill for thirty years. I can only claim to have known him for less than twenty years. I was then a Fellow of the Woodrow Wilson Center and Bill Baroody, Sr. was then Chairman of the Board. The Baroodys were my introduction to Washington and I assure you it was a very enjoyable, a very interesting, a very exciting experience. I then met Bill some ten years later when I was a member of the board and Bill, Jr. was its Chairman. I came to admire Bill as all of us did, and not only for his extraordinary devotion to the Woodrow Wilson Center, his mastery of all the details of the operation of the Center, his assiduous attendance at meetings, board meetings, fellowship and other committee meetings even in periods of ill health and an evident discomfort, but also because of his very good judgment and his wisdom in helping to keep the Center on a steady course at a rather perilous time for institutions such as this, for cultural and academic institutions which were being buffeted about as they still are by all the vagaries of intellectual fads and fashions and by political and social pressures. As I say it was a very heartening experience to serve under a chairman who was able to perform that not inconsiderable feat. I'd like now to take the occasion to pay tribute not only to Bill but also to Charles Blitzer and to the staff of the Woodrow Wilson Center, all of whom manage to work so harmoniously together and all of whom manage to resist those fashions and those pressures, who manage to preserve the integrity of the Center and to maintain the very high standards of scholarship and research that the Center is in fact now known for, always has been known for. Bill, Sr. would be very proud of you Bill, and I think he would like to join us in this toast to you. But first I would like to read a letter from someone who can express his appreciation of Bill more eloquently than I can. ``Dear Bill, I am delighted to join your friends, family, and colleagues in congratulating you on the occasion of your retirement from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. ``I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but I've found that there is no such thing as retirement! I had a fleeting notion way back: to find a shady spot under a tree and a good sturdy hammock. It was a grand plan, but it never materialized. I hope you have better luck with it than I did! ``Seriously, you have every reason to be proud of your twelve years of honorable commitment to the Center and to nationwide scholarship. You have proudly carried on your family tradition as an able and dignified leader, and it is that noble legacy which will continue to flourish thanks to your constant nurturing and tireless commitment. You have my deepest gratitude and admiration for the wisdom and integrity you have consistently shown in your devotion to the Center. ``I wish you all the happiness and success you deserve as you begin this exciting new chapter in your life. God bless you for your dedication and unwavering faith in this great nation. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan.'' I think President Reagan would like to join us in this toast to Bill. Lynne Cheney. I want to bring you greetings, Bill, not only from myself and from the signator of the letter I'm about to read, but from Dick Cheney who is sorry he can't be with us tonight. Dick and I first knew Bill more than twenty years ago back in the Nixon and Ford years, and you were out there on the front line for public liaison putting Gerry Ford in exactly the setting in which he performed most brilliantly, dealing with citizens in forums across the country, answering questions, and Dick as White House Chief of Staff, was exceedingly grateful for your imaginative use of the President's time and for presenting him as the really great leader he was. I'm so glad that I was here tonight to hear Gerry Ford's letter to you. Dick and I are now at the American Enterprise Institute, another organization in which you had such an important role to play, so our lives have been intertwined for quite a long time. I will remember with gratitude and warmth the opportunity that I had to serve with you as a member of the Woodrow Wilson Center's Board of Trustees. We had some challenging meetings, some interesting issues with which to deal, and I do love now seeing them all begin to come to fruition knowing that this Center will soon be housed in a way that it should be in order to honor the memory of Woodrow Wilson to whom this Center was established. So many people are grateful to you for your service, Dick and I chief among them; and I'm especially proud tonight to have the honor to read to you a letter from yet another former President, What friends you have, Bill. retirement as Chairman of the Woodrow Wilson Center's Board of Trustees, and I am delighted to join your family and colleagues in congratulating you for a job well done. ``Your distinguished tenure as chairman is one marked by significant accomplishment, and you can be proud in the knowledge that your many contributions helped to enhance America's leadership in a turbulent and sometimes dangerous world. As one of several Presidents to benefit from your dedicated career in service to our Nation, I am pleased to have this opportunity to thank you for your loyal support, counsel, and friendship through the years. ``You will be missed, but I have a feeling this won't be the last we hear from you. In the meantime, Barbara joins me in sending best wishes for your very happiness. Sincerely, George Bush.'' I would like all of you to join me in a toast to Bill Baroody for whom all of us here, like all of the Presidents who have so far been named, have the greatest respect, admiration and to whom we'd like to extend our thanks. James Billington. I would like to speak to you from my heart about Bill Baroody because we honor tonight someone who is part of a unique contribution to the life of this city and to the country. We have a kind of apostolic succession here. It began with Hubert Humphrey who was the first chairman, then Bill Baroody, Sr. succeeded him, then Max Kampelman (who had been so close to Hubert Humphrey) succeeded Bill, and then Bill, Jr. succeeded Max, and now of course we have a new chairman. I second Bea Himmelfarb's warm words of praise for Charles Blitzer and the staff. It is wonderful to see the sustaining over the years of the real commitment to quality, one of the things that the Baroodys have always been committed to and that Bill has helped this very talented staff sustain so well. I liked Ted Barreaux' emphasis on public service, because it seems to me Bill has had an extraordinary career which has never been fully documented. There was service in Congress, with Mel Laird. There was service in the Pentagon, and a variety of different functions in the White House. I would say there are four things that characterize Bill's public service. The first of these is an extremely self- effacing kind of leadership. When the spotlight is on, Bill always runs the other way. He reminds me very much of people like Paul McCracken and Bryce Harlow, names that you don't read very often in the history books, who had this soft spoken, quiet kind of integrity when integrity wasn't always the first currency of the day. Bill is very much a part of that world and part of that type of public servant who never gets enough attention, never gets enough praise. The second is the commitment to dialogue. At the Ford White House, Bill bridged a gap that was very real in those days between government and the broader private sector and established a very important kind of dialogue. It continued during his days at AEI, and he certainly has sustained the Center's tradition for dialogue, one of its great contributions to this city. And the third thing closely related to it is quality--the defense of the pure quality of scholarship in a city very closely concerned with advocacy. To maintain the purest standards of high quality in the midst of the political pressures and vortex of this city has been a wonderful achievement, and I must say we owe that to our whole apostolic succession of chairmen. And the fourth thing that Bill has provided is something that's not always found even where there's dialogue and where there's quality, and that is genuine depth. One of Bill Baroody, Sr.'s great contributions to the intellectual dialogue of this city was introducing deeper themes such as the role of religion in public life. Bill Baroody, Jr. has continued that role. This is a man who not only has quietly in a self-effacing way sustained dialogue and sustained quality in this wonderful institution that we celebrate and honor today, but who behind it all has a passion and understanding for the deeper things of life that are somehow inextricably connected to our broader public and individual lives. I'd like to propose a toast to Bill Baroody and to the past--I am reminded of a wonderful evening Max Kampelman hosted like this for Bill's father here about fifteen years ago. Please join me in a toast to Bill and to the past, present and future of a wonderful family. Max Kampelman. There is an old Yiddish superstition that if a mother wishes her newborn child to be a great thinker or a great philosopher she kisses the child on the head. If she wishes her child to be a great pianist or musician she kisses the child on the fingers. If she wishes her child to be a singer she kisses the child on the neck close to the vocal chords. I don't know where our mothers kissed Bill Baroody, Joe Flom and me when we were born, but I do know that all three of us have been blessed with the opportunity to serve as chairpersons of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Speaking for myself it has been one of the most satisfying public experiences of a full and busy life. My first exposure to the Wilson Center came through my friend Hubert Humphrey who became the first Chairman of the Board. I vividly recall the excitement with which he joined the effort to create a living memorial of scholarship through which to perpetuate the memory of Woodrow Wilson in our nation's capital. I recall the deep sense of honor that he felt in being appointed by President Johnson to serve as this Center's first chairman. My long-time friend William Baroody, Bill's distinguished father, succeeded Hubert as its chairman. Bill, you and I know that your dad was a great man; a giant of a man, and I am convinced that you have filled his shoes with distinction. Tonight we meet to acknowledge your selfless and devoted service to our Center as its fourth chairman. Your wisdom and integrity have added luster to our Center and strength to our staff. The comments we have heard this evening all add credence to that sentiment. You presided over our Center at a critical period of our nation's transition away from the Cold War with its clear challenges and objectives into a new set of problems and opportunities and you did so with dignity and determination. In partnership with our most distinguished director Charles Blitzer you have further fashioned and strengthened our Center into one of the most distinguished and respected institutions of learning in the world. To Joe Flom, our experienced and wise new chairman, I say let us rededicate ourselves to our mandate from Congress to harmonize and strengthen the relationship between the world of learning and the world of public affairs. It is with that aspiration that I appropriately ask all of you tonight to join me in a toast to our friend, Bill Baroody. Joe Flom. As the new chairman of the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars I have been given the pleasurable duty by the board to read a resolution which was adopted unanimously today with respect to Bill. I would first like to thank Bill for the help he has given me in the transition. His courtesy, his wisdom and his judgment are very much appreciated. He has set a standard which I hope I can match in my role. I would now like to read this resolution, which was unanimously passed today by the Board of Trustees: Whereas, William J. Baroody, Jr., in more than thirteen years of distinguished service to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, both as a member of its Board of Trustees and as its Chairman, devoted himself unstintingly, wisely, and supportively to the Center's growth and well-being; and Whereas, his devotion brought to the Center the bountiful benefits of his extraordinary wisdom, experience, and thoughtfulness, as well as his deep commitment to and participation in the worlds of scholarship and public affairs; and Whereas, his unfailing dedication to the Center and his sensitive, fair-minded leadership and often subtle guidance have increased the Center's stature and strengths, Therefore, be it resolved that the members of the Board of Trustees--in their own names, in the names of the Center staff, of all the scholars who have studied at the Center, and of all persons, in the United States and throughout the world, for whom the Wilsonian ideals of scholarship and high public purpose remain beacons of hope and humanity--extend to William J. Baroody, Jr., deep gratitude, lasting affection, and the sincere hope that the Center will remain close to his considerate and warm heart, and that he will continue to sustain the Baroody family tradition by participating in its life and exciting future. Joseph H. Flom and Charles Blitzer. Mr. Baroody. I do thank you most sincerely for the kind words. I guess it's a little like perfume: It's okay to sniff it as long as you don't swallow it. This has really been a treat for me. I'm very, very proud that three presidents and some fifty-two different board members have tolerated my presence on the board of this incredibly magnificent institution for as long as they have. I listened to the tape of a similar event held in honor of my father on June 9, 1980 just a few weeks before he died. I don't cite that tape or that event in invite comparisons, but as Max Kampelman introduced himself in that wonderfully humble way he has, Max insisted he had not replaced my father. He said he had succeeded, but not replaced my father as chairman, for no one could replace him. I mention that tape of that event among other very personal reasons because Pat Moynihan, the patron saint of this great Center, reminisced that night about his affiliation with the Center and with my father. Pat said that when he and Charles Blitzer conspired together in 1968 to draft the legislation to create the Center, their vision was to create a center of learning which the 22nd Century would regard as having influenced the 21st. I used to talk to dad about his vision for the Center, and in his response he would always mention an exchange he had with Pat Moynihan concerning the report dad commissioned at the beginning of his tenure as chairman in 1969 to help the Center determine what kind of an institution it should become. Pat Moynihan was then Ambassador to India, and dad cabled him to ask for his views on the mission of the Wilson Center. Ambassador Moynihan cabled back one sentence: ``Think no small thoughts.'' Well, I dare say that all four chairmen and three directors so far have demonstrated a commitment to building an institution that can fulfill the dream that emerged from the legislative drafting session in 1968, and the mission statement in 1969. From what I've seen of the that vision being distorted as we look to the future. This fall we conclude the first twenty-five years of the Wilson Center's existence. It has been my privilege to serve as the fourth chairman for almost half of the Center's existence. I have had the good fortune personally of observing and delighting in the increasing prominence and impact of the Center throughout the world. The essence of the Woodrow Wilson Center of course is its Fellows who come here from all over the world to pursue their scholarly studies and participate in the life of the Center. More than 1300 Fellows and guest scholars have been in residence since its creation and the fellowship selection process has become increasingly competitive each year, compelling evidence of the Center's expanding international reputation. Over the past quarter century the Wilson Center has retained its unique status in our nation's capital as a high quality international nonpartisan center. The great public value of a scholarly center like the Wilson Center cannot be overstated. Everyone associated with it should not only take pride in its accomplishments but also in the high reputation and standards it maintains, and to that end I would be remiss if I did not single out the two directors of the Wilson Center who have occupied that position during my tenure. Jim Billington whose vision and skill were largely responsible for building the Center into a world-class institution and Charles Blitzer who was there at the creation and in its formative years as Dillon Ripley's able agent and in the last several years as we have been consolidating and rethinking our mission in preparation for the second twenty- five years of this great institution. The Wilson Center and the country have been well served by the stewardship of these two extraordinarily able leaders and their very able staffs. I want to thank each of my fellow board members and friends who spoke tonight. I want to thank all of you for coming and I would like to conclude by raising my glass in a toast to the extraordinary men and women who have served on the staff of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars throughout its first twenty-five years. Its future is assured if it can maintain that caliber for the future.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this morning, in a room just off the Senate floor, a group representing over 450 of our Nation's most distinguished and respected economists--among them seven Nobel Laureates--gathered to express their profound and unequivocal opposition to a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced Federal budget. Their conclusions, based not on partisan proclivities, but on decades of scholarly inquiry in the field of economics, deserve the full attention of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that a portion of their remarks be reprinted in the Congressional Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on January 12 the chairman of the Citizens Committee for New York City, Osborn Elliott, gave a thought- provoking speech on the role of journalism in public life. Mr. Elliott is the former dean of the Columbia University School of Journalism, and his remarks, which were made at the Key West Literary Seminar, deserve the attention of the Senate. Accordingly, I ask that the speech be included in the Record. Time for the Press to Get Involved (John Hersey Memorial Lecture by Osborn Elliott) I'd like to tell you this evening about a love affair that is on the rocks. The romance began a long time ago. It started as a schoolboy's infatuation, went roiling lustily through the pubescent years, and ultimately flowered into a deep and sustaining passion. There were ups and downs along the way, just as there are in any relationship. But the bonds grew stronger as the decades passed. Now the affair is on the rocks, and I'm going to tell you why. My romance with journalism began sixty years ago, when I was a little boy. On my way home from school one day, I stopped in at Mr. Rappaport's stationery store at 62nd Street and Third Avenue, to buy a Christmas card. In the back of his shop Mr. Rappaport kept an ancient press surrounded by wooden cases of type. He invited me to watch as he plucked letters from a font, handset his type, then put the great, hissing, clanking press into motion. Somehow, amid the aromatic chaos of printer's ink and noise, pristine sheets of stationery came flying out of that old machine. To be young at Mr. Rappaport's was very heaven. It was the beginning of the affair. Before you could say Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, I had acquired a toy typewriter, and was banging out my own newspaper, The Weekly Eagle, shamelessly plagiarizing Lindbergh kidnaping stories from the New York Daily News. I made three carbon copies of my paper so that circulation (at a nickel a copy) could extend beyond my parents to my brother and the woman who took care of me when my mother and father were at work. The weekly Eagle lasted three weeks, and its circulation never exceeded a total of four (unaudited). After that came the thrill of working on my school magazine, and savoring that magical moment when copies would arrive from the printer, tightly wrapped in brown paper bundles. I would rip open the neat packages and wonder at how my henscratches had been miraculously converted into beautiful columns of type, marching down the page. Later, in the Navy, it fell my lot to edit my ship's paper and to deliver the nightly news over the public-address system. And it was while I was still in the Navy, in the winter of 1945, that I had my first brush with big-time journalism. I was home on leave from Admiral Halsey's fleet in the Pacific and my parents had invited Charles Merz, editorial page editor of The New York Times, to dinner one night. Before we went in to eat, Charlie Merz picked up the phone and called the Times. ``Anything new from Halsey?'' he inquired as I listened, goggle-eyed. Later that evening, Merz took us on a tour of the Times, through the newsroom and down to the typesetting room where the gangly linotype machines hissed and clanked, much like Mr. Rappaport's press. Then to the composing room, where pages were laid out and the type was locked up. And finally, to the pressroom, where everyone seemed to be nervously eyeing a large clock on the wall. As the sweep secondhand made its way around the face of the clock, Charlie Merz stepped up to the press. At 11 p.m. on the dot he raised his arm and he flicked an impressive red switch labeled

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution designating October 1996 as ``Roosevelt History Month,'' to coincide with the dedication of the new Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial now being built in the District of Columbia. A national history month celebrating the achievements of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt is an appropriate and necessary complement to the new memorial. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was born on January 30, 1882, in Hyde Park, NY, and entered politics in 1910 with his election to the New York State Senate. Later, he was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy and then sought and lost a bid for a seat in the U.S. Senate. Despite a debilitating attack of polio, he went on to become Governor of New York in 1928, establishing New York's first program of unemployment relief. As President of the United States from 1933 to 1945, Franklin Delano Roosevelt guided this Nation through two of the gravest crises of the 20th century, the Great Depression and the Second World War. In so doing, he defined our national stature and secured his place as one of the greatest American Presidents of the 20th century. It is therefore fitting that our country honor his efforts, and those of his wife, with a celebration of Roosevelt History Month. Citizens and organizations across the Nation may observe the month with appropriate ceremonies and activities to learn about a President and a generation who gave much to the Nation. Soon, a new granite memorial will be dedicated to President Roosevelt. I rise today and urge my colleagues to join me in dedicating a month to his legacy, a memorial of thought and history to complement the one of stone.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today the Department of State has taken an important step toward recognizing the reality of the status of Tibet. The annual ``Country Reports on Human Rights Practices'' was released today and for the first time there is a separate section on Tibet. For years there has been a fundamental difference in the way Congress and the executive branch have viewed Tibet. While the executive branch has attempted to obscure the fact that at one time we did support Tibet, Congress has stated its determination that Tibet is an occupied country. By separating the Tibet section from the China section on the human rights report, there is finally an acknowledgement that the administration recognizes Tibet as distinct from China. This new Tibet section fulfills one aspect of a provision which I introduced and was later signed into law as part of the State Department authorization act for fiscal year 1994-95. While I do not agree with certain portions of the report on Tibet, it is not without merit, and its authors deserve respect as able diplomats. This will send a clear signal to those in Beijing as well as those in Dharmsala, India where the Dalai Lama lives in exile, that the United States recognizes the special situation the Tibetans face. Those in Dharmsala have long known Congress supports them; now they can more clearly gauge the sentiments of the administration. This has been confusing. As the eminent journalist A.M. Rosenthal, who visited the Tibetans in exile in 1988, wrote: People in Dharmsala are understandably hazy about the intricacies of American government. They cannot quite get it straight how the Congress can be so warm to Tibet and the State Department and the White House make it clear that they intend to disregard Congress and continue the sellout of Tibet. Perhaps this marks a new chapter in United States foreign policy in which support for the people of Tibet will no longer be hazy.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to announce to the Senate that during the past week, 14 people were killed with firearms in New York City, bringing this year's total to 58. A recent national study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicated that homicide is the second leading cause of death among teenagers aged 15 to 19. If current nationwide trends continue, it is estimated that annual deaths from gunshot wounds will surpass annual deaths from automobile accidents by 2003. In New York State, as in the District of Columbia and five other States, this has already occurred. In 1992, there were 2,345 gunshot-related deaths in New York State, compared with 1,959 motor vehicle-related deaths. By the middle of the century, we recognized that traffic accidents constituted perhaps the greatest of the Nation's public health problems. So we did something about it. We passed the Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966 and increased the use of seatbelts, padded dashboards, and, more recently, air-bags. As a result, traffic death and injury was reduced by 30 percent, even as the number of miles driven by Americans increased dramatically. Estimates suggest that we prevented as many as 250,000 deaths. We should apply our experience in reducing traffic fatalities to reducing the achieve this: by establishing stricter requirements for gun ownership, by restricting access to the guns used most often to commit crimes, by making guns themselves safer, and by teaching people to use them safely. However, I propose that we can best reduce the incidence of firearm-related deaths not by restricting the supply of guns, but by restricting the supply of ammunition, particularly those rounds used disproportionately in violent crime. Even if we were able to resolve the intense conflicts surrounding the gun control debate, we would still have enough guns on the street to last us more than a century. Our current supply of ammunition, on the other hand, might well last only 3 or 4 years. We must heed the lessons of the past. Clearly we cannot change the behavior of criminals overnight, as we could not change the behavior of drivers. But there are other ways to control the escalating death rates. I believe that ammunition control is the best way, and I hope my colleagues will agree.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, of the many novel ideas which we associate with the advent to office of Representative Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House, none is more singular than his suggestion that we would all do well to read, or perhaps reread, ``The Federalist.'' As a New Yorker, I much applaud the proposal, and would presume on the Senate's time to invoke that venerable tradition in the context of the current debate over the proposed United States guarantee of Mexican debt. The most striking, at least to my mind, of those 85 essays by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay is the assertion that the proposed new Constitution was based on a ``new science of politics.'' If I may cite a commentary of my own, written some years ago, the establishment of the American Government in the latter part of the 18th century took its foremost distinction from the belief of those involved that they were acting upon scientific principles. Hamilton noted, in the ninth ``Federalist,'' that previous republics had had such stormy histories that republicanism had admittedly fallen somewhat into disrepute. This tendency could be overcome thanks to progress in political science: The science of politics * * * like most other sciences, has received great improvement. The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancient. He went on to cite, as examples of new discoveries, the various constitutional provisions with which we are now familiar, separation of powers, the system of checks and balances, popular representation in the legislature, the independent judiciary, and so on. How exactly had the ``efficacy of various principles'' come to be so ``well understood''? By scientific method, of course. Which is to say, the deductive analysis of available data. Which, in turn, is to say the study of different systems of government which had prevailed at different times and places in the past. No. 18: Among the confederacies of antiquity, the most considerable was that of the Grecian Republics associated under the Amphyctionic Council. No. 17 (by Hamilton, naturally): When the sovereign happened to be a man of vigorous and warlike temper and of superior abilities, he would acquire a personal weight and influence. * * * Among other illustrations of [this] * * * truth which might be cited Scotland will furnish a cogent example. The spirit of clanship which was at an early day introduced into that kingdom, uniting the nobles and their dependents by ties equivalent to those of kindred, rendered the aristocracy a constant overmatch for the power of the monarch; till the incorporation with England subdued its fierce and ungovernable spirit, and reduced it within those rules of subordination, which a more rational and a more energetic system of civil polity had previously established in the latter kingdom. No. 19: The examples of ancient confederacies * * * have not exhausted the source of experimental instruction on this subject. There are existing institutions, founded on a similar principle, which merit particular consideration. The first which presents itself is the Germanic Body. This is but a sampler. ``The Federalist'' abounds in analysis of the principles on which different states are founded, and the successes or failures, the strengths and weaknesses associated with each. It is an unequaled analytic tradition. The more troublesome, then, is its disappearance in our time. Notably in the matter of our relations with the State of Mexico. From the time it was first proposed that we enter a free-trade agreement with Mexico, I have objected for a single reason. Mexico is a Leninist State. The Leninist State is the most noteworthy, if calamitous, political invention of the 20th century. Having just come through a 70-year struggle with the original such State, formed as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, you would suppose we would be able to recognize one on our southern border. But then you might suppose many things about the analytic reach of the Department of State and of Treasury, only to be disappointed. Note that the American Labor movement had no such difficulty. Let me hasten to state that Leninist principles were never fully deployed in Mexico. There was no Great Terror. Even so, ``Americas Watch'' records in a 1992 assessment that ``torture is endemic'' in Mexico. Which is to say, State torture. Political opponents are murdered. Elections are propaganda exercises, and so forth. The central principle of the Leninist State is that a single political party holds sway over the whole of society, and in particular, governs the government. We know from the Soviet experience, and for that matter from the Mexican experience, that this is never wholly successful. Yet it is the principle. Hence, the Partido Revolucionario Institucional. Literally translated, the Party of the Institutional Revolution. The simple fact is that the Russian Revolution made a great impression in Mexico--as it did in the United States and most countries in the world. But unlike most, Mexico set out to reproduce the Soviet model. So much that when Trotsky fled the Soviet Union, now controlled by Stalin, he did not settle in Paris, as failed revolutionaries were expected to do; he went instead to Mexico City. Upon his arrival in 1937, Trotsky saw that Mexico was a important battleground in the struggle to win international support for Marxism. He wrote: Of all the Spanish-speaking countries, Mexico is virtually the only one where the necessary freedom exists for the dissemination of the Marxist word. This international situation assigns a leading role to Mexican Marxists not just with respect to Latin America, but with respect to Spain itself, as well the growing Spanish emigration to all countries of the Old and New World. * * * History has assigned serious responsibilities to Mexican Marxists. Stalin, of course, pursued him. But Trotsky's myth persists in Mexico. This from the August 27, 1990, issue of Newsweek: Leon Trotsky? The man who applauded the arrest of dissident factions of the dawn of the Russian Revolution? The military commissar who argued for the coercion of workers into industry and preached that the Soviet Union should be a springboard for world revolution? This week, on the 50th anniversary of his assassination at the order of Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky is being hailed in Mexico as a prophet of perestroika, an avatar of socialism with a human face. The Mexico City government has spent more than $100,000 to restore the house where Trotsky died; the elaborate ceremony to make its reopening this week was to be presided over by the mayor. ``This anniversary * * * is our chance to show that socialism still has validity,'' Aguilar insists, ``that it can still be identified with human rights.'' Exclaims political scientist Paulina Fernandez: ``Trotsky represents a badge of honor for communism today.'' This may seem sentimental and harmless; and to a degree it was. But in foreign affairs, for example, the Government of Mexico made itself a firm ally of Marxist causes throughout the cold war. At the United Nations it would occasionally vote with the United States, mostly by accident. But in General Assembly votes 1975-90, it voted with the Warsaw Pact 90.3 percent of the time. I was present as U.S. Representative in 1975 when Mexico joined the Soviet Union and 70 of the most obnoxious dictatorships in the world in the infamous Resolution 3370, declaring Zionism to be a form of racism. Mexico had no part in the quarrels of the Middle East, but that was the party line and the Partido Revolucionario Institucional toed it. Mind, by 1990 the Leninist regime in Mexico was coming apart, much as it was in Russia. The regime had long since become corrupt; rather, the corruption had long since become evident. A kind of division of the spoils took place. Intellectuals were given foreign policy. Viva Fidel and all that. Entrepreneurs were given industry--such that in 1993, President Salinas could hold a fundraising dinner at $25 million a plate. Party bosses were given various fiefdoms--to use a feudal term-- probably including portions of the drug traffic. And so it went. Workers got little; peasants got nothing. Then reform appeared. The central organizing principle of the P.R.I., one which had indeed brought stability to the Mexican State after decades of bloody chaos, was the single term, 6-year Presidency. In 1988, the P.R.I. chose Carlos Salinas de Gortari, who had earned a Ph.D. in government at Harvard. Others like him appeared in Mexican Government circles. It is not clear to me how much they rejected the Leninist model of the Mexican State. Surely they accommodated it; almost certainly, however, they recognized that it didn't work well. In the Leninist tradition, if you will, this brought about vicious intraparty conflict. To succeed Salinas, the P.R.I. chose Luis Donaldo Colosio, who attended the University of Pennsylvania, to be the next President of Mexico--this choice was probably dictated by Salinas, one of the inducements to giving up office in the Mexican manner is the power to choose one's successor--Colosio was assassinated in Tijuana in March, 1994. Among those subsequently arrested were local P.R.I. opponents of Colosio. Probably in the same pattern, in September, 1994, Jose Francisco Ruiz Massieu, the reform minded Secretary-General of the P.R.I., was assassinated in Mexico City. The main suspect has evidently implicated other P.R.I. officials in the killing. In the meantime, in Chiapas, followers, or descendants, or what you will, of Emiliano Zapata brought about an internal rebellion. Zapata, who had written in 1918: Much would we gain, much would human justice gain, if all the people of our America and all the nations of old Europe should understand that the cause of revolutionary Mexico and the cause of Russia, the unredeemed, are and represent the cause of humanity, the supreme interest of all oppressed people. * * * It is not strange, for this reason that the proletariat of the world applauds and admires the Russian Revolution in the same manner as it will lend its complete adhesion, sympathy and support to the Mexican Revolution once it fully comprehends its objectives. That was then. It is now 1994. Mexico has entered into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada. There will be a Presidential election in August. The regime is in peril. A fixed exchange rate is maintained to ensure a large inflow of U.S. consumer goods to produce a sufficiently satisfied electorate. A huge foreign debt ensues. Followed in turn by devaluation and the present crisis of 1995. Surely, this could have been anticipated as a possible if not probable sequence. It was not. Two successive administrations went forward with NAFTA with the same confidence that had attended our earlier free-trade agreement with Canada. I have no explanation for this. None has been proffered--note that A.M. Rosenthal argues in this morning's Times that there is a need for testimony under oath. A plausible explanation would be that our policy makers looked upon Mexico as a typical Third World economy which had adopted a policy of import substitution as a means towards industrial development. This was common enough economic strategy in the postcolonial period. Charles P. Kindleberger notes that it was indeed the much respected prescription of eminent economists such as Raul Prebisch of Argentina and Gunnar Myrdal of Sweden. India would be a good example of a democratic developing nation that opted for this strategy. By the beginning of the 1990's, however, the Indian Government was changing its view--even as at the beginning of the 1980's it had faced a foreign exchange crisis. Surely, Mexican Government officials, under the influence in part at least of American economists, had also begun to change. The collapse of the Soviet Union hastened this appreciation in the value of American degrees. Just this Monday a poor fellow was ousted from President Zedillo's cabinet for having falsely claimed to have a doctorate from Harvard. But old habits die hard in a still theoretically one-party State. A free-trade agreement necessitates a flexible exchange rate to correct imbalances in the flow of imports and exports. Even so, the Salinas government maintained a fixed exchange rate until after the election. Then came the crash. At this point I would like to make a seemingly contradictory argument. I opposed NAFTA. First, I voted against President Bush's request for ``fast track'' authority. Then, in 1993, I voted against the resulting agreement. I was then chairman of the Finance Committee. I did nothing whatever to hold up the agreement, and I might have done. To the contrary, I saw to it that it was reported out of the committee promptly. When it came to the floor, I asked my colleague Max Baucus, then chairman of the Subcommittee on International Trade, to manage time in support of the bill. Which thereupon passed. My objections, which I believe I stated clearly enough, were political more than economic. I did not believe that the United States appreciated the troubles that would almost surely come of entering into so close a relationship with a polity so very different from our own; different in ways that could bring about a crisis such as that of the present. Nonetheless, I fully support Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin in their advocacy of a $40 billion loan guarantee fund for Mexico. My reasons are twofold. First, I have the uttermost respect for Dr. Greenspan and his associates in this matter. He asserts that he came to his present position ``with great reluctance.'' This week he told the Finance Committee that he all but detested the ``too big to fail'' argument, be it applied to banks or nations. And, yet, there was something to it. Just yesterday, he told the Foreign Relations Committee, ``If this were strictly confined to Mexico, there would be no purpose whatsoever in a confined to Mexico. It is Dr. Greenspan's judgment that the economies of the whole of the developing world are potentially at risk. The Senator from New York is not about to hear such testimony from Alan Greenspan and pay no heed. Similarly, I was struck by the comment yesterday by my distinguished colleague, Paul Coverdell, not just incidentally former head of the Peace Corps, warning against demands for strict conditions on the loan guarantee which may ``inflame'' relations with Mexico. May, indeed. They most assuredly will. Then we shall have chaos on our hands; or rather, on our border. In my view, it comes to this. We probably ought never to have entered a free-trade agreement with a polity so very different from our own. But we did. And we now face the consequences. They are nothing we cannot manage. As the headline from an editorial in the Buffalo News of January 26, 1995 explains: It's risky, but U.S. has to try to rescue Mexico's economy location and trade links leave us little choice The true disaster would be to insist on conditions that would arouse all the hostility and hysteria of a nation of 93 million souls on our southern border who for almost the whole of the 20th century have defined themselves by what they loathed in us. Cuidado, amigos. Thank you, Mr. President, for your patience. I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, our Nation's Governors, mayors, and county executives have long sought relief from the imposition of unfunded mandates by the Federal Government. For to long, we have thought too little about the consequences of Federal decisions on the budgets of States, cities, counties, and towns. With the passage of S.1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, the Senate has undertaken an important and historic restructuring of the intergovernmental relationship between Washington and State and local governments. Much of the debate on this bill has been about achieving an appropriate balance between the need to reduce the fiscal burdens on State and local governments and concern over impairment of the ability of Congress to legislate in areas where Federal responsibility is clear. Several amendments were debated on the floor in an attempt to achieve this balance. Among the amendments which I supported, but which was defeated, was one which would have excluded from S.1's procedures mandates intended to apply equally to governmental entities and the private sector. Passage of this amendment would have expressly precluded situations from arising where either health and safety standards would apply differently to State and local governments than to the private sector, or where the private sector could have been placed at a competitive disadvantage. Although a separate amendment was approved requiring authorizing committees to include a description of any action taken by the committee to avoid any adverse impact on the competitive balance between the public and private sectors, this situation will nonetheless bear close watching. Despite the failure of this amendment and others I supported to be adopted, I have concluded that, on balance, S.1 is worthy of support. It recognizes--for the first time--that the Federal Government must consider the budgetary impact on States and localities of the laws we enact and the regulations we promulgate. This was an important acknowledgement and, I believe, a positive step. I commend the managers of this legislation, and look forward House passage ad swift approval by the President.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to announce to the Senate that during the past week, 17 people were killed with firearms in New York City, bringing this year's total to 44. I should point out to my colleagues that the average age of those murdered with firearms in New York City so far this year is approximately 25. Some have been as young as 16 years old. Consistently, those between the ages 15-24 comprise the largest percentage of those murdered with firearms, according to mortality statistics compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 1993, according to the F.B.I.'s Uniform Crime Report, 6,244 of the 16,189 people murdered with firearms were between the ages of 15-24. That is nearly 40 percent. A similar percentage of murder offenders in 1993 were between the ages of 15-24. These are, in many cases, children killing children. Mr. President, as I have often reminded the Senate, we must begin to recognize the epidemic nature of gun violence in America. Homicide is the second leading cause of death among our youth and the leading cause of death among our black youth. A disproportionate number of these murders are carried out with firearms.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, there are still many puzzles left unsolved from the cold war. Perhaps one of the most frustrating is the disappearance of Raoul Wallenberg. To this day, a full account of why Raoul Wallenberg was arrested and what has become of him is still not forthcoming from the Russian government. I rise today to commemorate this brave hero of the Holocaust who worked tirelessly and with great courage to save thousands of Jews from Nazi concentration camps in Hungary. It is 50 years ago today since Mr. Wallenberg was arrested by agents of the Soviet Union at the time of the invasion of Budapest by the Red Army. He disappeared while in Soviet custody and despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, many questions concerning his fate are unresolved. This is matter which has long held my attention. In the summer of 1979, I met with Nina Lagergren, Raoul Wallenberg's sister. Shortly thereafter, Senators Pell, Church, Boschwitz and I founded the Free Wallenberg Committee. This working group, with the active involvement of my wife Liz, Lena Biorck Kaplan and others, strongly encouraged the administration to pursue the facts of the Wallenberg case with the Soviet Union. Support from then Secretary of State Vance was strong, but the Soviets were not cooperative. In August 1980 I introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 117, calling upon the President to raise the Wallenberg case at the Madrid Review Conference of the Helsinki accords which took place that year. Ambassador Max Kampelman and the other U.S. officials made several overtures to the Soviets at the Madrid Conference but found them to be as unyielding as ever. We too are unyielding. I later joined Senator Pell and other members of the Free Wallenberg Committee in sponsoring Senate Joint Resolution 65 to grant Raoul Wallenberg U.S. citizenship. When President Reagan signed that legislation into law, Raoul Wallenberg became only the fourth person ever to be granted honorary U.S. citizenship. A truly remarkable man, Raoul Wallenberg was undaunted in his efforts to undo or prevent some of the evil done by Nazis. He was a hero of the best and boldest kind, and demonstrated what free men, even when acting alone, can accomplish against those who would crush the freedom of others. We await answers. Until there is satisfaction that we have the most thorough accounting of his life and whereabouts since being taken into Soviet custody 50 years ago, we will not let this rest. This is not a problem of the Russian Government's making, but of their Soviet predecessor. They should take it upon themselves to undo the nefarious deeds of the Soviet Union. The world deserves to know the fate of this brave Swedish soul.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to continue my weekly practice of reporting to the Senate on the death lost their lives to bullet wounds in New York City, bringing this year's total to 27.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise at the end of our day to speak to the subject with which the House and Senate began the day, which is the crisis of currency and foreign exchange in Mexico and the prospect that, unless there is a quite extraordinary and urgent action in the United States, the Government of Mexico might default on its foreign obligations, a matter which would have repercussions not just throughout the Western Hemisphere, not just in our own economy and that of Canada and the rest of Latin America as already has been the case in Argentina and Brazil, but, indeed, repercussions throughout the world. A world of previously rigidly controlled, usually government-controlled economies that have been moving toward free markets in the general shift of attitudes that have come with the end of the cold war, and with the appearance of wholly new and quite revolutionary currency market systems. Mr. President, we have to act. We have to act now, immediately. And every day that goes by is a day in which the difficulty of acting effectively becomes more problematic. Order of Procedure

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I was saying that we are in the midst of a regional crisis which could become a global crisis in very short order. Such are the speeds with which currency markets move at this time, such is the enormous amount of capital not controlled by governments. Such is the capacity already in evidence in our region to reconsider the whole degree of risk involved in these new economies. This week's ``The Economist'' speaks of this matter in no fewer than three separate pieces. I speak, sir, in support of the general outlines as they are understood presently of the agreements reached on a bipartisan basis between the Members of the Senate, the leadership in the House, the administration, and, of course, the Federal Reserve Board in the person of our distinguished chairman, Alan Greenspan. the Treasury, Mr. Greenspan, and Dr. Summers, who is the Treasury Undersecretary and is deeply involved in these matters. A number of persons mentioned the degree to which there was already a reaction in this country--on radio call-in shows and such like-- speaking in various degrees of censure and animosity about those in this Chamber and the other body who had supported the North American Free-Trade Agreement and now find themselves having to associate with this emergency action in a crisis atmosphere. I would like to speak as one who did not support that agreement, who was opposed from the first, and yet who very much supports the measures we are working on even as I speak, and to make the point that this was always a close question in the Senate. On May 24, 1991, on the issue of giving the administration--then the administration of President Bush--fast-track authority to negotiate a North American Free-Trade Agreement, 36 of us in this body--a large number--voted not to do so. A position which I believe, in retrospect, might have given a little more sense of treading carefully to our negotiators. But there you are. The agreement was negotiated beginning after that vote, and eventually it came to the Committee on Finance, as such trade agreements do. By then I was chairman of the committee and was one of four members of the committee who voted not to report the bill favorably, although fully intent that the bill be reported, as clearly 16 members of the committee wished to be done, and as the President, President Clinton, had assumed the same position of his predecessor in this regard, as was also the case of the Uruguay round. The bill came to the floor in November 1993 and, again, the approval was not overwhelming. It was 61 to 38. Of course, there was a great deal of opposition from a very wide range, wide spectrum of opponents, and they might at this point be tempted to assert they had been right all along. I would like to take a different view. I would like to make the case that the arguments, such as they were, against this agreement had to do with the nature of the Mexican polity. I was one who absolutely supported a free-trade agreement with Canada, a country that has a regime of law similar to our own, a tradition of an impartial and independent judiciary, of free elections, of basically a market system in their economy in which differences, when they arise, are settled according to procedures that are well understood and agreed to by both parties. It is simply the case, Mr. President, that these conditions still do not exist in Mexico. They are not wholly absent and in no sense can we suggest--can we or ought we suggest--that they will not evolve. But they have not yet done so. The Mexican Government remains fundamentally a one-party state. Other parties are tolerated, and there have been occasions recently in which the PRI, the Party of the Institutionalized Revolution, has, in fact, accepted defeat in a local election. But, in the main, since the 1920's, there has been one party, and it has dominated all aspects of the national life. At the time, and particularly under President Cardenas in the 1930's, it was a great achievement. We tend, because of our own tradition, I suppose, to pay a great deal of attention to the onset of revolution and instability, if you will. That, in fact, Mr. President, is a very ordinary event. It happens with the frequency of hurricanes in the Caribbean. A much more rare event in world history is the onset of stability. Mexico had been a hugely unstable society, largely because--if I can offer a thought, and I see my friend from New Mexico is on the floor and he would have a better, closer sense than I--but the Mexican polity had never developed a device for yielding office. It has frequently been remarked by American Presidents that the American democracy really began--oh, Philadelphia was fine, the inauguration of George Washington was fine--but democracy really began when John Adams learned he had lost the election to Thomas Jefferson, turned over a mostly empty Treasury, the Great Seal, what there was of the Army, and left for Massachusetts, thinking that he had been a failure when, in fact, he had proven in a democracy that free election can bring a transfer of party and power. That has never happened in Mexico. What has happened is that the invention was that a President would leave office but he would choose his successor and would find himself frequently in an advantaged and attractive position in the aftermath of a single term. But it also meant that there were no free elections; and in addition, that there were frequent, dramatic violations of human rights. Freedom House and Americas Watch have recorded this with great care and concern--not hostility, but concern. Americas Watch reported not 2 years ago that torture was endemic in Mexico. Not that it happened here and there, but it was endemic; it was a device of social control, torture--not long prison sentences or the like, but torture as a wholly illegal, extralegal, but normal practice. The judiciary had no independence. And the outcome of the election was a given, excepting on occasion, very rarely, very infrequently, when another party was allowed to prevail. In that circumstance, Mr. President, I believed that we would be associating ourselves--we would, as we have done--in intricate economic-social relations with a polity very different from our own and very problematic as regards those aspects of our civilization, our polity, if you like, and of Canada's, surely, which we find of central importance. And the agreement we reached itself was problematic in certain respects. For example, the Mexican investors had instant access to American markets--open, free, unfettered with that always indispensable feature that you could buy anything you could pay for. For example, a Mexican firm recently purchased a seat on the New York Stock Exchange. Fine. But the reciprocity you would expect has not taken place. For example, American financial institutions and many other American investors have had very restricted access to the Mexican market. The agreement provided for only limited access, over a very long transition period. Now, at this moment of a financial crisis, the Mexican Government could very much wish it had done otherwise and provided as much access as anybody wished. And, indeed, they now have begun to do just that, even as the agreement provides otherwise. They would be in a stronger position today if they had done so earlier. They would be in a stronger position today if they had done so in the agreement. But the fact they did not was very characteristic of a regime not to want any other influences that would challenge its own power. This was not an accident. It was a normal response of such a regime, not to let any other influences take hold that they could not control. Well, sir, they have not been able to do so, and once again we see a crisis of large consequence with international implications. The peso has dropped 40 percent in three weeks or thereabouts. Inflation may reach 40 to 50 percent this year. There is a renewed concern, as a result, along that border that reaches from the Caribbean to the Pacific, with all the consequences for illegal immigration, a matter of very deep concern to States on the border, especially to California. What are we to do? It seems to me we have no alternative and that we do have a real opportunity. If we act, if we provide $40 billion in loan guarantees, the plan would be for the Mexican Government to pay a fee to compensate us for assuming that risk. That promises technically the guarantor will make money out of such an event in normal circumstances. I do not say this will happen. It could. We issued a very large loan guarantee to the Israelis a few years ago in a matter of providing housing for the sudden, huge immigration that was coming from the Soviet Union, and they were to pay a fee for any bonds backed by our dollar guarantee. They have not used that. They have not exercised that option at all. But were they to do so, we would be in a position of a lender receiving compensation for a guarantee. But if we do not do this, we face the prospect of not only instability in the currencies of the Western Hemisphere or the developing nations around the itself. We have seen this in the Chiapas insurgency which is not yet resolved by any means. We have seen it in instances of political killings. I do not want to get in any way abrasive, but I commented on this floor at one point that Mexico is a country where you can murder archbishops and say they inadvertently wandered into the line of fire in a police action involving drug dealers, which was the equivalent of being shot while in church. Mr. President, Mr. Paul Gigot, in this morning's Wall Street Journal, writes that if we fail to stem the crisis, we ``can expect more Mexican sons and daughters to arrive in San Diego soon''. Unwilling to stay in Mexico, seeking a promise of better opportunities, overwhelming the opportunities of our own people in our own country. We cannot do that. We cannot risk undermining a reviving Argentina economy, a promising Brazilian economy. We cannot put at risk the efforts around the world of countries that moved away from centrally controlled, to use a French term, ``dirigiste'' regimes in which American investment is kept out, American goods kept out, autarky I think as the economists would call it, and with the result of economic stagnation. The courage--and it takes courage--to open up, to be part of the world economy is more and more in evidence everywhere. That courage could turn into fear and retreat in a very short order if we do not act. I would like to congratulate the majority leader of the Senate, Robert Dole, and the minority leader, Tom Daschle, for their willingness to meet with the President, in the company of their counterparts from the House, to bring forth a bipartisan American initiative which is very much directed to the protection of American interests, and I hope it succeeds. I hope it finds support on the Senate floor with Senators generally as it has done with the leadership. I thank my friends for their patience. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to reform the way the Federal Government builds. Ever since my election to Congress, I have attempted to improve our unwieldy and often wasteful public building program. I do so again this Congress. Building appropriately and well is as fundamental a sign of the competence have chosen increasingly to rent, avoiding the up-front costs of buildings and the hard decisions requisite in their construction. The result is that now we house over 40 percent of the Government in leased space. Not temporary space. Eternal space. And the cost? Now, $2.2 billion a year and rising. There will be nothing to show for this money when the lease is up, only the prospect of another lease. The point is that we can no longer afford to sidestep the problem by renting; we must face up to the task of building. And to do this, we must reform our public building program. We must plan out rationally just what buildings we need, we must build them in the right place, we must build them at the right time, we must build them to the degree of permanence appropriate to their mission, and finally, we must build them for a fair price. We are not really that distant from the time it fell to me as a young member of the Kennedy administration to draw up the ``Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture,'' which President Kennedy put forth on June 1, 1962. But in our time the fear of taxpayer resentment of the cost of public buildings has been compounded with an almost ideological alarm at the implications of building itself. Building, however, is still cheaper than renting. We are deceiving the taxpayer to say otherwise. Recently, the GSA came to the Environment and Public Works Committee asking for 11th-hour approval of an office space lease at a yearly cost of $21 million. To build would have cost $70-$100 million. This, however, was a lease in name only, cast as such to avoid up-front scoring for the budget. The building had yet to be designed, the GSA had not fully planned the space, and yet they were asking approval for an expenditure over the term of the lease of $420 million. Several times the cost of building and nothing to show for it after 20 years but a file full of rental receipts. Nevertheless, the decision to stop hiding behind leases is beyond the scope of the legislation I introduce today, which aims simply to ensure that what is built is built responsibly and worthy of the Nation. Building or leasing is the larger question, and it remains to be seen whether this Congress will accept the responsibility or, as is so often the case, put off resolution to the end of a 20-year lease term, when few, if any of us, will be here still.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, at the beginning of the second session of the 103d Congress, I began what became a weekly routine of reporting to the Senate on the number of homicides committed by gunshot in New York City. Not surprisingly, the numbers were shocking. In 1994, a total of 910 victims were shot to death. That is an average of over 17 each week. Many more sustained serious injuries from bullet wounds. As of Sunday, January 8, 1995, 21 people had been shot to death in New York City. That despite the frigid weather, which often serves as a deterrent to violent crime. Obviously, the problem is not going away. It is unfortunate that I need to remind my colleagues of these grim statistics. But until we begin to take meaningful steps to remedy this appalling situation, I plan to continue my practice of reporting each week on the terrible death toll by gunshot in New York City. Thankfully, there is some good news to report. The number of those who lost their lives to gunshot in New York City last year is substantially lower than the number in 1993, which was 1,450. The bad news is that national totals are still on the rise. In 1993, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 16,189 people were killed by firearms, nearly 1,000 more than in the previous year. We made some important gains in our fight against gun violence in the 103d Congress. First we passed the Brady law in November 1993. Since then we have prevented thousands of fugitives and felons from illegally purchasing guns. Second, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which was signed by President Clinton on September 13, 1994, the Senate agreed to a ban on 19 types of semiautomatic assault weapons. That same bill also included a provision sponsored by the Senator from New York banning a new class of cop- killer bullets capable of piercing the soft body armor worn by law enforcement officials. We need to continue to enact tough laws that will begin to curb the plague of gun violence. But with some 200 million firearms in circulation today, and with an estimated 5,479 new ones hitting the streets each day, it seems obvious that gun control can ultimately have only limited success. That is why I have long advocated ammunition control as the best solution to the epidemic of gun violence. While we have a supply of guns that will last us well into the next century, if not longer, we have perhaps only a 3- or 4-year supply of ammunition. The obvious solution, then, is to control the supply of bullets, particularly those used most often in the commission of crimes. On the first day of the 104th Congress, I introduced six bills, some of which I had introduced in previous Congresses, relating to the subject of ammunition control. Some of these place bans on certain rounds of ammunition, including the deadly Black Talon bullet. Others heavily tax these pernicious bullets. A final bill requires records to be kept with respect to the disposition of ammunition and commissions a national study on the use of bullets. Currently, there are no reporting requirements for manufacturers or importers of ammunition. We need to know how much of what kinds of ammunition are being produced in order to help us craft more intelligent policy in this area. Mr. President, 1994 saw too many tragic incidents involving guns. Many occurred right here in the city of Washington. Doubtless, many more will occur in 1995. We can, and must, do something about this without delay. I urge my colleagues to support the measures which I have introduced. Mr. PACKWOOD addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I should like to join my dear friend and once again my chairman, the Senator from Oregon, for having so graciously handled this important, if not indeed, Mr. President, urgent, nomination at the earliest possible time, in the second week of the Congress. The Committee on Finance met this morning. We may have hit upon an innovation, Mr. President. This morning we voted to confirm Mr. Rubin, and then we asked questions of him. This evening we voted to confirm him and then we are making speeches about our action. This might expedite procedures very considerably. But this is a fortunate moment; at a time when a Secretary of the Treasury is urgently needed, we have a message which goes out to the Nation and to the world that an officer of the Cabinet with fullest confidence of the Senate has been confirmed directly. Senator Packwood was kind enough to mention the work of Mr. Rubin as chairman of the National Economic Council for the past 2 years. It would not be wrong to note that during that period we have created 5.6 million new jobs in the Nation. We have had an average growth of real gross domestic product of 3.5 percent. We have had an extraordinary recovery in which the rest of the world we hope will now join with us. And we have had 3 years running a declining deficit, the first time it happened since the Presidency of Harry S. Truman coming off the Second World War. I would note sir, Mr. Rubin will be the 68th Secretary of the Treasury. Of these 13 have been from New York. We might also add Nicholas Brady and Douglas Dillon, but they chose to live in New Jersey. But this is a special moment for all of us. I congratulate the Secretary as he now is. I thank the chairman.

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

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, according to the Associated Press, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has decided to issue a license for the manufacture of Rhino Ammo by the Signature Products Corp. of Huntsville, AL. Rhino Ammo, according to its manufacturer, is designed to fragment upon impact with human tissue in order to inflict maximum injury, Mr. David Keen, the chief executive of Signature Corp., has said of this ammunition: The beauty behind it is that it makes an incredible wound. * * * That's not by accident. It's engineered by design. The round disintegrates as it hits. There's no way to stop the bleeding. * * * I don't care where it hits. They're going down for good. The application for this license should be denied. There is something sick about a chief executive officer of an American corporation making such a statement to sell ammunition specifically designed to cause, in Mr. Keen's own words, ``horrific'' wounds. There is a history here. The St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 was the first effort to ban certain types of ammunition which caused unnecessary suffering. The United States was not a party to the declaration, but we did ratify the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, both of which banned the use of dum-dum bullets. Dum-dum bullets were invented in the late 19th century at the British arsenal in the town of Dum Dum, which was located 6 miles northeast of the Calcutta city center at the time. The rounds expand upon impact, thereby causing much larger wounds than ordinary bullets. The Hague Conference of 1899 met in May 1899. It was attended by 26 nations and produced three conventions, the second of which was the ``Convention with respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land.'' The Conference also produced three declarations. Here is the text of the third declaration: III. On Expanding Bullets--The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions. It was ``especially prohibited'' by article 23(e) of the Hague Convention of 1899, To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury. And it was ``especially forbidden'' article 23(e) of the Hague Convention of 1907, To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. The Treasury Department has apparently decided that Americans may arm themselves and use rounds of ammunition which would be forbidden by treaty--the supreme law of the land--to the U.S. Armed Forces. This borders on contempt of the law. It borders further on contempt of Congress. On Thursday, January 5, in the Washington Post I reported on efforts in the statutes and other means that Congress has adopted in recent years banning rounds of ammunition of particular threat to police officers. Any number of police officials have stated that once this round is manufactured and sold, it will end up being used against policemen. Evidently, this does not in any way trouble the Treasury Department. Clearly, there has to be a complete review in the executive branch of this issue. Just as clearly no license should be issued until that review has been made and submitted to Congress.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it is no secret that a serious re- examination of our intelligence needs is in order. Since 1991, when I introduced the End of the Cold War Act, I have endeavored to bring the shortcomings of the intelligence community to public light. Not to denigrate our intelligence efforts, but to improve them. Despite resistance to change, much of the End of the Cold War Act has been implemented. We have eliminated ``Lookout Lists,'' which excluded persons who merely expressed ``unacceptable'' opinions from entry into the United States. One aspect of the bill yet to be implemented brings me to the floor today: the transfer of the functions of the Central Intelligence Agency to the Department of State. The scrutiny that has now visited the intelligence community in the aftermath of the exposure of Aldrich Ames, the man whose treason caused the deaths of at least 10 American agents, increases the likelihood that some long needed reassessments will be made. I do not relish these circumstances, for to a great extent the Ames case merely distracts from some of the most fundamental defects of the CIA. While the Ames affair brings attention to the Directorate of Operations, it takes scrutiny away from the Directorate of Intelligence. What of operations? Speaking before the Boston Bar Association in 1993, John le Carre, the man who provided us with a window into the world of a spy, questioned the contributions of spies to the winning of the cold war. In his remarks he stated: You see, it wasn't the spies who won the cold war. I don't believe that in the end the spies mattered very much at all. Their capsuled isolation and their remote theorizing actually prevented them from seeing, as late as 1987 or 8, what anybody in the streets could have told them: ``It's over. We've won. The Iron Curtain is crashing down! The monolith we fought is a bag of bones! Come out of your trenches and smile!'' Even the victory, for them, was a cunning Bolshevik Trick. And anyway, what had they got to smile about? It was a victory achieved by openness, not secrecy. By frankness, not intrigue. The Soviet Empire did not fall apart because the spooks had bugged the men's room in the Kremlin or put broken glass in Mrs. Brezhnev's bath, but because running a huge closed repressive society in the 1980s had become--economically, socially and militarily, and technologically--impossible. The collapse of the Soviet Union was therefore the very denial of secrecy. Mr. le Carre is not alone. Recently William Pfaff in an article in the International Herald Tribune posed the question, ``what positive things do [spies] accomplish?'' He reached much the same conclusion as le Carre and added that ``the useful information today is that supplied by area specialists, historians and ethnologists, and through conventional diplomatic observation and journalism.'' If covert operations failed to have an impact as suggested by le Carre and Pfaff, what of our intelligence analysis? How did that serve us in the cold war? I believe I have fully laid out to the Senate on previous occasions my assessment and those of numerous respected individuals on the performance of the CIA in this regard. The defining failure of the CIA was their inability to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union. In 1975, along with my daughter Maura, I visited China as a guest of George Bush, who was then Chief of our U.S. Liaison Office of Peking. By this time, I was persuaded the Soviet Union would break up along ethnic lines. In a ``Letter From Peking'' dated January 26, 1975, which I wrote and submitted to The New Yorker, the closing passage reads: While it is agreed that few Marxist-Leninist predictions have come true in the twentieth century, it is perhaps not sufficiently noticed that certain predictions about Marxist- Leninist regimes have proved durable enough. Lincoln Steffens returned from Moscow in the early years, pronouncing that he had seen the future, and it worked. Well, it was one future, and it has worked for a half century, and may have considerable time left before ethnicity breaks it up. Red China works, too, and is likely to last even longer. I believe this is the first time in my writing that I stated the belief then forming that the Soviet Union would not conquer the world, but rather, would one day break up along ethnic lines. A no longer brief acquaintance with Central Asia and its history had about convinced me. I thought then, at mid-decade, that this might require considerable time. By the end of the decade, I had decided it would be upon us sooner. In 1979, in an issue of Newsweek devoted to predictions of what would happen in the eighties, I submitted it was likely that the Soviet Union would break up. Former Director of Central Intelligence, Adm. Stansfield Turner, writing in Foreign Affairs in 1991, confirms that such a possibility had not penetrated the intelligence community when he stated. Today we hear some revisionist rumblings that the CIA did in fact see the Soviet collapse emerging after all. If some individual CIA analyst were more prescient than the corporate view, their ideas were filtered out in the bureaucratic process; and it is the corporate view that counts because that is what reaches the president and his advisers. On this one, the corporate view missed by a mile. And there were others. Several months ago, the Deputy Director for Intelligence [DDI] at the Central Intelligence Agency, Douglas MacEachin, released a report entitled ``The Tradecraft of Analysis: Challenge and Change in the CIA.'' In this report he outlines what he regards as some of the major known failures of the intelligence community. He attributes these failures to analysis which rested on faulty assumptions--he called these assumptions ``linchpins.'' In the report he states: A review of the record of famous wrong forecasts nearly always reveals at least one ``linchpin'' that did not hold up: the Soviets will not invade Czechoslovakia because they will not want to pay the political costs, especially after having signed the Rejkavik Declaration the previous year; the Soviets will not invade Afghanistan because they do not want to sink SALT-II which at that moment is being debated by the U.S. Senate; Saddam Hussein needs about two years to refurbish his military forces after the debilitating war with Iran and, therefore, will not, despite evidence of motives for doing so, invade Kuwait in the foreseeable future. He concludes, ``In each case, the sin was less in the fact that the linchpins products to highlight the extent to which they were assumptions.'' Surely intelligence products could benefit from highlighting assumptions. However, a more rigorous scrutiny provided by greater openness would give an opportunity for facts, assumptions, and conclusions to be challenged. Scientists have long understood that secrecy keeps mistakes secret. In the early 1960's, Jack Ruina, an MIT professor who had been head of the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency at the Department of Defense during the Kennedy administration, told me after visiting the Soviet Union that it was plain it just wasn't working. In particular he noticed something which someone without scientific training might not have. The Soviets did not know who their best people were. Promising young scientists in Russia were locked in a room and had no knowledge about the activities of their colleagues around the country. As anyone who has visited the fine research hospitals of New York can tell you, the free flow of ideas is vital to advancement. Openness of information is essential for great science. This is no secret. Indeed, in 1970 a Task Force organized by the Defense Science Board and headed by Dr. Frederick Seitz concluded that ``more might be gained that lost if our nation were to adopt-- unilaterally, if necessary--a policy of complete openness in all areas of information.'' Yet the secrecy system is still in place. The information Security Oversight Office keeps a tally of the number of secrets classified each year. They reported that in 1993 the United States created 6,408,688 secrets. Absurd. While each agency has different procedures and criteria for classifying documents, all seem to operate under the assumption that classification is preferable to disclosure. Secrecy is a disease. It causes hardening of the arteries of the mind. It hinders true scholarship and hides mistakes. William Pfaff has suggested that we ought not rely on spies, but rather on journalists, historians, ethnologists; those who do not operate under the cloak of secrecy but publish their work for all to read and comment upon. After World War II, it was originally intended that intelligence would be coordinated by the Secretary of State. The maneuvering of some of the more powerful Assistant Secretaries in the State Department at the time prevented that from being implemented and the independent Central Intelligence Agency was soon formed. Dean Acheson, who was present at the creation, doubted the wisdom of such a move. ``I had the gravest forebodings about this organization and warned the President that as set up neither he, the National Security Council, nor anyone else would be in a position to know what it was doing or to control it.'' The State Department must function as the primary agency in formulating and conducting foreign policy. Any other arrangement invites confusion. In the last 4 years, this proposal has generated considerable debate--some positive, some negative. Reform of United States foreign policy institutions will continue to occupy the attentions of Congress, and if for nothing else, this proposal contributes to the debate. So I am today introducing the Abolition of the Central Intelligence Agency Act.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I introduce a measure to improve our information about the regulation and criminal use of ammunition and to prevent the irresponsible production of ammunition. This bill has three components. First, it would require importers and manufacturers of ammunition to keep records and submit an annual report to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) on the disposition of ammunition, including the amount, caliber and type of ammunition imported or manufactured. Second, it would require the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Academy of Sciences, to conduct a study of ammunition use and make recommendations on the efficacy of reducing crime by restricting access to ammunition. Finally, it would amend title 18 of the United States Code to raise the application fee for a license to manufacture certain calibers of ammunition. While there are enough handguns in circulation to last well into the 22nd century, there is perhaps only a 4-year supply of ammunition. But how much of what kind of ammunition? Where does it come from? Where does it go? There are currently no reporting requirements for manufacturers or importers of ammunition; earlier reporting requirements were repealed in 1986. The Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Reports, based on information provided by local law enforcement agencies, does not record the caliber, type, or quantity of ammunition used in crime. In short, our data base is woefully inadequate. I supported the Brady law, which requires a waiting period before the purchase of a handgun, and the recent ban on semiautomatic weapons. But while the debate over gun control continues, I offer another alternative: Ammunition control. After all, as I have said Ammunition control is not a new idea. In 1982 Phil Caruso of the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association asked me to do something about armor-piercing bullets. Jacketed in tungsten or other materials, these rounds could penetrate four police flak jackets and five Los Angeles County telephone books. They are of no sporting value. I introduced legislation, the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act, to ban the ``cop-killer'' bullets in the 97th, 98th and 99th Congresses. It enjoyed the overwhelming support of law enforcement groups and, ultimately, tacit support from the National Rifle Association. It was finally signed into law by President Reagan on August 28, 1986. The Crime Bill enacted in 1994 contained my amendment to broaden the 1986 ban to cover new thick steel-jacketed armor-piercing rounds. Our cities are becoming more aware of the benefits to be gained from ammunition control. The District of Columbia and some other cities prohibit a person from possessing ammunition without a valid license for a firearm of the same caliber or gauge as the ammunition. Beginning in 1990, the City of Los Angeles banned the sale of all ammunition 1 week prior to Independence Day and new Year's Day in an effort to reduce injuries and deaths caused by the firing of guns into the air. And most recently, in September of 1994, the City of Chicago became the first in America to ban the sale of all handgun ammunition. Such efforts are laudable. But they are isolated attempts to cure what is in truth a national disease. We need to do more, but to do so, we need information to guide policy-making. This bill would fulfill that need by requiring annual reports to BATF by manufacturers and importers and by directing a study by the National Academy of Sciences. We also need to encourage manufacturers of ammunition to be more responsible. By substantially increasing application fees for licenses to manufacture .25 caliber, .32 caliber, and 9 mm ammunition, this bill would discourage the reckless production of unsafe ammunition or ammunition which causes excessive damage. I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and ask unanimous consent that its full text be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, in his book, ``God's Country and Mine,'' the author Jacques Barzun, a former history professor at Columbia University, wrote ``Whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball. * * *'' Baseball is America's national pastime. It was invented, at least according to the view espoused by New Yorkers, by General Abner Doubleday in Cooperstown, NY, in 1839. Today it is deeply embedded in our culture. Yet in recent years the game has become troubled. Baseball has had eight work stoppages over the last two decades, more than in all other professional sports combined. The existing strike has been with us since August, and no end is in sight. The 1995 season is in grave jeopardy. Indeed, many observers believe the future of baseball itself is in peril. The current difficulties may be traced back to 1922, when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes delivered the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Federal Baseball v. National League, 259 U.S. 200. It was therein decided that the Sherman Act did not apply to exhibitions of baseball because baseball was not interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has considered this matter on two subsequent occasions: In 1953 in Toolson v. New York Yankees, 346 U.S. 356, and in 1972 in Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258. In Flood, the most recent pronouncement, the Court concluded that the antitrust exemption was an ``anomaly'' and an ``aberration confined to baseball'' and that ``professional baseball is a business and it is engaged in interstate commerce.'' Even so, the Court refused to reverse its 1922 decision in Federal Baseball. Justice Blackman, delivering the opinion of the Court in Flood, wrote: If there is any inconsistency or illogic in all this, it is an inconsistency and illogic of long standing that is to be remedied by the Congress and not by this Court. This decision clearly laid responsibility for baseball's antitrust exemption on Congress. It also explicitly recognized baseball's evolution into a major industry. George F. Will aptly described this transformation in his bestselling book ``Men at Work'': It has been said that baseball in the pre-Civil War era taught a puritanical America the virtues of play. But industrialists of the Gilded Age would approve of the way baseball has become a big business. Fifty years ago baseball was a comparatively mom-and-pop operation. Sunday play was not permitted in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia until 1934. In 1922 the U.S. Supreme Court held, for purposes of antitrust regulations, that baseball is not a business. Today sports columnist Jim Murray says, ``If it isn't, General Motors is a sport.'' As a result of this anomaly in American law, Mr. President, the World Series was cancelled in 1994 for the first time since 1904. With none of the legal restraints that prevent other businesses from engaging in anticompetitive behavior, the baseball team owners are free to act as a cartel. To end this monopoly, Congress must remove baseball's antitrust exemption and subject the game to the same rules of law that apply to all other major league sports. This is why I am introducing today the National Pastime Preservation Act, a bill to repeal the antitrust exemption for major league baseball. It may not solve all of baseball's troubles, but it is a necessary step and one that is decades overdue. Many Members of Congress have begun to examine this issue more closely in view of the seeming intractability of the strike. My friend Senator Orrin Hatch, the new chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has indicated that he supports repealing the exemption and is prepared to move a bill quickly through his committee. I look forward to working with him and other Members of Congress who share our concern about the future of major league baseball in America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to authorize the minting of gold and silver coins commemorating the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. It was October 23, 1945, that the United Nations Charter went into effect, as a majority of the 50 nations that had met at the San Francisco Conference earlier that year finally ratified the charter. the 51-member General Assembly first met the following January 10 in London. The ratification of the charter was a mementous occasion, a milestone in international relations. The charter begins, ``We the Peoples of the United Nations.'' The reference is clearly to our Constitution and the still-revolutionary idea that a people is defined by belief, rather than blood. The charter provides authority to organize world trade, finance, and democratization. Under it the use of force assumes a collective aspect that seeks to deter aggression. Measured against the lofty ambitions of its drafters, the charter has in reality fallen short too often, but measured against the bloody and lawless conduct of sovereigns over the millennia its accomplishments are clear. The charter is recognized today as the cornerstone of international law. If it cannot solve every problem, when there is substantial agreement among the Security Council it does provide a framework for the legal use of force against aggressors, as was the recent case with Iraq. In observance of the 50th anniversary, I propose that Congress authorize the design and minting of gold and silver commemorative coins. No more than 100,000 gold coins would be minted, and no more than 500,000 $1 silver coins. This is a modest amount by current standards for commemorative coins, enough to satisfy numismatists and those around the world who support the United Nations and its ideals and would like to join in its commemoration. The number of coins is not so great as to overwhelm the market for them. The surcharges on these coins will benefit the United Nations Association of the United States, whose educational programs such as the Model United Nations for both high school and college students are most successful. The U.N. Association is a worthy beneficiary. Mr. President, the 50th anniversary of the United Nations deserves our observance. I ask my colleagues for their support, and I ask that the text of the bill be printed following my remarks.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I introduce two bills: the Violent Crime Reduction Act of 1995 and the Real Cost of Handgun Ammunition Act of 1995. Their purposes are to ban or heavily tax .25 caliber, .32 caliber, and 9 mm ammunition. These calibers of bullets are used disproportionately in crime. They are not sporting or hunting rounds, but instead are the bullets of choice for drug dealers and violent felons. Every year they contribute overwhelmingly to the pervasive loss of life caused by bullet wounds. Today marks the third time in as many Congresses that I have introduced legislation to ban or tax these pernicious bullets. As the terrible gunshot death toll in the United States continues unabated, so too does the need for these bills, which, by keeping these bullets out of the hands of criminals, would save a significant number of lives. The number of Americans killed or wounded each year by bullets demonstrates their true cost to American society. Just look at the data: In 1993, 16,189 people were murdered by gunshot. An even greater number lost their lives to bullets by shooting themselves, either purposefully or accidentally. And although no national statistics are kept on bullet-related injuries, studies suggest they occur 2 to 5 times more frequently than do deaths. This adds up to 184,000 bullet- related injuries per year. Homicide is the second leading cause of death in the 15 to 34-year- old age bracket. It is the leading cause of death for black males aged 15 to 34. The lifetime risk of death from homicide in U.S. males is 1 in 164, about the same as the risk of death in battle faced by U.S. servicemen in the Vietnam War. For black males, the lifetime risk of death from homicide is 1 in 28, twice the risk of death in battle faced by Marines in Vietnam. As noted by Susan Baker and her colleagues in the book ``Epidemiology and Health Policy,'' edited by Sol Levine and Abraham Lilienfeld: There is a correlation between rates of private ownership of guns and gun-related death rates; guns cause two-third of family homicides; and small easily concealed weapons comprise the majority of guns used for homicides, suicides and unintentional death. Baker states that: . . . these facets of the epidemiology of firearm-related deaths and injuries have important implications. Combined with their lethality, the widespread availability of easily concealed handguns for impetuous use by people who are angry, drunk, or frightened appears to be a major determinant of the high firearm death rate in the United States. Each contributing factor has implications for prevention. Unfortunately, issues related to gun control have evoked such strong sentiments that epidemiologic data are rarely employed to good advantage. Strongly held views on both sides of the gun control issue have made the subject difficult for epidemiologists. I would suggest that a good deal of energy is wasted in this never-ending debate, for gun control as we know it misses the point. We ought to focus on the bullets and not the guns. I would remind the Senate of our experience in controlling epidemics. Although the science of epidemiology traces its roots to antiquity-- Hippocrates stressed the importance of considering environmental influences on human diseases--the first modern epidemiological study was conducted by James Lind in 1747. His efforts led to the eventual control of scurvy. It wasn't until 1795 that the British Navy accepted his analysis and required limes in shipboard diets. Most solutions are not perfect. Disease is rarely eliminated. But might epidemiology be applied in the case of bullets to reduce suffering? I believe so. In 1854 John Snow and William Farr collected data that clearly showed cholera was caused by contaminated drinking water. Snow removed the handle of the Broad Street pump in London to prevent people from drawing water from this contaminated water source and the disease stopped in that population. His observations led to a legislative mandate that all London water companies filter their water by 1857. Cholera epidemics subsided. Now treatment of sewage prevents cholera from entering our rivers and lakes, and the disinfection of drinking water makes water distribution systems uninhabitable for cholera vibrio, identified by Robert Kock as the causative agent 26 years after Snow's study. In 1900, Walter Reed identified mosquitos as the carriers of yellow fever. Subsequent mosquito control efforts by another U.S. Army doctor, William Gorgas, enabled the United States to complete the Panama Canal. The French failed because their workers were too sick from yellow fever to work. Now that it is known that yellow fever is caused by a virus, vaccines are used to eliminate the spread of the disease. These pioneering epidemiology success stories showed the world that epidemics require an interaction between three things: The host (the person who becomes sick or, in the case of bullets, the shooting victim); the agent (the cause of sickness, or the bullet); and the environment (the setting in which the sickness occurs or, in the case of bullets, violent behavior). Interrupt this epidemiological triad and you reduce or eliminate disease and injury. How might this approach apply to the control of bullet-related injury and from gun control. There is a precedent here. In the middle of this century it was recognized that epidemiology could be applied to automobile death and injury. From a governmental perspective, this hypothesis was first adopted in 1959, late in the administration of Gov. Averell Harriman of New York State. In the 1960 Presidential campaign, I drafted a statement on the subject which was released by Senator John F. Kennedy as part of a general response to enquiries from the American Automobile Association. Then Senator Kennedy stated: Traffic accidents constitute one of the greatest, perhaps the greatest of the nation's public health problems. They waste as much as 2 percent of our gross national product every year and bring endless suffering. The new highways will do much to control the rise of the traffic toll, but by themselves they will not reduce it. A great deal more investigation and research is needed. Some of this has already begun in connection with the highway program. It should be extended until highway safety research takes its place as an equal of the many similar programs of health research which the federal government supports. Experience in the 1950's and early 1960's, prior to passage of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, showed that traffic safety enforcement campaigns designed to change human behavior did not improve traffic safety. In fact, the death and injury toll mounted. I was Assistant Secretary of Labor in the mid-1960's when Congress was developing the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and I was called to testify. It was clear to me and others that motor vehicle injuries and deaths could not be limited by regulating driver behavior. Nonetheless, we had an epidemic on our hands and we needed to do something about it. My friend William Haddon, the first Adminstrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, recognized that automobile fatalities were caused not by the initial collision, when the automobile strikes some object, but by a second collision, in which energy from the first collision is transferred to the interior of the car, causing the driver and occupants to strike the steering wheel, dashboard, or other structures in the passenger compartment. The second collision is the agent of injury to the hosts (the car's occupants). Efforts to make automobiles crashworthy follow examples used to control infectious disease epidemics. Reduce or eliminate the agent of injury. Seat belts, padded dashboards, and air bags are all specifically designed to reduce, if not eliminate, injury caused by the agent of automobile injuries, energy transfer to the human body during the second collision. In fact, we've done nothing revolutionary. All of the technology use to date to make cars crashworthy, including air bags, was developed prior to 1970. Experience shows the approach worked. Of course it could have worked better, but it worked. Had we been able to totally eliminate the agent (the second collision) the cure would have been complete. Nonetheless, merely by focusing on simple, achievable remedies, we reduced the traffic death and injury epidemic by 30 percent. Motor vehicle deaths declined in absolute terms by 13 percent from 1980 to 1990, despite significant increases in the number of drivers, vehicles, and miles driven. Driver behavior is changing, too. National seat belt usage is up dramatically, 60 percent now compared to 14 percent in 1984. These efforts have resulted in some 15,000 lives saved and 100,000 injuries avoided each year. We can apply that experience to the epidemic of murder and injury from bullets. The environment in which these deaths and injuries occur is complex. Many factors likely contribute to the rise in bullet- related injury. Here is an important similarity with the situation we faced 25 years ago regarding automobile safety. We found we could not easily alter the behavior of millions of drivers, but we could easily change the behavior of three or four automobile manufacturers. Likewise, we simply cannot do much to change the environment (violet behavior) in which gun-realted injury occurs, nor do we know how. We can, however, do something about the agent causing the injury: bullets. Ban them! At least the round used disproportionately to cause death and injury. That is, the .25 caliber, .32 caliber, and 9 millimeter bullets. These three rounds account for the ammunition used in about 13 percent of licensed guns in New York City, yet they are involved in one-third of all homicides. They are not, as I have said, useful for sport or hunting. They are used for violence. If we fail to confront the fact that these rounds are used disproportionately in crimes, innocent people will continue to die. I have called on Congress during the past several sessions to ban or heavily tax these bullets. This would not be the first time that Congress has banned a particular round of ammunition. In 1986, it passed legislation written by the Senator from New York banning the so- called cop-killer bullet. This round, jacketed with tungsten alloys, steel, brass, or any number of other metals, had been demonstrated to penetrate no fewer than four police flak jackets and an additional five Los Angeles County phone books at one time. In 1982, the New York Police Benevolent Association came to me and asked me to do something about the ready availability of these bullets. The result was the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act, which we introduced in 1982, 1983, and for the last time during the 99th Congress. In the end, with the tacit support of of the National Rifle Association, the measure passed the Congress and was signed by the President as Public Law 99-408 on August 28, 1986. In the 1994 crime bill, we enacted my amendment to broaden the ban to include new thick steel-jacketed armor- piercing rounds. There are some 200 million firearms in circulation in the United States today. They are, in essence, simple machines, and with minimal care, remain working for centuries. However, estimates suggest that we have only a 4-year supply of bullets. Some two billion cartridges are used each year. At any given time there are some 7.5 billion rounds in factory, commercial, or household inventory. In all cases, with the exception of pistol whipping, gun-related injuries are caused not by the gun, but by the agents involved in the second collision: the bullets. Eliminating the most dangerous rounds would not end the problem of handgun killings. But it would reduce it. A 30-percent reduction in bullet-related deaths, for instance, would save over 10,000 lives each year and prevent up to 50,000 wounds. Water treatment efforts to reduce typhoid fever in the United States took about 60 years. Slow sand filters were installed in certain cities in the 1880's, and water chlorination treatment began in the 1910's. The death rate from typhoid in Albany, NY, prior to 1889, when the municipal water supply was treated by sand filtration, was about 100 fatalities per 100,000 people each year. The rate dropped to about 25 typhoid deaths per year after 1889, and dropped again to about 10 typhoid deaths per year after 1915, when chlorination was introduced. By 1950, the death rate from typhoid fever had dropped to zero. It will take longer than 60 years to eliminate bullet-related death and injury, but we need to start with achievable measures to break the deadly interactions between people, bullets, and violent behavior. The bills I introduce today would begin the process. They would begin to control the problem by banning or taxing those rounds used disproportionately in crime--the .25-caliber, .32-caliber, and 9- millimeter rounds. The bills recognize the epidemic nature of the problem, building on findings contained in the June 10, 1992, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association which was devoted entirely to the subject of violence, principally violence associated with firearms. Mr. President, it is time to confront the epidemic of bullet-related violence. I urge my colleagues to support these bills and ask unanimously consent that their texts be printed in the Record.