Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I introduce a bill that comprehensively seeks to control the epidemic proportions of violence in America. This legislation, the Violent Crime Control Act of 1995, combines most of the provisions of two other crime-related bills I am introducing today as well. By including two different crime-related provisions, my bill attacks the crime epidemic on more than just one front. If we are truly serious about confronting our Nation's crime problem, we must learn more about the nature of the epidemic of bullet-related violence and ways to control it. To do this, we must require records to be kept on the disposition of ammunition. In October 1992, the Senate Finance Committee received testimony that public health and safety experts have, independently, concluded that there is an epidemic of bullet-related violence. The figures are staggering. In 1992, 37,776 people lost their lives in the United States from bullets. Of these, 17,790 were murdered, 18,169 committed suicide, and 1,409 accidentally shot themselves. By focusing on bullets, and not guns, we recognize that much like nuclear waste, guns remain active for centuries. With minimum care, they do not deteriorate. However, bullets are consumed. Estimates suggest we have only a 4-year supply of them. Not only am I proposing that we tax bullets used disproportionately in crimes, that is, 9 millimeter, .25 and .32 caliber bullets, I also believe we must set up a Bullet Death and Injury Control Program within the Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. This center will enhance our knowledge of the distribution and status of bullet-related death and injury and subsequently make recommendations about the extent and nature of bullet-related violence. So that the center would have substantive information to study and analyze, this bill also requires 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. Currently, importers and manufacturers of ammunition are not required to do so. Clearly, it will take intense effort on all of our parts to reduce violent crime in America. We must confront this epidemic from several different angles, recognizing that there is no simple solution. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, Nearly 2 years ago today I addressed the Senate about the impending ``revolution'' over the Nation's approach to environmental protection. I noted that Federal environmental laws were being questioned and that State and local governments were signaling that their resources are finite and that compliance with additional environmental laws while still adequately maintaining roads and buildings and providing social services and education was fast becoming unaffordable. At least not without Federal support. I suggested that we might better use the results of risk assessments to help set environmental priorities and make decisions, and I quoted an editorial in the January 8, 1992, issue of Science basis for Federal command and control actions'' largely due to concerns over regulatory costs. I concluded that ``The message is clear. State and local governments will hold the Congress and EPA more accountable in the future about obligating them to spend their resources on Federal requirements. They will want `proof' that there is a problem and confidence that the legislated `solutions' will solve it.'' And finally, I noted that ``the Science editorial suggests that we are seeing the `beginning of a revolt.''' How quickly times change. Less than 2 years later, the revolt is fully underway. Yet just 4 months before the Science editorial appeared, my colleagues from both sides of the aisle expressed incredulity when in September 1992 I held my first hearing as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee on S. 2132, the ``Environmental Risk Reduction Act,'' a bill I introduced earlier in the 102d Congress. One of the witnesses was Dr. Edward Hayes of the Ohio State University who testified for the city of Columbus, OH. He noted that the mayor of Columbus and other city leaders had set out to analyze with as much precision as possible the impact of Federal environmental laws during recent years. They wanted to know what effect those changes would have on the city's budget. The findings were reported in ``Environmental Legislation: The Increasing Costs of Regulatory Compliance to the City of Columbus.'' It turned out that new environmental initiatives were estimated to cost the city of Columbus an additional $1.6 billion over the next decade--an extra $856 per year of increased local fees or taxes for every household in the city by the year 2000. A followup study, ``Ohio Metropolitan Area Cost Report for Environmental Compliance,'' showed a similar impact in eight other Ohio cities. As we have heard over the past 2 years, this pattern is being repeated in other places. The social change has matured, Congress has changed, and the new Congress will experiment to find a more workable way of protecting the environment. To help with this effort, I rise again, as I did in both the 102d and 103d Congresses, to introduce the ``Environmental Risk Evaluation Act.'' The primary goal of this legislation is to place risk assessment in the proper perspective. Strange as it may seem, environmental legislation doesn't use science effectively precisely because it places too much emphasis on risk assessment. This perverse situation stems from the requirements in current environmental legislation, stated or implied, that the Environmental Protection Agency--EPA--must regulate environmental pollutants to ``safe levels of exposure'' and in so doing that EPA use science to determine what is ``safe.'' The problem is simple: the premise is false, science cannot define ``safety.'' Consider first the definition. Webster says ``safety'' is the feeling of absence of harm. Decisions about what is ``safe'' are based very much on personal or societal feelings, informed by science yes, but based on feelings. Next consider the nature of science. It is very much about uncertainty, because our knowledge is far from perfect and because new scientific findings often disprove that which we thought we knew. Thus, to the extent they force agencies to use science to determine ``safe'' exposure levels, current environmental laws set EPA and other agencies up for failure. Risk managers have no incentive to take any action other than to err on the side of safety. This is not necessarily bad as a general policy, but in practice the belief is that it has led to layer upon layer of safety factors and excessive cost. This is because risk managers require the use of conservative assumptions in risk assessment models when the information needed to assess risk is missing or incomplete, as it invariably is, causing large costs to be incurred to meet the low exposure levels estimated to be ``safe.'' This weakens citizens' faith in Government. There is a growing perception that many decisions are not based on common sense and that regulations cost too much. Risk assessments, which use scientific information, have become the outward and visible sign of the regulatory process. Those who question the philosophy underlying the current legislative and regulatory approach attack the risk assessment process, especially the assumptions used in place of knowledge about what we are exposed to and what are the resulting effects. Given the benefit of our experience with EPA and with environmental legislation over the past 24 years, it is clear that we are asking the wrong question. Marc Landy and his colleagues first noted this in their book EPA: Asking the Wrong Questions. A far better legislative question to ask EPA to address when setting environmental regulations is ``How much are we willing to pay to reduce risk by what amount, given all the uncertainties about risks, costs and benefits of control'' rather than ``What is the Safe Level of Exposure.'' Far better because it reflects the strengths and limits of science to inform decision-making and to set technically sound regulations. Far better too because it can increase the capacity of Government to govern in the future by informing the citizenry. And far better if it reflects the will of the people as evidenced by continued support for Government policies over time. The Republican ``Contract With America'' seems to have a good deal of support from the citizenry, at least for now. Its call for transparency in the way regulations are set, including the methods and assumptions used in assessing risks and costs are in keeping with what I had in mind when I introduced my ``Environmental Risk Reduction Act'' in the last two Congresses. Let me note that the American public views the contract as being full of fresh new ideas and approaches to governing, something they believe the Democrats have lost the ability to generate in the recent past. But let us not make improvements to the way we encourage and regulate environmental protection a partisan issue. Good Government policies cut across party lines and live beyond any given administration. And, as I have noted above, improving the use of risk assessment and cost benefit analyses for environmental decisionmaking is something I have been pursuing for several Congresses. Rather, let us take a bipartisan approach. As a first step, let us freely acknowledge that environmental decisions can be informed by science, but that they cannot be made based on science alone. In fact, truth be known, such decisions are based more on policy, economic and social considerations than they are on science. This does not mean that science is not useful for environmental decisions or that we shouldn't vigorously pursue research to better understand what contaminants are released into the environment, what we are exposed to, what gets into our bodies, and what happens to it there. We spend upwards of $185 billion per year to comply with environmental regulations, and while this is not necessarily too much to spend on environmental protection, it is too much to spend unwisely. Better knowledge about whether effects actually occur at the very low levels encountered in the environment could help frame the debates on environmental protection more sharply. Don't forget that social concerns, public preference, basic fairness, and yes, even outrage, must be considered too. But, let us make clear that health effects don't have to occur for us to be outraged. For instance, if it were shown that habitation near a Superfund site did not pose a major health risk, as a country we may still decide to clean up the site because we find the contamination to be offensive. We may decide to compensate homeowners at the site for the fair value of their land so they can move away, even if there have been no site-related health problems. Consider that we may be concerned that the economically disadvantaged people who tend to live near such sites would be further disadvantaged by loss of equity in home or land values. Such actions are not possible under the current Superfund law. As it now stands, those who favor compensation to land holders at Superfund sites must act indirectly and press for findings of health effects from the chemicals found at those sites. The responsible parties who must pay to clean up the sites must also act indirectly and respond to findings of likely health problems by attacking the assumptions needed to assess risk and contend that effects are exaggerated or that there are no effects. No one addresses the problem realistically consideration but risk. Let us question whether the ``Emperor Has Clothes,'' at least when it comes to how assessments of risk are used. Let's put risk in its proper place as one tool of many in the decisionmaking toolbox and let us face the issue honestly by broadening the range of issues and tools that can be used in making environmental decisions. Let's make the debate over environmental protection more realistic and relevant to our citizens. Let's not pass any law that requires or implies that EPA should determine the ``safe'' level when setting regulations. Rather, let us ask how much are we willing to pay to reduce risk by what amount given all the uncertainties in estimating costs and benefits and let us identify factors other than risk that make sense to consider when making decisions. The bill I offer today addresses the risk assessment and cost/benefit assessment components of the decisionmaking process, focusing on its use for priority setting, something not addressed in the Republican ``Contract With America.'' My bill recognizes that values, social concerns--who should bear the risk for whose benefit--and basic fairness must be considered in addition to risks and costs. It does not prescribe how to conduct risk and cost/benefit assessments because of the evolving nature of these fields of inquiry and because of my desire to avoid freezing technology. I am introducing ``The Environmental Risk Evaluation Act,'' to help us learn how best to practice the trades of environmental risk assessment and cost/benefit analyses. The bill will put into law the major findings of the 1990 ``Reducing Risk'' report by EPA's Science Advisory Board--SAB. I agree with former EPA Administrator William Reilly's belief that science can lend much needed coherence, order, and integrity to costly and controversial decisions. America's environmental laws are a large and diverse lot. We have only two decades of experience on this subject, and we are still learning, feeling our way. The relative risk ranking and cost/benefit analyses called for in this bill provide some common ground for looking at our environmental laws. The bill also provides the public and Congress with access to the findings. The ``Reducing Risk'' report states that ``relative risk data and risk assessment techniques should inform--the public--judgment as much as possible.'' Not dictate it, but inform it. All this will take time, decades perhaps. But let us take heart. Questions that seem difficult now can with a certain amount of effort yield to the scientific method. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill which would place the home and studio of Thomas Cole under the care of the National Park Service as a National Historic Site. Thomas Cole founded the American artistic tradition known as the Hudson River School. He painted landscapes of the American wilderness as it never had been depicted, untamed and majestic, the way Americans saw it in the 1830's and 1840's. His students and followers included Frederick Church, Alfred Bierstadt, Thomas Moran, and John Frederick Kennesett. No description of Cole's works would do them justice, but let me say that sharp contrast to the pastoral European landscapes that Americans had previously admired. The new country was just settled enough that some people had time and resources to devote to collecting art. Cole's new style coincided with this growing interest, to the benefit of both. Cole had begun his painting career in Manhattan, but one day took a steamboat up the Hudson for inspiration. It worked. The landscapes he saw set him on the artistic course that became his life's work. He eventually moved to a house up the river in Catskill, where he in turn boarded, owned, married, and raised his family. That house, known as Cedar Grove, remained in the Cole family until 1979, when it was put up for sale. Three art collectors saved Cedar Grove from developers, and now the Thomas Cole Foundation is offering to donate the house to the Park Service. This would be only the second site in the Park Service dedicated to interpreting the life and work of an American painter. Olana, Church's home, sits immediately across the Hudson, so we have the opportunity to provide visitors with two nearby destinations that show the inspiration for two of America's foremost nineteenth century painters. Visitors could walk, hike, or drive to the actual spots where masterpieces were painted and see the landscape much as it was then. Mr. President, the home of Thomas Cole is being offered as a donation. I believe we owe it to him, and to the many people who admire the Hudson River School and explore its origins, to accept this offer and designate it a National Historic Site. I regret that none of Thomas Cole's work hangs in the Capitol, although two works by Bierstadt can be found in the stairwell outside the Speaker's Lobby. Perhaps Cole's greatest work is the four-part Voyage of Life, an allegorical series that depicts man in the four stages of life. It can be found in the National Gallery, along with two other Cole paintings. Another work of Cole's that we would be advised to remember is The Course of Empire, which depicts the rise of a great civilization from the wilderness, and its return. Last year the first major Cole exhibition in decades was held at the National Museum of American Art. The exhibition was all the evidence needed of Cole's importance and the merit of adding his home to the list of National Historic Sites. I should add that this must happen soon. The house needs work, and will not endure many more winters in its present state. I ask that my colleagues support this legislation, and that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will authorize a small but most significant addition to the National Park system. For 150 years New York City's Lower East Side has been the most vibrant, populous, and famous immigrant neighborhood in the Nation. From the first waves of Irish and German immigrants to Italians and Eastern European Jews to the Asian, Latin, and Caribbean immigrants arriving today, the Lower East Side has provided millions their first American home. For many of them that home was a brick tenement; six or so stories, no elevator, maybe no plumbing, maybe no windows, a business on the ground floor, and millions of our forbearers upstairs. The Nation has with great pride preserved log cabins, farm houses, and other symbols of our agrarian roots. We have recently reopened Ellis Island to commemorate and display the first stop for 12 million immigrants who arrived in New York City. Until now we have not preserved a sample of urban, working class life as part of the immigrant experience. For many of those who disembarked on Ellis Island the next stop was a tenement on the Lower East Side, such as the one at 97 Orchard Street. It is here that the lower East Side Tenement Museum will show us what that next stop was like. The tenement at 97 Orchard was built in the 1860s, during the first phase of tenement construction. It provided housing for 20 families on a plot of land planned for a single family residence. Each floor has four three--room apartments, each of which had two windows in one of the rooms and none in the others. The privies were out back, as was the spigot that provided water for everyone. The public bathhouse was down the street. In 1900 this block was the most crowded per acre on earth. Conditions improved after the passage of the New York Tenement House Act of 1901, though the crowding remained. Two toilets were installed on each floor. A skylight was installed over the stairway and interior windows were cut in the walls to allow some light throughout each apartment. For the first time the ground floor became commercial space. In 1918 electricity was installed. Further improvements were mandated in 1935, but the owner chose to board the building up rather than follow the new regulations. It remained boarded up for 60 years until the idea of a museum took hold. The Tenement Museum will keep at least one apartment in the dilapidated condition in which it was found when reopened, to show visitors the process of urban archaeology. Others will be restored to show how real families lived at different periods in the building's history. At a nearby site there will be interpretive programs to better explain the larger experience of gaining a foothold on America in the Lower East Side of New York. There are also plans for programmatic ties with Ellis Island and its precursor, Castle Clinton. And the museum plans to play an active role in the immigrant community around it, further integrating the past and present immigrant experience on the Lower East Side. This bill designates the Tenement Museum a national historic site. It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the site or to enter into cooperative agreements with the museum. Such agreements could include technical or financial assistance to help restore, operate, maintain, or interpret the site. Agreements can also be made with the Statute of Liberty/Ellis Island and Castle Clinton to help with the interpretation of life as an immigrant. It will be a productive partnership. Mr. President, I believe the Tenement Museum provides an outstanding opportunity to preserve and present an important stage of the immigrant experience and the move for social change in our cities at the turn of the century. I know of no better place than 97 Orchard Street to do so, and no other place in the National Park system doing so already. I look forward to the realization of this grand idea, and I ask my colleagues for their support. I ask that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, Congress has never met its obligation under the ``Statement of Account Clause'' of the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7) which states: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. I rise to point out that Congress has failed to provide the American public with any account of expenditures on intelligence activities. I stress that Congress has failed to satisfy this clause because, although the Executive may have an opinion as to the desirability of disclosing the aggregate amount spent on intelligence, the Supreme Court decided in United States v. Richardson, (418 U.S. 166, 178 n. 11) that ``it is clear that Congress has plenary power to exact any reporting and accounting it considers appropriate in the public interest.'' Thus it falls to us to provide a proper accounting of the disbursements of Government funds spent on intelligence activities. The Framers of the Constitution were no strangers to intelligence work and the importance of secrecy in carrying out certain functions of the State. During the Revolutionary War the Colonies formed Committees of Safety which were charged with security and counterintelligence, and separate Committees of Correspondence which were responsible for securing communication between the Colonies and our allies in Europe. At the end of the War, George Washington submitted a bill for reimbursement of $17,617 for intelligence expenses incurred during the war. No small sum at that time. The first part of the Statement and Account Clause, ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;'' was part of an early draft of the Constitution. The second part of the clause was proposed in the final week of the Constitutional Convention (September 14, 1787) by George Mason, who sought an annual account of expenditures. The debate focused on how often was practicable to require such an account, not whether full disclosure was desirable. James Madison argued that if the Constitution were to ``Require too much * * * the difficulty will beget a habit of doing nothing.'' He then proposed to substitute ``from time to time'' for ``annually'' which was then adopted. Thus we have ``and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all Public Money shall be published from time to time.'' Obviously such an ambiguous formulation of the clause gives Congress a good deal of flexibility. This was exercised from time to time to conceal military and intelligence activities when deemed necessary. Clearly it is vital that some discretion is in order. However, it is also clear that secrecy was not intended to be the norm. The clarity with which Madison understood this is expressed in a letter he wrote to Jefferson in 1793, ``Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.'' I do not think that Justice Douglas overstated the case in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Richardson where he stated ``Secrecy was the evil at which Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 was aimed.'' Since World War II and throughout the cold war we have chosen not to publish the intelligence budget. We have won the cold war. The Soviet Union no longer exists. One then might ask, whom are we keeping the aggregate intelligence figure from? In fact, we are not keeping it from anyone and this bill will only codify what in fact has been public knowledge for several years now. Intelligence budget figures are regularly disclosed. Often the information is leaked to the press, or inferred by close scrutiny of budget figures, and in a few cases numbers will slip out accidentally. Tim Weiner, who reports such matters for the New York Times, called the intelligence budget figure the worst-kept secret in the capital. The latest episode occurred only 2 months ago when the House Appropriations Committee mistakenly published the President's fiscal year 95 intelligence budget request. Not just the aggregate amount, mind, but a detailed account of the requested budgets for the CIA, National Foreign Intelligence Program (NFIP), and Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities (TIARA). This event underscores the point that if only if a smaller amount of truly sensitive information were classified, the information could be held more securely. The aggregate intelligence budget clearly is not in that category, for we now see that the figure has been released and we are still waiting for the barbarians to storm the gates. While we are waiting we might do well to consider how much like the barbarians we have become. James Q. Wilson, the eminent political scientist who has provided many insights into modes, holds that organizations come to resemble the organizations they are in conflict with. This is the Iron Law of Emulation. Not an encouraging situation considering our adversary was the Kremlin for so long. We now have an opportunity to reverse some of the emulation of the closed society that was the Soviet Union by shedding some light on our own vast secrecy system. This is vitally important given that the 104th Congress which convenes today will carefully consider and debate our budget priorities. We cannot afford to fund all we might want to. In fact Mr. President, we are broke. And so publishing the aggregate amount of intelligence expenditures becomes necessary for a truly informed public debate. We then could weigh the importance of Head Start Programs in Topeka and consider the need for agents in Tabriz. Such a debate is already difficult enough given the indications of a recent joint Kaiser/Harvard study which asked voters their impressions of the largest Federal expenses today. Apparently there is the idea that foreign aid is the second largest expense and consumes over a quarter of our budget. In fact the Congressional Budget Office tells us that foreign aid amounts to only two percent of the budget. Clearly there is enough disinformation going around. It is time for use to set the record straight when it comes to the intelligence budget. The Constitution demands it.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will add several important properties to the Women's Rights National Historic Park in Seneca Falls, NY. In 1980 I introduced legislation to commemorate an idea, that of equal rights for women. It is commemorated in Seneca Falls because that is where in 1848 the Declaration of Sentiments was signed, stating that ``all men and women are created equal'' and that women should have equal political rights with men. From this beginning sprang the 19th amendment and all that other advances for women this century and last. With the historic park authorized in 1980, we began the planning, held a design competition for the visitors center, and paid for the construction. The park is now in operation and a tremendous success. Visitorship increased 50 percent in fiscal year 1993 to 30,000. However, the park is not complete. As can be expected when starting such a venture from zero, not all the important properties could be acquired at the outset. Several remain in private hands or under the control of the Trust for Public Land, and this bill authorizes their addition to the park. These properties include the last remaining parcel of the original Elizabeth Cady Stanton property, necessary so that the Stanton House can be restored to its original condition, and the Young House in Waterloo, important for safety, resource preservation, and preserving the historic scene at the M'Clintock House. The other two are the Baldwin property, which would provide a visitor contact facility, restrooms, and boat docking facilities, and a maintenance facility now being rented by the Park Service. These additions to Women's Rights National Historic Park will add tremendously to the enjoyment and value of a visit. The National Park Service supports them, and in fact I understand that this legislation is the top priority for the North Atlantic Region. We must pass it promptly, for time is not a luxury; the Nies property is in the early stages of foreclosure. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and to come to the Women's Rights Park themselves. It is a trip well worth making. I further ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.