Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I, too, would like to commend the distinguished Senator from the State of California, Dianne Feinstein, as well as the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell, and those who I believe in good faith have come together with this agreement. I respect their work. I know their purpose and their intent. I do not know whether other Senators will vote in opposition to this agreement on this day. I do not know if there are any, but I will not vote for it. I want, Mr. President, to make clear my reasons, because I look at the same facts and I simply come to a different conclusion. I remember, Mr. President, being told at the end of the cold war we were going to be free of some of the compromises of our own interests which were necessary when we were defending ourselves in that great international struggle. We would be able to speak the truth again and to put our own interests of our own people first. This is a test of that principle. It is argued that to tell the truth about Mexico and to decertify Mexico as an ally in the war against narcotics would involve offending Mexican sensibilities. Given the realities of Mexican history or the Mexican political situation, it would cause political complications. Mr. President, the question is not whether or not Mexico would be offended by a truthful analysis. The issue raised is whether or not Mexico is an ally in the war against narcotics. That is the only question that was asked. It is the only question that is relevant. The truth is unmistakable. Mexico is not assisting, is not an ally in the war against narcotics, and saying that it is or postponing the judgment, as would be done by this resolution, does not escape that truth. The truth, Mr. President, is that 14,000 Americans die every year from illegal narcotics. If this judgment is to be postponed until September 1, and March, April, May, June, July, and August are to pass, then another 7,000 Americans will be consumed in the spiral of death by illegal narcotics, and they will have died while we maintain a false conclusion. What is it, Mr. President, we would say to the law enforcement officers from New York to Los Angeles to Chicago, to small towns all across America, to DEA agents around the world, who risk their lives every day facing the truth, if we will not face the truth? Mexico has had an opportunity in the last year to choose sides in the war against narcotraffickers. They had a choice when the United States filed 52 extradition requests with the Mexican Government and no one was extradited. They had a choice when is 250 Mexican law endorsement officers were dismissed from their positions because of corruption, and none were prosecuted. They had a choice when the Mexican Congress passed money laundering statutes which were not enforced. Mr. President, Mexico has had a choice every day for the last year. Now, it may be the will of this institution to give them another 6 months to make that choice again. I believe, Mr. President, that given the extensive corruption in the Mexican Government, the compromising of Mexican law enforcement officials, and their pervasive operation of narcotrafficking criminal organizations in Mexico, Mexico may now not only lack the will, but may no longer possess the ability to control the flow of narcotics to the United States. We cannot construct a policy of interdicting narcotics in Mexico by becoming part of a silent conspiracy, where Mexico pretends to be helping interdict narcotics and we pretend to believe them. This judgment gets no less painful after 6 more months pass than it will be today. It was said, Mr. President, during the cold war that the United States and the Soviet Union went eye to eye and America never blinked. The United States and Mexico are now facing a war against narcotics, and we have made an unfortunate decision to turn our face away from the truth. The proper action of this Senate, in my judgment, would be to vote to decertify Mexico and place both Mexico and those who influence her on notice that a price will be extracted for the deaths of 14,000 Americans every year by illegal narcotics, a price will be extracted for failing to choose sides in the war against narcotics. Mr. President, I know this is a difficult decision for every Member of the Senate. But we do not face the hardest choices. The real choices are made by our agents in the Drug Enforcement Administration, by those on border control, by the families who wait up every night to see whether their fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters in law enforcement in our cities and on our borders will come home alive. Our choice is easy. Look at the facts, review the evidence, and tell the truth. There is an open season on the American border for narcotics. Calling Mexico an ally in the war against drugs will not make them a friend and not force them to choose sides. This is a painful choice that must be made by the citizens of Mexico and her business and political leaders. If some are voting for this postponement of judgment until September 1 because they believe it would cause political problems for the PRI, the current political leadership of Mexico, then let it be so. We serve no American or Mexican purpose by hiding from judgment the current political leadership of Mexico. It is a moment of truth by our own people. If elements of the leadership are corrupted or compromised against the interests of not only other nations against fighting narcotics, but against defending Mexico in the interests of our own people, then let the Mexican people understand that truth and vote accordingly. That is the decision, Mr. President. I believe that we postpone not only recognizing the truth about Mexico's participation in the war against drugs, but we postpone, by our silence, the Mexican people realizing the truth about their own government, at a time of political judgment in the Mexican electoral system. For Mexican interests and for American interests, I will vote against this resolution. A long time ago, we came to the decision that there would be a war against drugs. In wars, there are casualties. At the moment, the principal casualties are our own children and the police officers of our own country. It would be unfortunate if some in the Mexican political establishment have to face the wrath of their own people, or if the good name of Mexico is compromised. Perhaps, Mr. President, they will be added to the list of victims in the war against drugs. No war is ever won without casualties. It's time to get serious in the war against drugs. I believe decertifying Mexico is an important step. Mr. President, I will vote accordingly. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I am proud to include my name as an original cosponsor of the Estate Tax Relief for the American Family Act of 1997, which was introduced today. This is a critical tax reform bill that will modernize our antiquated estate tax policy, provide significantly improved economic security for family businesses, promote efficient and pro-growth economic policy and ensure sound financial practices for millions of American working families. This legislation gradually increases over 6 years the estate and gift tax exemption from the current limit of $600,000 to $1 million. The graduated time schedule would increase the exemption by $100,000 in each of the first 2 years following enactment and $50,000 in each of the next 4 years. For families with their own small business, the bill would provide a new small business exemption of $1.5 million of business-related assets above the first $1 million in an estate as well as 50 percent of the next $8.5 million of such assets. This proposal would provide new safeguards for family business solvency that is not currently provided under current law. These changes are desperately needed as our current estate tax policy has not been upgraded in a decade. Even worst, the current policy has proven to be a economic failure. Estate and gift taxes are one of the smallest sources of revenue, collecting only $10 to $15 billion per year, mostly because Americans have found legal means of avoiding the tax. Indeed, Prof. Douglas Bernheim of Stanford University has theorized that more income tax revenue may be lost through clever estate planning than is actually collected through the estate tax. Even worse, the current policy encourages Americans to spend capital on consumption items rather than save because saving their money would increase the value of their estate and, ultimately, their estate tax liability. Indeed, it has been estimated that the tax cost of a dollar saved increases by an amount somewhere between 7.4 cents and 55 cents because of current estate tax law. And for small business, the current policy is devastating. The family-owned pizza parlor, dry cleaning store, grocery and family farm are failing to provide the kind of generational economic continuity that national policy should be encouraging. Indeed, more than 70 percent of family businesses don't survive the second generation and almost 90 percent don't survive to a third generation. Most of these failures occur because current estate tax policy drains a family's financial ability to keep a business afloat as it passes from one generation to the next. The existing estate tax policy creates economic inefficiencies and places its heaviest burdens on the middle class. The rates of estate taxes are excessive, unfair, punitive, and contrary to the interests of both business owners and their employees. Indeed, these taxes destroy the work of a lifetime and the dreams of a generation of Americans. The time to make genuine and sensible changes is now. Enactment of the Estate Tax Relief for the American Family Act of 1997 is an essential part of any plan to balance the budget by 2002. It would likely provide a net increase in revenues while at the same time restore tax fairness for millions of Americans. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation and will be a tireless advocate for its enactment into law.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes of the time allotted to the minority.

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

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I do not know whether in the coming weeks the Attorney General will determine whether or not the threshold has been reached to name independent counsel. But I do know, in her tenure of service, Attorney General Reno has had an uncompromising sense of personal integrity. She was called upon in a number of instances to reach a determination about investigating high officials in this administration, including President Clinton. She has never hesitated to act in the interests of justice. So, while I do not personally believe at the moment that the circumstances exist for independent counsel as defined by the law, it is important, again, to reassure ourselves about the quality of justice in this country under the leadership of the Attorney General and, just as important, in the great traditions of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the able leadership of the Bureau's Director, Louis Freeh. Though I recognize that today some disagree and in their own judgment believe that it would be better in the national interest to proceed to an independent counsel, whether you accept their evaluation on this day or perhaps mine in believing it should be left to another day, there is the question about whether or not the act is able to be properly implemented at this moment as intended in the independent counsel statute. It is my judgment that, while we may differ in this institution on whether or not the act should be applied, we should be able to agree on the underlying problem, and that is there is a problem in the court with the ability to appoint a special counsel. The statute requires that the Chief Justice appoint judges to serve in the special division for a term of 2 years. Three judges are to serve on the council that will, in turn, name a special counsel in this or any other instance. It was the intention of the Congress to facilitate a rotation of these judges to ensure their independence so that no one dominates the appointing process, for purposes of the confidence of this Congress and the interests of justice. For whatever reasons, what were to be temporary assignments on the court in this special division appear to be becoming lifetime appointments. Judge Sentelle, who chairs the court, is in his third consecutive term. Judge Butzner is in his fourth. Judge Fay has now begun his second term. Mr. President, this is not what was intended in the independent counsel statute, and as we debate today the relative merits of whether to appoint an independent counsel, every Member of the Senate needs to consider, if the Attorney General is requested to make this appointment, who will be making the appointment and what confidence do we have the congressional intent of independence and the integrity of the judgments will meet the necessary standards of justice? Most particularly is the question of Judge Sentelle. Judge Sentelle's position in leading this three-judge panel raises serious questions and, indeed, I believe inhibits the ability of the Attorney General to proceed with confidence when and if she reaches a determination the statutory requirements to name an independent counsel are reached. During the 1993 debate over reauthorization of the independent counsel statute, Senator Cohen perhaps said it best. He said: The appearance of justice is just as important as justice itself, in terms of maintaining public confidence in our judicial system. Mr. President, no one could possibly believe that the appearance of justice is served by having Judge Sentelle in these circumstances name an independent counsel. Judge Sentelle is a known political associate of two Republican Senators who have views on this issue. He has served as a member of Senator Helms' National Congressional Republican Club and was chairman of the North Carolina State Republican Party convention. He stands accused of engineering the removal of Whitewater counsel, Robert Fiske, and replacing him with an independent counsel who clearly has exercised his position with questionable judgment and clear partisanship. I speak, of course, of Kenneth Starr. The decision to appoint Mr. Starr came only days after Judge Sentelle had a private luncheon with two Members of this institution who had strong views on the subject, in what was an extrajudicial and clearly inappropriate meeting. Mr. President, despite poor judgment, inappropriate actions, Judge Sentelle was recently reappointed to his third term on the court. As senior judge in this position, with the other two judges serving in this similar capacity, both on senior status, he clearly has an extraordinary influence over the operation of the appointing process. Five former presidents of the American Bar Association considered these facts, these extrajudicial communications, and determined they give rise to appearance of impropriety. As long as Judge Sentelle sits on the special division, there will always be questions regarding the objectivity of the independent counsel appointments. I believe, therefore, whether you share my judgment that the trust should be placed in the Attorney General to determine whether or not the requisite requirements have been reached in the statute before appointing or requesting the appointment of an independent counsel or you agree with other Members of the Senate that those criteria have already been reached, we certainly, in the interest of fairness, can reach a judgment today that Judge Sentelle should recuse himself from his current responsibilities. Failing that recusal, it is certainly incumbent upon Chief Justice Rehnquist, given his general responsibility for the administration of the courts, to remove Judge Sentelle or request that he temporarily remove himself from the appointment process. I recognize the strong divisions in the Senate. I understand the passions that this issue brings to different Members of the Congress. But certainly despite our partisan differences or our interpretations of the facts, our common interest in justice should lead us to one determination. There is a need in our country and in this Senate to come away from this debate with a feeling that an impartial and a fair administrator of justice is required to implement the independent counsel statute, whether that determination in naming an independent counsel is to be reached now or whether the facts dictate that they are to be named later. Mr. President, it is a simple question of fairness and justice. I hope other Members of the Senate will join with me in calling upon Judge Sentelle, in the best traditions of the American judiciary, to recuse himself now, but I also hope, before any other Members of this Senate need to rise and express themselves on these facts, the Chief Justice of the United States will exercise his responsibilities to ensure that the courts are true to their traditions of justice. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time for debate on the joint resolution be yielded back.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, on behalf of Senators Leahy and Levin, I call up Joint Resolution 23.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, From 1950 to 1953, the United States was in the midst of a bitter war on the Korean peninsula. As the inscription at the base of the Korean War Memorial says, our Nation's sons and daughters answered the call ``to defend a country they never knew and a people they never met.'' And they did so honorably. Today, though, the memory of those who made the ultimate sacrifice is honored once again. Earlier today, the Korean War Veterans Memorial Honor Roll Kiosk was officially unveiled in a ceremony by representatives of the American Battle Monuments Commission, the National Parks Service, the Samsung Group, and IBM. The Honor Roll Kiosk houses a high technology interactive computer base which contains all the verifiable names from the Korean war theater of those killed in action, still listed as missing in action, and those captured as prisoners of war. Touch screens allow visitors, friends, and family to research the service record of their loved one, and obtain a certificate of honor in the name of that soldier. This was made possible in large part through the generous donation from the Samsung group of companies. As part of the July 1995 Korean War Veterans Memorial dedication ceremonies, Samsung made a significant contribution to the memorial fund. It was with great honor and appreciation that Samsung recognized the sacrifice and commitment of the United States to the security of the Korean peninsula. It is a commitment America maintains today. We have worked together to establish close relations in defense of common principles and it is because of these shared beliefs that the United States and South Korea remain partners in peace today. In addition to contributing to the memorial, Samsung also created an educational endowment with the American Legion. Their gift of $5 million to the American Legion will be used to fund collegiate scholarships for the descendants of America's veterans. I commend and congratulate Samsung on their generosity and willingness to recognize the origin in which their success today is rooted. I am proud to have their North American headquarters located in Ridgefield Park, NJ. Lastly, I recognize the honor and dignity with which America's service men and women fought on the harsh Korean field of combat. As the dedication ceremonies remind us, your service--and your sacrifice--was not forgotten.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate an important event which took place on January 30 of this year. This day marked the 25th anniversary of Bloody Sunday which left 14 civil rights marchers dead in Northern Ireland. During the late 1960's, peaceful opposition to disenfranchisement, internment and anti-Catholic discrimination in Northern Ireland led to large protest marches throughout the region. On January 30, 1972, one of these peaceful protest marches was indiscriminately fired upon by a British regiment. Fourteen demonstrators were killed during the violence. The investigation conducted by Lord Widgery, and the subsequent Widgery Report, were conclusive. All of the victims were unarmed, and most were shot in the back, leaving the world to conclude that the killings were reckless. However, not a single British soldier was ever prosecuted for this crime. The victims sought only to establish the rights of equal citizens, but paid the ultimate price for challenging British authority. However, the perpetrators go unpunished, and the British Government continue to ignore the seriousness of the crime committed 25 years ago. I urge the British Government to recognize the innocence of the demonstrators who were killed or injured on Bloody Sunday, and work toward establishing justice for them and their families. The struggle for justice continues today in Northern Ireland, and the British should work to repair the rift in Protestant-Catholic relations.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the decision by the administration to certify Mexico as an ally in the fight against narcotics raises a broader issue. In my judgment, it is time to reach several difficult but obvious conclusions about United States policy toward Mexico and our bilateral relations. Indeed, perhaps, if there was a contribution offered by the unfortunate decision to certify Mexico in the war against narcotraffickers, it is the growing sense in the United States of the need for a moment of honest reflection about Mexican-American relations. In short, it is time to simply tell the truth about Mexico. Mexican-American policy in these years has been based, in my judgment, on three broad deceptions, deceptions not only of ourselves but, perhaps more importantly, of the Mexican people themselves. Deceptions which I recognize have been made, sometimes, with the best of intentions. The United States has understood that some historic injustices create particular sensitivities in Mexico. There is always the need to account for nationalist pride and the obvious concern of internal interference. But not telling the truth to our own people, or to the people of Mexico, allows the Mexican people to avoid dealing with the realities of their own country. This conspiracy of silence about the realities in Mexico prevents the United States from constructing real policies to defend our own interests, and hampers our ability to work with Mexico in protecting its own interests. These three deceptions are, in my judgment, convincing the American people that Mexico is, in fact, making the transition to a vibrant democracy; that Mexico has a genuinely free economy; and, finally, that Mexico is, indeed, participating in waging a war on narcotics. I believe that an analysis of these assumptions will establish that none of them are true. First is the question of the Mexican economy. In 1993, in an effort to support the North American Free-Trade Agreement, the American people were told that if only Mexico had access to the American market, then Mexico would complete its historic transition to a free and open economy. I understood the reasons to support NAFTA. A free-trade agreement for North America makes sense. But a condition precedent of a North American Free-Trade Agreement is that each of the participants genuinely has a free and an open economy. Therefore, this Congress could not have affirmatively accepted the treaty without being convinced that Mexico, like Canada and the United States, would accept the rules of a market economy. The simple reality is that in 1997, despite assurances to the contrary, Mexico retains strong elements of a centrally directed economy, officially controlled and unofficially corrupt. The most important elements of the Mexican economy are either under state sponsorship or government control, including banking, finance, and petroleum. The result has been, predictably, anemic growth which stimulates increased migration and denys the Mexican people real economic opportunity. Last year, 1.2 million young Mexicans attempted to join the national work force, only to find employment available for a fraction of those seeking work. Since the 1980's, irregular or low levels of growth in the economy have been the exception in the region. Throughout that decade, annual growth in Mexico, the GNP, averaged 1 percent. In some years in the 1990's it grew, but the results were uneven for the people themselves. The reasons are clear. It is not enough for the national leadership to declare Mexico a free economy. Making pledges to the United States in order to get access to NAFTA accomplishes nothing if the fundamentals of a free economy are not established. Most obvious is the need to allow the development of a free trade union movement. But, indeed, Mexico will conclude the 20th century as one of the last nations in our hemisphere to still not permit the development of independent trade unions. The results are declining real wages of a magnitude of 70 percent in the last 20 years, a minimum wage which decreased by 13 percent in 1995 and fell by an additional 11 percent in 1996. A free economy means a free market for labor. Real competition requires that people can engage in collective bargaining. Similarly frustrating to the development of a free economy in Mexico has been the failure to privatize important sectors of the economy. In September of 1995, the Mexican Government announced the sale of 61 petrochemical plants that would be open to the free economy and to foreign investment. It was an attractive response to the promise of NAFTA. On October 13, 1996, the Mexican Government reversed its policy and has maintained Government control over this vital center of the Mexican economy. As a result of this failure to permit the free exchange of labor, foreign investment, and privatization, Mexico is one of the few countries in the world where, because of declining wages, life expectancy has leveled off and may actually be declining. The Mexican peso, because of a failure to adequately control both debts and the currency, literally collapsed in 1994, requiring $40 billion of external financing from the United States and other international institutions. And in 1997, the international community faces the same prospect, because the peso is, again, overvalued and, again, facing downward pressure. The first simple truth, therefore, is we need to be honest with ourselves, investors, and the Mexican people. The promise of establishing a free market in Mexico, the ending of state-sponsored industries, has not been kept. Words do not suffice. The promises mean nothing. Mexico remains a state-controlled and directed economy where market forces are not allowed to operate. And for whatever price that may hold for American investors, or Mexico's new trade partners in NAFTA, the price is principally borne by the Mexican people themselves, who, despite their labors and their sacrifices and their desire to free their economy, are on a downward spiral of opportunity and living standards. The second truth concerns the promise of democracy in Mexico. For 7 decades, the Mexican people have been victimized by a one-party authoritarian state. It is self-perpetuating and it is not a democracy under any contemporary definition. Successive Mexican administrations choose the next government. Power has been maintained through corruption and outright electoral theft. As recently as 1988, Mexico's ruling PRI party had to resort to outright fraud to guarantee the election of President Carlos Salinas. In 1994, the leading presidential candidate was assassinated, with credible allegations that elements of his own party conspired in the assassination because of his opposition to electoral reforms that might have fulfilled elements of the promise of democracy. The level of corruption and denial of democratic freedoms has not involved simply the presidency, but almost every level of government. This includes disputed state elections throughout the 1980's and during this decade. In at least four recent gubernatorial elections the opposition PAN party ultimately took control or demonstrated a strong presence because of court challenges and public opposition. In 1996, despite promises of electoral reform, the PRI majority in the Mexican Congress placed restrictions on electoral procedures and public financing that greatly restricted the ability of opposition parties to participate in, and have a chance of succeeding in, Mexican elections. Promises of electoral reform in Mexico have simply not been realized. Access to the media, public finance, and control of government institutions to the advantage of the ruling party have all gone without change. Despite public protests and international challenges which have resulted in some successes in state gubernatorial elections, the simple truth is the 20th century will end without Mexico having experienced the peaceful transfer of power from the ruling party to the opposition. That, Mr. President, is a contradiction of any claim that Mexico is operating under contemporary standards of democratic elections. Mexico has not been alone in having difficulty making the transition from one-party government to a competitive pluralist system. What makes Mexico different is that, unlike in Japan or Italy which had similar monopolies on power in the postwar period, but whose governments bore American encouragement and sometimes criticism, there has been a conspiracy of silence about the realities of Mexican politics and its economy. Those who remain silent or fail to inform our people or the Mexican people of the truth of their national experience bear responsibility. There are, indeed, many victims of the realities of Mexican politics. The failure to democratize has caused just as much suffering as the loss of economic opportunity. Suffering which forces thousands of Mexicans to migrate or live with the downward spiral of the Mexican economy. In 1996, Amnesty International's annual report accused Mexican security forces of outright human rights abuses including the murder and torture of leftist rebels. They also uncovered the use of torture, and the many disappearances which have occurred throughout the areas of conflict. The Mexican media are no less a target. Journalists have been intimidated, abducted, and even killed, with cases as late as 1995 still unresolved. Public financing of the media, the corruption of journalists, and the monopoly of government power still distorts the view of the Mexican people about their own country and its problems, with predictable results. The Mexican people are unable to express themselves equally through the media, and are unable to gain control of their own lives through the electoral system. They face a declining standard of living because of the monopoly of government power in the economy, and are tragically, but predictably, now involved in guerrilla operations in fully eight of Mexico's states. Third and finally, Mr. President, is the truth about narcotrafficking in Mexico. Not only is it true that the Mexican people are paying an extraordinary price for the failure to develop a genuine market economy, and democratic institutions, but they, together with the American people, are paying an enormous price for the failure to control or even cooperate in controlling illegal drugs. The administration has been asked a simple question: Is, or is not Mexico an ally in the fight against narcotrafficking? The administration has answered by explaining that we have to consider the past difficulties in Mexican-American history. They have responded that Mexico is an increasing source of American investment. Those, Mr. President, were not the questions. The question is this: Is, or is not Mexico cooperating? The simple truth is that the highest levels of the Mexican Government have been corrupted and are, at a minimum, working at cross-purposes with the U.S. Government in controlling the flow of narcotics. Indeed, the administration's own reports conclude that fully two- thirds of all of the cocaine entering the United States is being transshipped through Mexico. The State Department has concluded that Mexico is now the most important location in the Western Hemisphere for the laundering of narcotics funds. On March 1, we learned that General Gutierrez, the drug czar of Mexico, was himself arrested for complicity and conspiracy with drug traffickers. Mr. President, the decision to certify Mexico as an ally in the war against narcotics was a decision to protect the Mexican Government from criticism. It was the wrong decision. The simple truth is that every day, in every way, Mexican officials are permitting the transshipment of narcotics to our country. New laws to stop the laundering of funds in Mexican banks have not been enforced. Not a single Mexican bank has had to alter its operations to comply with new legislation. Of the 1,250 police officers dismissed for corruption because of narcotics in Mexico, not a single officer has been prosecuted. Despite 52 outstanding extradition requests to send corrupt officials to the United States, not one has been complied with. Indeed, not a single Mexican national has been extradited to the United States because of drug-related charges. Most discouraging of all, the head of the DEA, Thomas Constantine, concluded before this Congress: There is not one single law enforcement institution in Mexico with whom the DEA has an entirely trusting relationship. Mr. President, there were times during the cold war, indeed times during moments of national peril when the United States needed to compromise an honest look at the world because of issues of national security. The end of the cold war has ended that time. We need to honestly assess our relationship with Mexico. We need to tell the American people the truth about the state of Mexican democracy, its economy, and its fight against narco-trafficking. Change will never come without the truth. Ending the certification process will begin that national debate in this Chamber. I urge the Senate to reject the administration's conclusion, which cannot be borne out by the facts. Let us tell the truth about Mexico. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I have the honor of serving on both the Rules Committee, under the able leadership of the Senator from Virginia, and the honor and distinction of serving on Governmental Affairs Committee, under the leadership of Senator Thompson. I witnessed, a month ago, a rare moment of bipartisanship. Democrats and Republicans came together in the Governmental Affairs Committee. We were apart from the glare of the television lights or the pressure of partisan leadership, and we reached what I think was a sound and a good judgment. Senator Thompson offered honest leadership, and he came to us with a proposed scope of investigation. Senator Glenn responded by not only accepting his scope of an investigation, but he expanded it. For several weeks, while we differed on the timing and the expense, we operated in a general belief that we had defined the parameters of a review of the 1996 Federal elections in the United States. That scope offered us a chance to not only look at specific misdeeds, but to inform this institution and to educate the American people generally about the need for general campaign finance reform and how individual parts of the system were now broken. Our concern was that we learn, not only about the 1996 Presidential campaign, but that campaign be put in perspective in how previous Presidential campaigns operated so we could learn if there was a change, and if there was a change why it happened--both to find those who may have committed wrongful acts, but also how to improve the future process. We also reflected, I think, the reality that Presidential campaigns do not take place in a vacuum. Indeed, there is no distinguishing line between where a Presidential campaign's financing operations stop and the congressional campaigns begin. The money, the advertising, the activities, are coordinated and intertwined. So our scope included both the Presidential campaigns and congressional campaign committees and those of individual Members. Our scope also reflected two other specific areas that probably represent the greatest change in electoral politics in the United States in 1996, the use of nonprofit organizations, often as surrogates for partisan political activity, and the use of independent expenditures, where soft money is used to influence Federal campaigns. This scope was broad, it was comprehensive, it is what this institution and the country requires. And only a month after reaching this agreement, before the first hearing is held, the first witness notified, the first lesson learned, it is being put to a premature death. There is enough cynicism in America about our electoral system. The system has already convinced enough Americans that it does not operate and it does not reflect their needs or provide room for their concerns. We risk, today, adding one more pile of dirt on this mountain of doubt. The resolution that now comes before the Senate is an extraordinary departure from the bipartisan scope that Senator Glenn and Senator Thompson reached previously. It has become, in my judgment, a proxy fight in the larger battle for campaign finance reform, a cynical effort that the Nation, and the Senate as an institution, can be focused on a few narrow problems so the underlying deterioration of the Nation's system of campaign finance laws will not be noticed or exposed, the pressure building in the Nation to change the laws generally will be avoided. So, in place of this bipartisan scope for what hopefully could have been meaningful hearings, the Senate, instead, is given a new scope of activities for the Governmental Affairs Committee. It differs in several important ways, but none more significant than that it identifies the scope of these hearings not as the Presidential campaign of the last two cycles generally, the operations of congressional campaign finance or nonprofits or independent expenditures--the new standard is illegal activities. If illegal activities are to operate as the scope of the Governmental Affairs hearings, we are then establishing a committee with sufficient money, enough time, but no purpose. Illegal activities in our system would have to be defined by the standards as a people we have come to recognize would constitute an illegal act. Illegal acts in our country are defined by a system of justice. They require a burden of proof and a requisite state of mind. Indeed, in our system of justice, we have the highest levels of establishing illegal activity, perhaps, of any nation on Earth. During the hearings in the Rules Committee last week, I asked Senator Thompson whether illegal activities in his mind were synonymous with a criminal act. Indeed, we were assured that this was the purpose and illegal activity was, by definition, it appeared, a criminal act. The Senate needs to consider this definition before it accepts this scope, because a violation of the campaign finance laws by the President of the United States, or Senator Dole, or any Member of the House or Senate is not a criminal act unless there was a willful intent. Indeed, virtually none of the allegations raised in the popular press regarding the financing of congressional and Presidential campaigns would appear willful or potentially to meet the standard required to even be the subject of these hearings. In the other body there were serious questions raised about the operation of tax-exempt foundations; whether or not the tax laws had been violated in order to engage in influencing political activity. The operations of a tax-exempt foundation are not a criminal act unless there was a willful intent, which appears to be missing in the allegations made to date with regard to tax-exempt organizations. Finally, there is the question of the operation of independent expenditures generally. The most significant change in the political culture in the United States in 1996 has been the operation of independent expenditures by philosophical or issue-oriented or partisan organizations to use soft money to enter the system. And yet, both that soft money and the operation of these independent expenditures would not rightfully be within the jurisdiction of this committee if we maintain the standard of illegal or criminal act. The Senate, therefore, Mr. President, is left with a broad question of policy as we approach these hearings. If it is our intention to find specific criminal activity in the 1996 Federal campaign system, then I believe Members can rest assured that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department will find those acts and people will be brought to justice. But Democrats and Republicans in the Governmental Affairs Committee began these discussions and the planning of this investigation with a different purpose. It was our goal to assure the American people that we would find not only those acts that were illegal but those that were improper. We would disclose to the American people those activities which do not belong in our system of electoral politics, expose them to the light of day in the hope that the net result would be a change of the law and a rising standard for operating political campaigns in the United States, while reassuring the American public of the integrity of the system. That, Mr. President, is the question before the Senate: a narrow hearing, cynically designed to focus attention on one campaign of the President of the United States, or an honest conversation about the state of electoral politics in the United States today and what we can do to change it and be part of a rising standard. The vote on this resolution, on the amendments that follow, is a vote on that question. Mr. President, there is, finally, the additional issue of the date for concluding the committee's work that needs to be part of this discussion and fully explained. While Democrats and Republicans in the Governmental Affairs Committee had generally agreed to a scope, there was always disagreement about a concluding date. I believe that Senator Thompson came to the Senate with the best of intentions and good purpose in his belief that there should be no concluding date for the fear that witnesses would withhold information if they knew they could wait until the committee concluded its work. But there is another competing purpose, I believe, that requires the Senate to establish a concluding date, which I now believe both Democrats and Republicans accept. These hearings are about educating the American people and ourselves about our system of campaign finance. These hearings are about finding specific misdeeds or illegalities, but they are also about something much more practical and immediate. Within a year, the United States will begin a system of a general Federal election. With all that we now know about the breakdown of the campaign finance laws in the United States in 1996, it is inexcusable and inexplicable if the U.S. Senate were to allow this country to proceed to another general election in 1998 without a change in how this Nation governs its laws, governs these campaigns and finances this electoral system. It is imperative that the Senate retain a concluding date for these hearings so that the U.S. Congress and the American people have the benefit of everything that is learned to proceed to reform. It is also, I believe, Mr. President, necessary to note that while specific changes in the law may follow the conclusions of these hearings, it is generally not necessary to wait for these hearings to conclude or, indeed, even to begin to proceed generally with campaign finance reform. The hearings by the Governmental Affairs Committee may teach us a great deal about specific misdeeds or problems in the system, but every Member of this Senate already knows enough about the breakdown of the campaign finance laws in this country to proceed immediately for a review and a change in comprehensive campaign finance reform. And so, Mr. President, I conclude with the hope that partisanship for a moment could be set aside for a review of the 1996 elections and our campaign finance system; that this country, through the voices of this Senate, could have an honest conversation about the health of our democracy and the operations of our democratic elections. That will require a standard far different than illegal activities. It will have to be far more general in focus than the Presidential campaign of 1996. It will require a conclusion at a date certain so that we can proceed to changes in the law, and it will require that, through the exercise of honest leadership, we begin the process of campaign finance reform, even as we learn new and troubling problems about the operation of the system. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. TORRICELLI. If the Senator from Michigan would yield.

Mr. TORRICELLI. The discussion comes down to the phrase of Senator Thompson, saying that criminal and illegal may not in every situation be exactly the same. For purposes of these hearings, if we were to do justice to what we want to achieve, it needs to be established that they specifically are not the same. It is not sufficient for the Senate to know that there may be some circumstances where illegal does not mean criminal. The point is illegal is not criminal. We seek civil jurisdiction, we seek violations of regulations, and we seek here on the floor to disassociate the two words. I believe, for the record, the Senator from Virginia has done a great deal in allaying my fears, and I think we have separated permanently, irrevocably the two words. For purposes of this investigation they are unrelated, they are unconnected and never the two shall meet again. I think, therefore, this discussion has been helpful. Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. TORRICELLI. I want to thank the Senator from Michigan for raising this issue because it appears to me we have come to the heart of the matter. The Senate has given conflicting interpretations that make all the difference in the scope of these hearings potentially. Senator Warner's views, as the author of the legislation, should be controlling. But it is important to note that they are in direct contradiction with testimony given to the Rules Committee by Senator Thompson. Senator Thompson's interpretation of ``illegal'' is that they had to constitute a criminal act. I am very reassured by Chairman Warner's interpretation that ``illegal act'' would include a violation of a civil code. I assume, therefore, that the Senate could conclude that a violation of the campaign finance laws, even if it did not include a criminal penalty, is included in Senator Warner's definition. I am also seeking his reassurance, through the Senator from Michigan, that a violation of the Tax Code, though perhaps not sufficiently willful to involve a criminal penalty, would be an illegal act and, therefore, part of the investigation. Indeed, I am hoping that we can be reassured that any violation of the regulations of the U.S. Government or any of its departments or agencies, any violation of the civil or criminal law, of which there is specific information that is sufficiently credible to warrant the attention of the committee, would be the subject of these investigations--meaning, that it does not require that a member of the committee have definitive proof to establish a criminal level of culpability and it does not have to relate specifically to a criminal penalty for violation. I was hoping to receive his assurance, as a member of both the Rules Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee, that if I come before this committee with a specific act, based on a broad but credible allegation, for violation of code or regulation, that will be sufficient for the scope of this investigation. Through the Senator from Michigan, that is the assurance that I am seeking.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Vermont for yielding. Mr. President, several days ago, in an unfortunate and I believe in an intemperate moment that does not characterize the distinguished majority leader, he made some regrettable comments with regard to Members of this institution who as a matter of conscience have decided they either needed to change or oppose the resolution offered by the Senator from Utah. I will not respond in kind to Senator Lott's comments, but I do find it necessary today to rise to address once again the question of the balanced budget amendment. The issue was raised whether those of us who have supported a balanced budget amendment were keeping faith with our commitments to our constituents by opposing this resolution today. I would remind Senator Lott that not only have I supported a balanced budget amendment but last week I voted for a balanced budget amendment. It is simply not the version he preferred. I rise also, Mr. President, because I do believe as well there is a burden that has not been met in this institution to those of us who support a balanced budget amendment. And that is the concern raised by the Treasury Department. The amendment as currently drafted would forever preclude the development of a capital budget by the U.S. Government. We have asked the majority to address how in voting for a balanced budget amendment this concern could be accommodated. We have been met by silence. We have asked to have addressed the concerns of the CRS and the Treasury Department of how we could ensure the integrity and the continuance of our obligations to those on Social Security, and it has been met by silence. But most interestingly, last week during his otherwise unfortunate comments, we were assured by the majority leader that efforts were now being taken to reach an accommodation on Senator Feinstein's concerns about the development of a capital budget, Senator Johnson's concerns about the protection of Social Security, and my concerns with each, including the ability of the United States to defend itself militarily and to deal with serious economic recessions. Each of us waited since Mr. Lott's comments of last Friday for this attempt at reconciliation. I was certain, based on Senator Lott's comments repeated again in the news on Sunday, that there was a decision to seek some accommodation that would allow all of us who believe in a balanced budget amendment to vote affirmatively today. I regret to inform my colleagues that I have received no such communication. I know of no other Member of the Senate who has received such communication. I assume, therefore, that either Senator Lott misspoke or, somehow, there was something disingenuous about his offer. Because my concerns remain. I have voted for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution last week. I would vote for this, but, like Senator Johnson, like Senator Feinstein, I have real and lasting concerns. I want to know that if there is military aggression against the United States, we are able to respond with other than a declaration of war. I offered an amendment to accommodate those security interests. It was defeated. I remain interested, and I believed I was going to receive from Senator Lott some communication to accommodate it. I remain concerned that, in a serious economic recession or depression, the U.S. Government is able to respond, to provide for economic needs. I believed, in Senator Lott's communication, he was interested in accommodating that concern. It has not happened. And I remain concerned, like other Members of the Senate, how we can ensure the integrity of Social Security and maintain that commitment to our constituents, and how, indeed, we could provide in the future for at least the possibility of a capital budget. Mr. President, now, only hours before the vote, I am left with this question. It seems to be relatively simple to reach some accommodation, to engage in some compromise, to reach the concerns of at least one Senator on at least one of these issues. The question, therefore, before the body is this: Did Senator Lott really ever seek to win this fight, or is this an attempt to amend the Constitution that was never really designed to succeed? We have waited these several days to hear what compromises or new communications the majority leader wanted to share with Members of the Senate. Since none have been received, I assume none were ever intended. I have said previously that I believe the Senator from Utah has a good amendment. I also concluded that good was not good enough in dealing with an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Senate can do better. National security, severe economic recessions, and the integrity of Social Security are real and lasting concerns. My commitment to my constituents is to use my best judgment. My best judgment is that there should and can be an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide for a balanced budget. But we accomplish nothing, indeed, do a disservice to the United States, if we cannot accommodate the real possibility of dealing with military and economic emergencies, and the genuine concern of our constituents in dealing with the problems, potentially, of interrupting Social Security checks. Therefore, Mr. President, with regret, I rise to inform my colleagues that what I supposed was an effort at accommodation was never tried and, therefore, inevitably failed. I thank the Senator from Vermont for yielding time.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 10 minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, before this day is ended, the administration must decide whether or not to certify Mexico as an ally in the war against illegal drugs. Having served in the House of Representatives as chairman of the Western Hemisphere Committee for some years, and representing the State of New Jersey, which, among other centers of urban and suburban life in our country, has been plagued by narcotics, I feel a need and a responsibility to address the administration on this issue before it makes its final judgment because I believe, based on the actions of the Government of Mexico in the last year, the choice, though difficult, is very clear. The simple fact is that no country anywhere on the globe now poses a more immediate threat to our actions in curtailing the spread of narcotics than Mexico. Indeed, the administrator of the DEA has said, and I quote, ``Mexicans are now the single most powerful drug trafficking operation in the world.'' The State Department's 1996 World Narcotics Control Strategy Report outlines the threat that Mexico now represents. It cites Mexico as the principal transit route for cocaine entering the United States and a major source for heroin and marijuana. Indeed, Mr. President, it has been suggested that with the success of American operations in the Caribbean and the Bahamas, fully two-thirds of cocaine now entering the United States is being routed through Mexico. As we have succeeded in the Caribbean and the Bahamas pound for pound, dollar for dollar, Mexico has been available to compensate the drug cartels. The State Department's 1996 report further concludes, ``Mexico is the most important money laundering center in the Western Hemisphere.'' There is no escaping the fact that Mexican cartels now are bribing whomever can be bribed and killing those who resist. In recent months, eight Mexican prosecutors and law enforcement personnel have been murdered in Tijuana, all this since certifying last year that Mexico was assisting United States Government operations. In the last year, Mexico has failed to capture or extradite a single high-ranking member of any drug cartel. There are now 52 outstanding United States extradition requests for drug dealers, and Mexico has not complied with a single one of those extradition requests. Indeed, Mr. President, there is no record of any Mexican national ever being extradited to the United States on a narcotics charge. There has been considerable hope since certification last year that the use of the Mexican Armed Forces would represent a change. If, indeed, the narcotics strategy of Mexico included not simply law enforcement personnel who might have been compromised but Mexico represented and recognized that this was a matter of their own national security and involved their armed forces, that there might be a change. But the record is now clear. There has not been a change. The announcement of only last week that General Gutierrez, a 42-year veteran of the armed forces, had accepted bribes from the Carrillo Fuentes cartel makes clear that the entry of the Mexican Armed Forces is not only insufficient but inadequate and, indeed, potentially counterproductive. Changes in Mexican law lead us to the same conclusion. Last year the Mexican Parliament passed criminal money laundering laws, but they are both incomplete and completely not implemented. These laws at a minimum do not require banks to report large and suspicious currency transactions. Unfortunately, the Mexican Government, having not implemented its antinarcotics strategy, having now recognized that the entry of the armed forces is inadequate or counterproductive and taking no actions against laundering with the banks, it therefore, in my judgment, can be concluded that Mexico has not taken the certification process seriously. Previous certifications have brought no new cooperation, and now we must reach a different judgment. Indeed, Mr. President, in light of the evidence of the corruption of law enforcement personnel, new evidence of corruption of the armed forces, the failure to comply with American requests for extradition, the failure to enforce their own laws on money laundering, the United States Government should be answering the following question: What else would Mexico have to do to be denied certification? Having failed on almost any level of analysis, what else could they do? Here is what we see. The United States today will also readdress the question of whether or not Colombia should be recertified. It is an arguable question. In the last year, since we denied certification, the Colombian military genuinely seems to have at least undergone some change. They have mobilized 5,000 troops and through the use of joint military and law enforcement operations destroyed laboratories producing 1\1/2\ tons of cocaine per day. They have issued 3,000 arrest warrants on drug charges and removed 450 million dollars' worth of cocaine from the production pipeline. The administration may or may not, on their own evidence, recertify Colombia. But the Colombian experience gives evidence that, while it is difficult to take action against a friendly government, people in Colombia or Mexico that we respect, it is successful. Our decertification of Colombia produced results. It is a question the administration must address before deciding on their actions about Mexico today. The President is faced with three possibilities in deciding whether to certify Mexico in the drug war. He can certify that Mexico is fully cooperating with the United States Government actions. That would be false on its face. There is no evidence to support a conclusion that Mexico is being cooperative. Indeed, it would make the entire certification process lose all credibility. No nation involved in narcotrafficking within its borders would ever feel any responsibility or pressure to cooperate with the U.S. Government activities if we were to so stretch our credibility by fully certifying Mexico. Second, the administration can decertify Mexico and bring a halt to all American foreign assistance except antidrug programs. Or, third, the administration can decertify Mexico but grant a national security waiver. The last of these options I would understand. People could legitimately argue the relative merits of decertification with a national security waiver, based on specific promises of the Mexican Government; to deny certification but, for 1 more year, to give one last chance for them to meet the responsibility to their own people, the international community, and their previous promises. But to certify, given that this other option is available, would be inexplicable to our own people, an insult to those engaged in this country in law enforcement, and contrary to the evidence. On occasion, in this country, we describe our efforts against narcotics as a war on drugs. But in dealing with foreign governments with whom we would like to have good relations, we seek to win a war without casualties. The sensitivities of the Mexican Government might be a casualty in this certification, but it is necessary if we are to be serious and produce real results. Finally, I hope the administration will reach the right judgment. The stakes are high. I urge the administration to take these comments and these facts into consideration in reaching its judgment. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I yield 5 more minutes to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I yield 2 minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, may I have a counting of the time, respectfully, please?

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I have listened patiently to the analysis of my amendment by Members of the minority and by Members of the majority for some time. I am also aware of the uniqueness of the moment. We are debating an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The vote on that amendment is extraordinarily close. It is argued by my friend, the Senator from Utah, that the balanced budget amendment is as good as we can produce. Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States is as close to perfection as has ever been achieved in managing the affairs of men and women. This is one case when good is not good enough. There are those who say that providing for a capital budget and the ability to respond to international military emergencies or national economic crises are simply amending gimmicks of a balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, meeting our historic responsibility to defend the United States in military emergencies, or dealing with economic recessions, or depressions is not a gimmick. It is a profound responsibility. I have voted for a balanced budget amendment on other occasions, and I want to do so again. I approach it with extraordinary regret because I believe that our generation should be no less in managing the financial affairs of this country than all of those who preceded us. They did so because they cared about the future. They cared about the country, and they refused to abuse their ability and their power to borrow beyond their means. This generation has not so cared for the country. So it is with real regret on previous occasions that I have voted for a balanced budget amendment. But I rise today to amend this joint resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States because I seek for us to meet the same high standard as those who founded this Republic and those who have cared for it through the years; not an amendment that is good enough but one that approaches perfection. I have offered three principal changes. The first is for a capital budget. But I am told that it would be abused if we were to provide for a separate capital budget to ensure that we were building an infrastructure and maintaining a modern and productive means of commerce in the country, that it would be abused by regular spending and consumption. Yet, the Senator from Utah knows that, whether his amendment passes in its original form or with my amendment to it, enacting legislation will be required. His amendment is not operational on its face and neither is mine. This Congress would have to return after enactment by the States for enacting legislation to make it operational. And under the capital budgeting provisions we would clearly have to establish a separate and independent Government agency that would review the actions of the President and the Congress to ensure that anything in a capital budget is actually designed to enhance the productive capabilities of the country and its economy. We could not allow items of consumption to be part of a capital budget. That is the means by which every Governor operates in getting independent authority to ensure that it is a genuine bondable expenditure as I am sure my friend, the Senator from Wyoming, needed to operate as a mayor of his own community. But at the end of the day, Mr. President, I leave my colleagues with this reality because this isn't good enough. In our understandable and justifiable efforts to balance the budget of the United States, the principal victim is long-term investment in this country--2 million miles of substandard roads, a quarter of a million bridges that are not safe or operational, deteriorating ports, 100 billion dollars' worth of repairs needed in our schools. We are last among the industrialized nations of the world in planning for our future. Without a capital budget, the internal pressures of this institution are going to force protecting consumption and victimizing planning and investment. It is not enough to rise on in this floor and say that a capital budget might be abused but not provide an answer to this reality. Second, we are told that a war powers exemption, the ability to deficit spend if the United States is facing an imminent military threat, could not be accommodated despite the historic analogies that I have raised in World War II, the Persian Gulf, World War I, all of which required deficit spending in advance of a declaration of war. I am told by my friend, the Senator from Utah, that the cold war is evidence that my analogies are not sufficient because we could have used this as an excuse throughout the cold war for deficit spending unless we have agreement. In 1962, with a nation only hours away, during the worst of the cold war, during the Cuban military crisis, John Kennedy mobilized the American Armed Forces. The United States was in deficit. It was also facing an imminent threat of war. In the Berlin crisis, in succeeding crises of the cold war, the President of the United States and our military leadership needed the ability to respond immediately. The vision of the amendment of the Senator from Utah is that upon a declaration of war and a three-fifths vote we will then respond and defend the national interest. It is good. It is a good amendment. It does not approach the historic standards of the U.S. Constitution. Finally, we are told the country has the means and the ability to respond to the vagaries of the business cycle without the need or the ability to borrow. History teaches us a different result. This Nation has learned a painful lesson from a historic perspective when capitalism fails or goes through intense difficulties. The debate in Europe and in the United States in the 1930's was often between those who believed that the future belonged to fascism and those who believed it belonged to communism, democratic communism or fascism. Democratic capitalism, to many, was an anachronism that had failed in the depths of the Depression. Capitalism was saved by the easing of the business cycle. We learned how in times of high unemployment and deep recession to prevent the national economy from victimizing our own people. The triumph of capitalism, as certainly as it was earned on the battlefields and through ideological struggle, was also earned by our learning how to deal with the difficulties of recession, the pain of depression, by using the fiscal and budgetary powers of the U.S. Government to care for the Nation in times of real need. The Senator from Utah says his amendment is good enough; we can have a vote to ease its restrictions. Good is not good enough. The level of perfection required to amend the Constitution of the United States requires more. These are not theoretical problems, not in another century, not even in a different generation. Each of them has been experienced in our own time--dealing with the problems of recession, the regular and serious problems of international conflict, and the deterioration of national investment. I stand here prepared to vote to change the Constitution of the United States. It is something that I believe requires an extraordinary burden of proof. Anyone attempting to change this document must bear a higher burden than in any other Chamber and undertaking any other legislative goal because the Constitution of the United States has no peer. I am prepared to recognize that this burden would be met given the mounting problems of debt in this Nation and the need to restore some permanent fiscal responsibility, but it cannot be met unless these questions are answered. Constitutions are not written for any one time. Laws are written for our time. Constitutions are written for all time. I need the Senator from Utah to explain to me how a generation unborn, in circumstances unforeseen, will deal with renewed military hostilities, deep recessions, with the problem of international economic competitiveness in the face of declining national investment. I offer my vote for change, will accept that this burden of proof has been met and will otherwise change a document which I believe in only the rarest of instances we ever meet the burden of change----