Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. But that requires enactment of this amendment and answers to these questions. I thank the Chair.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I offer my amendment recognizing that the context of this debate is fundamentally different because of over 20 years of effort by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, and a Member in the House from Texas, Mr. Stenholm, who have worked diligently to bring before this institution of the Congress an amendment to require a balanced budget. While their efforts to date have not succeeded, the fact that we meet with a Federal deficit which has been reduced by over 60 percent in annual terms in the last 3 years is no small testament to their efforts. The national debate has been fundamentally changed. It is no longer a question of if there is going to be an operating balanced budget in the U.S. Government, but when and how it is going to be achieved. I take great pride in that, through the years, on three occasions I joined with them to do so, because, in my judgment, 15 years ago this country began a radical and even dangerous experimentation with changing the finances of the U.S. Government. There had been for some 200 years an unspoken compact among the generations--the Nation would borrow for its national defense or to provide for its domestic economy in times of danger or severe deprivation, but quickly return to an operating surplus and to pay those debts when the situation allowed. So from the War of 1812, and the Civil War, through the Second World War and the time of the Great Depression, succeeding giants of American history borrowed so much as was necessary to ensure the survival of the Republic, but almost immediately in each and every circumstance returned to an operating surplus and dealt with the principal of the debt in fairness to future generations and to assure the financial health of the U.S. Government. Our generation has the unfortunate distinction of being the first to break that compact. During the 1980's, the Federal deficit, from less than $1 trillion, grew to in excess of $4 trillion. Indeed, during the Reagan Presidency alone, the annual Federal debt grew at a rate in excess of 13 percent, reaching the extraordinary drain on the Federal Treasury for interest alone of 20 percent of all revenues. When the Clinton administration assumed office 4 years ago, President Clinton inherited an operating deficit of $290 billion. In 4 years we have experienced an extraordinary change, a 63-percent reduction in the annual debt of the U.S. Government as a result of the deficit reduction initiative of 1993. So at this point the United States has the lowest operating annual debt of any industrialized nation in the world with 1.4 percent. The question, therefore, is whether the United States has learned a valuable lesson from the excesses that began in 1981 and began to abate in 1993, or whether, indeed, this change of fortunes in the last 4 years is itself an aberration, and a permanent amendment to the Constitution is required. There have been few instances in the life of this Republic when any Congress has found it necessary to change the Constitution by which we govern ourselves. We recognize that the U.S. Constitution is a precious document in its balances, its allocation of powers. It is, I think, important to note, and no small achievement, that when the 20th century ends in but a few brief years there will be only two governments on this globe who will end the century with the same basic form of government, under the same Constitution, with the same allotment of powers with which they began the century. The United States of America is one. The certain genius of our Constitution, both how it was written and how it distributed powers, is certainly a reason. I rise, therefore, Mr. President, recognizing that any decision to amend the Constitution of the United States is extraordinarily serious and, indeed, sobering for every Member of the institution. I, therefore, believe if it is to be amended, it is to be done so carefully, and in every respect, ensuring that we understand the consequences. The amendment that I bring before the body today deals with three central elements of the resolution. First, whether or not the U.S. Government should continue to both have its current accounts and its capital budget reflected in a single accounting; second, how, indeed, under this amendment the Government will respond to times of economic recession; and third, how the U.S. Government would respond to threats to our national security under the provisions of the resolution. I begin, Mr. President, with a question of a capital budget. Throughout these last 20 years, much has been spoken about the mounting deficit of the U.S. Government. We have convinced the American people, I believe, of two conclusions that bear further scrutiny. First, that the principal and only debt of the United States that bears witness is the debt operational of the U.S. Government; and second, that the appropriate level of debt of the U.S. Government is zero. Neither conclusion, Mr. President, bears scrutiny. No institution which plans for its future, is properly taking advantage of its ability to borrow, has no operating deficit. Indeed, Mr. President, 43 States in this Union by calculation set the proper and appropriate level of deficit borrowing. The States do so through capital borrowing commissions. They evaluate the transportation, the infrastructure needs, the investment needs of their States and carefully calculate their ability to pay back those loans and what they will contribute to the economic performance of their States. Indeed, this has been so successful that for the last 50 years not only has no State defaulted, but, indeed, I know in no instance when there has been a serious issue of a Governor of either party or their respective legislatures engaging in inappropriate or excessive borrowing, or any borrowing, other than what was required for the economic future of their State. Unique in our society is the U.S. Government. Unlike all major businesses in each of these States, and all of our economic competitors, the U.S. Government has no capital budget. In our planning, we regard the construction of a road or a railroad or a school which may last for 20, 50, or 100 years the same way we regard the hiring of a new employee, the buying of a piece of paper, paying for the lights. The fact is that by any standard accounting--one is the exchange of financial resources for a lasting and productive resource, and the other is an immediate consumption--this has not been addressed and has never been changed. My fear, Mr. President, is that if we adopt the balanced budget amendment as now offered by the Senator from Utah without a capital budgeting provision, the thirsts of the U.S. Government for consumption will certainly begin to exclude what remains of long-term investments in this country. Because, indeed, over these years, we have seen a serious deterioration in the amount of investment by the United States. In 1960, 25 percent of the Federal budget was dedicated to long-term capital investments. The United States constructed a highway system that was the envy of the world. Our mass transit systems for railroads were still on the cutting edge. We built a university system that was without peer. By the time the 1960's concluded, no nation on Earth would want to be in a position to not be able to trade the American transportation or infrastructure or research base with their own. I doubt, Mr. President, few nations would make that trade today. The United States is now last in all developed nations in the world in our level of infrastructure investment in capital planning. Today, our Government invests only 7 percent of our revenues in capital expenditures, the Japanese having a rate of nearly 6 percent, as indicated on this graph, the Germans having a rate half again as great as our own. Our percentage of GDP dedicated to infrastructure investment is now barely 1.7 percent. The question, therefore, is if today we proceed to a balanced budget amendment without this exemption for capital expenditures, will this 1.7 percent rate of GDP, this 7 percent rate of all Government spending, deteriorate further? The irony, Mr. President, of this situation is the exact opposite of what has happened with American business. American business today operates a $4.5 trillion deficit. American businesses learned that deficit spending, if it involves productivity, new plant and equipment, and operating efficiency, is not only necessary, it is required for future economic growth. Mr. President, I attempt to bring that same lesson to the floor of this Senate. We are potentially putting a straitjacket financially on this Government and our ability to be competitive. In the United States today, there are a quarter of a million miles of roads that are substandard and in need of immediate repair. They will not serve us another century of efficient business performance. Twenty- five percent of all the bridges in America that are handling the cargo of our industry, servicing our towns, leading to the productivity of our businesses, are in need of immediate repair. The great ports of America, which once rivaled any in the world--and now, indeed, the port of New York, once the most efficient and busiest port in the world, now offloads cargo in the outer harbor because it is too shallow to take modern ships like Japan and Europe. We are disinvesting in America, transforming places in this country into the efficiency of Third World nations. This disinvestment in the American future cannot continue. The Senator from Utah, in previous discussions in the Judiciary Committee, makes a worthwhile point: Who is to ensure that worthwhile capital projects are not placed in the general operating budgets of the U.S. Government, or vice versa? Who is to draw the line? Well, Mr. President, in our corporations, in our homes, and indeed in our States, we have learned to draw that line. States have capital planning commissions. Every homeowner has learned the difference between a home mortgage and buying a new suit or paying for the evening meal. Indeed, every corporation in America has learned in the marketplace to distinguish. So can this Government, and so it must. Mr. President, I believe that, more perhaps than any other provision I offer in my amendment today, this call for capital planning in the U.S. Government will reflect how serious we are at long last about rearranging the spending powers of the U.S. Government and making them responsible again. And so the first of three provisions in my amendment to the balanced budget amendment is for dealing with capital spending. Mr. President, my second provision deals with the ability of the U.S. Government to respond to another set of contingencies, just as important as dealing with the long-term financial planning of this Government and its investments. I mentioned the question of dealing with national military emergencies. The Senator from Utah appropriately has placed in his balanced budget amendment a provision that, if the United States engages in a war, through a declaration of war, three- fifths of the Congress can waive the provision of a balanced budget. He is right to do so. But it is also inadequate. Mr. President, in the experiences of the 20th century, the most important military expenditures to defend this Union have not always been made solely after a declaration of war. Given the enormity of preparing for armed conflict, the complexity of technology and the time necessary to construct the implements of war, the most important expenditures have often been made in the months or years preceding armed conflict. Indeed, the principal battles of the Second World War, when the implements of war were considerably less costly or complex than those that we will meet in the 21st century, the principal investments for that conflict were made not only in the months, but in the years preceding the Second World War. President Roosevelt's decision to rebuild the U.S. Navy and double its size was made not after Pearl Harbor, but in the years before. The question, therefore, with this amendment, that we are to waive these provisions only after a declaration of war--what does that do to an American President and the American military that recognizes an imminent threat, can discern an almost certain conflict, and needs desperately to prepare the Union to defend itself? Indeed, Mr. President, in our own time, in the Persian Gulf war, on a far smaller scale, we recognized exactly these circumstances. It was 5 months from the time that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait to the beginning of hostilities on the Kuwaiti-Iraqi border. In those 5 months, the U.S. Government was operating at a $220 billion deficit. President Bush consumed an additional $10 billion in deficit spending to prepare for the almost certain conflict with Iraqi Armed Forces. There was no declaration of war, but there was no mistaking what was going to happen. It was as certain as Franklin Delano Roosevelt saw an imminent conflict with Germany and Japan, and as certain as President Wilson knew there would be a conflict in Europe, and indeed as certain as in the opening weeks of his administration, President Lincoln knew the inevitability of a war between the States. Each began to plan for conflict. Each began to borrow. And when the conflict began, this country at least approached being prepared. And so, Mr. President, the second principal change that I offer to the balanced budget amendment--the first was to allow for a separate capital planning expenditure budget to deal with long-term economic investments. My second is to allow, by a joint resolution, the declaration of a national military emergency so that the country can properly plan. I do so in fairness to the Senator from Utah. I also want to mention that I do so without there being a declaration of war, but also changing to a majority vote, in recognition that I do not want any foreign adversary to ever miscalculate that because we are unable to reach a three-fifths vote, we will also be unable to defend the United States. It is worth noting that, at no point in the years preceding the Second World War, at no point preceding the First World War, and it was demonstrated at no point before the Persian Gulf war, did three-fifths of this institution stand for the proper preparations for war. Indeed, as a Democratic author of the Persian Gulf war measure in the House of Representatives, we never did get a three-fifths vote. With Germany having overrun half of Europe, these institutions of the Congress passed the Selective Service Act to prepare the United States for a war, which was almost certain, by a single vote. Therefore, not only do I provide for a joint resolution so the United States can prepare for imminent hostilities, but I do so by a majority vote. Third, Mr. President, I have an additional change which deals with an equally important matter of economic recession. There are those who come to the floor of the Senate and argue that deficit spending is necessary to maintain the economic performance of the United States, and they provide evidence that, indeed, the rapid growth of this economy in the latter half of the 20th century and the extraordinary standard of living that we have achieved is due in no small part to the ability of the United States to borrow. Others argue that that right has been abused. Indeed, we have drawn upon our credit to such an extent that we have placed a burden on the future which is unsustainable, and, with 20 percent of our tax dollars going not to build new roads, not to educate another generation, but to only pay interest on the debt, they are right. Indeed, Mr. President, both are right on the question of achieving a balance between the two. There has been in this latter half of the 20th century a notable and even extraordinary change in the business cycle of growth and recession. Indeed, between 1900 and 1950 there were 33 quarters of real negative economic growth. Through the experience of the Great Depression the U.S. Government learned, and then admittedly abused, the ability to adjust the business cycle through borrowing in times of recession to compensate for declining private investment and expenditures. The result is that in these last 47 years compared with the 33 quarters of negative economic growth in the first half of the century, we have experienced only four quarters of negative economic growth since 1950. The question then is, How do we achieve a balance? The Senator from Utah appropriately noted that the power to borrow has been abused with a mounting deficit which is unsustainable on its face versus losing this ability to deal with real economic downturns and provide adjustments. Indeed, Secretary Rubin in his testimony provided a warning that without some ability to stabilize we could ``turn slowdowns into recessions and recessions into more severe recessions or even depressions.'' The Treasury Department has estimated that during the 1992 recession, without the ability to engage in some deficit spending, the recession that lasted from 1990 to 1992 would have had in excess of 9 percent unemployment instead of 7.7 percent with an additional 1 million jobs being lost. Mr. President, I have attempted in my amendment in its final provision to strike a balance. That is where the institutions of the Congress could by joint resolution declare an economic emergency and allow it, only for so long as it believes that emergency exists, to engage in deficit spending to ensure that the public works programs and job creation ability of the Government is not lost. Mr. President, we will never know what would have happened in the Great Depression had there not been a Second World War or a New Deal and the massive deficit spending of that period to end the economic debt into which this country had gone. It was by any measure a real threat to American democracy. In the Second World War this country approached 60 percent of GDP in deficit spending. It is a debt burden which the Nation must bear. It also provided a foundation for a standard of living and an economic performance which in all of human history has never been equaled. My amendment seeks to use the creditworthiness powers of this Government to deal with those economic contingencies but making certain that they are used only in periods of economic emergency. In short, Mr. President, in each of these provisions I have attempted to do by constitutional amendment what common sense provided that we do through 200 years of American history. I do so with considerable regret. Succeeding generations in this country provided for capital spending because they cared about the future. The Constitution didn't require that they do it. They did it because it made sense for the American future. Succeeding generations borrowed to defend the Nation when it was threatened because they cared about the defense of the Republic, not because the Constitution required that they only borrow to provide for the national defense and not exceed that authority when the Nation was not threatened. Succeeding generations borrowed to deal with economic recessions and depressions because they cared about the economic future of the country and our people and did not abuse it. No Member of the Senate should take pride in the fact that in our generation it might be necessary to amend the United States Constitution to provide for these capital expenditures in dealing with military threats and economic emergencies, to assure that our country is responsible in dealing with that borrowing, and that the borrowing is done only to the extent and to the degree that it is appropriate. We should do so because we care about our people and the future of the Republic. Yet, like the Senator from Utah, I rise because there is the unmistakable fact that in our own time that power has been abused. Therefore, I rise with amendments to the resolution recognizing that amending the Constitution is unlike any other action taken by the Congress of the United States. We legislate not for our time; we write for all time. These are words that will govern contingencies that we cannot imagine, circumstances that we cannot foresee. If it is necessary to amend the Constitution of the United States, it is necessary to do so to the fullest extent possible with all the wisdom that we can muster. I believe the amendment of the Senator from Utah would be improved and enhanced by these changes. Indeed, I believe these changes are necessary to responsibly add to the work of our ancestors who wrote this great document and provided for the political stability of this Nation through these two centuries and allowed it to become the unique society and the extraordinary Nation that we have become. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I yield 3 more minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Maryland 5 minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Thank you, Mr. President. While it is my hope to return the debate to the amendment at hand--it is my intention to yield to my colleague, the senior Senator from New Jersey--nevertheless, since our debate is in the Record, it should at least be accurate in this respect: I notice the Senator from Utah has the last 28 years of budgets of the U.S. Government. That means his books start in the fiscal year 1969. Debate between the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Utah seemed to be on the relative merits between the Reagan and the Johnson administrations and their responsibilities for the Federal deficit. It is extraordinary that the Senator from Utah stopped there before 1969, the last year of the Great Society, the last budget written by Lyndon Johnson and the last year the U.S. Government had a surplus. It is, I think, instructive, Mr. President, that as we assign responsibility, which is no doubt, at least as an aside, a useful exercise on this day, as someone who served in the House of Representatives during some of those years, I want the Record to clearly reflect one element of that responsibility. In 8 years of the Reagan administration, in all the appropriations bills passed, Mr. Reagan vetoed one. He vetoed one appropriations bill in 8 years, while the Federal deficit soared from less than $1 trillion to $4 trillion. And if you look at his veto message, it is because, in his judgment, spending was inadequate in that year. We will leave it for historians to gauge whether it was the Great Society that produced this deficit problem, in spite of the fact that he left office with a surplus, or it was the Reagan administration, which talked about fiscal austerity but left the Nation with a $4 trillion accumulated deficit and never exercised a veto of any appropriation. But perhaps the comments of my colleagues should be punctuated simply with this: The genuine level of debt that should be of concern to every American is the debt as a proportion of our national economy. Like in our households and our businesses, it is not whether you have a debt--the mortgage on your home, borrowing for expansion--it is your ability to pay it. Two Presidents in the last 40 years have administered the U.S. Government with a deficit under 2 percent of gross national product. One was named Johnson, and one is named Clinton. The others have exceeded that marker, which is now recognized by our friends in Asia and the European Community as the marker to which you do not want to pass. So while I hope we can return to the issue of the balanced budget amendment and look prospectively and leave to others, the historians, the question of relative responsibility, I did want, along with my colleague from West Virginia, to ensure the Record was accurate. At this time, I yield to the senior Senator from the State of New Jersey for 20 minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I have an amendment.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from West Virginia 10 minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I am happy to yield to the Senator from West Virginia. I enjoyed listening to the Senator from Utah. But I would enjoy it much more if I was listening to him on my own time.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I am pleased to yield to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Three minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise to address the Senate for the first time as a Member of this proud institution, and, indeed, it is an important moment in my life and that of my family. Although I stand where I know preceding generations have often become legends, I also stand tall because I am standing here today on the shoulders of genuine giants--a tailor and his seamstress wife who walked from their native village in Italy for a boat to New York, a German steelworker who settled his young family in my native New Jersey. Mr. President, a journey of generations brings me to this moment. I understand that I may be bound to some Members of this Senate by little more than a single common thread. Many families are more powerful, and most biographies are genuinely more compelling. But Providence has chosen what we share this moment to help define the future of our people and the Republic that they have chosen to serve them. The burden of leadership may be greater on some generations, and perhaps it has been less on others. The only certainty for our time is that it is different. The great debates of this Chamber in other times have been framed by events--the threat of conflict in the time of our fathers, the immediate threat of economic dislocation not so many years ago. Previous generations often read the national agenda simply by the history that was presented to them. The choices were fundamental and they were very clear. The principal issue of governance before us now is very different. The United States is largely without large-scale military strife. The successive defeats of fascism and communism leave the United States with a relative military advantage that is unprecedented. The greatest economic expansion in history has resulted in a standard of living and a scale of economic activity that was unimaginable only a generation ago. This is not to suggest that either providing for the national defense or building the national economy are complete. The world remains a dangerous place in the age of terrorism, and the blessings of America still elude too many. But our time is different. We inherit no agenda and few national commitments from which we are not freed by the end of the cold war. This opportunity presents an enormous opening, but has also led to an extraordinary national anxiety. As a nation, we have consumed almost a decade since the cold war has subsided without being clear about what we need to achieve to succeed with the reward of peace. In our domestic affairs, some view the success of civil rights, the completion of universal education for the construction of a national infrastructure as ends in themselves. In our family lives, many seem uncertain as to our own objectives as people. The comfort of a home, the completion of an education, seem to bring neither the security nor the fulfillment that we once envisioned. It is in short, Mr. President, a time of extraordinary anxiety in our affairs. Across the aisles of this Chamber, the conference tables of our businesses and even the living rooms of our homes, there is need for an honest conversation. It is time to ask the most fundamental questions about the objectives of our times and our goals as a people and as individuals. No one element of this debate is more fundamental than our new national objectives in our relations with other States around the globe. The foreign policy goals of the United States in the next century can best be explained relative to the experience of our own time. For although the 20th century has not yet concluded, it is already possible to predict that despite all the advances of science and culture this time will best be remembered for our inability to manage relations between nations. Any discussion of our foreign policy objectives, therefore, must simply begin with this simple commitment: the future must simply be different than the past. This century evolved through the lessons of collective security. A series of States with similar interests, political institutions, compatible military capabilities and goals found common cause. The NATO treaty was the best example and remains the foundation of our policy. But the first principal difference we are likely to face in the 21st century is that American security interests are no longer disproportionately European. In a world of global markets and intercontinental weapons, there are no regions of sufficient distance or size that they lack relevance. Treaties which restrict the global scope of our collective security including NATO are simply no longer acceptable. Creating new arrangements tailored to individual crises like the Persian Gulf are too inefficient and insufficient. Leadership requires the adoption of an established global structure of collective security. Whether under the NATO umbrella, under different sponsorship or a structure that is global in scale, collective security for our international security threats remains paramount. The second defining difference in American foreign policy is recognizing that international conflict on a scale seen in the 20th century must never be allowed to occur again because by definition such conflicts can never be won again. Technological change will place all nations within the range of secondary powers that retain weapons now reserved for more stable nations. Collective security, therefore, must be designed not only to prevail in conflicts but to avoid their ever occurring by denying capability to certain well-defined governments. These are States which by their systems of government, record of actions or temperament of leadership, should make themselves ineligible to ever possess or attempt to develop certain weapons. This policy of weapons denial already encompasses technological and trade restrictions. In the future, it must also include covert or overt actions by the United States or now collective international organizations to ensure weapons denial as an assurance of national security. A third national consideration will involve far more introspection by every American. As a decent people with deep religious traditions, it is time to recognize that technology presents a new moral dilemma. For two centuries Americans witnessed a world of famine and disease. Untold millions suffered and died with little more than passing commentary while we remained reconciled to both our moral principles and international realities by concluding that nature was sometimes cruel and divine actions difficult to comprehend. In critical moments, from the Marshall Plan to the Alliance for Progress, the Nation committed itself to confronting these tragic realities. During most generations, the national boundaries served to define our sense of moral responsibility. That was all enough. But something has now fundamentally changed. Perhaps it is because global communication now no longer allows us to be shielded from harsh realities. But, indeed, it is even more than that. The world population group now estimates that 35,000 children die from starvation every day, this year an estimated 18 million will contract river blindness, and over 100,000 children will suffer from new cases of polio. No American can feel comfort any longer in reaching conclusions about the inevitability of human suffering. There has been a cure for polio for 40 years. River blindness is treated by medication that costs $3. The simple truth is that some disease and much human suffering is no longer a question of divine providence or lack of understanding or a failure of technology. Most are the results of a political decision, a judgment to withhold technology, withdraw from efforts to relieve suffering because of shortages of funds or simply because we believe that political boundaries place us at sufficient distance. Reconciling our beliefs and our actions is no longer a simple affair. Suffering in the world and judgments made by individual Americans and their governments are debate long needed on the floor of our great institutions. Within our own communities, Americans need to decide a new set of national objectives as well. Americans have learned a lesson from the excesses of Government. Every citizen can recite a list of programs that failed or funds that were wasted. Our generation has concluded that the role of Government needs to be more limited. A previous generation learned from the lessons of child labor, the disabled, the failure to care for the elderly, that Government was sometimes too restricted in its role. Now it is time for us to decide: Is it too limited or is it too much? It is, indeed, extraordinary that after two centuries of the American experiment we are still debating the appropriate role and scale of the U.S. Government. In our time we must ask both the appropriate range and the scale of Government activities that are needed for our generation. The answer is likely to be somewhere in between. We must, obviously, be shaped by our own experiences. But I think most Americans will recognize that simply because Government sometimes failed, because we have learned that it cannot do everything, is not a reason to conclude that it can do nothing. We take enormous pride in the fact that America is a place with an unlimited ceiling of opportunity. But all too often we are also learning that the floor of American life is too hard. Because many, or most can succeed is not a reason to turn away from public responsibilities, because some will fail. We are also learning, for all the lessons of the past which we must remember, they are not instructive of the future. We are living in a different time. Indeed, we are discovering that the economic success of each family, many communities, and many States are now connected in a means that we never would have imagined. We are discovering that the operation of our railroads, our airports, our highways, the education of our children all inevitably will affect the quality of life of our own families. For two centuries our Federal Government was central to providing the private economy with certain elements that were needed for competitiveness. From inexpensive labor, through our immigration policy, to access to raw materials, competitive taxes, copyright laws, sometimes even direct subsidies, we understood an appropriate role for the U.S. Government in ensuring economic success. As we now face this debate again in our own time, reaching our own conclusion about the role, size and scale of the Federal Government, perhaps at least this one thing should be recognized as different. As certainly as those before us recognize immigration policy, raw materials, these other elements as central to economic success, education and knowledge is now the fodder of the private economy in our own time. Therefore, as certainly as local governments, as neighborhoods at one time confronted the need for quality schools, high standards and a quality education, now the Nation itself is confronted with this question, because it is no longer good enough to know that education meets standards in our neighborhoods or our towns or even our States. Our States collectively in our Federal system will meet success or failure in whether or not people we don't even know in communities we have never visited in States we hardly know meet those same standards and are competitive. Second, as a national community, redefining ourselves again, debating the appropriate role of the Federal Government, we are also faced with the most fundamental of issues that first confronted our Republic. It is the issue of providing security for our communities and our families. It is, in short, assuring domestic order. From longer prison sentences to direct assistance to local police, we have in recent years redefined our Federal system for a larger role because it was necessary to assure the security of our people. In the future, the Federal Government, as it redefines itself, will also play a larger role in other areas. We have begun to deny parents the ability to flee responsibilities to children by fleeing State jurisdictions. We have begun, indeed, to change Federal laws in relation to access to weapons. Three decades ago, in my State of New Jersey and in many other urban communities, we began to enact gun control laws. But recently, in the city of New York, it was discovered that fully two-thirds of all the weapons now found involved in serious felony crimes were not sold in New York or New Jersey or other States that had gun control laws, but were imported from other States. The Brady bill was an important beginning to assuring that, as a community, while some States did not, fortunately, share in the plague of crime, they nevertheless would begin to exercise responsibility by, through new national laws, beginning to separate criminals from the guns they use. A third unfinished piece of business in the American social compact also needs to be addressed. It began in this century with labor standards and grew to include Social Security, unemployment insurance and Medicare. Each of those in our social compact was a generational judgment. Now there is a need for another, because that list which began early in the progressive era and expanded through Medicare by way of unemployment and Social Security now leaves us with the question of health care insurance. Before the book is closed on the 20th century, in this great redefining of America's social commitments, surely access to affordable and quality health care needs to be added to the list. It is not a question of the Government supplanting private health care. It is not a question of the loss of private options or the private exercise of talents within the health care field any more so than Medicare meant that doctors were no longer working privately or unemployment insurance meant that private companies no longer managed their own affairs. But it is a question that what began with our grandparents and our great grandparents in assuring independence in the workplace, the right to bargain for your own wage, your freedom from want for the elderly through Social Security, that movement is not complete and that work is not finished without addressing the reality of 40 million Americans outside of the private health care insurance system, or their children who come of age without inoculation to disease or, indeed, often are born without access to a health care system for their mothers or in their infancy. All these are part of expanding our domestic agenda at a time when we redefine the role of Government. I recognize that there are many in this institution, as there are across this country, who would confront these issues differently. But in our time there is a new, greater threat to resolve in these questions. It is on the mantle of bipartisanship, part of the desire to settle all disputes. We are, in this institution and around the country, confusing the desire to end the noise of squabbling, the needless bickering of partisanship, with a new seeming desire of bipartisanship, to end all conflicts together. This is, Mr. President, in my mind, a new and compelling problem. American democracy is not served best by Democrats and Republicans, or liberals and conservatives, setting aside all their differences. The public believes we are in some new accord in which we have no differences. Democracy is served best by people who do put petty interests aside, who do not argue simply for partisan reasons, who do, indeed, come together in moments of great national crisis, but who, in honesty, come to this floor as they come to their dinner tables and their businesses and their places of work every day in honest disagreement where they have honest difference. Let us, therefore, debate the question of America's new role in the world with different perspectives. Because they are complex questions and difficult to answer. Let us begin to finally redefine the role of Government in our lives and our economy from our various perspectives, because Americans have different views, and they are difficult and complex questions. But let us not, because we want to end disagreements, where we were sometimes disagreeable, make bipartisanship a goal in and of itself. The goal is to answer the question and to serve our people, no matter the disagreements. This is, Mr. President, finally, an extraordinary time. None of the problems that I have tried to outline tonight should overwhelm us. None concern me because none are as big as the country we represent or as bold or as talented as the people who live in our generation in this Nation. This is an extraordinary time, and we are an extraordinary people. Indeed, I would dare to say what probably no other generation ever would have said on the floor of this Senate: That there is no time and no place when it is better to have been alive or to be an American than this moment. We have won the great conflicts in the world that threatened our democracy and the peace. We are the masters of a great new technology that can serve us, our interests and our families. There is a quality of life that awaits us if we learn to manage our affairs, raise the resources, deal responsibly with our economy and invest in our future. It is not to say that there will not be difficult days in our own time. There will always be difficult days. But we are a people who managed to carve out a new social order through Social Security and labor rights in the depths of a depression. We are a people who managed through economic despair to rise to win a great world war. We are a people who, in the midst of a cold war, conquered space, won the fight for civil rights, even enacted Medicare and began the greatest expansion of education in history. We are a people who, through difficult times, mastered the moment to achieve great things. Now, in far better times, though most certainly with some problems in our public and private lives, we are asked to rise again. In this, I have no doubts. Let us find a new role for America in the world where we simply do not respond to events, but help shape them; no longer see our responsibility simply to win international conflicts but to prevent them by negotiating the peace where possible, by taking action to prevent war by military means when necessary. Let us redefine the role of Government in our lives and our private economy to ensure that it is no more than necessary, but everything that is essential to ensure our competitiveness, our fairness in social justice. I pledge, Mr. President, in my 6 years in this institution, to simply be guided by this: The words given to me by a friend who came to me knowing that I would rise on this day and remembering that they were once spoken by Edmund Burke in a speech to the Electors of Bristol. He said: Your representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgment. And he betrays instead of serves you if he sacrifices it to your opinion. Mr. President, to the citizens of New Jersey and to this Nation, I promise simply in these years to be guided by my judgment. Mr. President, I thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Northvale Fire Association on its 100th anniversary. On December 6, 1896, a special meeting was held in Northvale by a six-man committee to form a volunteer fire department. Anthony Muzzio became the first fire chief. Various trials and setbacks did not discourage the Fire Association from its mission. It originally possessed only horse-drawn wagons, but Northvale was able to purchase its first 500 gallon truck by 1927. Today, the association boasts a fleet of four trucks and an active membership of 50 firefighters. Northvale's first firehouse was built in 1900 and underwent reconstruction in 1939. A series of renovations in 1970 brought it to its present state. The dedication and commitment of Northvale's Fire Department is plainly obvious to even the most casual observer. Since 1965, its staff has trained at the Bergen County Fire Academy and continues to attend well after graduation to stay current on fire fighting techniques. Over the past 100 years, the one thing that has remained constant has been the selflessness of the men who have served in Northvale. Once again, congratulations.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, the tragedy in the former Portuguese colony of East Timor is of growing concern to Americans, and in particular, to church and secular human rights organizations in the State of New Jersey. There has been growing interest in this problem in my State dating back to the 1975 invasion of East Timor by Indonesia, which may have claimed more than 200,000 East Timorese lives of a population that was less than 700,000 before the Indonesian occupation. Public interest in my State and around the world has increased since the November 12, 1991, massacre of more than 250 unarmed people by Indonesian troops at Santa Cruz cemetery in the East Timor capital of Dili. The Santa Cruz massacre, filmed in part by a British TV journalist, was televised throughout the world, and alerted international public opinion to the plight of East Timor in an unprecedented manner. Nearly 5 years after the Santa Cruz massacre, East Timor's suffering continues. An illustrious in the midst of this tragedy is the Roman Catholic Bishop of East Timor, Carlos Ximenes Belo, who has received acclaim for his efforts to bring peace to East Timor. Earlier this year, several international editions of Reader's Digest published a profile of Bishop Belo entitled ``Hero for a Forgotten People.'' Shortly after it appeared, Reader's Digest announced that the edition had been banned from newsstands in Indonesia. The article is a poignant portrait, and deserves wider attention, especially at this time, as the fifth anniversary of the Santa Cruz massacre approaches. In conclusion, Bishop Belo tells the Reader's Digest writer, ``We beg the outside world not to forget us * * * If that happens, we are doomed.'' The U.S. Congress and administration should do everything within reason to ensure that Bishop Belo's fear does not come to pass. For the benefit of my colleagues, I request that the text of the March 1996 Far Eastern edition of Reader's Digest be published in the Record. I urge all of my colleagues to read this important article.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, as the 104th Congress comes to an end, it may be time to again address the issue of United Nations reform. Earlier this Congress the new Republican majority attempted to gut America's commitment to the United Nations under the guise of reforming that institution. Their attempt went too far, and it was wisely rejected by the Senate and by the Clinton administration. But the need to reform the United Nations is still as present today as it was last year. Indeed, in early 1993 President Clinton announced his own plans for U.N. reform. As soon as it took office, the Clinton administration signaled that, for the first time, America would actively promote the restructuring of the United Nations Security Council to recognize the emerging power realities of the 21st century. It boldly advanced a plan and pressed for U.N. action by 1995. The administration's laudable goal was to make the Council look more like the rest of the world. Today, the administration plan for Security Council restructuring is dead in the water, a victim of bureaucratic infighting and a diminution of the image of the United Nations in the eyes of many Americans. President Clinton deserves credit for moving the issue of Council restructuring to the front burner. His predecessors had stonewalled growing pressures for reform, hoping to continue indefinitely the cozy arrangements of 1945 that gave the five victorious powers of World War II permanent seats and a veto in the Council. But a half-century later, those five countries no longer have the collective dominance to maintain world security on their own. The empires of Britain, France, and Soviet Russia have all dissolved. The U.S. share of world economic output has been halved, from 50 percent in 1945 to 26 percent today, though America remains a military giant. Only China has grown in relative standing, but it is still essentially a non-contributor to world peace and security. The defeated Axis countries have rebounded in economic and political influence, and leading developing countries such as India, Egypt, Brazil, and Pakistan have become frequent contributors to U.N. peace operations. As we increasingly rely on a complex mix of peacekeeping forces, economic sanctions, and occasional military enforcement to maintain international security, it has become more and more important for the Security Council to include this next tier of states with significant military, economic, and political resources. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time again to consider restructuring the Security Council. Neither the United States nor the world at large needs to add more veto-wielding members to the Security Council. The Council does not need more countries that can gum up decisionmaking with a veto, or to impede American-led initiatives to protect our global allies. If anything, it needs fewer. And Americans have had enough experience with China's subtle linkage of its Security Council veto power to bilateral Sino-American relations to want to invite more countries to play that kind of game. For their part, the developing countries have made it clear they will not allow veto power on the Council to be tilted even more heavily toward the Northern industrial countries. But the proposed solution of many--adding some large developing countries as permanent members with veto power--would make the Security Council virtually unworkable. It would be preposterous to grant Nigeria--or India, Brazil, Pakistan, or even Germany or Japan--a veto over Council decisions. None of them has the power in the real world to take decisive action beyond their borders, or to prevent the major powers from taking such action. Moreover, each of these regional actors is distrusted by the smaller countries in its region. But it is equally preposterous to simply assume that we can continue to control the United Nations with a small group of nations that reflect neither the current and future centers of global power, nor the reality of ethnic and religious diversity. The Clinton administration had the right idea: we need to make the Security Council look more like the rest of the world, and we need to do it sooner rather than later. This could be accomplished by expanding the Council's regional representation. One way of expanding the Council by region is by calculating which two or three states in each region make the most substantial contribution to U.N. peace operations, and for a seat for each region to rotate between those states. The criteria for making this calculation would include their U.N. financial contributions; the number of troops and other military assets they provide and precommit to U.N. peace operations; their participation in U.N. arms control treaties; and their adherence to recognized human rights standards. An ancillary benefit of this reform plan is that it would broaden the representation of the world's major ethnic and religious groups in the Security Council. Currently, only the Christian faith is represented; China, whose population is predominantly Buddhist, is represented by an ideologically secular government. By opening up the Council to regional representation the important voices of the Jewish, Islamic, and Hindu community would also be heard during critical deliberations on international crises. While not a central element for the United Nations, religion has become a growing undercurrent to many of its challenges and conflicts. Perhaps, by indirectly providing a voice for diverse religious beliefs, the United Nations may be better able to resolve particularly difficult and longstanding conflicts. Because Israel is not a member of a friendly regional bloc, I propose that Israel be given permanent status on the Security Council. Many Middle East countries are, in varying degrees, hostile to the State of Israel, and would thus not represent its interests in the Council to the degree an African, Asian, or Latin American nation might represents its neighbors. In an expanded Security Council with greater regional representation, Israel would only be protected by having a permanent voice in the Council's deliberations. On its merits, this framework gives the Council the benefit of regular participation by ten major states at the price of only six new seats. It avoids new vetoes. And with one exception, it does not lock in by name states whose influence or contributions may decline in the future. And, perhaps most important, it stabilizes the Security Council by making it more reflective of the world's ethnic, religious, and economic realities. Mr. Speaker, I hope that when the 105th Congress convenes, the issue of United Nations reform will be a top priority.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to congratulate Emil and Rose Bianciella of Bayonne, NJ, on their 50th wedding anniversary. This remarkable couple was married on August 25, 1946. They have been life-long residents of Hudson County, devoted to both their community and family. The Bianciellas have enjoyed the joy of togetherness for five decades. Their love and dedication to each other and their family has been obvious to even the most casual observer. I believe their children, Rachel Libby and Joseph Bianciella, would say that they have been wonderful parents. Emil and Rose have also lavished their affection on their three grandchildren, Anthony, Kimberly, and Arianna. In life, it is the special moments that should be cherished, and a 50th wedding anniversary is one of those times. I wish both of them another 50 years of wonderful matrimony.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the newly independent nation of Ukraine which observes the 5th Anniversary of its independence on August 24. Over the past 5 years, the people of Ukraine have made dramatic progress in their struggle to build a free and democratic society. The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe and other monitoring groups report that Ukraine has the finest human rights record of all former Soviet republics. This summer, the Ukrainian Parliament passed a new Constitution which enshrines the principles of liberty, equal rights and free enterprise. Working with American corporations and private voluntary groups, President Leonid Kuchma has mounted an inspiring campaign to overcome the tragic legacy of the Chornobly nuclear disaster, to privatize local enterprises and to revitalize the eternal life of ethnic and religious minorities which had long been suppressed under the Soviet system. I am proud to acknowledge the remarkable accomplishments of the Ukrainian-American community in my home state of New Jersey which kept faith with the people of Ukraine during the long dark years of Soviet rule when hopes of winning freedom seemed to be remote and dim. I especially wish to acknowledge the outstanding work of the Children of Choronbyl Relief Fund (CCRF), based in Short Hills, NJ, which over the past 6 years has become the leading provider of medical aid to Ukraine. On a modest budget of under $3 million, CCRF gas leveraged more that $40 million worth of humanitarian aid to the hospitals which specialize in the treatment of radiation victims. I am pleased to support a new Women's & Children's Health Initiative which CCRF has launched in three provinces in Ukraine with a grant from the Monsanto Company to combat the high rate of infant mortality in rural regions. Monsanto has helped many Ukrainian farmers to quadruple their crop yields with modern agricultural techniques. Its unique partnership with CCRF offers a model for similar initiatives in other developing countries. We should all do everything in our power to promote the cause of freedom in Ukraine, to build a health future for Ukraine's children and to strengthen the growing friendship between Ukraine and the United States.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw this country's attention to Turkey's continued occupation of Cyprus. This gross violation of human rights is now in its twenty-second year, and gives no indication of abating in the near future. It is for this reason that I speak today, in an effort to heighten the international community's awareness of the situation and bring some relief to the people of Cyprus. July 20, 1974 is a day that will forever be embedded in the hearts of the Cyprus people. Since then, Cyprus has been divided nearly in half as Turkish troops maintain control of almost forty percent of the island. Families have been torn apart and loved ones separated from one another by the brutal line which rends the country in two. A list of some of the more blatant abuses comes easily to mind. The occupying forces have evicted people from their homes and confiscated Cypriot property in order to give it to Turkish citizens. Citizens who disappeared during the occupation have yet to be accounted for. These and other offenses have been directed against a population which has no recourse for justice except to gain the sympathetic ears of states like ours. Rather than heed, or even acknowledge, the international community's requests to resolve the situation in Cyprus, Turkey has chosen to flagrantly ignore calls for moderation. Suppression of Cyprus' cultural heritage has become the order of the day as the Turkish government seeks to change the face of the Cypriot population. Villages and towns in the occupied area of the island now bear Turkish names. Churches that have not been looted or destroyed have been converted into mosques or stables. Little respect has been shown by the Turkish government toward the Cypriot community, a situation that any concerned individual should find unconscionable. It is time for the international community to band together in condemnation of the Turkish Government's policy. The people of Cyprus look to us to make it be known to Turkey that this behavior shall not pass unnoticed nor unsanctioned.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3161 which would confer permanent most favored-nation [MFN] status on the country of Romania. A vote on this critical piece of legislation now would seriously hamper any efforts by the prodemocratic forces in Romania to continue to reform the Government and improve Romania's human rights record. Among all of the former Communist bloc countries in Eastern Europe, Romania has made the fewest advances toward greater liberty and openness since the transition period began. The Hungarian minority, for example, suffers immensely from limited freedoms and constant discrimination. Today, a new education law has been implemented which prohibits the teaching of most subjects in minority languages. In addition, an ethnic Hungarian citizen, Paul Cseresznyes, has been in prison for 6 consecutive years on political grounds with no hope of release in the near future. The preservation of basic human rights, which we take for granted here in the United States, has not received due respect in Romania. Freedom of speech is constrained as journalists work under the ever- present shadow of harassment by the Romanian intelligence service. And, during the recent local elections, objective observers expressed some concern about the administrative competence of election officials. Much of the blame for this delay can be laid at the feet of the regime currently in power. In voting for permanent MFN status today, we, as a leader of the Western World, are also ratifying the Romanian Government's actions to date. We cannot allow ourselves to be oblivious to the broader message that approval of H.R. 3161 sends. A decision is best made only after Romania's presidential and parliamentary elections in December, when it reaffirms its commitment to democratic reform. Romania should be given credit for beginning the transformation to an open society in the wake of its Communist past, but permanent MFN status from this country is not the best means of doing so.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay recognition to a great American citizen who will turn 96 years old on January 1, 1997. Now living in Bergen County, NJ, Elvira Schettino Grattagliano moved to America 85 years go at age 11 from a small town near Naples, Italy, called Castela Mare Di Stabia. Ms. Grattagliano exemplifies a role model citizen. She is always involved in her surrounding community, and continues to hold a deep interest in community affairs and the Government. During World War II, Ms. Grattagliano became very involved with the Red Cross program while her son Harry served under General Patton, and her other son, Dominick served under General MacArthur. This leads me to her biggest love; her family. Rocco Grattagliano and Elvira were married on December 27, 1920. They were blessed with three children Harry, Pauline, who is deceased, and Dominick. As a wife and homemaker, Ms. Grattagliano dedicated her life to her 3 children, 6 grandchildren, and 10 great-grandchildren. Once her children had grown, Ms. Grattagliano went into business as the owner and operator of a grocery and vegetable market in Greenville. Once again, thank you, to Ms. Grattagliano for all her efforts to make her community a better place and I wish her many more happy birthdays to come.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to draw this country's attention to the most recent atrocities committed by the Serbian Government against the Albanian community in Kosova. Time and again, the international community is bombarded with reports of violence and aggression by the Serbs toward the other ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia. These actions repulse any decent human being with a sense of morality, but they pale in comparison next to this most recent offense. Dr. Alush Gashi, who is respected in international circles as a human rights activist, served until lately as an advisor to President Rugova of Kosova. He is now being forced to stand trial before a Serbian- controlled magistrate court on July 1. The charges stem from a time in 1990 when Dr. Gashi, as the dean of the faculty of medicine at the University of Prishtina, opposed the enrollment of 250 Serbian students despite the Serbian Assembly's ruling to the contrary. His decision was not without validation because these students had apparently failed to take the university's entrance exam and were therefore not qualified for enrollment. Nevertheless, Dr. Gashi was fired from his position and will now be subjected to a fraudulent trial along with all of its attendant horrors. The Albanian majority in Kosova has been treated brutally by a Serbian regime which shows no regard for their fundamental human rights. Dr. Gashi's trial is yet one more step in this campaign to suppress all opposition to the Serbian domination. By voicing his disgust with the deteriorating health conditions faced by the Albanian people in Kosova, Dr. Gashi has taken a brave but dangerous step in criticizing the Serbian regime. If the rights of Kosova's Albanian citizens are to be recognized, though, Dr. Gashi and others like him must be permitted to speak out loud. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to stand with me against this campaign of terrorism and intimidation. We should not continue to sanction these unrelenting attacks on the Albanian population with our silence. Only vocal opposition and recognition of the human rights abuses committed by the Serbs will force the regime to comply with the international community's accepted standards of behavior. Dr. Gashi and the rest of the Albanian population are depending upon us to act on their behalf.