Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, in 1972, the Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification of the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, but subject to the passage of implementing legislation by Congress. The implementing legislation--the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CCPIA)--became law in 1983. I wrote this legislation in the Senate in cooperation with Senators Robert J. Dole and Spark M. Matsunaga. It is technically a revenue measure and came under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee of which I was then a senior member, later chairman. Earlier I had been Ambassador to India and to the United Nations and was much aware of the issues surrounding cultural property. As Ambassador in Delhi I was responsible for negotiating the return of the Shiva Nataraja. I also was serving at the time as chairman of the board of trustees of the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, and in that capacity I dealt at length with similar issues. The CCPIA sets forth our national policy concerning the importation of cultural property. As part of the statute, we created the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC), an 11-member body appointed by the President to advise him concerning foreign government requests that import restrictions be placed on certain archaeological and ethnological material. The statute specified that each member should represent one of four categories: museums (two members), archaeologists/anthropologists (three members), dealers (three members), and the public (three members). There are different interests here, and my purpose was to see that these were represented in any recommendation the CPAC would make. In addition, the CCPIA explicitly states that the CPAC is subject generally to the Federal Advisory Committee Act provisions relating to open meetings, public notice, and public participation in its proceedings. As the last of the authors of the CCPIA remaining in the Senate, it fell to me to keep an eye on its implementation. Earlier this session I introduced S. 1696, the Cultural Property Procedural Reform Act. Joining me as cosponsors on the bill are Chairman Roth, and Senators Schumer, Gramm, and Breaux. Congressman Rangel introduced companion legislation on the House side. I have pressed this legislation because I feel it provides an essential clarification of the CCPIA. Unfortunately, time has run out in this session of Congress to pass S. 1696. Although some halting progress has been made by the executive branch in responding to the problems that S. 1696 sought to address, it is clear that the fundamental issues of procedural reform raised by S. 1696 have not been resolved. Therefore, it is imperative that congressional oversight continue in an effort to ensure that the implementation of the Act is faithful to the terms Congress promulgated. We have seen a number of serious shortcomings in the administration of the CCPIA which led to the introduction of S. 1696. A central concern has been that the procedures of the CPAC remain essentially closed to nonmembers of the committee despite the provisions of the 1983 Act, such as 19 U.S.C. section 2605(h), that generally require open meetings and transparent procedures. I remain concerned that past proceedings before the CPAC and the administering agency have been conducted in almost total secrecy, thus denying interested parties a meaningful opportunity to respond to evidence presented by foreign nations concerning alleged pillage and with respect to the statutory requirements that must be satisfied. The result is that the CPAC is denied a full, unbiased record upon which to make its decisions. A central goal of S. 1696 is to open those proceedings. The initial step in a CPAC proceeding is the publication of a notice in the Federal Register informing the public of the filing of an application by a foreign government. However, that notice of the request is often so cursory as to effectively deny interested persons an opportunity to contribute meaningfully to CPAC proceedings. An adequate notice should provide descriptive information from the foreign nation about the archaeological or ethnological materials, the pillage of which the requesting country claims is placing its cultural patrimony in jeopardy. This information is particularly important because the 1983 act explicitly authorizes the President to impose import restrictions only on particular archaeological and ethnological materials that are the subject of pillage, which, in turn, is jeopardizing the cultural patrimony of a requesting state. Any notice of a foreign government's request should, at a minimum, put on the public record the approximate dates during which the cultural material at issue was produced, the approximate dates during which that material is alleged to have been pillaged, the cultural group with respect to which the material is associated (if available), the medium, and representative categories or types of cultural material that the foreign nation asked by barred from import into this country. This information will permit interested parties to prepare themselves to participate in an informed fashion in proceedings before the CPAC. Requiring the approximate dates of the alleged pillage is essential to carry out the purposes of the statute. Evidence of contemporary pillage is central to the goals of the 1983 act, which is based on the concept that a U.S. import restriction is justified only if it will have a meaningful effect on an ongoing situation of pillage. It is quite obvious that an import restriction in the year 2000 cannot deter pillage that took place decades or even centuries ago. Thus, the approximate dates of the pillage, which a fair notice would provide, is imperative to ensure that the administrative process is faithful to the goals of the CCPIA. A second concern that led to the introduction of S. 1696 was the absence of meaningful art dealer participation in the proceedings of the CPAC. This year, in fact, art dealers have not been represented at all on the CPAC--all three dealer slots have been and continue to be vacant. This state of affairs is inconsistent with the CCPIA, which established an elaborate process to ensure that the views of archaeologists, art dealers, museums, and the public were taken fully into account when a foreign government asked us to prohibit the importation of archaeological and ethnological materials. It is reported that the White House is now moving forward to fill all these are dealer vacancies and perhaps the introduction of S. 1696 helped move that process along. To ensure that in the future all interested constituencies are represented on the CPAC, it would be desirable to modify the CPAC quorum provisions to require the presence of at least one member from each statutory category. Moreover, the language describing the CPAC members should be made consistent across all four categories and consistent with Senate report language stating that the members are to be ``knowledgeable representatives of the private sector.'' Further, discussions on the bill have revealed that the process whereby the Executive Branch reports to the Congress on its actions under the 1983 act needs to be strengthened. Under current law, the CPAC and the State Department are to provide copies of their reports to Congress. These reports have not been transmitted to the Senate Finance Committee, the committee of jurisdiction in the Senate. Significantly, consultations have not occurred routinely on these matters since the original statute was enacted in 1983. To implement the goals of the 1983 Act for open proceedings, the reporting requirements in the CCPIA should be made more consistent with the traditional consultation and layover provisions used by Congress to ensure adequate consultation. Thus, reports of the CPAC and State Department action should be sent to appropriate jurisdictional committees with a traditional layover period to permit consultation, as appropriate, between Congress and the executive branch. Consultation provisions can be developed that will not impair the executive branch's ability to proceed with import restrictions, after there is an opportunity for consultation with Congress. Such consultation would help ensure that executive branch procedures and actions do not stray from Congress' intent in passing the 1983 act, and would thus help allay concerns of interested persons that the statutory criteria are not being met. One concern that I have heard repeatedly is that the CPAC and the agencies to which it reports have simply disregarded the multinational response requirement in recent actions imposing far-reaching restrictions on cultural property. Central to our intention in drafting the CCPIA was the principle that the United States will act to bar the import of particular antiquities, but only as part of a concerted international response to a specific, severe problem of pillage. The rationale for this requirement is that one cannot effectively deter a serious situation of pillage of cultural properties if the United States unilaterally closes its borders to the import of those properties, and they find their way to markets in London, Munich, Tokyo, or other art importing centers. Congress intended that the multinational response requirement be taken seriously--indeed its inclusion ensured the passage of the 1983 Act. I am concerned that the executive branch may not be giving serious weight to this requirement. I am distressed that the procedural changes proposed in S. 1696 cannot be made in this Congress. A fair administration of the 1983 act is vitally important to our citizens and our cultural life. The United States has long encouraged free trade in artistic and cultural objects which has helped create a museum community in our Nation that has no equal. That policy of free interchange of cultural objects was narrowly modified in the 1983 act to respond to specific, severe problems of pillage. A diversion from this posture, which the current administration of the law suggests, can deny the American public the opportunity to view, study, and appreciate cultural antiquities that reflect the multicultural heritage that is the essence of our nation. I trust, and urge, that the next Congress will address these issues vigorously.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I dare not ask a World War II pilot veteran to lift this or the rules on ergonomics might be contradicted. But I congratulate you, sir.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on this last day of the 106th Congress I would ask to be allowed a moment of reminiscence and farewell. Come January 3--deo voluntus, as the Brothers used to teach us--I will have served four terms in the United States Senate, a near quarter century. In our long history only one other New Yorker, our beloved Jacob K. Javits, has served four terms. I had the fortune of joining the Finance Committee from the outset, and served for a period as chairman, the first New Yorker since before the Civil War. I was also, at one point, chair of Environment and Public Works. I have been on Rules and Administration for the longest while, and for a period was also on Foreign Relations. Senators will know that it would be most unusual for someone to serve on both Finance and Foreign Relations at the same time. An account of how this came about may be of interest. The elections of 1986 returned a Democratic majority to the Senate and the Democratic Steering Committee, of which I was then a member, began its biannual task of filling Democratic vacancies in the various standing committees. There are four ``Super A'' committees as we term them. In order of creation they are Foreign Relations, Finance, Armed Services and Appropriations. With the rarest exceptions, under our caucus rules a Senator may only serve on one of these four. There were three vacancies on Foreign Relations. In years past these would have been snapped up. Foreign Relations was a committee of great prestige and daunting tasks. Of a sudden however, no one seemed interested. The Senate was already experiencing what the eminent statesman James Schlesinger describes in the current issue of The National Interest as ``the loss of interest in foreign policy by the general public'' (p. 110). Two newly-elected Senators were more or less persuaded to take seats. At length the Steering Committee turned to me, as a former ambassador. I remained on Finance. And so I served six years under the chairmanship of the incomparable Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island. I treasure the experience--the signing and ratification of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), the final days of the Cold War. But I continue to be puzzled and troubled by our inattention to foreign affairs. To be sure, the clearest achievement of this Congress has been in the field of foreign trade, with major enactments regarding Africa, the Caribbean, and China. These, however, have been the province of the Finance Committee, and it was with great difficulty and at most partial success did Chairman Bill Roth and I make the connection between world trade and world peace. This would have been self-evident at mid-century. I remark, and I believe there is a case, that any short list of events that led to the Second World War would include the aftermath of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930. Indeed, in the course of the ceremony at which the President signed the measure naming possible permanent normal trade relations with China in connection with its admission to the World Trade Organization, I observed that the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference, which conceived the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and anticipated an international trade organization, opened on the day I joined the Navy. For certain there was no connection, but my point was simply that in the midst of war the Allies were looking to a lasting peace that might follow, and this very much included the absence of trade wars. But again, how to account for the falling-off of congressional involvement in foreign affairs. I offer the thought that the failure of our intelligence, in the large sense of term, to foresee--forsooth to conceive!--the collapse of the Soviet Union has brought forth a psychology of denial and avoidance. We would as soon not think too much about all, thank you very much. I have recounted elsewhere the 1992 hearings of the Foreign Relations Committee on the START I Treaty. Our superb negotiators had mastered every mind-numbing detail of this epic agreement. With one exception. They had negotiated the treaty with a sovereign nation, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Now they brought to us a treaty signed with four quite different nations: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. When asked when this new set of signatories was agreed to, the Committee was informed that this had just recently taken place at a meeting in Lisbon. An observer might well have wondered if this was the scenario of a Humphrey Bogart movie. The negotiators were admirably frank. The Soviet Union had broken up in December 1991. Few, if any, at their ``end of the street'' had predicted the collapse. Let me correct the record: None had. As to the record, I would cite the 1991 article in Foreign Affairs by the estimable Stansfield Turner. The Admiral had served as Director of Central Intelligence and knew the record. He was blunt, as an admiral ought. I cite a passage in Secrecy: [Turner wrote,] ``We should not gloss over the enormity of this failure to forecast the magnitude of the Soviet crisis. We know now that there were many Soviet academics, economists and political thinkers, other than those officially presented to us by the Soviet government, who understood long before 1980 that the Soviet economic system was broken and that it was only a matter of time before someone had to try and repair it, as had Khrushchev. Yet I never heard a suggestion from the CIA, or the intelligence arms of the departments of defense or state, that numerous Soviets recognized a growing systemic economic problem.'' Turner acknowledged the ``revisionist rumblings'' claiming that the CIA had in fact seen the collapse coming, but he dismissed them: ``If some individual CIA analysts 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 advisors. On this one, the corporate view missed by a mile. Why were so many of us insensitive to the inevitable? Just as striking is the experience of General George Lee Butler, Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) from 1990 to 1994. Again to cite from Secrecy. As the one responsible for drafting the overall U.S. strategy for nuclear war, Butler had studied the Soviet Union with an intensity and level of detail matched by few others in the West. He had studied the footage of the military parades and the Kremlin, had scrutinized the deployments of Soviet missiles and other armaments: ``In all, he thought of the Soviet Union as a fearsome garrison state seeking global domination and preparing for certain conflict with the West. The only reasonable posture for the United States, he told colleagues, was to keep thousands of American nuclear weapons at the ready so that if war broke out, Washington could destroy as much of the Soviet nuclear arsenal as possible. It was the harrowing but hallowed logic of nuclear deterrence.'' But Butler began having doubts about this picture, upon which so much of U.S. foreign policy was based, by the time of his first visit to the Soviet Union, on December 4, 1988. When he landed at Sheremetyevo Airport, on the outskirts of Moscow, he thought at first that the uneven, pockmarked runway was an open field. The taxiways were still covered with snow from a storm two days earlier, and dozens of the runway lights were broken. Riding into downtown Moscow in an official motorcade, Butler noticed the roads were ragged, the massive government buildings crumbling. He was astonished when the gearshift in his car snapped off in his driver's hand. After pouring over thousands of satellite photos and thirty years' worth of classified reports, Butler had expected to find a modern, functional industrialized country; what he found instead was ``severe economic deprivation.'' Even more telling was ``the sense of defeat in the eyes of the people. . . . It all came crashing home to me that I really had been dealing with a caricature all those years.'' General Butler was right. More than he might have known. This fall former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski estimated that the economy of ``Russia is one-tenth the size of America and its industrial plant is about three times older than the OECD average.'' The population has dropped from 151 million in 1990 to 146 million in 1999. Infant mortality is devastating. Far from overwhelming the West, it is problematic as to whether Russia can maintain a presence east of the Ural Mountains. If you consider that the empire of the Czars once extended to San Francisco we can judge the calamity brought about by sixty-some years of Marxist-Leninism. And yet we did not judge. To say again, the United States government had no sense of what was coming, not the least preparation for the implosion of 1991. In 1919, John Reed, a Harvard graduate, and later a Soviet agent wrote Ten Days that Shook the World, his celebrated account of the Russian Revolution, as it would come to be known, in October 1917. In no time these events acquired mythic dimension for intellectuals and others the world over. At Harvard, Daniel Bell would patiently guide students through the facts that there were two Russian Revolutions; the first democratic, the second in effect totalitarian. But this was lost on all but a few. It would appear that the Soviet collapse was so sudden, we were so unprepared for it, that we really have yet to absorb the magnitude of the event. It was, after all, the largest peaceful revolution in history. Not a drop of blood was shed as a five hundred year old empire broke up into some twelve nations, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Ukraine, whilst formerly independent nations absorbed into the Soviet Bloc, Poland, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia et al., regained their independence. In the aftermath there has been no book, no movie, no posters, no legend. To the contrary, weak Russia grows steadily weaker--possibly to the point of instability, as shown in the miserable events in Chechnya. We see a government of former agents of the intelligence services and the secret police. We see continued efforts at increasing armament. Witness the sinking of the nuclear submarine Kursk. We see the return of the red flag. We see little engagement with the West, much less the East where China looms with perhaps ten times the population and far more economic strength. And the United States? Apart from a few perfunctory measures, and one serious, the Nunn-Lugar program, almost no response. To the contrary, at this moment we have, as we must assume, some 6,000 nuclear weapons targeted on Russia, a number disproportionate at the height of the Cold War, and near to lunacy in the aftermath. When, as Senator Lugar estimates, the Russian defense budget has declined to $5 billion a year. What is more, other than the highest echelon of the Pentagon, no doubt some elements of the intelligence community, possibly the Department of State, no American knows what the targeting plan is. In particular, Members of Congress, possibly with very few exceptions, do not know. Are they refused information? Just recently, our esteemed colleague, J. Robert Kerrey of Nebraska, wrote the Secretary of Defense, William S. Cohen, a former colleague of ours, to set forth the facts of this insane situation. There are signs that an open debate concerning nuclear weapons may be afoot. In The Washington Post recently, we learn of the response to a proposal by Stephen M. Younger, associate director of Los Alamos National Laboratory and head of its nuclear weapons work, proposing a great reduction in the number of massive weapons now in our arsenal in favor of smaller devices intended to deal with much smaller engagements than those envisioned during the Cold War. The Post reports that we now have some 7,982 warheads linked to nine different delivery systems, ICBMs, SLBMs and bombers. These are scheduled to decline to 3,500, half on Trident II submarines, under the Start II agreement. Younger argues that still fewer are needed. Any one of which would wipe out any large city on earth. It appears that other experts believe that a few dozen to several hundred of today's high-yield warheads would suffice to manage the standoff with Russia or China. There is, perhaps more urgently, the matter of nuclear weapons in what are for some reason still called Third World nations, a relic of Cold War usage. Nuclear standoff has settled into the South Asian subcontinent. The prospect that an ``Islamic Bomb'' will migrate westwards from Pakistan is real enough. It may be happening at this moment. The more then do we need open debate. The more urgent then is Senator Kerrey's assertion that Congress be involved. His profound observation that ``Sometimes secrecy produces its opposite; less safety and security.'' I have remarked on how little notice has been taken of the Russian revolution of 1989-91. By contrast, the ``information revolution'' has become a fixture of our vocabulary and our pronouncements on the widest range of subjects, and at times would seem to dominate political discourse. It might do well to make a connection as Francis Fukuyama does in the current issue of Commentary. In his review of a new book by George Gilder with the suggestive title Telecom: How Infinite Bandwidth Will Revolutionize Our World, Fukuyama makes the connection. Why, then, do those convinced that the revolution is already triumphant shake their heads so sadly at those of us who ``just don't get it?'' True, people want to feel good about themselves, and it helps to believe that one is contributing to some higher social purpose while pursuing self-enrichment. But it must also be conceded that the information-technology revolution really does have more going for it than previous advances in, say, steam or internal combustion (or, one suspects, than the coming revolution in biotechnology). The mechanization of production in the 19th and early 20th centuries rewarded large-scale organization, routinization, uniformity, and centralization. Many of the great works of imagination that accompanied this process, from Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, depicted individuals subsumed by huge machines, often of a political nature. Not so the information revolution, which usually punishes excessively large scale, distributes information and hence power to much larger groups of people, and rewards intelligence, risk, creativity and education rather than obedience and regimentation. Although one would not wish to push this too far, it is probably no accident that the Soviet Union and other totalitarian regimes did not survive the transition into the information age. Is it possible to hope that we might give some serious thought to the possible connection? And to ask ourselves just how we measure up in this regard? That said, is it not extraordinary and worrying that of a sudden we find ourselves in a state of great agitation concerning security matters all across our government, from our nuclear laboratories at home to embassies abroad to the topmost reaches of government? The late Lars-Erik Nelson described it as ``spy panic.'' In the process the possibility emerges that our national security will be compromised to a degree unimaginable by mere espionage. The possibility is that we could grievously degrade the most important institutions of foreign and defense policy--our capacity for invention and innovation--through our own actions. Take the matter of the loss, and evident return in clouded circumstances of two hard drives containing sensitive nuclear information from the Nuclear Energy Search Team at Los Alamos National Laboratory. This June, Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson asked two of our wisest statesmen, the Honorable Howard H. Baker, Jr., and the Honorable Lee H. Hamilton, to enquire into the matter. Here are the Key Findings of their report of September 25th. While it is unclear what happened to the missing hard drives at Los Alamos National Laboratory, it is clear that there was a security lapse and that the consequences of the loss of the data on the hard drives would be extremely damaging to the national security. Among the known consequences of the hard-drive incident, the most worrisome is the devastating effect on the morale and productivity of LANL, which plays a critical national-security role for the Nation. The current negative climate is incompatible with the performance of good science. A perfect security system at a national laboratory is of no use if the laboratory can no longer generate the cutting-edge technology that needs to be protected from improper disclosure. It is critical to reverse the demoralization at LANL before it further undermines the ability of that institution both to continue to make its vital contributions to our national security, and to protect the sensitive national-security information that is critical to the fulfillment of its responsibilities. Urgent action should be taken to ensure that Los Alamos National Laboratory gets back to work in a reformed security structure that will allow the work there to be successfully sustained over the long term. Almost alone among commentators, Lars-Erik Nelson pursued the matter, describing the interviews Senator Baker and Representative Hamilton had with lab personnel. They now report that ``the combined effects of the Wen Ho Lee affair, the recent fire at [Los Alamos] and the continuing swirl around the hard-drive episode have devastated morale and productivity at [Los Alamos]. The employees we met expressed fear and deep concern over the . . . yellow crime-scene tape in their workspace, the interrogation of their colleagues by . . . federal prosecutors before a grand jury and the resort of some of their colleagues to taking a second mortgage on their homes to pay for attorney fees. There is no denying that Lee and whoever misplaced the computer drives committed serious breaches of security. But the resulting threat to our safety is only theoretical; the damage to morale, productivity and recruitment is real. Employees were furious at being forced to take routine lie-detector tests, a requirement imposed on them by a panicky Secretary of Energy. . . . Obviously, there is a need for security in government. A Los Alamos employee gave Baker and Hamilton an obvious, easy solution. Unfortunately, it will be the one most likely to be adopted: ``The safest and most secure way to do work is not to do any work at all.'' In the course of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy (of which more later), a Commission member, then-Director of Central Intelligence John M. Deutch, revealed to the American people the extraordinary work of the VENONA project, an enterprise of the Army Security Agency during and after World War II. During the war the agency began to copy KGB traffic from and to the United States. On December 20, 1946, Meredith K. Gardner--I am happy to say still with us, buoyant and brilliant as ever--``broke'' the first. Dated 2 December 1944, it was a list of the principal nuclear scientists at Los Alamos. Bethe, Bohr, Fermi, Newman, Rossi, Kistiakowsky, Segre, Taylor, Penney, Compton, Lawrence and so on. The Soviets knew, and in time stole essentials of the early atom bomb. But what they could not do, was to slow down or deter the work of these great men, who would take us further into the age of the hydrogen bomb. Next, their successors to yet more mind-bending feats. The Soviets could not stop them. Would it not be the final triumph of the defunct Cold War if we stopped them ourselves? Do not dismiss this thought. If you happen to know a professor of physics, enquire as to how many ``post-docs'' are interested in weapons research, given the present atmosphere. To work at one-third the salary available elsewhere, and take lie detector tests. And then there is intelligence. Nelson quotes a ``former top intelligence official'' who told him, ``If you're not taking secrets home, you're not doing your job.'' And yet here we are harassing John M. Deutch, a scientist of the greatest achievement, a public servant of epic ability for--working at home after dinner. Would it be too far- fetched to ask when will the next Provost of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology choose to leave the banks of the Charles River for the swamps of the Potomac? Now I don't doubt that, as opposed to an intelligence official, there are ambassadors who don't take their work home at night. Over the years the United States has created a number of postings with just that attraction. But these are few. The great, overwhelming number of our ambassadors and their embassy associates are exceptional persons who have gone in harm's way to serve their country. I was ambassador to India at the time our ambassador to Sudan and an aide were abducted from a reception by Islamic terrorists, spirited away and murdered. Some days later the Egyptian envoy in New Delhi asked to see me. He had a message from then-Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to tell me that their intelligence sources reported I would be next. It is a not uncommon occurrence. But nothing so common as taking work home, or working in a--usually heavily armored--embassy limousine. Ask any former ambassador to Israel. Our embassy in Tel Aviv is an hour's drive from the capital in Jerusalem. The drive up and back is routinely used to dictate memoranda of conversation, type them on a laptop. Whatever. This fall, the superbly qualified, many would say indispensable ambassador to Israel, Martin S. Indyk, was stripped of his security clearances for just such actions. I cite Al Kamen's account in The Washington Post. Just the other day, ambassador to Israel Martin S. Indyk was deep into the State Department doghouse for ``suspected violations'' of security regulations. His security clearance was suspended, so he couldn't handle classified materials. He needed an escort while in the State Department building. The department's diplomatic security folks wanted him to stay in this country until their investigation was completed. At a White House briefing Monday, a reporter asked if Indyk could ``function as ambassador? Do we have a functioning ambassador?'' ``Not at the moment,'' press secretary Jake Siewert said. Allow me to cite a report by the redoubtable Jane Perlez, who was just recently reporting from Pyongyang on the psychotic security measures in the capital of North Korea. Eerily similar antics were to be encountered on September 30, Ms. Perlez reported: State Dept. Unfreezes Hundreds of Promotions After Delay for Security Review Washington, Sept. 29.--A continuing security crackdown at the State Department led to the freezing of promotions for more than 200 senior officials, pending a review of their security records, department officials said today. The director general of the Foreign Service, Marc Grossman, said he was assessing the promotion files for security violations before sending the promotions to the White House, which then dispatches them to Congress for approval. The release of the list was delayed after the suspension of the security clearance of one of the department's most senior officials, Martin S. Indyk, ambassador to Israel, and a sudden vigilance by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, who is under pressure from Congress on security problems. This evening, the department said that ``under 10'' officials had been barred from promotions after Mr. Grossman's review of 400 candidates. The nearly 400 people included 200 midlevel officials, whose promotions were released today after a weeklong delay. As word of the latest action spread through the department, an assistant secretary of state complained at a senior staff meeting this week that management faced ``rage'' in the building and increasingly demoralized employees, according to several accounts of the session. Others, as well as diplomats abroad, complained of a poisonous atmosphere in the department created, in part, by security officials who grilled junior Foreign Service officers about their superiors. One senior official said the obsession with security had created a ``monster'' out of the bureau of diplomatic security, which Congress generously finances to the detriment of other areas of the department. In a yet more eerie analogy, one department employee described the situation as a ``security jihad.'' It doesn't stop. It accelerates! Just this month The Washington Post reported the resignation of senior diplomats, the suspension of another, the firing of a further two over security matters. J. Stapleton Roy, one of the nation's two most senior foreign service officers and a three-time U.S. ambassador, has resigned in protest after Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright suspended his deputy without pay and fired two other long-time State Department officials over a missing top- secret laptop computer. . . . The departure of Roy and the reassignment of [Donald] Keyser will rob the department of two of its top China experts. The son of a missionary, Roy grew up in China, returned to the United States to go to Princeton University, then joined the foreign service. He later served as ambassador to China, Indonesia and Singapore. Keyser had served in Beijing three times, had been the State Department's director of Chinese and Mongolian affairs, and most recently held the rank of ambassador as a special negotiator for conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh and former Soviet republics. ``That's a lot of brainpower suddenly removed from the State Department,'' said William C. McCahill, a recently retired foreign service officer who served as the deputy chief of mission in Beijing. ``Keyser is a brilliant analyst and a person of great intellectual honesty and rigor. Stape is the kind of person you want in INR, someone who can think beyond today and tomorrow, who can think beyond established policy.''--The Washington Post, December 5, 2000. With some hesitation I would call to mind the purge of the ``China hands'' from the Department of State during the McCarthy era. As our Commission established with finality, there was indeed a Soviet attack on American diplomacy and nuclear development during and after World War II. There were early and major successes. The design of the first atom bomb. But not much else, and for not much longer. The real damage--the parallels are eerie--to American security came from the disinclination of the intelligence community--then largely in the Army--to share information with ``civilians.'' Specifically, documents obtained from the F.B.I. indicate that President Truman was never told of the Army Signals Security Agency's decryptions of Soviet cables during and after the war. He thought the whole business of Communist spying was a ``red herring.'' In 1953 he termed Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley ``a crook and a louse.'' American diplomacy and the Department of State in particular were for years haunted by charges they could readily have dealt with had they but known what their own government knew. And who issued the instruction that the President was not to be told? General Omar N. Bradley whom the President had made Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (Admittedly it is hard to prove a negative.) But I was reassured by an article in the Summer edition of the ``Bulletin'' of the CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence. In it, Deputy CIA historian Michael Warner votes with the judgment I offered earlier in my book ``Secrecy.'' What might it be that Secretary Albright needs to know today but has not been told? A generation hence we might learn. If, that is, the current secrecy regime goes unaltered. For the moment, however, I have further distressing news for Ambassador Stapleton if he should have occasion to return to the Department of State main building for one or another reason. I have just received a copy of a letter sent to David G. Carpenter, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. Another recently retired Ambassador, a statesman of large achievement and impeccable reputation recently called at Main State, to use their term. He was frisked at the entrance. He was allowed into the building, but assigned an ``escort,'' who accompanied wherever he went. Including, the ambassador writes, ``the men's room.'' It is difficult not to agree with the Ambassador's assessment that ``the `escort' policy is insulting and totally out of proportion to any desired enhancement of security.'' But then so is so much of security policy as it has evolved over the past sixty years. What is to be done? Surely we must search for a pattern in all this. Our Commission proposed a simple, direct formation. Secrecy is a form of regulation. In the previous Congress, legislation was prepared to embody the essentials of the Commission recommendations. All classified materials would bear the name and position of the person assigning the classification and the date, subject to review, that the classification would expire. It is not generally realized, but apart from atomic matters, under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and a few other areas there is no law stipulating what is to be classified Confidential, Secret, Top Secret--and there are numerous higher designations. It is simply a matter of judgement for anyone who has a rubber stamp handy. Our bill was unanimously reported from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, under the fine chairmanship of Senator Fred Thompson, with the full support of the then-ranking Committee member, our revered John Glenn. But nothing came of it. The assorted government agencies, covertly if you like, simply smothered it. The bureaucracy triumphed once more. Thomas Jefferson's dictum that ``An informed citizenry is vital to the functioning of a democratic society'' gave way before the self-perpetuating interests of bureaucracy. I am pleased to report that this year's Intelligence Authorization bill, which is now at the White House awaiting President Clinton's signature, includes the Public Interest Declassification Act. The measure establishes a nine-member ``Public Interest Declassification Board'' of ``nationally recognized experts'' who will advise the President and pertinent executive branch agencies on which national security documents should be declassified first. Five members of the Board will be appointed by the President and four members will be appointed by the Senate and the House. The Board's main purpose will be to help determine declassification priorities. This is especially important during a time of Congress' continual slashing of the declassification budgets. In addition to the routine systematic work required by President Clinton's Executive Order 12958, the intelligence community is also required to process Freedom of Information Act requests, Privacy Act requests, and special searches levied primarily by members of Congress and the administration. There is a need to bring order to this increasingly chaotic process. This Board may just provide the necessary guidance and will help determine how our finite declassification resources can best be allocated among all these competing demands. My hope is that the Board will be a voice within the executive branch urging restraint in matters of secrecy. I have tried to lay out the organizational dynamics which produce ever larger and more intrusive secrecy regimes. I have sought to suggest how damaging this can be to true national security interests. But this is a modest achievement given the great hopes with which our Commission concluded its work. I fear that rationality is but a weak foil to the irrational. In the end we shall need character as well as conviction. We need public persons the stature of George P. Shultz, who when in 1986 learned of plans to begin giving lie detector tests for State Department employees, calmly announced that the day that program began would be the day he submitted his resignation as Secretary of State. And so of course it did not begin. And yet with him gone, the bureaucratic imperative reappears. And so Mr. President, I conclude my remarks, thanking all my fellow Senators present and past for untold courtesies over these many years.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I will not require more than a few moments to thank my friend from New Jersey and express confidence in the Senators from Massachusetts and Delaware who have just spoken, to thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and my revered friend, the ranking member, the Senator from West Virginia, and the majority leader. May I say, sir--something we often lose sight of--this is a national issue and ought to be addressed by the Congress. We are the only major industrial state in the world that has not sought to recreate and revivify its rail system in the last generation. The Committee on Environment and Public Works in the last 20 years has turned to this. In 1989, we passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, calling for just such measures--later the Transportation Efficiency Act. We created financial instruments and the possibility of investments to be involved. We can do this. We are on the verge of it. To miss it at this moment would be to miss a moment in history for which I think we will not be happy. But I am so confident, from what I have heard today, that I leave the Senate yet more proud of having been here 24 years, thanking all--thanking particularly the Presiding Officer for his friendship and leadership in so many important matters. I yield the floor with great satisfaction of what has just transpired. If this is the kind of mode we enter into in January, there is much to expect from the 107th. Thanks to my friend from New Jersey.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Arizona project.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, Alan Emory, who for nearly half a century covered Washington for the Watertown Daily Times, passed away on November 27. Known for years as ``the Dean'' of the New York press corps, he was an indefatigable and prolific writer who often penned up to six stories a day in addition to a twice-weekly column. Even after retiring as bureau chief in 1998, he pursued stories with the same integrity and determination that first brought him to Washington in 1951. This past July, he broke the news that the Health Care Financing Administration intended to cut Medicare reimbursement for outpatient cancer care. Shortly thereafter, in a great part because of Alan's reporting, the plan was abandoned. He was a dear friend, and he will be missed. I ask that the obituary from the Associated Press be printed in the Record. The material follows: Alan Emory, Longtime Washington Correspondent for Watertown Times, Dies Washington--Alan Emory, Washington correspondent for the Watertown (N.Y.) Daily Times for 49 years, died Monday after a battle with pancreatic cancer. He was 78. Emory covered 10 presidential administrations--from Harry Truman to Bill Clinton--during his tenure in Washington. He began his career with the Times in 1947 in Watertown and also worked in the paper's Albany, N.Y., bureau before coming to Washington in 1951. He specialized in Canadian border issues, founding a group of reporters from northern states that met regularly with Canadian officials. He also covered more than 1,500 White House press conferences, traveling to Russia, China, Canada and South America. A former president of Washington's famed Gridiron Club, Emory penned many of the songs and skits that were performed in the club's annual spoof of the Washington political scene. In 1956, he was elected to the Standing Committee of Correspondents of Congressional Press Galleries. He was elected to the Hall of Fame of the Washington chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists in 1979. Emory graduated from Harvard University and received a master's degree from Columbia University's School of Journalism. He spent almost three years in the U.S. Army. Emory was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer early in 2000. He continued with his political writing, sometimes also writing about his struggles with the health care system. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., called Emory ``a giant.'' ``He practiced journalism the way it should be practiced with integrity and honesty,'' Schumer said Monday. ``Whether you liked the story he was writing or not, you always knew it was going to be fair and honest.'' Emory died at his home in Falls Church, VA. He is survived by his wife, Nancy Carol Goodman.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, in late October, as many Senators will know, Vincent Canby, ``whose lively wit and sophisticated tastes illuminated film and theater reviews in the New York Times for more than 35 years'' died at age 76. Thinking of an appropriate manner in which the United States Congress might honor his most honored memory, there came to mind an observation he made in a review of a film based on E.M. Foster's novel ``Howard's End.'' It's time for legislation decreeing that no one be allowed to make a screen adaptation of any quality whatsoever if Ismail Merchant, James Ivory and Ruth Prawer Jhabvala are available, and if they elect to do the job. Trespassers should be prosecuted, possibly condemned, sentenced to watch ``Adam Bede'' on ``Masterpiece Theatrer'' for five to seven years. The legislative drafting service had no difficulty producing legislative language. I had in mind a joint resolution, which is, of course, a statute. However, in view of our oath ``to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States,'' I felt in need of a legal opinion as to whether there might be constitutional impediments to such a measure. I think for example of the ``taking clause'' of the fourth amendment recently much discussed in learned papers associated with the University of Chicago School of Law. And so I set out to obtain advisory opinions. Alas, I had tarried too long. November 7 had passed. The Presidential election was in dispute. All of the constitutional lawyers in Washington had decamped for Florida. And now, in the closing hours of the 106th Congress, they are still there. This leaves me with no choice but to withhold the measure for now. Happily I am informed that next April we will witness the premier of The Wandering Company's adaptation of Henry James' ``The Golden Bowl.'' What a splendid way to begin the new millennium. (For that is what the year 2001 will be, and our trio are naught if not scrupulous as to details.) Surely a Senator in the 107th Congress will wish to pursue this matter. The glory of three continents is yet to be proclaimed in law. I regret the inconvenience this may cause viewers of ``Adam Bede,'' and I surely would not wish to denigrate ``Masterpiece Theatre,'' but Vincent Canvy was a just and moderate man. And, as is proclaimed on the wall above the bench of the Chenango County Courthouse in James Ivory's ancestral home of Norwich, New York ``Fiat Justica Ruat Coelum''.--Let justice be done though the heavens fall.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I thank my learned and ever accommodating--almost always accommodating friend. I have learned so much from him. If he knew how little economics I brought to this body, he would appreciate how much he has added to it. I am grateful, as a scholar ought to be. Across the aisle, I admire him so much and only wish he were on this side. But he has helped both sides on the issues that matter. That is what is important. I thank my friend.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota. He feels strongly. And he is right. But there are moments when we just have to get something done and go on to the next measure.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the majority leader has, on several occasions, noted that this Congress, particularly this session of this Congress, has been singular in the number of major trade measures that have been enacted. With the cooperation of the minority leader, with the full support of the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth--who was here just a moment ago but whose schedule required that he leave as soon as the unanimous consent measure was adopted--we have agreed to major trade legislation with sub-Saharan Africa --that entire part of the continent; to expand the Caribbean Basin Initiative, which is hugely important in the aftermath of the North American Free Trade Agreement-- which suddenly put island nations and nations on the isthmus below Mexico at a disadvantage, which no one intended and which we have now been able to redress in some considerable measure. The permanent normal trade relations with China was one of the most important pieces of legislation we have dealt with in a half century in the Congress. And we passed the Tariff Suspension and Trade Act of 2000, granting, among other things, permanent normal trade relations to Georgia, just last week. Now as the closing days are at hand, or may be at hand--in any event, it is the first of November--we have taken this action by unanimous consent to adopt an amended version of the FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000. That is a long title for a simple proposition. The World Trade Organization ruled that a measure in our Tax Code which has been in place for many years now, the Foreign Sales Corporation, which gave a tax benefit for income earned overseas--it was to encourage overseas sales--was contrary to the World Trade Organization rules. I think we do not disagree; when we look at the rules, look at the law, the ruling was correct. But we had to then change our laws in order to give equivalent treatment to American corporations working overseas so that they would remain competitive in those markets, but would not be in violation of the WTO rules. If we were not to do that, sir, and do it today, we would be subject to $4 billion a year in tariff retaliation from the European Union. It had the potential of a ruinous trade war. We have seen the animosity that arises over bananas. How the United States ever got into the business of exporting bananas, I do not know. I think I understand some of the politics involved, but that was unfortunate. But look at how quickly reactions occurred in Europe. Just wait, if $4 billion in retaliatory tariffs were to close off American access to European markets selectively--the more sensitive items chosen, the greatest damage doable--if that were the disposition of the ministers in Brussels, and it might well be. Well, it is not going to happen. We have done this properly. It is no coincidence that the Finance Committee, under the chairmanship of my revered friend from Delaware, Senator Roth, adopted this measure--it is a House measure, of course--on the same day we passed out the bill to grant China permanent normal trade relations. These are trade matters of great importance. We did it. The House and Senate subsequently agreed to a slightly different version, which we have adopted today. It will have to go back to the House. There will be no problem. The House conferees have already agreed, in the comprehensive tax bill and the Balanced Budget Refinement bill, to the exchanges. So it is a good day and a good morning's work. Not every morning do we avoid a trade war. This morning we did. We did not have an hour to lose. The deadline was November 1. We often do things at the last minute around here. But we often do things well also. I see my friend from Texas is on the floor. I know he would agree that avoiding a trade war over the Foreign Sales Corporation is a very good thing indeed. We have done it this morning with not a moment to lose. My friend from Texas will recall the deadline of November 1. And it is now November 1. We have done well. I thank Senator Durbin and others who had amendments they wanted to offer--Senator Wellstone, Senator Bryan. They had every right to do so, and they could have done so. They chose not in the larger interest of the United States. I think we should express our particular gratitude to them for their forbearance. I have said my piece. I thank all on behalf of Senator Roth and the Finance Committee, which acted unanimously in this regard. We have dodged a big bullet. We did it usefully and quickly in the spirit of cooperation about trade matters, which will mark this Congress. Perhaps we might even get that fact reported in the press somewhere. If not, we can maybe start a web site of our own. It would be worth it. Mr. President, I thank you for your courtesy. I see the assistant majority leader on the floor, and I yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. May we have order.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise for the pleasant purpose of noting the decision by the Committee on Rules to add two names to that very special group that is portrayed in our reception room--six of the most distinguished Senators in our history. We have now added two--or shortly will have done so--Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan and Senator Robert F. Wagner of New York. The story of Robert F. Wagner is a quintessential and essential one, describing the life of a poor immigrant child born on the east side of New York, who, by steady succession made his way to this Chamber. In the process, he changed the United States, recognizing, at long last, that we had become an urban Nation with needs, in legislative terms, that such a transformation requires. The census of 1920 determined, for the first time, that the majority of Americans lived in urban areas--rather loosely defined, but still-- and intensely so on the island of Manhattan. It may seem difficult to believe, but in 1910, the population of Manhattan was twice what it is today, and the conditions were difficult indeed. Yet there was a degree of social order, a very powerful and progressive political organization, Tammany Hall, which dates from the Revolutionary War days. Aaron Burr was the head of Tammany at one point. And in the person of Charles Francis Murphy, it became unexpectedly, but unmistakably, the single most powerful source of progressive ideas for social legislation in our history--ideas that became law that changed lives. Perhaps the critical event was the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire of 1911. In downtown Manhattan, there were women in a sweatshop, as we would call it. A fire broke out. The doors were locked. They were left to leap from eighth-story windows. And the city never got over it. Frances Perkins, having tea in Gramercy Park, five blocks away, never got over it. But it was Robert Wagner and Al Smith who did something about it. They had gone to Albany under the auspices of their district leaders, big Tom Foley in the case of Al Smith, from the lower east side, and McCardle from the upper east side. Smith became speaker of the assembly; Wagner, President pro tempore of the Senate. They chaired together a commission on the Triangle Shirtwaist fire. They came out with legislation calling for safety and sanitary conditions, restricting child labor, limiting the hours of working women and protecting the activities of trade unions--events which never before appeared on the legislative calendar of any State legislature, much less the Congress. And they passed. Smith went on to become Governor of New York and created, with his company, a legislative agenda which Franklin D. Roosevelt, who succeeded Smith as Governor, would take to Washington. We call it the New Deal. Wagner had already arrived in Washington and was well positioned to take up his work, beginning with the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933, and, in 1935, the defining Wagner Act, which is technically the National Labor Relations Act. It created the National Labor Relations Board and gave labor unions a right to exist and to be heard and not to be harassed. He went on under President Truman. He allied himself with Robert Taft, and the first major housing legislation passed this body. Then health care was proposed by Wagner, with Truman's support. A half century has gone by, and we are still dealing with that issue. But it is well that we recognize the person--a person, not the only one--who singularly brought this matter to the nation's agenda. I, as a New Yorker, am pleased, as all New Yorkers will be. I hope Senators will recognize that a just and honorable choice has been made. I am a member of the Rules Committee so it would not be appropriate to congratulate the Rules Committee, but I certainly thank the chairman and the ranking member, Senators McConnell and Dodd. I see my friend from New Mexico is on the floor, and I yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my friends from Iowa and Louisiana on this matter. The Finance Committee is very much concerned with and for this legislation. It will become law.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. May I simply thank my revered friend. We have been together, even across the aisle, for a near quarter century. There is no one whose regard I greater value and whose remarks I could not be more moved by.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I do so very much thank my friend. This is a very special moment for me.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on Sunday, October 1st, the Most Reverend Paul S. Loverde, Bishop of Arlington, delivered the Red Mass Homily at the Cathedral of St. Matthew here in Washington. It was the 48th annual Red Mass at St. Matthew's, all of which have been sponsored by the John Carroll Society. The Red Mass--a Solemn Mass of the Holy Spirt--originated hundreds of years ago to mark the beginning of judicial year of the Sacred Roman Rota, which is the supreme ecclesiastical and secular court of the Holy See. The name of the Mass is drawn from the red vestments traditionally worn by the celebrants, and also by the scarlet robes of the royal judges who attended. The color red represents tongues of fire, symbolizing the presence of the Holy Spirit. The tradition of the Red Mass spread from Rome to Paris--where it is now the only Mass held at La Sainte Chapelle, London--celebrated annually at Westminster Cathedral since the Middle Ages, and beyond. The tradition was inaugurated in the United States in 1928 at Old Saint Andrew's Church in New York City. Here in Washington, the Red Mass is held on the Sunday before the first Monday in October to coincide with the new term of the United States Supreme Court. Justices of the Court, other judges, law professors, lawyers, diplomats, government officials, and people of all faith attend the Mass to invoke God's blessing and guidance in the administration of justice. As Bishop Loverde pointed out in his homily, this year's Mass is special since it occurs in a Jubilee Year and at the dawn of the third Christian Millennium. The Jubilee tradition stems from the Book of Leviticus, in which God instructs Moses to ``hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.'' (25:10) God further admonishes Moses, ``Ye shall not therefore oppress one another; but thou shalt fear thy God: for I am the Lord your God.'' (25:17) Fifty years ago, we were engaged in a twilight struggle with Communist totalitarianism. Today, the Soviet Union exists no longer, and we are at peace and prosperous--due in large part, no doubt, because we are a nation of laws. We think of our nation as young, but we are old: there are two nations on earth, the United States and Great Britain, that both existed in 1800 and have not had their form of government changed by forces since then. There are eight--I repeat, eight--nations which both existed in 1914 and have not had their form of government changed by violence since then. Do we recognize how extraordinarily blessed we re? We abide by the rule of law, and so persist and prosper. Bishop Loverde lovingly reminds us that in this ``Year of Favor,'' the work of justice is peace--opus iustitiae pax. He quotes from Joseph Allegretti, who wrote, ``those who enter law with the intent to bring justice to a broken world, to vindicate the rights of the weak and vulnerable, to heal broken relationships, to ensure equality to all persons . . . these persons have responded to a true calling.'' Allegretti remarked that law ``is a vehicle of service to God and to neighbor, not simply a gateway to financial and social success.'' I might add that law is not only ``a vehicle of service to God.'' It is a gift from God which we must cherish. It is fitting that the John Carroll Society sponsors the Red Mass each year. John Carroll helped the colonies win their independence. After the Revolution, he was appointed superior of all U.S. Catholics. In 1789, he founded Georgetown University. he and his brother, Daniel, who was a member of the Constitutional Convention, insisted that the new Constitution prohibit any religious test for public office, and were influential forces for the freedom of religion clause contained in the First Amendment. In 1790, Carroll was consecrated the first Catholic bishop in the United States, and served from his cathedral in Baltimore. Ten years later, four additional dioceses were created and Carroll became Archibishop. He established St. Mary's College and Seminary, and he encouraged Elizabeth Ann Seton to found the order of The Sisters of Charity. Mr. President, it is customary each year to have the Red Mass Homily placed in the Congressional Record. I commend Bishop Loverde's homily and his moving call to all who are servants of justice and peace to be advocates for a ``new humanism'' that affirms the fundamental dignity, worth, and inalienable rights of each of us. I feel privileged to ask that the Bishop's homily for this year's Red Mass be printed in the Record. The material follows: Jubilee Red Mass Homily The most reverend Paul S. Loverde--Bishop of Arlington, Virginia, cathedral of st. matthew, washington, DC. Your Eminence, Distinguished Guests, Sisters and Brothers all in the Lord: This 48th annual celebration of the Red Mass here at St. Matthews Cathedral is truly unique this year. It is the Jubilee Red Mass celebrated at the dawn of the Third Christian Millennium. This Jubilee tradition began in the Old Testament and continues in the history of the Church. Every Jubilee year is understood to be a Year of the Lord's favor to His people. The words of today's first reading from the Book of the Prophet Isaiah powerfully proclaim the core meaning of the Jubilee Year and the responsibility entrusted to each of us every day, but with greater emphasis now during this special Year. ``The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me; He has sent me to bring glad tidings to the lowly, to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and release to prisoners, to announce a year of favor from the Lord and a day of vindication by our God . . .'' (Is. 61:1-2). These words of Isaiah remind us, in this ``Year of Favor,'' of the spirit of humanism that must guide our every action. Moreover, this is a year of ``increased sensitivity to all that the Spirit is saying to the Church and to the Churches, as well as to individuals through the charisms meant to serve the whole community'' (Tertio Millenio Adveniente, 23). Are we not gathered in prayer during this Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit to give tangible expression to our desire to be more sensitive to what the Holy Spirit is saying? Is not our participation in this Red Mass a concrete expression of our desire to be docile and open to the action of the Holy Spirit in our minds and hearts this year in a renewed way? Are we not seeking in prayer--a prayer that is sincere and humble and hope-filled--to hear ``what the Spirit is suggesting to the different communities, from the smallest ones, such as the family, to the largest ones, such as nations and international organizations, taking into account cultures, societies, and sound traditions'' (Tertio Millennio Adveniente, No. 23)? Addressing the Italian National Association of Magistrates this past March, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the Jubilee challenges the people of our time to fulfill responsibly the tasks entrusted to them. His words also speak eloquently to you: ``By your freely accepted vocation, you have put yourselves at the service of justice and so also at the service of peace. The ancient Romans liked to say: `opus iustitiae pax' (The work of justice is peace). There can be no peace among human beings without justice. This opus iustitiae, on which peace is based, is carried out within a precise ethical-juridical) framework and is an ongoing worksite. Indeed, wherever fundamental human rights, the inalienable rights that no legislation can violate, are codified in laws, it is always possible to give them a more complete juridical formulation and, above all, a more effective application in the concrete context social life'' (Pope John Paul II, Address to the National Association of Magistrates, 3/31/00). This does not happen easily. To this end, the Pope states further: ``A legal culture, a State governed by law, a democracy worthy of the name, are therefore characterized not only by the effective structuring of their legal systems, but especially by their relationship to the demands of the common good and of the universal moral principles inscribed by God in the human heart'' (Pope John Paul II, Address to the National Association of Magistrates, 3/31/00). What then is the Spirit of truth saying to us specifically at this Jubilee Red Mass? What is the Spirit of truth saying to those of you who serve the cause of justice and peace as judges, lawyers, members of the Legislative and Executive branches of government, diplomats, professors and students of the law? The Jubilee Year challenges you to give fundamental rights, ``a more complete juridical formulation and above all, a more effective application in the concrete context of social life'' (Pope John Paul II, Address to the National Association of Magistrates, 3/31/00). This takes on many forms, many formulations, but all are directed to the same end--the protection of the human person and society. Moreover, I speak of the perennial challenge in our day to work for a ``new humanism.'' This ``new humanism'' finds its basis in the dignity of the human person and his/her inalienable rights. ``The dignity of the person is the most precious possession of an individual. As a result, the value of one person transcends all the material world . . . The dignity of the person constitutes the foundation of the equality of all people among themselves . . . The dignity of the person is the indestructible property of every human being. The force of this affirmation is based on the uniqueness and irrepeatability of every person'' (cf Cristifideles Laici, no. 37). You and I are repeatedly called to be advocates for this ``new humanism.'' From the Christian viewpoint, the challenge is to rediscover the central reality of Christ who ``fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his most high calling'' (Gaudium et Spes, 22). Quite specifically, ``Christian humanism implies first of all an openness to the Transcendent. It is here that we find the truth and the grandeur of the human person, the only creature in the visible world capable of self-awareness and recognizing that he is surrounded by that supreme Mystery which both reason and faith call God'' (Pope John Paul II, Address to University Professors, no. 4, 9/9/00). Pope John Paul II applies this insight further saying: ``The humanism which we desire advocates a vision of society centered on the human person and his inalienable rights, on the values of justice and peace, on a correct relationship between individuals, society and the State, on the logic of solidarity and subsidiarity. It is a humanism capable of giving a soul to economic progress itself, so that it may be directed to `the promotion of each individual and of the whole person' '' (Pope John Paul II, Address to University Professors, no. 6, 9/9/00). In being advocates for this ``new humanism'' within the complexity of our culture and society, a powerful Advocate is being sent to stand by you. That Advocate is the Holy Spirit. It is the particular role of God the Holy Spirit to reveal God's Word and Will, and to help us in understanding and responding to His divine plan for us. Indeed, Jesus makes this very promise in today's gospel. ``If you love me and obey the commands I give you, I will ask the Father and He will give you another Advocate--to be with you always; the Spirit of truth . . . You can recognize Him because he remains with you and will be within you'' (Jn. 14:15-17). Catholic theology, reflecting on scripture, enumerates seven particular gifts of the Holy Spirit: Knowledge, Counsel, Understanding, Wisdom, Piety, Fortitude, and Fear of the Lord. These gifts of the Spirit are permanent dispositions which make us docile and open to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. These are gifts for which we pray in a special way during this Mass of the Holy Spirit, this Jubilee Red Mass. Knowledge is the gift which helps us to know God and what He expects of us through His self revelation in creation and in the person of Jesus Christ. Counsel is the gift from the Holy Spirit in which one receives the very counsel of God--divine advice. It is insight from the Holy Spirit which leads to a correct assimilation of the knowledge we have discovered. Understanding assists us in perceiving the hidden meanings of reality. As St. Thomas Aquinas observes: ``There are many kinds of things that are hidden within, which human knowledge has to penetrate, so to speak. Under the appearances of a thing lies hidden its essence, under words lies hidden their meaning, and under effects lie hidden their causes--and vice versa.'' (cf. Summa Theologica II/II, Q.8, art. 1). Wisdom enables one to know the purposes and plan of God. It gives us the ability to see life and its meaning, as well as persons, events and things, from the divine point of view, and to recognize the inner value of persons, events and things. Piety leads one to a devotion to God. ``As a gift of the Holy Spirit, piety moves us to worship God Who is the Father of all, and also to do good to others out of reverence for God'' (Our Sunday Visitor Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 784). Fortitude provides the internal strength and courage to be firm in difficulty and constant in doing good. Lastly, there is the gift of the Fear of the Lord. This is not a servile fear, but a filial fear, the desire not to offend because of love, not fear. This gift ensures our awe and reverence before God and helps us to acknowledge our radical dependence upon Him. As we advocate the ``new humanism,'' which centers on the human person and protects and ensures his or her inalienable rights within the context of justice and peace, these seven inter-connected gifts provide much encouragement, insight and support. They are given to help you, to help you in your essential and truly important work for our world, this country and our city. They are gifts of God to each of us, gifts for which we constantly pray. A renewed understanding of your vocation as advocates for justice emerges and is reflected so simply, yet so powerfully, in the words of one distinguished professor: ``Those who enter law with the intent to bring justice to a broken world, to vindicate the rights of the weak and vulnerable, to heal broken relationships, to ensure equality to all persons * * * these persons have responded to a true calling. Law for them is a vehicle of service to God and to neighbor, not simply a gateway to financial and social success'' (Joseph Allegretti: The Lawyer's Calling: Christian Faith and Legal Practice, p. 31). I applaud those among you who share your legal talents with those in need, especially those who participate in the Archdiocesan Pro Bono Legal Network. For you, the practice of law truly becomes ``a service to God and to your neighbor.'' Yet the need for pro bono assistance keeps increasing and demands an even greater and more generous response in our day. Those among us involved with the forging ahead of a ``new humanism'' must respond genuinely and faithfully. Ours is a Nation founded upon the ideal of the ``inalienable rights of every person.'' Our Nation leads the world in technological advancement, economic growth and military strength. Yet, there still exists a sad inequality among us in our society. I mention the following three examples in response to the challenge of the ``new humanism.'' First, 40 million Americans live without health care benefits, of whom 10 million are American children (U.S. News, Matthew Miller 8/ 18/97). Secondly, a large number of senior citizens find it difficult to afford much needed prescription drugs. Thirdly, the choice for quality education is not always available for many in our Nation. Each cries out for our collective response. In addition, we live in a culture where distrust and lying are only too evident. We must learn to speak the truth in love, to proclaim the sanctity of all human life, both of the innocent and of the guilty, from conception through every stage until natural death. the splendor of the truth must shine through the ``new humanism'' you advocate. So much of your time is spent with time-sheets, agenda books, email, faxes and meetings. Your inner spirits surely thirst for something more; indeed, for time to be with the Transcendent One--the Holy One--the source of these seven gifts, especially wisdom and fortitude. In those treasured moments, your minds will be enlightened and your inner spirits renewed, so that your advocacy for justice and peace will be all the more authentic and real. Yes, the Jubilee challenges you who are servants of justice and peace to be advocates for a ``new humanism,'' which will permeate your legal decisions, your legislative processes and your diplomatic service. May the Holy Spirit--the Advocate-- be at your side, as together we move forward in joy and in hope! Amen.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill that will benefit the cultural cornerstones of many of our communities--our nation's historic performing arts facilities. From the non-profit community theater housed in an historic opera house to the non-profit metropolitan performing arts complex of historic significance, this nation's historic performing arts facilities play a lasting and important role in the cultural fabric and cultural evolution of this nation. There are over 200 non-profit performing arts organizations with historic facilities nationally, including the Traverse City Opera House in Traverse City, Michigan; the Paramount Theater in Anderson, Indiana; the Polk Theater in Lakeland, Florida; the Strand Theater in Shreveport, Louisiana; the Trinity Repertory Company in Providence, Rhode Island; and the Victoria Theater in Dayton, Ohio. As the cultural cornerstones of their communities and regions, these facilities also play an important economic role as the anchors of economic development within their communities. These theaters attract tourism, stabilize neighborhoods, and generate increased economic activity of surrounding businesses. Since the 1950s, this nation has also seen the emergence of nearly forty larger multi-purpose, multi-use performing arts complexes in urban areas as part of a larger urban renewal movement, such as the Los Angeles Music Center, the Wang Center for the Performing Arts in Boston, the Cincinnati Music Hall and Aronoff Center for the Arts in Ohio, the Regional Performing Arts Center in Philadelphia, the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts in New York City, and the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. Each of these performing arts organizations has revitalized and spurred development in its community, and many of these larger facilities are centered around historic facilities or are historic places themselves. This bill, the Historic Performing Arts Facility Rehabilitation Act, provides parity between non-profit and for-profit historic performing arts organizations that rehabilitate these national treasures. For many years, for-profit entities, including for-profit theaters, that rehabilitate their nationally registered historic structures have qualified for a rehabilitation tax credit. This bill would simply permit non-profit performing arts organizations, with facilities similarly listed on the National Register of Historic Places, to benefit from the same program. The bill permits non-profit performing arts organizations to receive the existing credit, equal to twenty percent of qualified rehabilitation expenditures, in the form of a credit certificate. The certificate would be transferable to a lending institution that provides all or part of the financing related to the qualified rehabilitation expenditure in exchange for a reduction in interest or principal. This bill has the support of the performing arts community and the support of historic preservation organizations. I hope many of my colleagues will support this important legislation.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on October 16 the new United States Courthouse at Islip, New York, was dedicated in a splendid ceremony at which the distinguished architect Richard Meier spoke, in the company of Robert A. Peck, the singularly gifted Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service of the General Services Administration. The ceremony was splendid for the simple reason that the courthouse is magnificent. Perhaps the finest public building of our era. Certainly the finest courthouse. And it could never have happened save for the Design Excellence Program Commissioner Peck has put in place with his characteristic compound of genius and persistence. Major Peck, as he is known to his friends (he was a Green Beret officer), is a public servant of unexampled ability and achievement. His record is known to all. Some number of years ago when he was counsel to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, he put together for the Committee a slide show consisting of photographs of early public buildings in early America. He did not plead his case; he made it. The buildings exude a confidence and expectation that clearly explain the endurance of American democracy. I recall in particular a white wooden-frame courthouse in Rhode Island. Graceful, serene, unthreatening yet equally forceful. Of a sudden it came to us. As nowhere else on earth, the courthouse is a symbol of government in the United States. Go to London, go to Paris. There are courthouses, or at least courtrooms there. If you can find them. Amidst the cathedrals and the palaces, and to be sure, the buildings of the legislature. Here it is different. The courthouse square is where folk gather. The Nation owes Robert A. Peck more than it will ever know. But this would hardly matter to him. As the time approaches when he will leave government, he takes with him the knowledge of his singular public service. I ask that Major Peck's address on the occasion of the courthouse dedication be included in the Record at this point, along with a brief summary of his service. The material follows: Robert A. Peck, Commissioner, GSA Public Building Service, 16 October 2000 Building partners, GSA colleagues, and distinguished guests; may it please the court: This is a fine day, a great day for this Court, for New York, for Long Island and for us in the General Services Administration. But more important still, we might well someday regard this as the day that marked the full flowering of a renaissance in public building in America. At the turn of another century, at this season exactly two hundred years ago, the White House and the Capitol were occupied, if not quite completed, in Washington. It is not by chance that they quickly became the architectural icons of American democracy. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson intended them to be just that. They conscientiously sought to erect Federal buildings of a scale, style and quality that would reflect the noble origins and intentions of the new government. And so began a tradition of American public building that would, for a century and a half, produce some of the finest buildings in America. The federal government built courthouses, post offices, land offices and custom houses all over the expanding nation. You can see photos of Federal buildings of imposing stature, constructed of enduring materials and elegantly detailed, sitting on unpaved streets in what were literally one-horse towns. The buildings simultaneously planted the flag and put the towns on the map. The government was proud to build them and the townspeople were proud to have them. States and cities followed suit with stately civic buildings, malls, and memorials. Then, after World War II, something happened. As the scale of government increased, public buildings diminished. Not in size, but in accomplishment. Just as GSA was being founded, fifty-one years ago, public architecture fell into decline and, quickly, into deserved disrepute. As in so many other things, there was a brief shining moment for public architecture in the Kennedy Administration. Drafted by a then-special assistant to the Secretary of Labor, one Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a set of Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture appeared from nowhere. Certainly no one had asked for them. The Principles called for federal architecture which is ``distinguished and which will reflect the dignity, enterprise, vigor and stability of the American National Government.'' But the Kennedy era produced few buildings and, in any event, the spark didn't ignite. GSA would try on occasion. I was witness to one noteworthy hearing in the first or second year of Senator Moynihan's first term in which a GSA official, pointing to a tepid design, said the government was trying to put the poetry back in its architecture. Senator Moynihan advised, ``better try to learn the prose first.'' Look at this building. Walt Whitman does come to mind, or perhaps Mozart or Copland, if architecture is indeed frozen music. GSA is now some forty buildings into the largest public buildings program since that of the 1930's. We are turning out building after building, mostly courthouses but also office buildings, border stations and even laboratories, that meet the test of the Guiding Principles. GSA's Design Excellence Program has changed our expectations for public architecture. Members of Congress from both parties and local community leaders now demand quality from us. Many cities are following suit and are hiring the best designers they can find to build new civic structures, in so doing reviving their own traditions born in the City Beautiful movement of a century ago. Inside GSA, Design Excellence has spurred us to demand higher quality of ourselves, not just in architecture but in all that we do. We aspire to build historic landmarks for the next generation. Just as so many Federal buildings of the 19th and early 20th century have become local landmarks that citizens rally to defend, so we are determined that our new buildings will stir affectionate and passionate defenders in the years to come. Richard Meier's accomplishment here sets a mark that will be hard to surpass but that challenges us to accept nothing short of the inspirational when we build. GSA in this Administration made a bold decision to pursue design excellence. All praise is due to GSA's chief architect, Ed Feiner, a native of New York City and his GSA colleague, Marilyn Farley, who persevered through years of indifferent response inside GSA to become the architects of our Design Excellence process. In his New Yorker review of this building, Paul Goldberger said the GSA was a much more enlightened client for Richard Meier than was at least one other well-known client of his. To Ed and Marilyn go much of the credit for this. We are fortunate to have as our clients in this, as in so many of our projects, the federal judiciary. They are not easy clients, as you might expect of those with lifetime tenure who are used to having the final say. But they are the best clients, because they care about the quality of the buildings in which they carry out perhaps the most sensitive function in our society. Judge Wexler has lived and breathed this building for a long, long time and we are all in his debt. At these dedications, those of us who speak--the judges and the architects excluded--often have had little to do with the day to day agonies and triumphs of seeing a project like this to completion. So thanks to the GSA project managers, the construction managers, the architect's team and the builders, those who sat here in the construction trailers, who hammered out the details and who worked in the prose of budgets and schedules. And thanks to the construction workers, too often overlooked as we congratulate each other. Again, thank you to Richard Meier. Your building is at once a structure that stirs emotion and embodies reason, a building that at once demonstrates the power of large ideas and proves, as Mies van der Rohe said, that god is in the details. May I sound a few cautionary notes and, in this political season, petition for help? We have retained our way on public architecture only recently, to the enduring benefit of our people, our communities and our policy. But we could regress. There are still some, not many, thankfully, who would limit budgets to such a degree that we would be putting up throw- away buildings. GSA has combined judicious and vigorous budget-setting with our design excellence procedures to make sure that we build with prudence as well as with grace. There are some, again not many, who think GSA should build in a ``traditional'' style, whatever that means. At the turn of the last century, the federal government did decree an official style. As happens too frequently in government, what started out as a declaration in favor of a fresh idea remained in force so long that it prevented the government from keeping up with changing times. The Guiding Principles wisely forbade the government from having an official style and directed instead that the government take architectural direction from the best practitioners in the private design community. We need support in building buildings like this one, a striking and ennobling structure of and for the 21st century. And finally, there is the nation's understandable concern with security. We must build buildings like this one, that intelligently and rationally counter likely and deterrable risks. We must not and need not wall off our public buildings and our public servants from the public they are intended to serve. We must not let the terrorists become our most influential architects. Everyone in GSA who has had anything to do with this project will be proud as long we he or she lives that we had even a small role in giving New York and the nation this temple of democracy. We are proud to be building buildings worthy of the American people--none so worthy as this.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask our distinguished leader, he mentioned the Executive Calendar. The Finance Committee has held hearings on six nominees, two tax court judges of some considerable salience, two public trustees of the Social Security trust funds. We have not been able to find a committee presence, a majority in which to report out the measure. We had hoped that possibly the committee might be discharged. These are persons of distinction who we all want to be in place. Will that be possible?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. That is most reassuring. I thank the leader.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

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, my great thanks to the chairman of the Finance Committee for his efforts in bringing this legislation, the Tariff Suspension and Trade Act of 2000, to a successful conclusion. Last November, the World Trade Organization Seattle Ministerial ended in what The Economist magazine labeled a ``global disaster.'' Mr. President, our trade policy of 60 years--first established by Cordell Hull's Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934--was in a crisis. Since then, the Senate has worked hard to put our trade policy back on track. On May 11, 2000, Congress passed the Trade and Development Act of 2000, extending preferential tariff treatment to our friends in Africa and expanding benefits to our neighbors in the Caribbean Basin. Just this week, the President signed into law H.R. 4444, authorizing permanent normal trade relations for China. And today, the Senate has passed--by unanimous consent--our third piece of trade legislation this year, the Tariff Suspension and Trade Act of 2000. There has not been a year in Congress so productive on trade issues since 1988, when we considered the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act and the legislation implementing the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. H.R. 4868 contains over 150 tariff suspensions and reductions on a wide range of products, 19 reliquidations of prior entries, and 11 technical Customs provisions, including one which provides economic incentives for importers to recycle. Notably, the bill also authorizes the President to grant Georgia permanent normal trade relations, bringing the total number of nations we have normalized trade relations with this year to four. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff which have worked late nights and long weekends to ensure that the Tariff Suspension and Trade Act of 2000 was a success. On the Finance Committee Minority staff, Linda Menghetti, Timothy Hogan, Holly Vineyard, and Pat Heck, and on the Majority staff, Grant Aldonas, Faryar Shirzad, Tim Keeler, and Carrie Clark worked tirelessly to ensure the passage of this important bill. Polly Craighill, of the Legislative Counsel's Office, spent countless hours drafting and redrafting this extensive piece of legislation. Anita Horn and Gary Myrick of the Minority leadership were also crucial to its final passage. Mr. President, we have taken three major steps forward since Seattle, and I hope the momentum will continue. the republic of georgia

Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Senator's point is a good one and I will press it in conference.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the news from the Middle East is deeply painful to all who pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Three months ago at Camp David the State of Israel offered the Palestine Authority unprecedented concessions in an effort to end the cycle of violence and hatred. The rejection of these proposals has tragically led to the loss of numerous lives and the resumption of the cycle of violence and hatred. Our Government must tell the Palestinian leadership that the destruction of holy sites and mob violence have no place in civilized society. Events in the Middle East

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a Sense of the Senate Resolution that calls on the National Park Service to relocate the Hamilton Grange, which is the home of Alexander Hamilton. As Washington's aide-de-camp during the Revolution, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Secretary of the Treasury, and founder of the Bank of New York and the New York Post, Hamilton was instrumental in determining the direction of the nation in its early years. The only home he ever owned is in New York City. It sits on a block in Harlem, bounded on the north by an apartment house and on the south by a church. The apartment house is inches away, the church a few feet. For some forty years the National Park Service has been contemplating the relocation of the Grange to a better site. The plan now is to go around the corner to St. Nicholas Park. The park was part of the original Hamilton estate and would be a far more appropriate location for the house. The necessary civic approvals are nearly set. It will soon be in the hands of the Park Service to get this done. The resolution simply states that the agency should do so expeditiously, and should then proceed with the restoration projects that have been on hold. Alexander Hamilton and those who come to see his home deserve as much. I ask my colleagues for their support.