Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Probably unconstitutional. I think he was right then.

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

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today, as I have done each week of the 104th Congress, to announce to the Senate that during the past week, 10 people were murdered by gunshot in New York City, bringing this year's total to 130. Three weeks ago, I shared with the Senate a letter from Sarah Brady, chairman of Handgun Control, Inc., and wife of James Brady, the former White House Press Secretary who was critically wounded in the assassination attempt against President Reagan. The letter contained the results of a joint study by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and Handgun Control, Inc., providing convincing evidence that the Brady law, which went into effect just over 1 year ago, is doing exactly what its proponents had anticipated: keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Today I would like to add to this the results of two other studies which further attest to the effectiveness of the Brady law. These studies, one conducted by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the other by CBS News, found that background checks mandated by the law have prevented as many as 45,000 people from illegally purchasing firearms. This is no mean achievement. And it is only one of the benefits the Brady law has brought us. By substantially raising the fee for a Federal Firearms License, the law has also caused a significant decline in the number of licensed firearms dealers, which by 1993 had reached an astounding 284,000. Few are aware that prior to the Brady law, one could obtain a 3-year Federal Firearms License for just $30. Thanks to the Brady law, which raised that fee to $200, the number of federally licensed dealers has decreased by some 60,000 in just 1 year. Mr. President, the Brady law will not in itself cure the problem of gun violence. But it is an important step in the right direction and it proves that we can make a difference in this fight.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a joint resolution to reappoint Dr. Homer A. Neal to a second term as a citizen regent of the Smithsonian Institution. I introduce this resolution on behalf of my distinguished colleagues, Senators Cochran and Simpson, with whom I have the privilege to serve on the Smithsonian's Board of Regents. Dr. Neal is a scientist of great distinction. A former provost of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, he is now vice president for research and professor of physics at the University of Michigan, where he earned his Ph.D in 1966. An eminent physicist specializing in high-energy physics, particle detection, and digital electronics, Dr. Neal conducted pioneering experimental studies of spin effects in proton-proton collisions at high energy. Dr. Neal is a leader in both the scientific and academic communities and has long demonstrated his commitment to improving American education in the fields of science, mathematics, and engineering. He is ideally suited to serve on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian, where he is currently a member of the Institution's executive committee and the National Council of the National Museum of Natural History. The Smithsonian has greatly benefited from Dr. Neal's contributions as a member of the Board of Regents, and we eagerly look forward to his reappointment. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and ask unanimous consent that the full text of the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I introduce the Smithsonian Institution Commemorative Coin Act of 1996. I introduce this legislation on behalf of my distinguished colleagues, Senators Cochran and Simpson, with whom I have the privilege to serve on the Smithsonian Institution's Board of Regents. August 10, 1996, will mark the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Smithsonian Institution, one of the Nation's finest examples of successful public-private partnership. This legislation provides for the minting of coins to commemorate this momentous occasion. Created as a Federal trusteeship by Congress in 1846, the Smithsonian Institution is today the largest research and museum complex on Earth. Its various museums were visited more than 26 million times last year, and unlike so many other museums, the Smithsonian remains free of charge to the public. In addition, thousands of Americans and foreign scholars have used the Institution's vast repository of knowledge and artifacts to assist in a variety of research activities. The Smithsonian's sesquicentennial commemoration provides us the opportunity to celebrate both the Institution's great accomplishments and its future role and mission. The central goal of the commemoration, however, will be to increase the sense of ownership of, and participation in, the Smithsonian by the American people. Throughout its 150th year, the Smithsonian will undertake a series of programs and stage a number of events to commemorate its founding and to explore new ways in which it can serve the public. These activities, while extensions of the existing framework of Smithsonian programs, will require significant financial resources. In light of the existing budget constraints under which the Federal Government must operate, the Smithsonian's Board of Regents concluded it would not seek any additional appropriated funds to support sesquicentennial programming. Rather, the Smithsonian will concentrate its efforts to raise support for the anniversary programming from non- Federal sources. The commemorative coins would be one such effort. The coins would be issued on August 10, 1996, exactly 150 years from the actual date of the act of Congress which established the Smithsonian Institution. The issuance of Smithsonian sesquicentennial commemorative coins will provide an opportunity for the American public to obtain a valued memento and support the Institution's mandate to preserve our Nation's cultural and historical heritage. In addition, the fund derived from the sale of these commemorative coins will not only enable the Smithsonian to showcase its 150-year service to the Nation, but will also transfer the financial responsibility for the sesquicentennial activities from the American taxpayer to voluntary contributions. Further, the legislation provides that 15 percent of the total proceeds remitted to the Institution would be designated to support the numismatic collection at the National Museum of American History. This component of the legislation is strongly supported by the numismatic community and in a very tangible way demonstrates our appreciation for their support of all Without exception, every Senator has constituents who visit, communicate with, and otherwise benefit from the Smithsonian. From eager first-graders to learned scholars and researchers, the public is consistently served by the vast resources and expertise of the Smithsonian and its staff. Enactment of this legislation will give the American people the opportunity to celebrate the Smithsonian's unique contributions to American culture and learning over the last 150 years. Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this bill to celebrate and honor the 150th anniversary of the Smithsonian Institution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the fundamental right of American workers to strike was guaranteed over a half century ago with the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. Section 13 of the NLRA states: Nothing in this act, except as specifically provided herein, shall be construed so as to either interfere with, or impede, or in any way diminish the right to strike, or to affect the limitations or qualifications on that right. As a former Assistant of Labor under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, I am disappointed that we find ourselves having to debate this issue at all. The amendment of the Senator from Kansas would prohibit the use of appropriated funds for implementation of President Clinton's Executive Order 12954, which provides simply that the Federal Government will not do business with contractors that hire permanent replacement workers. Yet the hiring of permanent replacement workers directly contravenes the right to strike. A worker does not have any meaningful right to withhold his or her labor if his or her employer hires a permanent replacement worker. The President issued a lawful Executive order on March 8. The legal authority for this order has been fully documented in a careful memorandum of law written by Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger. The memorandum has already been discussed on the floor during this debate, and was made part of the Record by the Senator from Massachusetts. We ought not be in the business of gutting this Executive order through an amendment to an appropriations been withdrawn. Its proponents failed to invoke cloture earlier today, and it is time we move on. The opponents of the amendment have no desire to prolong debate on the DOD supplemental appropriations bill. We would prefer that the amendment be withdrawn so that the Senate can complete its work on the underlying legislation. But it should be remembered that the antistriker replacement legislation, of which I have been a cosponsor since 1990, was repeatedly the subject of filibusters by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. S. 55, the Metzenbaum antistriker replacement bill in the 103d Congress, got 53 votes for cloture last year. The Senate would have passed the bill last year had an up or down vote been permitted. Fortunately, we still have Members in this Senate who can be counted on to fight for the rights of the American worker. The ranking member of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kennedy, deserves thanks and congratulations for his outstanding leadership on this issue. He has been on the floor for many hours, making his argument eloquently and forcefully--as only the Senator from Massachusetts can. I join him in opposing the amendment of the Senator from Kansas. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, New York and the Nation lost a most distinguished attorney, jurist, and public servant with the death on March 3 of the Honorable Vincent L. Broderick. Judge Broderick, or Vince as he was known to family and friends, was born in 1920 into a family with a long tradition of public service. His father, Joseph A. Broderick, was Gov. Franklin D. Roosevelt's superintendent of banks, and was later appointed by President Roosevelt to the Federal Reserve president for 20 years. I might add that this tradition continues among other members of the family: Judge Broderick's nephew, Christopher Finn, who was my administrative assistant here in the Senate from 1987 to 1989, is now executive vice president of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. As a young man, Vincent Broderick was a leader of the Young Democrats in the late 1940's. He was active in the presidential campaign of Robert F. Kennedy, and, after the assassination in 1968, in the campaign of Hubert Humphrey. In 1969, after briefly considering running for mayor of New York City, Mr. Broderick sought the nomination for city comptroller. He was defeated in the primary by Abraham Beame. He continued to be active in Democratic politics in New York, working on Senator George McGovern's presidential campaign in New York in 1972. Judge Broderick was the sort of uniquely able man who was called to duty by his Government again and again for the most difficult assignments. During World War II, he interrupted his studies at the Harvard Law School to enlist in the Army, where he served as a member of the amphibious engineers in the Pacific. He rose to the rank of captain before returning to law school, which he finished in 1948. After practicing law with the Wall Street law firm of Hatch, Root & Barrett in the 1950's, Vincent Broderick became deputy commissioner for legal matters of the New York City Police Department. He later served as general counsel of the National Association of Investment Companies before becoming chief assistant U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York. In 1965, Vincent Broderick was appointed police commissioner by New York City Mayor Robert F. Wagner. Running the Nation's largest police force in the Nation's largest city has always been an extremely difficult job, and never more so than in 1965, when New York City experienced a terrible blackout, a crippling transit strike, the first ever visit by a Pope--Paul VI--and a bitter dispute with Mayor John V. Lindsay over the handling of complaints against the police. Despite these challenges, Vincent Broderick excelled as police commissioner and became known as a leader who refused to tolerate excessive force or racial prejudice in his department. After returning to private practice for a time, Vince Broderick was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the southern district of New York by President Ford, where he further distinguished himself as a jurist of great wisdom and fairness. From 1990 to 1993, he served as chairman of the criminal law committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States. He remained active as a senior judge in the southern district until shortly before he died. Judge Vincent Broderick was a public man of singular accomplishments and abilities, a model public servant and model gentleman whose extraordinary career and accomplishments in government and the law will be studied and admired for many years to come. Mr. President, I commend to the attention of Senators Judge Broderick's obituary, which appeared last week in the New York Times, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today, as I have done each week of the 104th Congress, to announce to the Senate that during the past week, 13 people were murdered by gunshot in New York City, bringing this year's total to 120.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, for more than a decade now, I have argued here on the Senate floor, and often in print, that in order to make any real progress in reducing gun violence, we must seek to control ammunition. I have put it that ``Guns don't kill people, bullets do.'' This is not to say that I do not support gun control; I certainly do. I was an original cosponsor of the Brady bill when it was first introduced in 1989, and was proud to vote for it when it finally passed the Senate in 1993. We are all pleased at the very real difference the Brady law has made. Just 1 year after it became effective, background checks under the Brady law have already prevented 45,000 felons and other prohibited persons from purchasing handguns. No doubt a significant number of lives were saved as a result. Yet the fact remains that there are already some 200 million firearms in circulation in the United States. These weapons are not going away. With a minimum of care they will last indefinitely. I recall that as an officer of the deck in the Navy of the 1940's, I was issued a Colt model 1911 .45 caliber sidearm. That particular handgun was first sold to the U.S. military in 1912, and continued to be used in the Navy until very recently. Use of weapons 35 or even 50 years old has been common in our Armed Forces--and these guns still work perfectly. We probably have a two-century supply of guns in circulation today. On the other hand we have something like a 4-year supply of bullets. This has led me to conclude that a different approach is needed. Gun violence is a public health epidemic and therefore demands an epidemiological response. An epidemiologist will tell you that in order to cope with any epidemic, you must eliminate the pathogen, or the agent causing the disease. In 1992, Dr. Lester Adelson made precisely this argument in an article entitled ``The Gun and the Sanctity of Human Life: the Bullet as Pathogen'' in the ``Archives of Surgery.'' In the case of gun violence, the pathogen is the bullet. I say again, guns don't kill people, bullets do. I have been making this point for many years now, but with only the slightest success in getting it across. We have had two small but significant achievements: in 1986 and again in 1994, I was able to secure enactment of provisions to ban the manufacture or importation of armor-piercing ammunition: the so-called cop-killer ballets. This was done with considerable difficulty in the first instance because, although the police groups, led by Phil Caruso and the New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, were strongly supportive, the National Rifle Association was not, and in the end only Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986, was the first law to outlaw a round of ammunition. In 1994 in the crime bill, we updated the 1986 act to cover a new round of armor-piercing ammunition being made in Sweden. These were important but really only incremental steps. The slaughter in the streets goes on. But Mr. President, we may have some good news. An editorial in the March 1, 1995, edition of the Los Angeles Times describes a bold new initiative in Pasadena, CA, where the city council has adopted one of the first ordinances in the Nation restricting the sale of ammunition. I ask that this article be printed in the Record. Gun dealers in Pasadena must now record not only their sales of guns, but also of ammunition. And why? Pasadena Chief of Police Jerry Oliver summed it up nicely when he said In Pasadena tonight, at this very moment, it is easier to buy a box of 9-millimeter rounds than it is to buy a can of spray paint. Last September, I noted on this floor that the city of Chicago had become the first municipality in the Nation to ban the sale of all handgun ammunition. Now Pasadena has taken steps to regulate the sale of bullets. This won't prevent buyers from going to neighboring Los Angeles to buy ammunition, but similar steps are now being considered in Los Angeles, and in nearby Azusa as well. Mr. President, I hope the actions of Chicago and Pasadena represent a turning point in our thinking about this problem. I hope other cities and towns recognize the potential of ammunition control to bring about real progress in the fight against gun violence. I hope the States and the Federal Government will come around to this idea as well. We need a new approach, we need bold action, and we need it soon. Pasadena has the right idea. Let us hope the rest of the Nation is paying attention. The article follows: [From the Los Angeles Times, Mar. 1, 1995] How Desperation Becomes a Tool prodded by ever-rising mayhem, Pasadena passes a law regulating bullet sales Bravo to the members of the Pasadena City Council. By a vote of 5 to 2, the council adopted what is believed to be the nation's first municipal law restricting bullet sales. Approval did not come easily, however. Emotions ran high: Ordinance supporters, outraged by street violence, verbally battled with gun enthusiasts who reject even the most reasonable restrictions. The vote did not occur until shortly before midnight, after five hours of debate. Dozens of backers and opponents of the ordinance offered impassioned testimony before a standing-room-only crowd. Tempers flared; one council member temporarily left the proceedings in angrily reacting to pro-ordinance comments by the police chief. Cheers and catcalls broke out often. And what was all the fuss over? The new ordinance requires anyone buying bullets in Pasadena to provide identification showing proof of age and to complete a registration form listing the amount, brand and type of ammunition purchased. The measure is intended to curtail sales of bullets to juveniles--such sales are already illegal but nonetheless widespread--and to provide police with information that may help link bullets found at a crime scene with suspects. Pasadena has taken but the tiniest of steps with this ordinance. But it is a measure of the headlock in which the gun lobby has held federal, state and local lawmakers that even these tepid, sensible restrictions on bullet sales can be so strongly resisted as an infringement on the right of self-defense. After all, as Pasadena Police Chief Jerry Oliver noted at the start of the council meeting, ``Tonight, it is easier to buy 9-millimeter ammunition than it is to buy a can of spray paint.'' That discrepancy is nuts. The most powerful criticism of the new ordinance is that it may not be very effective. Pasadena kids and adults bent on violence may simply seek their bullets in nearby Glendale, Los Angeles or La Canada. Alone, Pasadena can realistically do little to reduce gun violence. But the true worth of Pasadena's ordinance--its value as an example--was apparent even before its passage. Monday afternoon the Los Angeles City Council took the first steps to follow Pasadena's lead. The council's Public Safety Committee asked the city attorney to draft an ordinance patterned on Pasadena's. Then, on Tuesday, Azusa's police chief vowed to seek such an ordinance there. If Los Angeles and Azusa--as we hope--pass bullet laws, more cities are sure to follow. Then, what began as, in part, a symbolic gesture reflecting the desperation of Pasadena's leaders to ``do something'' about gun crime will become a tough tool against criminals throughout this violence-weary region.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, careful readers of the New York Times may have noticed something special below the nameplate on the front page of today's issue. Just beneath the familiar box--known as the left ear in newspaper parlance--announcing ``All the News That's Fit to Print,'' it says the following: ``Vol. CXLIV . . . No. 50,000.'' The New York Times published its 50,000th issue today, a noteworthy milestone even for a newspaper as seemingly eternal and immutable as the great presence on West 43rd Street. The first issue of what was then called the New-York Daily Times appeared 143 years, 7 days ago, on Thursday, September 18, 1851. With only a very few interruptions, there has been an issue of the Times every day ever since. To give Senators a sense of the magnitude of this event: if one were to stack up 50,000 copies of the New York Times, the pile would be 300 feet taller than the Empire State Building, which is 102 stories tall. Mr. President, I am sure all Senators will join me in offering congratulations and great good wishes to Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, the publisher of the New York Times, and to everyone else at the Nation's ``newpaper of record,'' on this historic occasion. I ask unanimous consent that an article about the 50,000th issue from today's New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, 125 years ago this March 13, the incomparable Billy's restaurant in New York City opened its doors for the first time. Billy's is known as ``New York's oldest family-owned restaurant,'' but it is much more than that. It is an institution in New York, a regal old establishment that has catered to coal-yard workers, lawyers, politicians, actors and actresses, even a princess on occasion. Billy's is a special place to my wife Elizabeth and me; we dined there often during our courtship, back when Billy's occupied a corner near 56th Street and First Avenue. Billy's has moved a few blocks south since then, but still has its original mahogany bar, gaslight fixtures, and those red-check tablecloths. A fine article in the March 9, 1995, edition of ``Our Town'' details the history of Billy's restaurant, Mr. President, a history that mirrors a great deal of the history of New York. Billy's 125th anniversary celebration begins on Monday, and I simply wish to congratulate Joan Condron Borkowski, the third generation proprietor of this venerable old establishment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from the March 9, 1995 edition of ``Our Town'' be printed in the Record, and I commend it to the attention of the Senate.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to continue my weekly practice of reporting to the Senate on the death toll by gunshot in New York City. Last week, 12 people lost their lives to bullet wounds, bringing this year's total to 107.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this spring Temple Emanu-El in New York City celebrates its sesquicentennial. This vibrant house of worship is both the largest Jewish congregation in the world and the fountainhead of America Reform Judaism. Dr. Ronald Sobel, Temple Emanu-El's distinguished senior rabbi, has prepared a brief history of this dynamic temple which I believe will be of great interest to Members of the Senate. I ask that this history of Temple Emanu-El be printed in the Record. The history follows: The Congregation: A Historical Perspective (By Dr. Ronald B. Sobel, Senior Rabbi) The Jewish historical experience is inextricably interwoven with the history of Western civilization. It is the story of a minority interacting reciprocally with large complex societies and cultures. Therefore, unlike the history of any other people or civilization, the historical experience of the Jewish people cannot be viewed or analyzed in isolation. In this respect there are no historical analogs. From the dawn of civilization in the ancient Near East to the post-industrial era of our own time, Jews have been a part of and remained apart from each circumstance encountered in history. They have created responsive forms appropriate to the cultures and societies in which they have lived throughout the globe for almost four thousand years. The Jewish people became experts in creative adaptation. However, there was and remains a single constant amid the bewildering responses to changing historical circumstances. The constant is a concept of unity, the affirmation that God is One and omnipotent. Commitment to this idea of oneness in nature and human nature did not breed repetitive conformity century after century, but rather produced creative diversity generation after generation. The concept of God's unity allowed the Jewish people to live, survive, and create amid changing historical realities; the concept of unity allowed for the diversity necessary for survival. It was and remains the mortar with which the Jewish people have built their many houses among many peoples. The process of Jewish adaptation to the society and culture of the United States has been defined within the broader phenomenon known as ``Americanization.'' It was a complex process and the many methodologies employed reflect the diversities of Jewish life. The Jews who came to the United States as immigrants defined their destiny as inseparably bound to the well-being of all Americans. They became passionate advocates of the American experiment in democracy. Though the first Jews to arrive on these shores came as early as 1654, it was not until the mid-nineteenth century that sufficient numbers of Jewish immigrants were present to allow the forms and shapes of Americanization to emerge. It was during that time that Temple Emanu-El was founded. The Jews who established Emanu-El, and those who joined their ranks during the first decades of the Congregation's existence, were immigrants from Germany who sought to reorient themselves by adapting their individual lives and collective institutions to the new environment of American civilization. The congregation they created and the lifestyles they fashioned were only the most recent chapter in a long history of creative adaptation; what they accomplished was nothing new in the Jewish historical experience. From the very beginning the United States provided a polity in which the freest Jewish community the world has ever known was able to develop and grow. It was, and remains, within this unique experiment in democracy that Temple Emanu-El originated and subsequently flowered to world prominence. It is useful to understand the nature of Western European immigration to the United States in the nineteenth century in general, and German Jewish immigration in particular, to grasp fully the origins of Temple Emanu-El. The conservative reactions that dominated Europe following the final defeat of Napoleon created a climate wherein many of the dreams set in motion by the Emancipation and the French Revolution were considerably constrained. The climate of rigid conservatism inhibited liberal growth in religion, in politics, and in the social sphere. After unsuccessful attempts to change that conservative trend, many liberals, finding no future in Europe, turned to America. They came to these shores with the hope and dream that in this land the preciousness of personality would be cherished and the dignity of individuality honored. Among those who came from Western Europe in the late 1830s were the men and women who would soon found Temple Emanu-El. In September 1884, a ``cultus verein'' (cultural society) was established on New York's cultural society that Emanu-El had its origins. In April 1845, thirty-three members of the society decided to establish a Reform congregation. They were not particularly conversant with Reform Judaism and were only vaguely aware of its origins in their native Germany. Seeking advice, they wrote first to Congregation Beth Elohim in Charleston, South Carolina, which in 1824 was the first Reform congregation established in the United States; they also wrote to the leaders of the Har Sinai Congregation in Baltimore, Reform Judaism's second congregation in America, which was founded in 1843. They received some responses and proceeded to establish their own congregation, which they called Temple Emanu-El. When they banded together as a religious community it was simultaneously the first in New York to be established as a Reform congregation and the third such Liberal congregation in America. It is of some interest to note that the use of the word ``Emanu-El'' as the name of a congregation is the first time in history that we know of that a Jewish congregation adopted this word as a designation. By choosing ``Emanu-El,'' which means ``God is with us,'' the founders were not doubt reflecting their hopes that God would be with them as they came to this new land, and as they put down their roots here. Their spiritual hopes knew no bounds, but their material resources were limited. Thus the first place of worship was a rented room on the second floor of a private dwelling at the corner of Grand and Clinton streets. The records indicate that at the organizing meeting in 1845, the men present contributed a total of less than thirty dollars, and with that modest sum began the Congregation. The founders quickly outgrew that rented room, and in 1848 they moved to Chrystie Street, a few blocks west of their original location. The Congregation was still limited by its financial resources and did not possess the means to erect its own synagogue. By necessity, therefore, they purchased an existant building, which had previously been used as a methodist church, and with some changes transformed it for Jewish worship and communal meetings. In the first few years, Temple Emanu-El's growth, through not dramatic, was steady, and the members remained modest of means. Yet there was sufficient development that by 1854 the Congregation felt the need to move again, this time northwest to Twelfth Street near Fourth Avenue. As the general population in Manhattan was moving uptown so too was the Jewish population, and thus inevitably the members of Emanu- El as well. Again unable to build on their own, they bought a structure that had been a Baptist church and refurbished it as a synagogue. However, their dreams of building a great temple were neither to be denied nor postponed to some distant future. In 1868, three years after the conclusion of the Civil War and twenty-three years after the final meeting of the ``cultus verein,'' the members of Congregation Emanu- El were in a position to erect an imposing sanctuary at the northeast corner of Fifth Avenue and Forty-third Street, which a critic of the time described as ``the finest example of Moorish architecture in the Western world.'' That religious home was to remain the Congregation's place of worship until the latter part of 1927, when construction of the present edifice began. It is remarkable that within a span shorter than twenty- five years the Congregation that had begun with so few in number and so little in material means was able to erect a building that was judged an architectural wonder not only by the Jewish world but also by the people of the city of New York. The first quarter century of the Congregation's history may be viewed as a microcosm of the success of the Western European immigrant in general, and of the German Jewish immigrant in particular. The first rabbi to serve Temple Emanu-El was Dr. Leo Merzbacher. Little is known about him, but it seems probable that he was the first ordained rabbi to serve a congregation in New York. Dr. Merzbacher led the Congregation in its earliest encounters with Reform Jewish philosophy and practice and authored one of the first Reform prayer books in America. Following his death in 1856, he was succeeded by Dr. Samuel Adler, who by that time had already achieved a reputation as one of the great philosophical and theological leaders of the Reform movement in Germany. The first three decades of the Congregation's history were thus marked by significant radical reforms in liturgy, theology, and practice. But after 1875, having achieved great eminence, the Congregation tended to become somewhat more conservative. Innovations, ritual changes, and prayer book adaptations thereafter came slowly. Dr. Adler preached in German, as had Dr. Merzbacher before him, and that language adequately served the needs of the first generation of Temple Emanu-El's members. However, it did not serve the needs of the founders' children, whose principal language was English, and thus it was inevitable that this second generation expressed a desire for an English-speaking preacher. That need was satisfied with the election of Emanu-El's third rabbi, Dr. Gustav Gottheil. Although born in Germany, Dr. Gottheil was fluent in English, having served a Liberal congregation in Manchester, England. It is not without significance that Emanu-El's first three rabbis were trained in Europe, a circumstance necessitated by the fact that the American Jewish community had not yet been able to establish a successful rabbinic seminary. (However, it was not long thereafter that the need for such an institution was satisfied, two years following Gottheil's arrival in New York, Isaac Mayer Wise created the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati.) Dr. Gottheil served the congregation until 1900 and advanced the cause of Reform Jewish life in several important ways: he was an innovator in liturgy, particularly by his authorship of a hymnbook, and he was one of the earliest rabbis in the United States to consciously reach out to the Christian community, and his rabbinate witnessed the beginnings of the interfaith movement. Better understanding between Christians and Jews has been an important element in the experience of the American Jewish community, and it significantly began at Temple Emanu-El. Dr. Joseph Silverman, who joined the rabbinic staff in 1888 as Dr. Gottheil's assistant, was the first American-born rabbi to serve in New York and was a member of the second graduating class of Hebrew Union College. In 1895, amid great joy and elaborate ceremony, the Congregation celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of its founding. On that occasion the city's most prominent rabbis, Christian clergyman, educators, and political figures were present. Their participation and the wide press coverage reporting the Golden Jubilee celebration reflected the enormous growth of Temple Emanu-El. A congregation that had begun so humbly on the Lower East Side was now, a half century later, being recognized as among the most important religious institutions in the city. Gottheil's successor was Dr. Judah Leon Magnes, who was also American born and a graduate of Hebrew Union College. Magnes was an active member of the nascent Zionist movement and also played an important role in bridging the cultural diversities that separated the Jewish community of German origin from those who had emigrated from Eastern Europe. Magnes remained at Emanu-El only a few years and later became the first president of Hebrew University in Jerusalem. In 1912, the Congregation called the scholarly Dr. Hyman G. Enelow to the pulpit. His contributions to higher Jewish learning were profound, and his writings are still studied by scholars all over the world. When Temple Emanu-El was founded in 1845 there were approximately fifteen thousand Jews in the United States. Thirty-five years later that number had grown to a quarter of a million. In 1881, following the assassination of Czar Alexander II, dread pogroms were unleashed throughout most of Eastern Europe, and with them a great wave of immigration to America began as Jews fled from physical persecution, political oppression, and economic hardship. During the next forty years the Jewish population in the United States increased by an additional two-and-a-half- million men, women, and children. Recognizing their responsibilities by remaining receptive to a centuries-old Jewish tradition that held that one must ``aid the poor, care for the sick, teach the ignorant, and extend a helping hand to those who have lost their way in the world,'' the members and leaders of Temple Emanu-El responded generously and creatively to the profound poverty of their Jewish brethren who had emigrated to New York from Eastern Europe during this forty-year period. The wealth and talent of the uptown German Jews who worshiped at Emanu-El were generously bestowed upon the newly arrived Russian Jews. (However, even prior to this period of massive immigration, the Congregation had established its own tradition of philanthropic largesse.) Although the members of Temple Emanu-El may have felt a sense of noblesse oblige in the performance of their charitable activities, and perhaps their efforts were largely directed toward Americanizing their ``poor cousins'' in order to reinforce their own standing in society, nevertheless what they and other German Jews in America did was nothing short of creating private institutions of philanthropy and education such as no community, Jewish or non-Jewish, had ever done before in history. The Temple and its leaders set an example to a world willing to learn about caring, and that caring including concern for non-Jews as well as Jews. In 1920, the Congregation celebrated its seventy-fifth anniversary, again with great joy, but this time combined with a thanksgiving celebrating the recent American victory at the end of World War I. The fact that the United States had been at war with Germany caused somewhat of an identity crisis for many Americans of German origin, including some members of Temple Emanu-El. (There were also ambivalent feelings compounded by the fact that Russia, which had been our ally in the war, was the country that, during the previous four decades, was responsible for inflicting such horrible brutality upon the Jewish people.) However, the war was over, the Allies were victorious, and Emanu-El celebrated its anniversary in an exaltation of freedom. By the beginning of the third decade of the twentieth century those Jews who had more recently arrived from Eastern Europe were beginning to settle into American life, to define themselves, and to make their own place in their new land of freedom. Less and less were they in need of the kind of assistance they had received for so long from the German Jews. And thus Emanu-El and its membership were now able to begin to address spiritual renewal went forth from the pulpit, and what followed was the establishment of many of the auxiliary organizations and activities that continue to this day to give so much vitality and meaning to the Congregation's programs and activities. It is also of interest to note that by the early 1920s some Eastern Europeans were beginning to join the Temple. A generation later, by the conclusion of World War II, the majority of the Congregation's members were men and women who traced their ancestry to either parents or grandparents of Eastern European rather than Western European origin. In 1868, when the Congregation dedicated its Temple, Forty- third Street and Fifth Avenue was at the center of the most elegant residential section of the city. However, by the mid- 1920s that part of Fifth Avenue and its surrounding streets had undergone a radical transformation. What had been for so long quietly residential had now become noisily commercial, so much so that on Saturday mornings worshipers found it difficult to pray over the cacophony coming from the adjacent streets. Furthermore, until the early 1900s the majority of the Congregation's members lived in the immediate vicinity of the Temple, but by the 1920s the overwhelming majority were residing much farther north, on the Upper West Side as well as the Upper East Side. While the old building at Forty-third Street remained architecturally beautiful, it had serious functional problems. The student body in the Religious School was growing in size, and the classrooms were inadequate. There were insufficient meeting rooms to house the expanding programs of the Temple. Following several years of debate and consideration, the Congregation, upon the recommendation of its respected president, Louis Marshall, purchased property on the northeast corner of Fifth Avenue and Sixty-fifth Street. A better location could not have been chosen. The assumption was then, and the reality today remains, that so long as there is a Central Park, this part of Fifth Avenue would be exclusively residential in character. It was also in the late twenties that the second most influential Reform congregation in New York, Temple Beth-El (House of God) consolidated with Emanu-El. Possessor of its own distinguished history, Temple Beth-El had been established in 1874 through the amalgamation of two earlier congregations, Anshe Chesed (Men of Mercy) and Adas Jeshurun (Congregation of Israel). Its first rabbi was Dr. David Einhorn, one of the most important architects of nineteenth- century Reform Jewish thought. He was succeeded by the equally brilliant theologian Dr. Kaufmann Kohler, who left the pulpit of Beth-El in 1903 to become president of Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. The newly merged congregations combined rabbinic resources as well as lay brilliance into one new great Congregation. The people of Emanu-El left Forty-third Street in 1927, and during the years that it took to erect the new building, they worshiped at the handsome Temple Beth-El, which stood at Fifth Avenue and Seventy- sixth Street. The first religious service at the new Temple at Fifth Avenue and Sixty-fifth Street was conducted in September 1929; sadly, that gathering was occasioned by the death of Louis Marshall, the man who perhaps more than any other was responsible for the building of the great new Temple. A few weeks later, services for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur were conducted. How fortuitous it was that the members of the Congregation decided to build and create this magnificent Temple when they did, for had they delayed, for whatever reason, in all probability this gloriously magnificent edifice that now stands as Temple Emanu-El would probably never have been built. In the latter part of October 1929 the stock market crashed, and the Great Depression began. The Temple was formally dedicated in January 1930 in a ceremony presided over by the rabbis of the Congregation: the great orator Dr. Hathan Krass, who had come to Temple Emanu- El in 1923; Dr. Hyman G. Enelow, the gentle scholar who had been with the Congregation since 1912; and the equally brilliant scholar Dr. Samuel Schulman, who had been Senior Rabbi of Temple Beth-El. The newly elected President of the Congregation was the Honorable Irving Lehman, Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals (and Chief Judge from 1940 onward), whose family had been affiliated with the Congregation since the 1870s. Sharply contrasting moods characterized the decade and a half that rounded out Temple Emanu-El's first hundred years. On April 4, 1945, the Congregation entered the majestic Sanctuary for a Service of Rededication, climaxing seven months of Centenary Celebration. It was a decade and a half that began with hope and ended with promise, while the interval was filled with crisis and horror, sorrow and tragedy, such as the human family had never before endured. The Jewish people, schooled in centuries of persecution, were made the victims of an ancient hatred welded to modern technology, and by the time Nazism was finally destroyed by the Allied victory, the virtual annihilation of European Jewry had come to pass. The fortunate few who escaped to America were welcomed to Temple Emanu-El with the same attention and devotion shown by an earlier generation to those who had fled the tyranny of Czarist Russia. As a result of the economic catastrophe precipitated by the Depression, the membership of the Congregation was significantly diminished. However, to the credit of the Broad and the congregants of Emanu-El, in the face of burdensome debt they wholeheartedly assumed social responsibility for those beyond the precincts of the Temple. Both to the needs of the refugees from Hitlerism and the call for patriotic service during the war, Temple Emanu-El's men and women responded generously and willingly. In both areas they established and maintained programs of excellence. During 1934 Rabbis Enelow, Krass, and Schulman retired, and Dr. Samuel H. Goldenson was selected as their successor. A gentle man, and a champion of Classical Reform, Dr. Goldenson brought to the rabbinate of Emanu-El a spirit of saintliness. Two years previously, in 1932, the ministry of Dr. Nathan A. Perilman had begun; he came to the Congregation with the expectation of staying only six months, but remained for forty-one-and-a-half years, making his rabbinate the longest active service in the Congregation's history. Upon the retirement of Dr. Goldenson in 1948, Dr. Julius Mark was elected the Temple's Senior Rabbi. Dr. Mark had won wide recognition for the important role that he played as a Navy Chaplain during World War II. At the time of Dr. Mark's election, Dr. Perilman was made Rabbi of the Congregation. The years following World War II saw an enormous growth in the Temple's membership. The 1950s were characterized by an age of significant revival in religious institutions, and the Congregation grew wondrously as America was able again to settle down to a peacetime environment. New programs were introduced, old programs were revitalized, and adult- education offerings were significantly expanded. After twenty distinguished years, Dr. Mark retired in 1968 and was succeeded as Senior Rabbi by Dr. Perilman, who remained with the Congregation for an additional five-and-a-half years, retiring at the end of 1973. Dr. Perilman was then succeeded by Dr. Ronald B. Sobel, who had come to Temple Emanu-El as Assistant Rabbi immediately following his ordination at Hebrew Union College in 1962. When elected Senior Rabbi at the end of 1973, Dr. Sobel was the youngest spiritual leader ever elected by the Congregation. Today he is assisted by two longtime associates, Rabbi David M. Posner and Rabbi Richard S. Chapin. The 1970s and the 1980s have continued to witness further growth in the Congregation, so much so that today Temple Emanu-El is world Jewry's most prominent house of worship. Physically it is the largest Jewish synagogue in the world, and the size of its membership also makes it the largest Reform congregation in the world. Innovative programs continue to be introduced and older programs are expanded as the members of the Congregation reach out more and more to the Jewish world in New York and beyond and to the other communities of which we are a part. The past is always prelude to the present, the present forever a preparation for the future. In 1995 the Congregation will celebrate its one hundred fiftieth anniversary. We have every expectation and hope that Emanu-El will continue to be a beacon and a pride to world Jewry. Although much has changed in the near century and a half since the Congregation was founded at Grand and Clinton streets, the members of Temple Emanu-El continue to be fundamentally committed to a faith that proclaims: First, instead of one fixed and changeless revelation from God to Moses at Sinai, the Jewish people have been heir to a progressive revelation, which continues throughout history in the discoveries of science and in the insights of wise, sensitive human souls. The Bible and Talmud are valuable permanent records of earlier and decisive stages in this process. But, since revelation comes from God through human beings, all the documents of revelation are a mixture of the divine and the human, the eternally valid as well as the temporary and transient. Judasiam is a living, growing way of life, evolving gradually from earlier and more primitive forms to the full flowering of its universal spiritual message. Second, central and changeless is the belief in the one and holy God, who is to be served through righteousness and mercy. God's law is basically ethical. Ritual and ceremony, as the prophets declared long ago, are not the essence of religion. Moreover, historical study reveals that ceremonial practice has been constantly subject to change. Indeed, ritual is not without value; it is a means of making religious truth more vivid and inspiring to the worshiper. But the forms are not sacrosanct. If they fail to instruct and uplift those who practice them, they may be modified or discarded. Third, the universal ethical aspect of Judaism must forever remain primary in the consciousness of the Jewish people. Therefore, the members of Temple Emanu-El do not hope for the coming of a personal Messiah to usher in a period of national restoration, but rather look forward with anticipation to a universal messianic era for all humanity. Neither the establishment of a nation-state in the ancient homeland, nor the restoration of the Jerusalem Temple, nor the reinstitution of the sacrificial cult are necessary prerequisites for the realization of the messianic dream. Thus, we believe that Jews are, and should remain, citizens of the various nations in which they live. a religious group is a sacred and urgent obligation. The Jewish people have a mission to humankind, a mission ordained of God and proclaimed by the prophets of ancient Israel. This mission requires that the people born in, or adopted into, the Covenant of Abraham must persuade humankind through teaching and example that the One and Only God can be worshiped in holiness only as His children serve each other in love. To acknowledge God's unity requires obedience to, and reverence for, His ethical mandates and moral imperatives. The mission of Israel will not have been fulfilled until righteousness and peace prevail everywhere for everyone. Until that great messianic fulfillment, the Jewish people must survive as a ``kingdom of priests'' dedicated to the service of God and humanity. These were the principles of faith proclaimed by the founders of Congregation Emanu-El in 1845; they remain the principles to which this generation of Temple Emanu-El constantly rededicates itself. The story of Temple Emanu-El is the history of successful Americanization. From 1845 to the present the members of the Congregation have authorized a new chapter in the chronicle of Jewish creative adaptation. Their lives have served as an enviable model of what the Jew could strive to become, and continue to be, in the United States.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, my friend and colleague from New York has elucidated the travesty that befell Plattsburgh and our State 2 years ago. It was the most parochial of decisions made by that Commission, and one for which they will long be remembered. I still recall the findings of the BRAC staff on a screen overhead, showing clearly that Plattsburgh had greater military value than McGuire. But that did not trouble much of anyone on the dais. This year the Commissioners have the opportunity, and the obligation, to improve on the record of the 1993 group. The Air Force has proposed to move the finest laboratory in the Defense research establishment, Rome Laboratory, to Hanscom Air Force Base near Boston and to the Army's electronics laboratory in Fort Monmouth, NJ. Rome Laboratory has produced three generations of scientists in its 45-year connection with central New York. According to the Air Force, moving half of it one State east and half of it one State south is expected to save $12 million per year. I have asked for an explanation of that claim, but say it is correct. For $12 million annually we are to give up the established relationships between the lab and the ellipse of universities and industry in the region that have helped Rome to its numerous successes. For $12 million annually we are to lose probably half the civilian staff of scientists who, by measure of similar situations with other labs, will leave the laboratory rather than move with it. This is shortsightedness of the highest order. The return for moving Rome Laboratory is small. Only one other installation on the 1995 list, of all bases that will lose over 500 civilians, will get less of an annual and total return on the money saved per civilian lost. That is an Army ocean terminal. Closing it does not bring the immense loss of intangibles and productivity that moving a preeminent scientific institution does. This is not like moving the base laundry. Most egregious about the Air Force recommendation is that 2 years ago the assistant secretary for installations put in writing that ``the Air Force has no plans to close or relocate Rome Laboratory within the next five years.'' The people of Rome believed him. They trusted him. That was a mistake. They have spent 2 years planning the reuse of Griffiss Air Force Base, all of which was closed except for the laboratory, with the laboratory as the linchpin of their plans. They have lost 2 years in the redevelopment effort unless the commission sees the folly of the Air Force proposal. Mr. President, my colleagues from New York and Arkansas have raised concerns I share about this process and the new Commission. I will be in touch with the new Commissioners shortly, and I hope they are aware of the standards they must restore.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, at the outset of this very important day, I rise to speak not to the particulars of our budget and our budget problems, but to the risk which we take with the entire economy by the measure proposed before us; a measure that would place in the Constitution a set of propositions that are essentially contrary to everything we have learned about the management of a modern industrial economy in this extraordinary half century since the enactment of the Employment Act of 1946. I will take the liberty of reading to the Senate a statement issued by the Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College at Annandale-on- Hudson, NY, written by some of the finest economists gathered together in any site in the country today. It was placed as an advertisement in the Washington Post, a rare and unprecedented event for the persons involved, but a measure of their sense of urgency. It is headed, sir, ``An Invitation to Disaster.'' It reads: The balanced budget amendment would destroy the ability of the United States government to prevent economic depressions, to respond to natural disasters, to protect the savings of tens of millions of working Americans, and, over time, to enable the economy to grow. The ability of the federal government to pump money into an ailing economy has time and again in the postwar era limited the depth and duration of a recession and prevented a depression. During the 1957-58 recession, the Eisenhower administration deliberately increased the deficit. And from that moment on, sir--and I can say I came to Washington as an Assistant Secretary of Labor, policy planning and research, which was on the periphery but still very much involved, and took a place in the economic response of the Kennedy administration to the recession of 1961, which followed that of the Eisenhower administration that was followed on in the next decade by that of the Nixon administration. We have gone, sir, 50 years with only one recession that brought us to a significant negative economic growth, which was a 2.2-percent drop in 1982--50 years. It was the great crisis of capitalism which shook the world, shook our country, because we could not manage the business cycle, and have yielded to understanding, to discourse, to evidence. It was a bipartisan, immensely successful experience to save everything we hold most valuable about a free-enterprise, private-market economy. We put this in jeopardy. It is an invitation to disaster. The New York Newsday, in an editorial this morning, speaks of an ``Unbalanced Idea'' and refers to the chart that I have several times shown on the floor of the huge swings, boom and bust, starting from the 1890's, the panic of 1893, leading up to the postwar period of almost unbroken--the business cycle is moderate and the growth is continuous. That chart, says Newsday, ``tells it all.'' In part, it reads: Since World War II, this country has enjoyed 50 years of economic stability unmatched in modern U.S. history. Recessions have been shorter and shallower, periods of growth markedly longer than during the half century before the war. That's largely because government spending has expanded, which works to fill in some of the gaps when recessions hit * * *. We have automatic anticyclical measures. It says in this provision that we can anticipate and we can vote with a supermajority to raise the debt ceilings and such like. No. Mr. President, recessions in our country have not occurred until the dating committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research announced that they happened. In the meantime, the automatic adjustments have been responding long before anybody is aware of an economic decline. Mr. President, we know this. President after President has understood it. The time has come to say we understand it as well and reject the amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of these remarks, we have printed in the Record the statement of the Jerome Levy Economics Institute; the statement of the New York Newsday, an ``Unbalanced Idea''; and above all, the lead editorial in today's Washington Post, sir, which says it all. It is entitled, ``The Urgency of Political Courage.''

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today, as I have done each week of the 104th Congress, to announce to the Senate that during the past week, 6 people were murdered by gunshot in New York City, bringing this year's total to 95. Today I received a letter from Sarah Brady, chairman of Handgun Control Inc., which brought some very welcome news. The letter, which not coincidentally arrives on the 1-year anniversary of the implementation of the Brady law, announces the results of a new survey unequivocally proving that the Brady law is working. Conducted jointly by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and Handgun Control, Inc., the survey of 115 law enforcement agencies in 27 States reveals that background checks in those jurisdictions prevented the sale of guns to over 19,000 persons prohibited by law from purchasing firearms. Mrs. Brady also informs me that, according to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms estimates, the Brady law has prevented some 70,000 persons nationwide from illegally purchasing firearms. Mr. President, this demonstrates that Congress can make a difference in the fight to reduce gun violence. I hope it will convince the Senate to adopt future measures to address this terrible problem. I ask that the letter from Mrs. Brady be printed in the Record. The letter follows: February 27, 1995. Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Moynihan: Thanks to you, it's working. The results are in! Tuesday, February 28, 1995 marks the first anniversary of the implementation of the Brady Law and a new survey confirms that the new law is helping to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Attached for your review are the results of a survey conducted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and Handgun Control, Inc. The survey found that background checks in 115 state and local jurisdictions, covering all or part of 27 states, stopped 19,000 felons and other prohibited persons from obtaining handguns. While that is no national reporting requirement, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms estimates that background checks in the past year stopped 70,000 convicted felons and other prohibited persons from making an over-the-counter purchase of a handgun. Forty-thousand of those denials came from ``new'' states which did not previously meet the requirements of the Brady Law. As a result of these background checks, hundreds of arrests have been made of those wanted on outstanding warrants. If you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to call HCI's Marie Carbone. On behalf of Jim and myself, please accept our deepest appreciation for all that you did to make these results possible. Sincerely, Sarah Brady, Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the distinguished scholars and administrators of the Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College placed an advertisement in this morning's Washington Post which delineated the perils of writing economic policy into the U.S. Constitution. This document deserves the fullest attention of the Senate and I ask unanimous consent that the entire text be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, and what is our reaction to the potential economic impact of the balanced budget amendment? According to Louis Uchitelle of the New York Times, Such estimates of the potential impact are not emphasized very much, however, in the debate over the balanced budget amendment. So far, the battle has focused on its value as a tool to shrink government or to discipline spending. But if the amendment is enacted, the side effect would be huge: a system that has softened recessions since the 1930's would be dismantled. Let me repeat part of this observation: ``if the amendment is enacted, the side effect would be huge: a system that has softened recessions since the 1930's would be dismantled.'' To put it simply, if ratified, the balanced budget amendment would substitute budget policies that magnify the business cycle for policies that have dampened cycles in the post World War II period. In the pre- World War II period the Federal budget, except for war years, was about 2-3 percent of the GDP and had very little influence on macro-economic activity. After World War II, the Federal budget exceeds 10 percent of GDP and becomes an important instrument for stablizing the economy. The transformation is clearly discernible from this chart. After World War II, automatic stabilizers--which go into effect long before the National Bureau of of Economic Research has made a determination that we are in or have had a recession--and discretionary fiscal policy hugely moderate the business cycle. II period has cushioned the effects of a recession. In this chart we have seen the result--only a few tiny declines. But now, if we tried to balance the budget in a recession, we would amplify the shocks and return the economy to the panics and depressions of the pre-World War II period shown on the chart. What happens if we undo all that we have learned over the past 60 years? Joseph Stiglitz, a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, observes, in his comments to New York Times reporter Louis Uchitelle, that ``The Government would become, almost inevitably, a destabilizer of the economy rather than a stabilizer.'' The Treasury study, referred to earlier in my remarks, concludes with a theme that I have emphasized over the past few weeks on the floor of the Senate, as I have reviewed the history of fiscal policy over the past 40 years. On February 8 I stated: * * * I make the point that there is nothing inherent in American democracy that suggests we amend our basic and abiding law to deal with the fugitive tendencies of a given moment. I rise today to provide documentation as to how a series of one-time events of the 1980's led to our present fiscal disorders, even as events in the 1990's point to a way out of them. Similarly the Treasury study concludes: Large deficits in the recent past have led many to believe that a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is the only way to ensure fiscal discipline. The large deficits of the 1930's and early 1990's, however, are an exception to the general pattern since World War II * * *. The relatively small deficits prior to the 1980's and the experience of the past two years shows that fiscal discipline does not require such drastic action as amending the Constitution and the severe economic consequences that would result. The choices before us are best summed up by William Hoagland, the respected Republican staff director of the Senate Budget Committee. In the New York Times article by Mr. Uchitelle Mr. Hoagland is quoted as follows: There are risks associated with a balanced budget and I don't think anyone should deny them * * * Nevertheless, the debate on the floor has been dominated by what we must do to get the budget in balance, not what the risks of a balanced budget might be. Before we adopt this balanced budget amendment let's make sure we understand the risks. As I study the pre and post-World War II patterns of economic cycles, that are clearly evident on this chart, I conclude that the risks are too great. Exhibit 1 The Balanced Budget Amendment and the Economy: How a Balanced Budget Amendment Would Have Worsened the Recession of 1990-1992 Introduction So far the debate over a balanced budget amendment has been primarily a political debate. Proponents of ``cutting'' have squared off against proponents of ``spending.'' The one thing that has been oddly lacking is a straightforward discussion of how a balanced budget amendment might affect the economy. Thus, this paper examines the possible consequences of a balanced budget amendment on jobs, on incomes, and on the long-term standards of living of the American people. Simply put, a balanced budget amendment could cause significant harm to the economy. The balanced budget amendment currently being considered by Congress would require the federal budget to be balanced by a date certain. This requirement could harm the American economy and American workers in two basic ways. First, the economy may have trouble handling the elimination of the deficit too fast--by cutting spending and raising taxes by about $1.2 trillion between now and 2002 ($1.6 trillion if tax cuts proposed in the Contract With America are adopted). Perhaps more importantly, requiring a balanced budget in every year, regardless of the economic situation, would hamper the ability of the federal government to lessen the impact of recessions. Danger to the Economy A balanced budget amendment would make economic recessions more severe than they otherwise would be. Currently the federal budget helps to lessen the impact of recessions through ``automatic stabilizers.'' These automatic stabilizers allow spending to increase and revenue to fall during times of economic hardship. For example, spending on federal government programs like unemployment compensation and food stamps automatically increase as the economy goes into recession because more people become eligible for the programs. In addition, as people earn less money as a result of a recession, they pay less in taxes. While these changes in spending and taxes increase the deficit, they serve to reduce the damage done by recessions to the American economy and American families. A balanced budget amendment would force the government to raise taxes and cut spending in recessions--at just the moment that raising taxes and cutting spending will do the most harm to the economy and aggravate the recession. How do automatic stabilizers work? On average, every one dollar drop in production and incomes as the economy enters a recession generates a twenty-seven cent increase in the deficit, as tax revenues fall and spending on programs rises. Thus, a one dollar fall in incomes and spending becomes a fall of only 73 cents to the economy as a whole. Shocks to total demand and spending would therefore be more than one- third larger if the federal budget were forced to be in year- by-year balance as the economy goes through business cycles. The principal benefit of the automatic stabilizers is that they are automatic and take effect immediately. We lack the advance notice of a recession for either Congress or the Federal Reserve to react effectively. For example, as of early 1991, the Federal Reserve concluded that it had adopted appropriate anti-recessionary policies and expected a recovery by mid-1992. It did not anticipate the further rise in unemployment. Thus, while the Federal Reserve bears an important part of the responsibility for managing the business cycle, its ability to ``fine tune'' the economy is limited. Given the lags with which its policies affect the economy, the Federal Reserve would have difficulty compensating for the elimination of automatic stabilizers during recessions and the shock to the economy of reducing the deficit too fast. Even with the most effective Federal Reserve policy, a balanced budget amendment would amplify recessions and harm the economy. the recession of 1992 To illustrate how the business cycle would change under an amendment, consider the recession of 1990-1992. During this recession, the unemployment rate rose from 5.1 percent in June of 1990 to 7.7 percent in June of 1992. The automatic stabilizers in the federal budget injected roughly $87 billion into the economy in 1992 relative to 1990. This cyclical increase in the deficit helped to mitigate the impact of the recession, making the unemployment rate between 0.7 and 1.7 percentage points lower in June of 1992 than it otherwise would have been. Thus, if a balanced budget amendment had been in effect--and the cyclical increase in the deficit had been offset by spending cuts and tax increases--the unemployment rate would have peaked somewhere in the range of 8.3 to 9.4 percent. The implication of this analysis is that employment would have been about 1.5 million lower in mid-1992--as shown in Chart A--if a balanced budget amendment had been in effect. conclusion Large deficits in the recent past have led many to believe that a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is the only way to ensure fiscal discipline. The large deficits of the 1980s and early 1990s, however, are an exception to the general pattern since World War II. Further, while the deficit as a share of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) did rise to high levels during the 1980s, this ratio is now on a downward trend. The deficit as a share of GDP, which was 4.9 percent in 1992, is currently projected to steadily decline to 1.6 percent of GDP in 2005. The Administration and Congress have achieved this through difficult decisions to reduce spending and to increase revenues (see chart B). For example, before this Administration took office, the deficit was projected to be $400 billion in 1998--current projections show that this has been cut by more than half, to $194 billion. In fact, the federal budget is currently in primary surplus--revenues exceed the federal government's spending on all federal programs combined. The deficit is due solely to the cost of paying interest on the debt accumulated largely during the high deficits of the 1980s--not because we are overspending today (see Chart C). The relatively small deficits prior to the 1980s and the experience of the past two years shows that fiscal discipline does not require such drastic action as amending the Constitution and the severe economic consequences that would result. the impact on alabama jobs if a balanced budget amendment had been in place during the recession of 1990-1992 The Balanced Budget Amendment and Alabama: During the recession of 1990-1992, the unemployment rate in Alabama rose from 6.7 percent to a peak of 7.5 percent. Had the balanced budget amendment been in effect, the unemployment rate in Alabama would have peaked at a higher level: between 7.7 and 8.1 percent. Thus the balanced budget amendment would have led to an additional rise in unemployment of 3,300 to 10,000 in Alabama in the recession of 1990-1992. the impact on alaska jobs The Balanced Budget Amendment and Alaska: During the recession of 1990-1992, the unemployment rate in Alaska rose from 6.9 percent to a peak of 9.1 percent. Had the balanced budget amendment been in effect, the unemployment rate in Alaska 9.6 and 10.6 percent. Thus the balanced budget amendment would have led to an additional rise in unemployment of 1,300 to 4,000 in Alaska in the recession of 1990-1992. the impact on arizona jobs The Balanced Budget Amendment and Arizona: During the recession of 1990-1992, the unemployment rate in Arizona rose from 5.5 percent to a peak of 7.7 percent. Had the balanced budget amendment been in effect, the unemployment rate in Arizona would have peaked at a higher level: between 8.2 and 9.2 percent. Thus the balanced budget amendment would have led to an additional rise in unemployment of 8,500 to 25,500 in Arizona in the recession of 1990-1992. the impact on arkansas jobs The Balanced Budget Amendment and Arkansas: During the recession of 1990-1992 the unemployment rate in Arkansas rose from 6.8 percent to a peak of 7.3 percent. Had the balanced budget amendment been in effect, the unemployment rate in Arkansas would have peaked at a higher level: between 7.5 and 7.8 percent. Thus the balanced budget amendment would have led to an additional rise in unemployment of 1,600 to 4,800 in Arkansas in the recession of 1990-1992. the impact on california jobs The Balanced Budget Amendment and California: During the recession of 1990-1992, the unemployment rate in California rose from 5.3 percent to a peak of 9.3 percent. Had the balanced budget amendment been in effect, the unemployment rate in California would have peaked at a higher level: between 10.2 and 12.1 percent. Thus the balanced budget amendment would have led to an additional rise in unemployment of 129,400 to 388,100 in California in the recession of 1990-1992.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, in my remarks yesterday I continued the examination of our experience since the advent of contemporary economics in moderating the business cycle and substantially resolving the crisess of capitalism which in the century before World War II was widely seen as implacable and unresolvable. The business cycle of the industrial age with its extraordinary alterations of boom and bust was a new experience for mankind. Many concluded it was an unacceptable experience--that capitalism had to go; that private ownership had to go. Then a learning process took place and the problem has moderated to the point when it can be said within reason to have been resolved. The swings that we experienced would be near-to-unbelievable today; certainly unacceptable. In 1906, output increased by 11.6 percent, to be followed 2 years later by a decline of 8.2 percent in 1908, and an increase of 16.6 percent in 1909. In 1918, output increased by 12.3 percent to be followed by 3 years of negative growth including a drop in output of 8.7 percent in 1921. Then came the Great Depression. After increasing by 6.7 percent in 1929, output fell by 9.9 percent in 1930, another 7.7 percent in 1931, and then a further decline of an incredible 14.8 percent in 1932. After World War II all this changed, following a brief adjustment period, as we converted from a war-time to peace-time economy. Since then the largest reduction in output was 2.2 percent in 1982. In my earlier remarks I attributed the steady growth in the post World War II period to ``a great achievement in social learning'' which we would put in jeopardy if we adopted the balanced budget amendment. We have learned to moderate the business cycle using the budget as a counter-cyclical tool. We used this knowledge in both Republicans and Democratic administrations. For example, George P. Shultz--one of the most admired public men of his generation--while OMB director in the Nixon administration put in place expansionary budget policies that stimulated the economy following the 1970-71 recession. In my remarks on February 10 and February 13, and again yesterday, I indicated that several economists, including staff working for Charles Shultze, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Carter administration, have concluded that if we try to balance the budget in the middle of a recession that the unemployment rate could exceed 10 percent--a level that was reached only momentarily, during the 1981-82 recession, in all of the post-World II era. In today's Wall Street Journal, Al Hunt reports on a Treasury Department study which confirms this analysis for the 1990-92 recession--a mild recession in which the unemployment rate rose from 5.1 percent in June 1990 to 7.7 percent in June 1992. Analysts at the Treasury Department estimate that * * * if a balanced budget amendment had been in effect-- and the cyclical increase in the deficit had been offset by spending cuts and tax increases--the unemployment rate would have peaked somewhere in the range of 8.3 to 9.4 percent. The implication of this analysis is that employment would have been about 1.5 million lower in mid-1992 * * * if a balanced budget amendment had been in effect. Clearly, if the recession had been deeper--in the 1979-82 period the unemployment rate increased from 5.6 to 10.8 percent--or if the unemployment rate at the beginning of the recession had been higher-- the unemployment rate last month was 5.7 percent--then the unemployment rate would have increased to more than 10 percent if a balanced budget amendment had been in effect. The Treasury Department study also analyzed the effects of the balanced budget amendment on the unemployment rate of each State. Even in the mild recession of 1990-1992, the unemployment rate could reach double digits in the following States, many of which are large industrial States: Alaska, 10.6 percent; California, 12.1 percent; Florida, 10.4 percent; Massachusetts, 10.9 percent; Michigan, 10.0 percent; New Jersey, 11.8 percent; My own state of New York, 11.4 percent; Rhode Island, 10.6 percent; West Virginia, 13.5 percent. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Treasury Department study entitled ``The Balanced Budget Amendment and the Economy'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Because they are learned Senators who have read their history.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I have some good news and good news for the Senate. I can report--and I know that my distinguished friend, our President pro tempore in time and my very dear friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will want to know--that I have just returned from Phoenix, AZ, where I had the honor to deliver the Goldwater Lecture at Arizona State University. I can report that Senator Goldwater is in great spirits, thriving, active, and irreverent, as usual. I do not want to get any politics into this matter, but just now it is the Republicans in Arizona who are mad at him. But, no doubt, those reversals will come and go, as they have always done in his wonderful long and still very creative life. The other thing to say is that I gave the lecture on the subject of the matter before us, a balanced budget amendment, and trying to relate, as I have done on the floor earlier, the extraordinary achievement which we have had in this country and to a considerable degree the members of the OECD, the Western industrial nations, Japan, and others, in modulating to a degree that they have almost disappeared, those huge swings in the economy that seem to be destabilizing the industrial world. Industrialism brought with it a business cycle which was baffling. People could not understand how one day everybody is at work and a year later everybody is out of work. And unlike the farm--where you are always working whether you are making much or you are starving or not-- the unemployed were standing on street corners. The banks were closed, industries padlocked their gates, all sorts of symbolisms of trouble, disorder, instability, which indeed gave rise to hugely radical assertions about the need to change the very structure of property, of management, of the social order. In a chart which I displayed for the Senate on Monday a week ago, I showed the real growth, the change of GDP that had taken place between 1890 and 1990. This data, Mr. President, is provided by the Department of Commerce, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the chart was prepared by the Joint Economic Committee. It is striking the way in which economic growth goes up, crashes down; up, down; up, crashes down; swoops up, down. In the period between 1890 and 1938, which we will call a half century, the real GDP dropped almost 5 percent on three occasions: in 1893, in 1914, and in 1938. The exact numbers: 1893, 4.89 percent; 1914, 4.4 percent; and 1938, 5.1 percent; the 1938 date being well remembered as the occasion in which President Roosevelt, the New Deal seeming to have revived the economy somewhat, crashed down again regardless. Then on two occasions the GDP dropped almost 10 percent. In 1908 it dropped 8.2 percent; in 1921 it dropped 8.7 percent. Then in 1932, as we know, it crashed 14.8 percent and we went into the Great Depression, a period which put at issue the question of whether a liberal, capitalist economy could continue to exist. It was said that obviously it cannot. It cannot provide stability in the economy and cannot provide for its people. I mention these occasions--three times we dropped 5 percent or near to, twice 10 percent, once 15 percent in a half century. We do not drop from a zero level; we go down from heights. So, for example, in 1893, we were growing at about 12 percent a year in GDP, and in an instant real growth has dropped below zero to 4.8 percent, a 15-, 16-, 17-percent plunge. It was known as the panic of 1893. People were thrown into the streets. Then in 1908, for no reason that any person understood and nothing the Government could do--our Government was too small to make much difference in the affairs of the economy at large. We had no national banking system. The Reserve had not yet been created by Carter Glass in this Chamber. Of the great issue of the 19th century, of all the great issues we struggled with, the only one we never resolved in the 19th century was the issue of the banking system. So there was no Federal Reserve and no monetary policy. It took a long time to get monetary policy, but we could not think about it until we had an instrument to do it. There was also a big drop in GDP in 1946, but that was merely associated with the conversion from a wartime economy. We stopped building battleships, which are part of GDP, and down went the economy, and in no time you are building Chevrolets and up went the economy. Now, the depression of the 1930's was the great trauma of American capitalism, of free enterprise, and all over the world political movements came to power that said it could not work; fascism in Germany; Leninism, Marxism, and similar movements pervaded every country, not least our own. Their common refrain: this system-- capitalism--does not work. If we could look at these swings, we could say there is a case to be made; human beings had never experienced this. But, if we could go back to millennia, we would see a rise and fall in the economic production associated with how good the crops were, did it rain, was it a wet spring. If the Mongols invaded, there was not much in the way of economic growth in Hungary that year. If the Black Death came along, it would have some effect, but not much. There was not much growth to begin with. Only with industrialism came great ups and downs, and people started saying that this will not work. Then in the middle of the 1930's, the work which we associate with John Maynard Keynes was done which hit upon the key explanation of what was taking place. Classical economics held that ``all markets clear.'' That, Mr. President, is a technical term. It means that whatever is offered for sale will be bought--at a price, not necessarily what the seller would wish. But, Mr. President, wages will drop, prices will drop, and markets will clear and there will be full employment and full utilization of resources. Economists were able to show that not necessarily. We could reach an equilibrium in which a large public of men were out of work, a large number of plants closed, a large number of mines were not operating. What classical economics could not account for, suddenly, was explicable. We began, finally, to break the code of the business cycle. And it is a nice piece of information, if I may say. The first use of this economics, which was associated with the idea of underconsumption, you had to stimulate consumption, first use was made in World War II when the problem was overconsumption. And price levels came down in World War II. In 1944, the inflation rate was 2.2 percent. Not bad. But Government controlled, to be sure. And then they broke up in 1945. In 1946, with this information at hand beginning to be understood, beginning to be numerate, we started to be able to get numbers for these things. We did not know what the unemployment rate rate in the census, decennial census. We took it in the spring of 1930, not much unemployment. In the spring of 1940, rearmament had begun, and in the official statistics there was no depression. But people knew otherwise. The Employment Act of 1946 stated as the goal of the U.S. Government the full utilization of resources, fullest possible--meaning men and women entering the work force, meaning capital, meaning plant and equipment which was capital, and so forth. The Council of Economic Advisers was established. In the early years the economic report of the President was a pretty thin volume, but they were getting the hang of it. By 1946 we had an unemployment rate which was published. We will have the economic report shortly now and we will see that the series as statistics begins in 1946. May I interject here to offer the congratulations of the Senate, if I may so presume, to Dr. Tyson, who the President has announced will leave the position of Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and become head of economic policy within the White House, a position Mr. Rubin had until he became Secretary of the Treasury. They began to work on this notion of countercyclical behavior by the Federal Government. They began to realize--as John Kenneth Galbraith has shown this in his work--when the 1929 stock market crash took place, the Federal Reserve had acted in a way to deepen the decline rather than to counter it, the idea of countercyclical spending. I have said before on the floor, Mr. President, that in the early years, the problem that the economists faced, or thought they faced, and Presidents agreed and Congress pretty much agreed, was that the Federal revenues were too large in the early stages of the business cycle; that as the economy began growing, revenues grew. In those days, before we had indexed the Internal Revenue Code and the tax rates, why, they would grow very fast. Congress did not spend them quickly enough. And, indeed, there emerged a problem. The Kennedy administration was the first to deal directly with this question--or more correctly, problem--called fiscal drag. Because in 1958, there had been a recession which took growth just a tiny tick below, into a negative position, not 1 percent, but one-half of 1 percent. And then the recovery had begun. But in 2 years, it stalled so that another tick--not the big crashes, smashes, panics but not quite what we wanted. President Kennedy's economic advisers said, ``What do we do?'' They concluded that we had to put in place some countercyclical spending. Then I was to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy and Planning Research. It is a moment we all remember in our lives, if it comes to us. On my first visit to the Oval Office, I accompanied Secretary Arthur Goldberg, and we had a proposal to raise the pay of Federal employees. The President said, ``Good idea, we need that.'' And he also decided everybody should get at least $100 a year. And we went on like that. It was very early on. We moved the date of the dividend of the Veterans Administration life insurance forward. Then we gave a double dividend. Then Joseph Pechman at the Brookings Institution, in conjunction with Walter Heller, Chairman of the Council, proposed revenue sharing with the States. We proposed a tax cut and, Mr. President, it worked. We went right through. When Arthur Okun gave the last report of the Council under President Johnson, he said, ``Look, 6 years of unbroken economic growth.'' They should have tamped down the economy, given the inflationary effects of the Vietnam war spending. And, indeed, when President Nixon came into office, although I believe he had a balanced budget, he also had a recession. But that came out of that. And George Shultz, his first Director of the Budget, in his fiscal 1973 budget said, ``I am sending a full employment budget which will have a deficit, but the deficit will be the difference between what will be revenue at full employment and less than full employment.'' We were still stimulating. So it went. We had one more tick in the seventies. Then in 1982, we had the only real decline in economic growth in the postwar period. Economic growth, GDP, gross domestic product, dropped 2.2 percent, one time in half a century. There was another slight tick in 1991. But again, just a tick. That had never happened before in the history of industrial societies. It is an immense achievement. It is not a Democratic achievement. It is not a Republican achievement. It is an achievement of applied analysis. That is what is threatened. That achievement is what is threatened by this amendment to the Constitution. If it were a statute, I would not be spending my days on the floor. Statutes come and statutes go. This is the Constitution; the basic law of the land. Mr. President, when I spoke last Monday, I recounted how in 1979, when there was a movement among the States to petition Congress to call a constitutional convention for this purpose, I had asked the then Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Charles Schultze, a distinguished economist from the Brookings Institution, if he would run the numbers from the 1975 recession--a fairly serious recession, which President Ford had to live with--with a balanced budget amendment. He wrote me back to say the computer blew up; we had no countercyclical forces we could use, and so the hypothetical economy spiraled down to that equilibrium when there is a high rate of unemployment and a low rate of utilization of capital. I mentioned also that we had simulated on our own on a back-of-the- envelope sort of thing. Dr. David Podoff, sometime chief economist on the Finance Committee, more recently minority chief economist, using Arthur Okun's principles developed in the early sixties, estimated that if we had a 3-percent increase in unemployment, some exogenous event-- Mexico goes to ruin, oil prices spiral, whatever--we could end up with a drop of GDP of 18 percent. That is a depression figure. That was last Monday. I see the distinguished sometime once and future President pro tempore on the floor. I would like to report to him that in yesterday's New York Times, there is a report of a simulation made in the Treasury Department. I take the liberty of saying this on the Senate floor. I know where it was made. I know it came about in response to some of our arguments. And, Mr. President, the story, by Mr. Louis Uchitelle, an able reporter, is headed ``The Pitfalls of a Balanced Budget. ``Dismantling a Decades' Old System for Softening Recessions.'' Here is the interesting event. I just say that they have simulated the 1991 decline and say, with a balanced budget amendment, unemployment would have reached 9 percent. A laid-off worker who collected $12,000 in unemployment pay might have received only $7,000, and so forth. Now, sir, I said earlier that the new economics, the learning we went through, was not a Democratic thing or a Republican thing. It was applied social science learning, a collective learning. And so the fascinating thing is that Mr. William Hoagland, the Republican staff director for the Senate Budget Committee, and a very able public servant, is quoted as saying--he is in fact, the first person quoted: There are risks associated with a balanced budget, and I don't think anyone should deny that. Nevertheless, the debate on the floor has been dominated by what we must do to get the budget in balance, not what the risks of a balanced budget amendment might be. Mr. Hoagland expressed surprise that the biggest risk--deeper, more painful recessions--had not figured significantly in the debate-- although the Senator from New York and my distinguished colleague from Maryland have called attention to this risk in several floor speeches. This is Mr. Hoagland making the statement. They go on to quote a whole series of economists, a sequence of economists saying, ``Does not Congress know what it is doing?'' ``Does it not realize what we have achieved?'' And now, Mr. President, as I have been talking here long enough, and I know others wish to speak, particularly the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, I said I came back from Arizona last evening with good news and good news. First, the good news is that I gave the Barry Goldwater lecture at Arizona good health, active, and being as much a torment to his fellow Republicans as to his fellow Democrats. But the second event was on the way to deliver the lecture, the very able president of the university, Dr. Coor, picked me up at the hotel. We had about a 20-minute drive to the university, and I told him what I was going to say. He said, ``Well, now, we all know that, don't we?'' That we went through this great achievement of learning to break out; that capitalism did not disappear; it is the same; and it is not even questioned in the world by this new economics. He said, ``Everyone knows that, surely. What's the problem with the Congress?'' Now, perhaps I do not want to put those words in his mouth per se. But he said, ``What is the problem?'' I had an idea, and I put it to him at the time. And I will say again, if I get one idea a week at this point, I feel that is a pretty good week. The idea is a very simple one: There are not enough people around old enough to remember what it used to be like. Sir, if you are under 60, you do not know anything about the economic world before we understood countercyclical financing by the Federal Government, before the Federal Government got the tools: It has to have a sizable budget. You have to have unemployment insurance, Medicaid, things like that, which automatically happen, a Federal Reserve that can take action. I said it has been in place so long that we forgot the pain with which it had to be put in place, the hard intellectual work, the accusations. To be a Keynesian was to be a Red, somehow. John Maynard Keynes was a liberal, sir. He was not a member of the Tory Party, nor a member of the Labor Party; he believed completely in the free market, private enterprise. He just wanted the free market to produce lots more goods and keep doing it.