[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7703-7708]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   TRIBUTE TO DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. At the same time, I wish to pay tribute to a dear 
friend who passed away yesterday, Senator forever, Pat Moynihan.
  I came to the Senate 6 years after he arrived here, and we served 
together for 18 years. We left together at the same time in 2001.
  I personally will miss him and think fondly of the moments we shared 
together, but, at the same time, say thank goodness--thank goodness--
that this place and this country had Senator Pat Moynihan.
  He was a great man, with a brilliant mind, an incredible wealth of 
knowledge. He will have left a mark forever on our Government and on 
our society, even at a time when our culture has exhibited an ephemeral 
quality.
  We can think of the moments we shared with him, all of us who had the 
good fortune to serve with him. Because New York and New Jersey are 
neighboring States and have many similar concerns, he and I worked 
closely on many issues. We served together on the Environment and 
Public Works Committee.
  He will be rightfully remembered as one of the giants who have served 
in this Senate. He will be able to be compared to the greats at the 
founding of this country because his half century of contributions to 
this body and to New York and to the region and to the Nation and to 
the world are immeasurable.
  He, like many who are serving now and have served, was born in modest 
circumstances and was raised in an area on the west side of New York 
called Hell's Kitchen, a rough and tumble area. He joined the Navy. He 
served in World War II. And then he went on to earn degrees at the 
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
  In the early 1950s, Pat Moynihan worked for the International Rescue 
Committee, one of the earliest and most effective human rights 
organizations. Then he joined the administration of New York Governor 
Averill Harriman, where he met his beloved wife and someone we all 
love, Liz.
  Pat and Liz came to Washington with the Kennedy administration, and 
Pat went on to serve in the cabinet or subcabinet of the next three 
Presidents, two of whom were Republicans. He served as U.S. Ambassador 
to India and as U.S. Representative to the United Nations.
  All the while, he had a busy and prolific career in academia, with 
teaching positions at Syracuse and Harvard and other universities. It 
is often said that Pat Moynihan has written more books than most people 
have read. And those books were on subjects as diverse as ethnicity, 
welfare policy, secrecy as form of regulation, and international law. 
His books and essays and op-eds were always erudite and displayed a wit 
and wisdom and grace few people have. His books were so well received, 
whenever they were produced.
  I doubt anyone else ever entered the United States Senate with a 
greater breadth of experience or knowledge. Pat Moynihan was made for 
the Senate, and the Senate was made for men like Pat Moynihan.
  Pat was not only a great intellectual; he was a man of principles, 
deeply held and eloquently expressed. And yet he had that remarkable 
ability of being able to disagree without being disagreeable. There 
isn't a single Member of the Senate who served with him who didn't also 
love and revere him.
  We are poorer for Pat's passing, but rather than dwell on that, I 
would like to express my gratitude that someone with such inestimable 
talents and energies devoted them to public service. We are definitely 
richer for that.
  We send our sympathy to Liz Moynihan, and to the children, Timothy 
and Maura and John, and to the grandchildren, Michael Patrick and Zora.
  We live in tumultuous and dangerous times. No one understood that 
better than Pat Moynihan, and we would benefit from his counsel. I will 
include for the Record a commencement address that Pat delivered at 
Harvard University about world events and foreign policy, and I commend 
it to my colleagues.
  On a more personal note, my legislative director, Gray Maxwell, was 
Pat's legislative director from 1995 to 2000. When Pat retired, Gray 
wrote a tribute that was printed in Long Island Newsday. I will also 
ask that the tribute be printed in the Record.
  In closing, I note that one of Pat's great abiding passions was 
public works--not just in New York but here in Washington. He authored 
much of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA, he 
fought for Amtrak and mass transit, he wrote the guiding principles for 
federal architecture, he shepherded the Union Station redevelopment and 
the Thurgood Marshall and Ronald Reagan buildings to completion, and he 
almost single-handedly transformed Pennsylvania Avenue. I think what 
was written in St. Paul's Cathedral in London for Sir Christopher Wren 
would serve as an equally fitting tribute to Pat Moynihan: Si 
monumentum requiris circumspice [If you would see the man's monument, 
look about you.].
  I ask unanimous consent that his commencement address delivered at 
Harvard University on June 6, 2002, to which I referred, and an article 
written by a person on my staff, Gray Maxwell, who was on the Moynihan 
staff before that, that demonstrates beautifully the character and 
capability Pat Moynihan brought to his job and to all of us, be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Commencement Address, June 6th, 2002, by Daniel Patrick Moynihan

       A while back it came as something of a start to find in The 
     New Yorker a reference to an article I had written, and I 
     quote, ``In the middle of the last century.'' Yet persons my 
     age have been thinking back to those times and how, in the 
     end, things turned out so well and so badly. Millions of us 
     returned from the assorted services to find the economic 
     growth that had come with the Second World War had not ended 
     with the peace. The Depression had not resumed. It is not 
     perhaps remembered, but it was widely thought it would.
       It would be difficult indeed to summon up the optimism that 
     came with this great surprise. My beloved colleague Nathan 
     Glazer and the revered David Riesman wrote that America was 
     ``the land of the second chance'' and so indeed it seemed. We 
     had surmounted the depression; the war. We could 
     realistically think of a world of stability, peace--above 
     all, a world of law.
       Looking back, it is clear we were not nearly so fortunate. 
     Great leaders preserved--and in measure extended--democracy. 
     But totalitarianism had not been defeated. To the contrary, 
     by 1948 totalitarians controlled most of Eurasia. As we now 
     learn, 11 days after Nagasaki the Soviets established a 
     special committee to create an equivalent weapon. The first 
     atomic bomb was acquired through espionage, but their 
     hydrogen bomb was their own doing. Now the Cold War was on. 
     From the summer of 1914, the world had been at war, with 
     interludes no more. It finally seemed to end with the 
     collapse of the Soviet Union and the changes in China. But 
     now . . .
       But now we have to ask if it is once again the summer of 
     1914.
       Small acts of terror in the Middle East, in South Asia, 
     could lead to cataclysm, as they did in Sarajevo. And for 
     which great powers, mindful or not, have been preparing.
       The eras are overlapping.

[[Page 7704]]

       As the United States reacts to the mass murder of 9/11 and 
     prepares for more, it would do well to consider how much 
     terror India endured in the second half of the last century. 
     And its response. It happens I was our man in New Delhi in 
     1974 when India detonated its first nuclear device. I was 
     sent in to see Prime Minister Indira Gandhi with a statement 
     as much as anything of regret. For there was nothing to be 
     done; it was going to happen. The second most populous nation 
     on earth was not going to leave itself disarmed and 
     disregarded, as non-nuclear powers appeared to be. But 
     leaving, I asked to speak as a friend of India and not as an 
     official. In twenty years time, I opined, there would be a 
     Moghul general in command in Islamabad, and he would have 
     nuclear weapons and would demand Kashmir back, perhaps the 
     Punjab.
       The Prime Minister said nothing, I dare to think she half 
     agreed. In time, she would be murdered in her own garden; 
     next, her son and successor was murdered by a suicide bomber. 
     This, while nuclear weapons accumulated which are now poised.
       Standing at Trinity Site at Los Alamos, J. Robert 
     Oppenheimer pondered an ancient Sanskrit text in which Lord 
     Shiva declares, ``I am become Death, the shatterer of 
     worlds.'' Was he right?
       At the very least we can come to terms with the limits or 
     our capacity to foresee events.
       It happens I had been a Senate observer to the START 
     negotiations in Geneva, and was on the Foreign Relations 
     Committee when the treaty, having been signed, was sent to us 
     for ratification. In a moment of mischief I remarked to our 
     superb negotiators that we had sent them to Geneva to 
     negotiate a treaty with the Soviet Union, but the document 
     before us was a treaty with four countries, only two of which 
     I could confidently locate on a map. I was told they had 
     exchanged letters in Lisbon [the Lisbon Protocol, May 23, 
     1992]. I said that sounded like a Humphrey Bogart movie.
       The hard fact is that American intelligence had not the 
     least anticipated the implosion of the Soviet Union. I cite 
     Stansfield Turner, former director of the CIA in Foreign 
     Affairs, 1991. ``We should not gloss over the enormity of 
     this failure to forecast the magnitude of the Soviet crisis. 
     . . . The corporate view missed by a mile.''
       Russia now faces a near-permanent crisis. By mid-century 
     its population could well decline to as few as 80 million 
     persons. Immigrants will press in; one dares not think what 
     will have happened to the nuclear materials scattered across 
     11 time zones.
       Admiral Turner's 1991 article was entitled ``Intelligence 
     for a New World Order.'' Two years later Samuel Huntington 
     outlined what that new world order--or disorder--would be in 
     an article in the same journal entitled ``The Clash of 
     Civilizations.'' His subsequent book of that title is a 
     defining text of our time.
       Huntington perceives a world of seven or eight major 
     conflicting cultures, the West, Russia, China, India, and 
     Islam. Add Japan, South America, Africa. Most incorporate a 
     major nation-state which typically leads its fellows.
       The Cold War on balance suppressed conflict. But the end of 
     the Cold War has brought not universal peace but widespread 
     violence. Some of this has been merely residual proxy 
     conflicts dating back to the earlier era. Some plain ethnic 
     conflict. But the new horrors occur on the fault lines, as 
     Huntington has it, between the different cultures.
       For argument's sake one could propose that Marxism was the 
     last nearly successful effort to Westernize the rest of the 
     world. In 1975, I stood in Tiananmen Square, the center of 
     the Middle Kingdom. In an otherwise empty space, there were 
     two towering masts. At the top of one were giant portraits of 
     two hirsute 19th century German gentlemen, Messrs. Marx and 
     Engels. The other displayed a somewhat Mongol-looking Stalin 
     and Mao. That wasn't going to last, and of course, it didn't.
       Hence Huntington: ``The central problem in the relations 
     between the West and the rest is . . . the discordance 
     between the West's--particularly America's--efforts to 
     promote universal Western culture and its declining ability 
     to do so.''
       Again there seems to be no end of ethnic conflict within 
     civilizations. But it is to the clash of civilizations we 
     must look with a measure of dread. The Bulletin of the Atomic 
     Scientists recently noted that ``The crisis between India and 
     Pakistan, touched off by a December 13th terrorist attack on 
     the Indian Parliament marks the closest two states have come 
     to nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis.'' By 1991, the 
     minute-hand on their doomsday clock had dropped back to 17 
     minutes to midnight. It has since been moved forward three 
     times and is again seven minutes to midnight, just where it 
     started in 1947.
       The terrorist attacks on the United States of last 
     September 11 were not nuclear, but they will be. Again to 
     cite Huntington, ``At some point . . . a few terrorists will 
     be able to produce massive violence and massive destruction. 
     Separately, terrorism and nuclear weapons are the weapons of 
     the non-Western weak. If and when they are combined, the non-
     Western weak will be strong.''
       This was written in 1996. The first mass murder by 
     terrorists came last September. Just last month the vice 
     president informed Tim Russert that ``the prospects of a 
     future attack . . . are almost certain. Not a matter of if, 
     but when.'' Secretary Rumsfeld has added that the attack will 
     be nuclear.
       We are indeed at war and we must act accordingly, with 
     equal measures of audacity and precaution.
       As regards precaution, note how readily the clash of 
     civilizations could spread to our own homeland. The Bureau of 
     the Census lists some 68 separate ancestries in the American 
     population. (Military gravestones provide for emblems of 36 
     religions.) All the major civilizations. Not since 1910 have 
     we had so high a proportion of immigrants. As of 2000, one in 
     five school-age children have at least one foreign-born 
     parent.
       This, as ever, has had bounteous rewards. The problem comes 
     when immigrants and their descendants bring with them--and 
     even intensify--the clashes they left behind. Nothing new, 
     but newly ominous. Last month in Washington an enormous march 
     filled Pennsylvania Avenue on the way to the Capitol grounds. 
     The marchers, in the main, were there to support the 
     Palestinian cause. Fair enough. But every five feet or so 
     there would be a sign proclaiming ``Zionism equals Racism'' 
     or a placard with a swastika alongside a Star of David. Which 
     is anything but fair, which is poisonous and has no place in 
     our discourse.
       This hateful equation first appeared in a two-part series 
     in Pravda in Moscow in 1971. Part of Cold War ``agit prop.'' 
     It has since spread into a murderous attack on the right of 
     the State of Israel to exist--the right of Jews to exist!--a 
     world in which a hateful Soviet lie has mutated into a new 
     and vicious anti-Semitism. Again, that is the world we live 
     in, but it is all the more chilling when it fills 
     Pennsylvania Avenue.
       It is a testament to our First Amendment freedoms that we 
     permit such displays, however obnoxious to our fundamental 
     ideals. But in the wake of 9/11, we confront the fear that 
     such heinous speech can be a precursor to violence, not least 
     here at home, that threatens our existence.
       To be sure, we must do what is necessary to meet the 
     threat. We need to better understand what the dangers are. We 
     need to explore how better to organize the agencies of 
     government to detect and prevent calamitous action.
       But at the same time, we need take care that whatever we do 
     is consistent with our basic constitutional design. What we 
     do must be commensurate with the threat in ways that do not 
     needlessly undermine the very liberties we seek to protect.
       The concern is suspicion and fear within. Does the Park 
     Service really need to photograph every visitor to the 
     Lincoln Memorial?
       They don't, but they will. It is already done at the Statue 
     of Liberty. In Washington, agencies compete in techniques of 
     intrusion and exclusion. Identity cards and X-ray machines 
     and all the clutter, plus a new life for secrecy. Some 
     necessary; some discouraging. Mary Graham warns of the 
     stultifying effects of secrecy on inquiry. Secrecy, as George 
     Will writes, ``renders societies susceptible to epidemics of 
     suspicion.''
       We are witnessing such an outbreak in Washington just now. 
     Great clamor as to what the different agencies knew in 
     advance of the 9/11 attack; when the President was briefed; 
     what was he told. These are legitimate questions, but there 
     is a prior issue, which is the disposition of closed systems 
     not to share information. By the late 1940s the Army Signal 
     Corps had decoded enough KGB traffic to have a firm grip on 
     the Soviet espionage in the United States and their American 
     agents. No one needed to know about this more than the 
     President of the United States. But Truman was not told. By 
     order, mind, of Omar Bradley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
     Staff. Now as then there is police work to be done. But so 
     many forms of secrecy are self-defeating. In 1988, the CIA 
     formally estimated the Gross Domestic Product of East Germany 
     to be higher than West Germany. We should calculate such 
     risks.
       The ``what-ifs'' are intriguing. What if the United States 
     had recognized Soviet weakness earlier and, accordingly, kept 
     its own budget in order, so that upon the breakup of the 
     Soviet Union a momentous economic aid program could have been 
     commenced? What if we had better calculated the forces of the 
     future so that we could have avoided going directly from the 
     ``end'' of the cold War to a new Balkan war--a classic clash 
     of civilizations--leaving little attention and far fewer 
     resources for the shattered Soviet empire?
       Because we have that second chance Riesman and Glazer wrote 
     about. A chance to define our principles and stay true to 
     them. The more then, to keep our system open as much as 
     possible, with our purposes plain and accessible, so long as 
     we continue to understand what the 20th century has surely 
     taught, which is that open societies have enemies, too. 
     Indeed, they are the greatest threat to closed societies, 
     and, accordingly, the first object of their enmity.
       We are committed, as the Constitution states, to ``the Law 
     of Nations,'' but that law as properly understood. Many have 
     come to think that international law prohibits the

[[Page 7705]]

     use of force. To the contrary, like domestic law, it 
     legitimates the use of force to uphold law in a manner that 
     is itself proportional and lawful.
       Democracy may not prove to be a universal norm. But decency 
     would do. Our present conflict, as the President says over 
     and again, is not with Islam, but with a malignant growth 
     within Islam defying the teaching of the Q'uran that the 
     struggle to the path of God forbids the deliberate killing of 
     noncombatants. Just how and when Islam will rid itself of 
     current heresies is something no one can say. But not soon. 
     Christianity has been through such heresy--and more than 
     once. Other clashes will follow.
       Certainly we must not let ourselves be seen as rushing 
     about the world looking for arguments. There are now American 
     armed forces in some 40 countries overseas. Some would say 
     too many. Nor should we let ourselves be seen as ignoring 
     allies, disillusioning friends, thinking only of ourselves in 
     the most narrow terms. That is not how we survived the 20th 
     century.
       Nor will it serve in the 21st.
       Last February, some 60 academics of the widest range of 
     political persuasion and religious belief, a number from here 
     at Harvard, including Huntington, published a manifesto: 
     ``What We're Fighting For: A Letter from America.''
       It has attracted some attention here; perhaps more abroad, 
     which was our purpose. Our references are wide, Socrates, St. 
     Augustine, Franciscus de Victoria, John Paul II, Martin 
     Luther King, Jr., Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Universal 
     Declaration of Human Rights.
       We affirmed ``five fundamental truths that pertain to all 
     people without distinction,'' beginning ``all human beings 
     are born free and equal in dignity and rights.''
       We allow for our own shortcomings as a nation, sins, 
     arrogance, failings. But we assert we are no less bound by 
     moral obligation. And, finally, reason and careful moral 
     reflection teach us that there are times when the first and 
     most important reply to evil is to stop it.
       But there is more. Forty-seven years ago, on this occasion, 
     General George C. Marshall summoned our nation to restore the 
     countries whose mad regimes had brought the world such 
     horror. It was an act of statesmanship and vision without 
     equal in history. History summons us once more in different 
     ways, but with even greater urgency. Civilization need not 
     die. At this moment, only the United States can save it. As 
     we fight the war against evil, we must also wage peace, 
     guided by the lesson of the Marshall Plan--vision and 
     generosity can help make the world a safer place.
       Thank you.
                                  ____


                              Sui Generis

       As the final summer of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's 
     public career comes to an end, I think back to one languid 
     Friday afternoon three summers ago. Not much was happening; 
     the Senate was in recess. So Senator Moynihan--my boss at the 
     time--and I went to see an exhibit of Tyndale Bibles at the 
     Library of Congress. Tyndale wrote the first English Bible 
     from extant Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Senator Moynihan 
     was eager to learn more about a man whose impact on the 
     English language, largely unacknowledged, is probably equal 
     to Shakespeare's.
       One might wonder what Tyndale has to do with the United 
     States Senate. Not much, I suppose. But like Tennyson's 
     Ulysses, Senator Moynihan is a ``gray spirit yearning in 
     desire to follow knowledge like a sinking star.'' He has 
     unbounded curiosity. I'm not one who thinks his 
     intellectualism is some sort of an indictment. Those who do 
     are jealous of his capabilities, or just vapid. In a 
     diminished era when far too many Senators know far too 
     little, I have been fortunate to work for one who knows so 
     much and yet strives to learn so much more.
       There is little I can add to what others have written or 
     will write about his career in these waning moments. But I 
     would make a few observations. On a parochial note, I know of 
     no other Senator who shares his remarkable facility for 
     understanding and manipulating formulas--that arcane bit of 
     legislating that drives the allocation of billions of 
     dollars. He has ``delivered'' for New York but it's not 
     frequently noted because so few understand it.
       More important, every time he speaks or writes, it's worth 
     paying attention. I think back to the summer of 1990, when 
     Senator Phil Gramm offered an amendment to a housing bill. 
     Gramm wanted to rob Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 
     funds from a few ``rustbelt'' States and sprinkle them across 
     the rest of the country. The amendment looked like a sure 
     winner: more than 30 States stood to benefit. Senator 
     Moynihan went to the floor in opposition. He delivered an 
     extemporaneous speech on the nature of our Federal system 
     worthy of inclusion in the seminal work of Hamilton, Madison, 
     and Jay as The Federalist No. 86. (The amendment was 
     defeated: New York's share of CDBG funding was preserved.)
       While Senator Moynihan has been enormously successful as a 
     legislator, I think of him as the patron Senator of lost 
     causes. By ``lost'' I mean right but unpopular. Every Senator 
     is an advocate of the middle class; that's where the votes 
     are. What I most admire and cherish about Senator Moynihan is 
     his long, hard, and eloquent fight on behalf of the 
     underclass--the disenfranchised, the demoralized, the 
     destitute, the despised.
       T.S. Eliot wrote to a friend, ``We fight for lost causes 
     because we know that our defeat and dismay may be the preface 
     to our successors' victory, though that victory itself will 
     be temporary; we fight rather to keep something alive than in 
     the expectation that anything will triumph.'' this wistful 
     statement, to me, captures the essence of Senator Moynihan 
     and his career. Too many of today's tepid, timid legislators 
     are afraid to offer amendments they think will fail. They 
     have no heart, no courage. Senator Moynihan always stands on 
     principle, never on expediency. He's not afraid to be in the 
     minority, even a minority of one.
       His statements over the years on a variety of topics 
     constitute a veritable treasury of ``unpopular essays.'' He 
     characterizes the current bankruptcy ``reform'' bill as a 
     ``boot across the throat'' of the poor. A few years ago, he 
     fought against a habeas corpus provision in the 
     ``Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty act'' (a truly 
     Orwellian name for that bill). He argued, in vain, that 
     Congress was enacting a statute ``which holds that 
     constitutional protections do not exist unless they have been 
     unreasonably violated, an idea that would have confounded the 
     framers . . . thus introducing a virus that will surely 
     spread throughout our system of laws.'' These are just a few 
     examples. Others include his passionate opposition to welfare 
     repeal, the balanced budget act, the ``line-item'' veto, the 
     Constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration. The list 
     goes on.
       For the past quarter-century, Senator Moynihan has been the 
     Senate's reigning intellectual. But he has also been its--and 
     the nation's--conscience. His fealty as a public servant, 
     ultimately, has been to the truth. He seeks it out, and he 
     speaks it, regardless of who will be discomfitted. He has 
     done so with rigor, and wit, a little bit of mischief now and 
     then, and uncommon decency.
       When Thomas Jefferson followed Benjamin Franklin as envoy 
     to France, he told the Comte de Vergennes, ``I succeed him; 
     no one could replace him.'' Others will succeed Senator 
     Moynihan; no one will replace him. We are fortunate indeed 
     that he has devoted his life to public service.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, when I first came to the Senate, I had the 
good fortune, as my friend the distinguished Senator from Montana did, 
to serve on a committee with Pat Moynihan. My friend had it double; he 
not only got to serve with him on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee but also the Finance Committee.
  Even though this is a time of sadness because we have lost a giant in 
the history of America, for those of us who spent time with Pat 
Moynihan, just mentioning his name brings a smile to our faces. There 
is no one I have ever served with in government or known in government 
who is anything like Pat Moynihan. He was a unique individual.
  I was over in the House gym this morning, meeting with someone I came 
to the House of Representatives with, Ed Towns, from New York. We were 
talking about Pat Moynihan. Congressman Towns said the last 
conversation he had with Pat Moynihan was a very pleasant conversation. 
Pat Moynihan called him--very typical of Pat Moynihan.
  I wish I could mimic his voice. People who worked for Pat Moynihan 
can talk just like him. I can't. But he said--with his distinctive 
staccato delivery--he wanted to name this big building in Brooklyn for 
Governor Carey.
  Congressman Towns said: No, I have someone else. I don't need to 
embarrass that person by mentioning that name. He said: I have someone 
else and I can't agree with you, Senator. I know Governor Carey was a 
good person, but I think we should name it after someone else.
  Senator Moynihan, the gentleman that he was, simply said: Thank you 
very much.
  Five or six weeks later he called back and said: You know, 
Congressman Towns, I am getting old. He said: This means a lot to me to 
have this building named after one of my close personal friends. I hope 
you will reconsider.
  Ed Towns said: I have reconsidered. You can do it.
  Senator Moynihan said: Did I hear you just say I could name this 
building after Governor Carey?
  And Congressman Towns said: Yes.
  Pat Moynihan said: I am so happy.
  Senator Baucus and I can imagine that conversation because he was 
truly a gentleman.

[[Page 7706]]

  I had the privilege, as I indicated, of serving with him. I had the 
good fortune over many years to serve with many outstanding people in 
the Senate, men and women with extraordinary talent and achievements, 
people who have accomplished so much in their personal and professional 
lives, people highly educated, people who have great records of 
military service, and people who are just good public servants.
  Certainly there have been many skilled orators in the Senate--today 
and in the past--and many other highly intelligent Senators, but I have 
to say, I trust nobody will disagree or be offended if I point out that 
Pat Moynihan stood out as an intellectual giant in the Senate, not only 
for the time he served here but in the history of our country.
  Pat Moynihan spoke in a unique style, with a delivery that would not 
be taught in an oratory class.
  He was a professor. He was a college professor, and he never lost 
that ability to teach.
  I always felt, when I was in the presence of Pat Moynihan, that I had 
the opportunity to learn from him, whether we were on the Senate floor, 
or in a committee hearing, or in an informal conversation. I hope no 
one is going to be upset with me, but when I ran the Democratic Policy 
Committee for a number of years, we would take down names of speakers. 
I cheated a little bit and always moved Pat high up on the list because 
I loved to hear him talk, and he did not have a lot of patience and 
would leave if you did not recognize him pretty quickly.
  He would come to our luncheons, and I remember he usually ordered egg 
salad sandwiches. He would eat, listen for a while, and if it were not 
something he was really interested in, he would go back to his hideaway 
and start writing. That is what he did most of the time.
  Pat was unlike most of us. We devote a lot of our time to constituent 
services. Pat Moynihan did not do that. He was an intellectual giant, 
and he spent his time in the Senate reading and writing. He was a great 
thinker. Although he certainly did a good job of representing the State 
of New York, and served the interests of his constituents as his 
popularity makes clear, he often focused on the bigger picture and 
contemplated big ideas.
  We identify Pat Moynihan with New York. He was actually a native of 
the American West. He was born in Tulsa, OK. His family moved to New 
York when he was a child. His father abandoned them, and his mother, 
thereafter, struggled to provide for Pat and his siblings.
  Pat always worked hard. He worked as a shoeshine boy, later as a 
longshoreman. He did not come from a privileged background, but he had 
a privileged education because of his great intellect. He was able to 
achieve much because he was a hard worker and extremely smart.
  He graduated first in his class from high school in Harlem, and by 
serving in the Navy, he was able to attend college. He graduated from 
Tufts University and remained there to earn his Ph.D. from the Fletcher 
School of Law and Diplomacy. He also studied at the London School of 
Economics as a Fulbright Scholar.
  Pat had enlisted in the Navy during World War II. Just a short time 
ago, when he was still serving in the Senate, he had back surgery for 
an injury sustained years ago while he was in the U.S. Navy. He was 
proud of his military service and grateful that he was sent to college 
for training as an officer. But he was, indeed, a scholar. He was a 
professor at Syracuse University early in his career and then later at 
Harvard. He published numerous articles and studies covering a wide 
array of topics that reflected the tremendous breadth of his interests 
and depth of his knowledge.
  I am not sure which Senator said this, although I think it was Dale 
Bumpers, who also recently has published a book--but if it was not Dale 
Bumpers, I apologize for not giving credit to the right Senator--who 
said he had not read as many books as Pat Moynihan had written. That is 
how he looked at Pat Moynihan. He was a voracious writer. He wrote 18 
books, including 9 while he was a Senator. In addition, he wrote parts 
of many other books and articles too numerous to mention.
  After one of his books was published, while we here in the Senate, he 
asked me if I had read it. I said: Pat, I didn't receive the book. He 
said: Well, maybe somebody on your staff borrowed it. So he gave me 
another copy, and I read it.
  Much of his writing is famous. For me personally the most far-
reaching, the most visionary article he wrote was called ``Defining 
Deviancy Down.'' In this brief article--probably no more than 30 
pages--he discussed how our societal values have changed over the 
years, how one thing we would not accept 20 years ago, now we accept. 
It is a wonderful article that reveals his perspective and insights and 
calls on us to recognize we have to change what is going on in our 
society.
  Senator Moynihan had great compassion for America's poor, especially 
for children growing up in poverty. He sought to develop public policy 
that took into account social scientific methods and analysis. He 
applied academic research to benefit people living in the real world.
  Pat was also interested in architecture and historic preservation. He 
worked to improve the appearance of Washington, D.C. to reflect its 
status as our Nation's Capital, and of federal buildings across the 
country. Those of us who leave the Capitol and travel along 
Pennsylvania Avenue, and see the beautiful buildings will remember his 
role in improving this area. When I was back here going to law school, 
that area of the city was a slum. It was a slum. Right off Capitol 
Hill, it was a slum. And Pat Moynihan recognized, when President 
Kennedy was inaugurated, that should change. And he changed it. He 
personally changed it.
  Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation was something that Pat 
Moynihan thought up. When you drive down that street today, you see the 
beautiful building that we are proud of, that is part of the U.S. 
Capitol. That was the work of Pat Moynihan.
  I can remember, there was one Senator who thought it was really bad 
that the courthouses we were building around the country were basically 
too nice. Pat Moynihan proceeded to indicate to all of us that is what 
we should do, that we should construct buildings for the future that 
people would like to look at that are nice inside. And Pat Moynihan won 
that battle.
  To serve on the Public Works Committee with Pat Moynihan was like 
going to school and not having to take the tests because there was not 
a subject that came up that he did not lecture us on--the great 
architect Moses, not out of the Bible but of New York City. In 
everything we did Pat Moynihan taught us to be a little better than 
ourselves.
  My thoughts and sympathies are with Senator Moynihan's wife Liz, his 
daughter Maura, his sons Timothy and John, and his grandchildren.
  Mr. President, I wish words could convey to everyone within the sound 
of my voice what a great man Pat Moynihan was, how much he did to 
benefit the State of New York and our country. Because of my contact 
with Pat Moynihan, I honestly believe I am a better person. I better 
understand government. I do not have his intellect, his ability to 
write, but I think I understand a little bit about his enthusiasm for 
government and how important it is to people.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been listening to the tributes to a 
great man. I probably have a different feeling about Patrick Moynihan 
than most people do. Many people are not aware Patrick Moynihan came 
from Tulsa, OK, my hometown. Most people think of him as being a New 
Yorker, but really he is not. We hit it off many years ago before he 
was even in the Senate. I considered him one of the really sincere and 
lovable liberals of our time.
  People would ask, why are the two of you such close friends? I would 
explain to them that we have many things in common, even though 
ideologically we have nothing in common. In fact, during the years we 
served together in the

[[Page 7707]]

Senate, his office was next to mine. When the bell would ring to come 
over and vote, I would walk to the door and wait for him so I could 
have those moments with him.
  I don't think there is anyone who has had a more colorful career than 
Patrick Moynihan. It is one we will remember for a long time. But he 
had courage also. I used to say this about Paul Wellstone. There are 
few people who are really sincere in their philosophy, and yet they 
want to do the right thing. I remember standing right here when Patrick 
Moynihan, just a few seats over, stood up during one of our debates on 
partial-birth abortion, and he made this statement in a long and 
passionate speech, going into all kinds of detail as to what this 
barbaric procedure is. This is a quote. He said:

       I am pro-choice, but partial-birth abortion is not 
     abortion. It is infanticide.

  It took an awful lot of courage for him to say that.
  I can tell you from when we knew each other back before our Senate 
days, following his colorful career has been a wonderful experience. I 
am hoping we will have others like him. We will be truly blessed if 
that is the case.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in paying tribute to 
Senator Moynihan. He was one of the most special, most erudite, 
forward-thinking persons I have had the privilege to meet. He was an 
amazing man.
  Senator Moynihan died yesterday at the age of 76. With a little bit 
of history--and then I will give a few personal anecdotes--he was 
elected to the Senate in 1976. I was elected in 1978, 2 years later. I 
had the privilege and honor to join both the Environment and Public 
Works Committee and the Finance Committee at the same time as Senator 
Moynihan. Senator Moynihan served as both chairman and ranking member 
of both committees. I had huge shoes to fill, as I immediately followed 
him as chairman and ranking member of each committee. I sat next to him 
many days and many hours. He was a wonderful man.
  We all know about Senator Moynihan's great contributions in such 
important areas as foreign policy, trade policy, welfare, 
transportation, and environmental policy. They are enormous.
  On the foreign side, Senator Moynihan was a visionary. In 1979, while 
the CIA and others were talking about how strong the Soviet Union was, 
Senator Moynihan predicted its downfall. I heard him say that many 
times. With keen understanding of history and the laws of economics, 
Senator Moynihan understood the inherent weakness of the Soviet 
structure.
  Senator Moynihan's foreign policy experience led him to his 
groundbreaking work on Government secrecy, advocating greater openness 
as a core strength for any democracy.
  On trade policy, Senator Moynihan had a vast depth of experience from 
being a trade negotiator to being a legislator. As a legislator, he was 
quick to educate his colleagues on the importance of pursuing a strong, 
bipartisan, open trade policy. With an unfailing independent voice, he 
was a firm believer in the principle that partisanship should not 
extend beyond our borders.
  On welfare policy, Senator Moynihan was the center of debate for more 
than three decades. From his groundbreaking report on family policy for 
President Johnson, to his work for President Nixon on his welfare 
proposal, to his own Family Support Act of 1988, the first welfare 
reform legislation passed in decades, to his passionate dissent to the 
1996 welfare legislation, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan never forgot 
what it was like to grow up in a poor family. For him it was clearly 
always about helping the children.
  On transportation policy, Senator Moynihan was the author of the 
groundbreaking highway bill known as ISTEA. That legislation led to the 
dramatic improvement in transportation policy by focusing on surface 
transportation more broadly.
  On environmental policy, Senator Moynihan was one of the first to 
stress that good environmental policy should be based on sound science. 
I heard that many times--sound science. He was right. He absolutely 
insisted that we obtain a careful understanding of the scientific 
problems and understanding of them on a scientific basis before we 
proceeded with environmental policy.
  But his incredible contributions to our Nation did not stop there. 
One of his most enduring, but least known, contributions was his 
contribution to public architecture, particularly on the Environment 
and Public Works Committee.
  Thomas Jefferson said:

       Design activity and political thought are indivisible.

  In keeping with this, Senator Moynihan sought to improve our public 
places so they could reflect and uplift our civic culture. He himself 
said it well in 1961. We all know he held many important positions in 
Government, but it is not known so well that early in his career, in 
1961, he was the staff director of something called the Ad Hoc 
Committee on Federal Office Space. That is right, in addition to all of 
his books, he once wrote a document called ``The Guiding Principles for 
Federal Architecture.'' He wrote it in 1961, and it remains in effect 
today. It is one page long. It says that public buildings should not 
only be efficient and economical, but also should ``provide visual 
testimony to the dignity, enterprise, vigor, and stability of the 
American Government.''
  For many years, Pat Moynihan worked with energy and vision to put the 
goals expressed in the guidelines into practice. As an assistant to 
President Kennedy, he was one of the driving forces behind the effort 
to renovate Pennsylvania Avenue and finally achieve Pierre L'Enfant's 
vision.
  He followed through. There is the Navy memorial, Pershing Park, the 
Ronald Reagan Building, and Ariel Rios, and there are other projects. 
Along with Senator John Chafee, he had the vision to restore Union 
Station--now a magnificent building--and then to complement it with the 
beautiful Thurgood Marshall Judiciary Building not far away.
  It is a remarkable legacy leaving a lasting mark on our public places 
that brings us together as American citizens. In fact, it is no 
exaggeration to say that Daniel Patrick Moynihan has had a greater 
positive impact on American public architecture than any statesman 
since Thomas Jefferson.
  In St. Paul's Cathedral in London, there is a description 
memorializing the architect of that cathedral, Sir Christopher Wren, 
and it reads: If you would see his memorial, look about you.
  If years from now you stand outside the Capitol and look west down 
Pennsylvania Avenue, north at Union Station, and the Marshall Building, 
you can say the same about Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan; that is, if 
you would see his memorial, look about you.
  A few years ago when we were naming the Foley Square Courthouse in 
his honor, I used the same quote. I must confess, I was very pleased to 
have found this quote in English history and hoped to impress my very 
learned colleague. However, as is often the case, I fell a little 
short. No one, it turns out, can match his learning.
  After my remarks, Senator Moynihan gave me a big hug. He was so 
happy. But he also corrected me quietly and politely. I had, he said, 
given the correct translation. I had said it was in Italian. He said: 
Max, I think it's in Latin. Sure enough, it is in Latin.
  In his honor, I stand corrected. The inscription memorializing the 
architect of St. Paul's Cathedral, Sir Christopher Wren, reads: Si 
monumentum requiris, circumspice; Latin for: If you want to see the 
memorial, look about you.
  As we consider ways of memorializing Senator Moynihan, I have a 
suggestion. He loved Pennsylvania Avenue. He inspired its renovation. 
He helped design it. He helped build it. He lived there when he 
retired. It is his home. Therefore, I suggest that at an appropriate 
point on the avenue, we add his inscription: Daniel Patrick

[[Page 7708]]

Moynihan, Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.
  I might also add, Senator Moynihan gave the commencement address this 
last June at Harvard University. I have read it. I was very impressed 
with it. I said to him: Patrick, that was a great speech. Do you mind 
if I put that in the Congressional Record? He said: I would love it.
  About 2 months later, I received a letter from Senator Moynihan, and 
it said: Dear Max, you once offered, perhaps irrationally, to include 
my commencement address in the Record.
  Mr. President, I think it is appropriate that Senator Lautenberg 
asked that Senator Moynihan's speech be printed in the Record. It is 
the commencement address he gave last June 6 at Harvard University. I 
commend it to my colleagues.
  Senator Moynihan's speech includes many wise words about the future 
of our country, about terrorism, how to handle the world, which leads 
me to another memory of him. It was at the end of a session, and we 
were about to go on a 2-week recess. Senator Moynihan's chair is behind 
me at the end of the aisle by the door. I said: Patrick, what are you 
going to do this recess?
  He said: I am going to give the Oxford lecture.
  I said: What is that? He explained it.
  He said: I am going to give the Oxford lecture. I am going over to 
England.
  What are you going to talk about? What are you going to say?
  I am going to talk about the rise of ethnicity.
  What do you mean?
  At the end of the cold war, he talked about the urdu, an Israeli 
sect, which was very strong, which epitomizes the rise of ethnicity in 
the world at the conclusion of the cold war. It is so true, if one 
stops and thinks about it. The world order has collapsed, and we are 
now almost in a free-for-all when different ethnicities, different 
countries, different people are pursuing their own dreams, and it is 
very difficult to find some managed order in this chaotic world today.
  That was Senator Moynihan: The rise of ethnicity. It is very true.
  Another time, I had a wonderful encounter with him, a wonderful 
exchange. People often ask us: What is going to happen, Senator? Who is 
going to win this election? What is going to happen?
  I always answered: Well, as Prime Minister Disraeli would always say, 
in politics a week is a long time. That was before television. That was 
before radio. Today, it is even a shorter period of time to try to 
predict what is going to happen in political matters. Sometimes it is 
just a minute.
  I was standing in the well of the Senate and somebody asked me: What 
is going to happen? And I said: Well, Disraeli said, in politics a week 
is a long time.
  Senator Moynihan happened to overhear me, and very graciously and 
politely he walked up to me when the other Senators had left. He kind 
of leaned over to me and he said: Max, now I think that was Baldwin.
  I looked it up. Sure enough, it was Lord Baldwin--it was not 
Disraeli--who said, in politics a week is a long time.
  He was an absolutely amazing man, the Senator's Senator, a professor. 
I have never known a Senator so gifted as Senator Moynihan. We are all 
going to certainly mourn his passing, but even more important than 
that, we are going to have very fond memories of him and I think be 
guided and inspired by him in so many different ways. We are very 
thankful he chose to serve our country as his calling.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am going to make a longer speech about 
Pat Moynihan, who was a close personal friend. That sounds almost 
presumptuous to say. He was such a towering intellect and profound 
political figure, to claim a personal friendship with him seems to be 
somewhat presumptuous. But he was.
  Of all that I recall Pat Moynihan said and did, there is one thing 
that sticks in my mind that seems particularly appropriate on the day 
after his passing.
  He once said, and I am paraphrasing but it is close to a quote, about 
John Kennedy's death:

       There is no sense in being Irish unless you understand the 
     world is eventually going to break your heart.

  I want Mrs. Moynihan to understand that there are a lot of us--Irish 
and non-Irish--who have a broken heart today because of the passing of 
a man who was truly, truly a giant in 20th-century American politics.

                          ____________________